U.S. politics. thread

[Varysblackfyre321]

A lazy title thread.

[Jace, Extat]

Continue my good people.

[Varysblackfyre321]

My thread was definitely first this time and it came after the 400 post mark.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Harris states the obvious:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/431635-kamala-harris-trump-is-a-racist

Though I really dislike the examples she actually chose to point towards Trump’s racism. I  find his multiple retweets of literal white-supremchists, fascists and their propaganda and the fact he’s given them press credentials far harder for Trump supporters to defend and the things people should refrence on hand when asked “how’s Trump racist” 

Also Sanders commits a massive and easily avoidable blunder in his Towbhall meeting yesterday.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-no-to-americans-who-want-to-keep-private-insurance-under-medicare-for-all.amp

Seriously, he could have easily learned from Harris’ little slip and said he’s for Medicare for all along with a secondary private Healthcare system.

[OldGimletEye]

@Gertrude

Quote

Yeah, there was no good way to answer, but god, it's galling coming from her.

I think a good answer would have been something like:

"You know, there was this very smart lady once. And like me, she was born into the upper class, being the daughter of a british army general. Though she wasn't the type to think she hit a triple, when she was born on third base. She knew that unemployment was often a struggle for those born in the lower classes.

With her usual acerbic wit, she once quipped:
The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.

So yeah, I'm aware that high levels of unemployment can persist for quite awhile, like we just found out recently and we should have known already from things like the Great Depression. We know that the "skills gap" explanation was largely horseshit and I don't believe in great vacation theories of unemployment, like what might be suggested by Real Business Cycle theory nonsense out of the U. Chicago. I mean having a model built on Arrow-Debreau theory, with its assumption of complete financial markets with complete market participation, with rational expectations just seems to me to be quite a stretch and I think that's why people like Casey Mulligan kept fucking up in the Wall Street Journal. Or perhaps why people like Eugene Fama made elementary mistakes by using accounting identities to explain economic behavior.

Anyway with the government jobs guarantee, there are some real questions about the administrative difficulties of running a program like that, and I just think we can get the same results by having more intelligent monetary and fiscal policies. So I see the government jobs guarantee not as a first best option, but as a second best one. Of course getting intelligent monetary and fiscal policy might be difficult with knuckle heads like my dad and conservative losers like Kevin Warsh basing their opinions largely on who is president. It's evident they have no model they are working with, but are just pulling stuff out of their asses as it suits them."

The point here is that: The government jobs guarantee is perhaps not the best way to achieve high levels of employment and there is a reasonable answer somebody could give. Not that the likes of Ivanka Trump would think seriously about these issues or anything.

 

[OldGimletEye]

@Altherion

Quote

 The problem with it is that it requires some measure of faith in the experts -- and while you might get it from most people in this thread and from the rest of the people who already agree with you, such faith is in short supply among everyone else.

I'll go ahead and make two observations here:
1. Now you claim there is a lot of people that are struggling to get by and are getting upset about identity politics. But, where is your empirical evidence for this? But, more importantly than that, even if you presented such, why should we believe it, using your own logic about empirical evidence and experts? Please explain the reasoning process here.
2. With regard to the issue of people struggling to get by, what is your policy advise here? Now I have no quarrel with pointing out that sometimes experts make mistakes. But, the question is here is how do you decide, which experts are largely getting things correct. You continually complain about people struggling to get by, but won't seemingly take a position on what to do about it. And that just makes me think, you really don't care about the economic struggles of people at all, but are just pissed off about "identity politics" in general.

It just seems to me you're quite willing to endorse "anything goeism", until the issue of identity politics comes up, and then you're quite willing to take a strong position on that.

When it comes to dealing with various economic issues, you pretty much just make some vague reference to doing something about "identity politics." That is about as fucking helpful as "multi-stakeholder solutions" from the Davos bunch.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

In his prepared remarks, Cohen will tell the committee that Trump knew that his longtime associate Roger Stone “was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails.”

Cohen testimony on Trump: 'He is a racist. He is a conman. He is a cheat.'
The president's former lawyer will also tell Congress that Roger Stone told Trump he'd spoken with WikiLeaks about disclosing Democratic emails.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/26/cohen-trump-racist-conman-cheat-1189951

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think you guys are mostly just not hearing what @Altherion is saying here because of who is saying it:

it doesn't matter what the science or data says if people distrust it.  Global warming is a great example, and so are sexual assault and hate crimes.  The right, despite whatever statistics you show them, believes that global warming either doesn't exist or has nothing to do with human behavior, that sexual assault is less common than you think and false accusations are widespread, and that hate crimes are similarly rare and often faked.

