Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Certainly not doubting anyone's sincerity, but there is opposition that's rooted, quite clearly, in the simple fact that she was a prosecutor.  Take this example:

Now, that is just an op-ed in The Intercept.  But The Intercept* is a pretty good representation of a strain of leftism that feels this way.  That article preceded this more substantive one that attacks Harris' first campaign for DA of SF because she *gasp* used the incumbent's record against him and generally employed the "soft on crime" canard.  This just in - politician employs political tactics to get elected to her first political office, news at 11!

*This also may be some of my own bias against The Intercept - definitely do not like Greenwald and I absolutely loathe Jeremy Scahill.

I gave the Kamala Harris is a "tough on crime" prosecutor stories a quick once over and was left pretty unimpressed.  The NYT piece that started it off looked like a hit job to me.  Yes, there are a few cases that she oversaw as California AG that look like a miscarriage of justice.  Do you think that you could ever look at the AG office of a state with 40 million people and not find serious mistakes over an 8 year period?  Is that even possible?  Sure, I WANT the government to work perfectly, but it doesn't and it never will.  And cherrypicking a few cases that, with the benefit of hindsight, look like questionable judgement doesn't impress me.  Particularly when some of those cases Harris was only overseeing rather than really involved in the day to day decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The NYT piece that started it off looked like a hit job to me.

That's cuz it was a hit job and, as I said a few weeks ago, an oppo-dump.  Anyway, I haven't seen any substantive attack on her record thus far that is going to gain much traction with anyone outside of criminal justice reform activists - who've almost certainly made up their mind already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I gave the Kamala Harris is a "tough on crime" prosecutor stories a quick once over and was left pretty unimpressed.  The NYT piece that started it off looked like a hit job to me.  Yes, there are a few cases that she oversaw as California AG that look like a miscarriage of justice.  Do you think that you could ever look at the AG office of a state with 40 million people and not find serious mistakes over an 8 year period?  Is that even possible?  Sure, I WANT the government to work perfectly, but it doesn't and it never will.  And cherrypicking a few cases that, with the benefit of hindsight, look like questionable judgement doesn't impress me.  Particularly when some of those cases Harris was only overseeing rather than really involved in the day to day decisions. 

The issue with Harris is she has shown zero ability to admit she fucked up or held horrible positions. She goes and brags about smoking weed while also locking people up for such. Justifies slave labor in prisons and has no issues with overpopulating them because she felt the labor their provided was valuable to the state. Let's also talk about how she's put sex workers at risk with that anti sex trafficking bill thanks to it being highly flawed. Oh, and she's a transphobic individual as well. Her work a small a prosecutor did a lot of damage to the black community to the point David Duke probably would smile and congratulate her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Her work a small a prosecutor did a lot of damage to the black community to the point David Duke probably would smile and congratulate her.

Kamala Harris = David Duke? 

Yeah, don't think I'm gonna bother responding to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Kamala Harris = David Duke? 

Yeah, don't think I'm gonna bother responding to that. 

David Duke? I don't know who David Duke is! White Supremacy? I don't know any white supremacy! 

I want to be associated with interesting quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Kamala Harris = David Duke? 

Yeah, don't think I'm gonna bother responding to that. 

That kiddo is the kind of liberal that wants liberals to lose so they can complain about liberals not being liberal enough. This is why there’s the adult’s table and a kid’s table. Go fetch him a sippy cup and move on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Why bother doing that - which would emphasize a weakness with your own party members - when instead he can just use the courts as a boogeyman?

 

Because with the courts itll be in the news for a long while after this. Whereas if he just drops it now? People will move on in a month or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That kiddo is the kind of liberal that wants liberals to lose so they can complain about liberals not being liberal enough. This is why there’s the adult’s table and a kid’s table. Go fetch him a sippy cup and move on.  

Tulsi Gabbard did actually get endorsed by David Duke. She decried it heavily of course, but it was pretty funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because with the courts itll be in the news for a long while after this. Whereas if he just drops it now? People will move on in a month or two.

Courts generally move so slowly that I suspect the media will lose interest as well. Plus, even if Trump eventually wins on the declaration, there will be a further round of court cases from Texas landowners trying to prevent eminent domain from happening. The state of California will probably file its own lawsuits as well. By the time this all wraps up, even if Trump wins everything, there will probably be a new President in office, who could just cancel the project anyway.