When you have a democracy where a third or more of the electorate doesn't believe or trust experts or science, there will always be opportunistic corporations and political actors ready to exploit this.  And all they need is one anecdotal, statistically meaningless example to reaffirm their mistaken beliefs.  The right has been doing it pretty successfully for awhile now.  

 

[Week]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think you guys are mostly just not hearing what @Altherion is saying here because of who is saying it:

I wrote this up in the previous thread also -- the outcome being, so what? 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

When you have a democracy where a third or more of the electorate doesn't believe or trust experts or science, there will always be opportunistic corporations and political actors ready to exploit this.  And all they need is one anecdotal, statistically meaningless example to reaffirm their mistaken beliefs.  The right has been doing it pretty successfully for awhile now.  

The Right has been doing it for awhile, no doubt. Faux News-ertainment as the most prominent. So again, so what? Altherion offers no solutions (in fact, he generally seems to agree) just screaming at clouds and the Left for using data that the Right has smeared and is no longer as efficacious as it was in the past and should be now.

The only paths forward seem to be either:

1) Determine how to engage this third with tactics that aren't supported by data, science, and experts.

The Ignorati of Deplorables will not be convinced as their loyalty is to their News-ertainment -- any information from ANY source to the contrary be damned

2) Continue to show the validity of data, science, and experts to convince the other two thirds (maybe scrape some from the 1/3). Continue to fight the corrupting influence of money in science and politics and restore faith in this as much as possible.

What say you?

[Larry of the Lawn]

50 minutes ago, Week said:

I wrote this up in the previous thread also -- the outcome being, so what? 

The Right has been doing it for awhile, no doubt. Faux News-ertainment as the most prominent. So again, so what? Altherion offers no solutions (in fact, he generally seems to agree) just screaming at clouds and the Left for using data that the Right has smeared and is no longer as efficacious as it was in the past and should be now.

The only paths forward seem to be either:

1) Determine how to engage this third with tactics that aren't supported by data, science, and experts.

  Hide contents

The Ignorati of Deplorables will not be convinced as their loyalty is to their News-ertainment -- any information from ANY source to the contrary be damned

 

2) Continue to show the validity of data, science, and experts to convince the other two thirds (maybe scrape some from the 1/3). Continue to fight the corrupting influence of money in science and politics and restore faith in this as much as possible.

What say you?

2) for sure, it's just that the post that seemed to generate all the push back was one in which he called Ice Queen it for calling religious people subhuman and then, re: hate crimes:

Quote

Nice try, but I don't think this will do. It's not a bad strategy and it worked brilliantly for Democrats in the past, but it requires people to disregard a nationally publicized investigation and a multitude of other publicized stories and trust studies by experts who say that these are exceptions rather than the rule. The problem with it is that it requires some measure of faith in the experts -- and while you might get it from most people in this thread and from the rest of the people who already agree with you, such faith is in short supply among everyone else.

 

 

 

If you or I said that it wouldn't be stirring up so much vitriol.  Although I do agree with you that the question is really "where do we go from here, how do we deal with this" and I think your #2 is pretty much the way to go.  Can we show them tangible benefits to clean energy policy and at the same time ask people to let go of the internal combustion engine and a car in every garage?  Can we convince someone that their resistance to emissions controls and 'regulation' is actually based in some weird petroleum/freedom fetish and a romantic attachment to a bygone era with toxic consequences?  

Maybe.  I think your approach is a good start, but also what DMC and Tywin were arguing about - I say fuck the appearance of being fair and use every political tool available because if we don't the opposition will.  Pack the courts, manipulate congressional procedures.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@DMC

Quote

There is no logic to this.  If you know your opponent is going to continue to use escalating tactics, why wouldn't you use escalating tactics when they benefit you?

Because I don’t want to keep dumping gasoline on a dumpster fire? I want to undo Trumpism, not entrench it. If you pack the bench, you’ll make things worse. My fear is a repacking after the initial packing with the goal of making elections less competitive.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@DMC

Because I don’t want to keep dumping gasoline on a dumpster fire? I want to undo Trumpism, not entrench it. If you pack the bench, you’ll make things worse. My fear is a repacking after the initial packing with the goal of making elections less competitive.

Strongly disagree.  They are going to do this shit anyway, there is no high road or preserving 'normalcy'.  Trump is likely going to be able to replace Ginsberg and Breyer with a couple of Kavanugh v2.0s.  next time the Dems have both houses they need to expand the SC or we're looking at a reactionary court that will attack progressive legislation for years to come.  

[Fez]

Two death penalty cases decided by the Supreme Court today, two more cases that Roberts joined with the liberals. One was 5-3 with Kavanaugh not participating, the other was 6-3 with Kavanaugh also joining the liberals. I can't tell if Roberts has changed his thoughts on the death penalty, or if this is him trying to maintain the court's reputation by becoming a true swing justice rather than part of a permanent conservative majority.

Also, while Kavanaugh hasn't done it as much as Roberts, Kavanaugh's joined the liberals on split cases far more often than I'd have expected. I wonder if it's just a coincidence and all these cases just happen to be in the one area of law he agrees with liberals (though one of previous cases he joined on was abortion-related), or if he's trying to mend bridges after his confirmation, or if the Federalist Society screwed up their vetting. (I suspect it's one of the first two, but it'd be amazing if it was the third)

There was also a 7-1 decision today that Roberts wrote; Breyer dissented and Kavanaugh didn't participate. So Roberts is still doing the "trying to maintain court unity when possible
 thing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Strongly disagree.  They are going to do this shit anyway, there is no high road or preserving 'normalcy'.  Trump is likely going to be able to replace Ginsberg and Breyer with a couple of Kavanugh v2.0s.  next time the Dems have both houses they need to expand the SC or we're looking at a reactionary court that will attack progressive legislation for years to come.  

And what happens after that? The logical conclusion is that Republicans, once they regain power, continue the expansion with the goal of making elections less fair. We have to win at the ballot box, not rely on gimmicks that will lead to the degradation of the Republic.   

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And what happens after that? The logical conclusion is that Republicans, once they regain power, continue the expansion with the goal of making elections less fair. We have to win at the ballot box, not rely on gimmicks that will lead to the degradation of the Republic.   

They are already doing that.  You can either just let them continue to bend the rules, or you can try to get results using the same tactics.  Because everything you're afraid of is going to happen either way.

[Ice Queen]

I'm kind of liking Michael Cohen. (I never thought I'd say that.) 

Trump told Mueller that he and Roger Stone never discussed Wikileaks. 

Trump perjured himself to the special prosecutor. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

They are already doing that.  You can either just let them continue to bend the rules, or you can try to get results using the same tactics.  Because everything you're afraid of is going to happen either way.

There are more likely Democratic voters than there are likely Republican voters. However, likely Democratic voters are less likely to vote and more likely to punish their party than Republicans. Don’t do something that could trigger a wave which would lead to measures to limit Democrats ability to vote.

How hard is this to understand? Packing the courts is an incredibly bad idea. 

Focus on winning elections.

[OldGimletEye]

47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are more likely Democratic voters than there are likely Republican voters. However, likely Democratic voters are less likely to vote and more likely to punish their party than Republicans. Don’t do something that could trigger a wave which would lead to measures to limit Democrats ability to vote.

How hard is this to understand? Packing the courts is an incredibly bad idea. 

Focus on winning elections.

Perhaps what we need is just the threat of expanding the court, so Robert and the conservatives on it, won't attempt to make Lochner Great Again or doing something like overturning Roe.

[Zorral]

The cancerous rethugs are super-glued to each other in establishing that Cohen is nothing but a proven liar on record about everything and therefore cannot be believed now about anything he says about anything, particularly the cancerous orange wart squatting in the oval. So ... whataboutism cannot but kick in: what about everything the cancerous orange wart squatting in the oval says? Including about Cohen, his personal liar? 

In these degraded daze the media from twitter to the NY Times have been pushed into ennumerating the lies that come out of the cancerous orange squatting in the oval office every single day.

They are attacking Cohen and his deeds, which have already been revealed and for which he's been sentenced. But nothing about what he knows about the orange cancer's treason with Russia and  his many other crimes. Cohen'ss already been tried and convicted for what the the cancerous rethug superglue is focusing upon.

Their tone and posture and direction -- no matter who attacks, the voice sounds the same.  Faux outrage virtue (what virtue can be found anywhere in that superglued tumor?) rules the day!  Not to mention the southern cotton plantation overseer / driver  furious politician voice made so well-known going back from the beginning of the history of audio on the radio in the days of Jim Crow.

They spend all their time attacking Cohen, instead of asking questions. How many times does each cancerous rethug questioner call him in a liar in their alloted time -- you wouldn't want to drink each time, because you'd be passed out before their however-many minutes were up. 

The cancerous rethugs are not coming off well at all, despite their tightly knitted, united strategy here to make Cohen an unreliable lying witness. They are coming off as exactly what they are, nasty, cruel, ugly, mean BULLIES who have no interest at heart but their own power that they have hitched entirely to the cancerous orange wart squatting in the oval office. 

In fact, they are creating sympathy for Cohen in the listeners' ears. 

But then, how many people are actually listening? Fewer than who are watching probably, and probably not that many people are watching either?  All those low info voters will get their take on this event according to faux noose's constructed narrative.

[Ice Queen]

Wow. He essentially told the Republicans they're all liars, and to not be like him protecting Trump at all costs.

I doubt they're bright enough to heed the warning.