The whole thing is just so fucking stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Tulsi Gabbard did actually get endorsed by David Duke. She decried it heavily of course, but it was pretty funny. 

Gabbard in 2017 was a rising star. Gabbard in 2019 is an embarrassment. Hence why I’ve advocated that young/new politicians should be careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I didn't think Trump would go the emergency declaration route, I thought he would sign the compromise bill for $1.4 billion in fencing, use executive actions (themselves questionably legal) to reallocate another billion or two and then say "We're building the wall.  We gotta finish the wall.  Trump 2020!"  It's not a big win for him, but it's not really a big loss either - there is additional barrier spending, and he's still fighting to increase it.  It is far from the kind of "No New Taxes" moment that plagued GHWB. 

But, by all the "inside Washington" accounts, Trump was really worried that even that middling result would be too damaging with his base.  Which makes me wonder, am I misreading Trump's strength with his base?  Is it possible that merely fighting for the wall isn't enough, and Trump would be genuinely damaged by people like Hannity and Coulter complaining that Trump caved? 

Trump relies on his base for his political survival and any hope of reelection.  But there has never been any sign that Trump's "base" is getting tired of Trump's compromises.  Instead, there are several times (like after Charlottesville) where taking a more mainstream Republican approach to things would have clearly served Trump better than what he actually did. 

I guess I'm just curious what people think here.  Do you think if Trump went from doing what the base wants 99% of the time (like he has thus far) to only say, 90% of the time, would he really suffer from a drop in enthusiasm from his base?  Trump clearly thinks that he would, but I'm not sure why he thinks that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That kiddo is the kind of liberal that wants liberals to lose so they can complain about liberals not being liberal enough. This is why there’s the adult’s table and a kid’s table. Go fetch him a sippy cup and move on.  

I recently met one of these myself in my new extremely liberal institute of higher learning. A fantastic young woman took our first and introductory project of Speech class as an opportunity to explain how awful her previous all-women's college was because of the "fake liberals all wearing pussy hats who voted for Clinton" before stating (direct quote) "I don't consider myself a citizen of this country, even though I was born here". 

It was great. I rolled my eyes so hard I thought I might have detached the optical nerve. 

Bonnot OG doesn't seem quite so severe to me. A bit of a strong ideologue, sure. But comically naive and destructive as you imply doesn't quite fit from my perspective. 

Just my input of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Fez said:

Courts generally move so slowly that I suspect the media will lose interest as well. Plus, even if Trump eventually wins on the declaration, there will be a further round of court cases from Texas landowners trying to prevent eminent domain from happening. The state of California will probably file its own lawsuits as well. By the time this all wraps up, even if Trump wins everything, there will probably be a new President in office, who could just cancel the project anyway.

The whole thing is just so fucking stupid.

It's stupid if you view it in traditional political terms: accept a compromise to be able to claim a victory, ie progress on the wall. It's not so stupid if you view it in Trumpian terms, where the important thing is not whether there is actual progress on the wall, but a public test of strength over the wall.

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I guess I'm just curious what people think here.  Do you think if Trump went from doing what the base wants 99% of the time (like he has thus far) to only say, 90% of the time, would he really suffer from a drop in enthusiasm from his base?  Trump clearly thinks that he would, but I'm not sure why he thinks that. 

Because he's scared shitless of losing his base. Appealing to the base is the only thing he knows how to do and the only thing he's ever done that worked. If they desert him, he has nothing left in the tank. The reason Trump never pivoted to the centre, as people kept predicting, is that he has no idea how to do that. He's a one-trick pony, politically speaking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gabbard in 2017 was a rising star. Gabbard in 2019 is an embarrassment. Hence why I’ve advocated that young/new politicians should be careful.

A rising star only with the uniquely stupid and uninformed who thought that anything Bernie Sanders touched was golden and sanctified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I recently met one of these myself in my new extremely liberal institute of higher learning. A fantastic young woman took our first and introductory project of Speech class as an opportunity to explain how awful her previous all-women's college was because of the "fake liberals all wearing pussy hats who voted for Clinton" before stating (direct quote) "I don't consider myself a citizen of this country, even though I was born here". 

It was great. I rolled my eyes so hard I thought I might have detached the optical nerve. 

Bonnot OG doesn't seem quite so severe to me. A bit of a strong ideologue, sure. But comically naive and destructive as you imply doesn't quite fit from my perspective. 

Just my input of course. 

You haven’t been paying attention then. He just compared a liberal black woman from San Fran to David Duke, and that doesn’t even break into his Top 10 Bats**t Crazy comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump continues his grand tradition of shooting himself in the foot.

 

If you don't need to do something, then it isn't an emergency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It is far from the kind of "No New Taxes" moment that plagued GHWB. 

Er, the heart of his rallies were when the crowd shouted that Mexico was paying for the wall. By comparison, H.W.’s “no new taxes” comment was nothing.

Quote

But, by all the "inside Washington" accounts, Trump was really worried that even that middling result would be too damaging with his base. 

His base is the right wing media, and yes, he is terrified of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'll admit I didn't think Trump would go the emergency declaration route, I thought he would sign the compromise bill for $1.4 billion in fencing, use executive actions (themselves questionably legal) to reallocate another billion or two and then say "We're building the wall.  We gotta finish the wall.  Trump 2020!"  It's not a big win for him, but it's not really a big loss either - there is additional barrier spending, and he's still fighting to increase it.  It is far from the kind of "No New Taxes" moment that plagued GHWB. 

But, by all the "inside Washington" accounts, Trump was really worried that even that middling result would be too damaging with his base.  Which makes me wonder, am I misreading Trump's strength with his base?  Is it possible that merely fighting for the wall isn't enough, and Trump would be genuinely damaged by people like Hannity and Coulter complaining that Trump caved? 

Trump relies on his base for his political survival and any hope of reelection.  But there has never been any sign that Trump's "base" is getting tired of Trump's compromises.  Instead, there are several times (like after Charlottesville) where taking a more mainstream Republican approach to things would have clearly served Trump better than what he actually did. 

I guess I'm just curious what people think here.  Do you think if Trump went from doing what the base wants 99% of the time (like he has thus far) to only say, 90% of the time, would he really suffer from a drop in enthusiasm from his base?  Trump clearly thinks that he would, but I'm not sure why he thinks that. 

I think you're reading too much into this.  He's nutty.  He has never compromised his entire life, when he loses, he always just sued someone or declared bankruptcy.  And since the people around him are almost as dumb as dirt, he has no one capable of explaining to him, apparently, that the easiest thing would have been to use EO to reshuffle existing money, instead of creating a fucking constitutional crisis and setting a dictatorial precedent by declaring a national emergency.  But, no, at least 75% of his base will never desert him because he's viewed as the last hope, despite that I believe, his base mostly knows he lies and is pretty unhinged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You haven’t been paying attention then. He just compared a liberal black woman from San Fran to David Duke, and that doesn’t even break into his Top 10 Bats**t Crazy comments.

Well, the question is, is he going to vote against Trump?  Or does his rhetoric push the party left?  Because if it does either of those things I really have no issue with it.  Personally I do find Harris's approach to crime as problematic, even if it's been better than the status quo (and I think that's questionable, especially banning the online sex worker ads.  

We're really just arguing over where you draw the line, and the primary is the time to debate this stuff.  

I mean, I'm voting for the Dem nominee regardless, but that doesn't mean we can't critique them as not being left enough.  And didn't he say he'd vote for anyone but Gabbard?  You're cherry picking the most sensational part (Duke/Harris), and he didn't even say Duke = Harris.  Probably a stretch but the rest of that post isn't so unreasonable.

Edited by larrytheimp
Autocorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's stupid if you view it in traditional political terms: accept a compromise to be able to claim a victory, ie progress on the wall. It's not so stupid if you view it in Trumpian terms, where the important thing is not whether there is actual progress on the wall, but a public test of strength over the wall.

Because he's scared shitless of losing his base. Appealing to the base is the only thing he knows how to do and the only thing he's ever done that worked. If they desert him, he has nothing left in the tank. The reason Trump never pivoted to the centre, as people kept predicting, is that he has no idea how to do that. He's a one-trick pony, politically speaking. 

This, and I don't think you can underestimate how motivated by fear Trump is. He's a scared little baby inside. Terrified of losing his buddy Hannity's approval. Terrified that the ten thousand voices shouting "Hail!" (that's a Good Omens quote by the way) at his rallies will vanish. This is why he's so easy to manipulate. He instinctively tries to say what his audience wants to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×