US Politics: compromising positions

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Then who in the hell would ending up being his replacement? Probably a Republican. He might the last Democrat that can win a Senate race in Ohio.

Yep.  That was my (and others') argument for why he'd be such a stupid pick.

[maarsen]

43 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just saw this on my Facebook feed and immediately came here to post, but am not surprised to see I was too late, lol!

Of course she was there, and was seated at the next table! Of course she was! She was probably happy to get grabbed by the meow-meow by Trumpy!

Would hurt Trump with his base if he was caught paying for sex with underage trafficked girls, or would it have to be boys?

[Fragile Bird]

Weird.

20,000 jobs only, in February.

56,000 jobs in Canada. Since the US is 10x bigger, that's like 560,000 jobs created in the US.

I suspect that's a temporary thing, but....who knows?

eta: and did anyone mention the record high trade deficit yet?

[Serious Callers Only]

Not so weird when you consider that wall street is salivating for a depression and Tangerine Palpatine alienated everyone that has any chance (tourism and sanctions) and with the GOP help is in the process of creating further economic strife and serfdom.

There is going to be a depression, the stats are being falsified and the GOP is banking on their usual MO 'ruin it now to blame the democrats later', with a added additive of 'I wanna be a Putin' and massive corruption and groping towards a coup. I mean, really, neonazi signalling on their genocide numbers? Please.

[Fez]

The rosier look, somewhat backed by the wage growth data, is that we're basically at full employment right now. Jobs aren't being added because there aren't enough people left interested in work who don't already have a job elsewhere; and if they switch to a better job when they were already employed that doesn't count as a job added.

Dunno if that's true, but it's a thought. Another thought is that this a delayed impact from the shutdown. A third thought is that this is weather related; weather has a big impact on job growth.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Muhahahahahahahahaha:

Quote

The band Nickelback has practically become rhetorical shorthand for “something everybody hates.” Case in point: A polling firm determined in 2013 that Congress was less popular than some pretty reviled things, including lice, colonoscopies, root canals and the Canadian rockers known for such hits as the earworm “Photograph.”

So when Nickelback was invoked Thursday on the House floor, it was, at first, mentioned in the usual way. During debate over a voting rights provision, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) brought up the measure’s low popularity, noting that 4 out of 77,000 people asked had favored it. And that, he concluded, is “probably about the percent of people who think Nickelback is their favorite band in this country — it’s pretty low.”

Well, this turned out to be the equivalent of a glove tossed on the floor of the hallowed chamber. And Rep. Rodney Davis, for one, was not going to stand silent. “Why would you criticize one of the greatest bands of the ’90s?” the Illinois Republican parried in a tone of outrage.

“Wow, all right,” said Pocan, who appeared truly surprised that anyone would hold such an opinion of the musical group, let alone profess it in such a public forum (I mean, this is going in the Congressional Record, where it will remain archived for all time, congressman!). And then the Democrat said, “One more reason why there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans, clearly found on the floor of the Congress today.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/07/this-nickelback-debate-house-floor-shows-latest-congressional-divide/?utm_term=.99d6fc6a9f69

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/07/this-nickelback-debate-house-floor-shows-latest-congressional-divide/?utm_term=.99d6fc6a9f69

Not only is Nickelback NOT one of the greatest bands of the 90s, they aren't even one of the bands from the 90s.  Their breakout didn't happen until they released the abominably catchy This Is How You Remind Me in 2001. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Muhahahahahahahahaha:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/07/this-nickelback-debate-house-floor-shows-latest-congressional-divide/?utm_term=.99d6fc6a9f69

Stupid argument! 50 million albums sold, the 11th most popular band in history! 

That’s what the Republican should have responded with, lol!

47 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Not only is Nickelback NOT one of the greatest bands of the 90s, they aren't even one of the bands from the 90s.  Their breakout didn't happen until they released the abominably catchy This Is How You Remind Me in 2001. 

Hey, they started in 95 and were big in Canada!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, the rationale for Klobuchar is almost the exact same as Brown other than the pipe dream of flipping Ohio.

 

It may be a pipe dream, but it is why he offers more value than someone like Klobuchar. Plus I don’t think she’d have any interest in being the VP, and from a report I just heard it doesn’t sound like Brown does either, so it’s a moot point.

And I’m not sure why you say there’s no reason to worry about a ticket like that. We’ve seen a ton of racism and sexism in politics, and I think it would be amplified if you ran two women or two minorities. It’s a sad reality, but it would be a huge risk.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Not only is Nickelback NOT one of the greatest bands of the 90s, they aren't even one of the bands from the 90s.  Their breakout didn't happen until they released the abominably catchy This Is How You Remind Me in 2001. 

Why do you know that Maith? Are you being held hostage? Blink twice if the answer is yes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Stupid argument! 50 million albums sold, the 11th most popular band in history! 

That’s what the Republican should have responded with, lol!

Hey, they started in 95 and were big in Canada!

So, what you’re saying, is, “Blame Canada?”

[Fragile Bird]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So, what you’re saying, is, “Blame Canada?”

Yes! Always!

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It may be a pipe dream, but it is why he offers more value than someone like Klobuchar.

A pipe dream does not offer more added value.  Frankly, it is more likely Klobuchar gives you more added value on winning Wisconsin than Brown giving you a chance at Ohio - although in general I think it's probably a wash.

38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Plus I don’t think she’d have any interest in being the VP, and from a report I just heard it doesn’t sound like Brown does either, so it’s a moot point.

I know you worked for her and everything, but I am highly skeptical that Klobuchar would turn down a VP offer.  It's very low risk - if you lose as a VP it's no big deal and doesn't hurt you at all long term - with lots of benefit.  If you win, then you're the VP and the presumptive next nominee.  If you lose, there's still added cachet in being the last VP candidate in the next Dem primary.

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I’m not sure why you say there’s no reason to worry about a ticket like that. We’ve seen a ton of racism and sexism in politics, and I think it would be amplified if you ran two women or two minorities. It’s a sad reality, but it would be a huge risk.

Sure, there's a lot of sexism and racism in politics.  But your assumption is based on a ticket without a white male will necessarily not win back the "white male low educated" voters that generally would be identified as the Obama-Trump voters.  And, obviously, the Obama-Trump voters still voted for Obama.  So there's absolutely no empirical reason to worry about this - hence my South Park reference.  In other words, you're assuming a "sad reality" that has not been borne out in actual reality, and then applying a "huge risk" label to it that is entirely unfounded.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Not only is Nickelback NOT one of the greatest bands of the 90s, they aren't even one of the bands from the 90s.  Their breakout didn't happen until they released the abominably catchy This Is How You Remind Me in 2001. 

Indeed.  Referring to Nickelback as a 90s band means you don't understand 90s bands.

[TheKitttenGuard]

For me, that Pearl Jam is form the U.S and formed makes Rep. Davis a bloody traitor.

Also, Creed sucked so much that not even a Republican will acknowledge them today.

On my gratuitous shot Creed shot

Spoiler

Creed was essentially a "Christian" Rock band.

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, there's a lot of sexism and racism in politics.  But your assumption is based on a ticket without a white male will necessarily not win back the "white male low educated" voters that generally would be identified as the Obama-Trump voters.  And, obviously, the Obama-Trump voters still voted for Obama.  So there's absolutely no empirical reason to worry about this - hence my South Park reference.  In other words, you're assuming a "sad reality" that has not been borne out in actual reality, and then applying a "huge risk" label to it that is entirely unfounded.

 

I think that 2016 vs. 2008 taught us that being a woman is more harmful politically than being a black man. And so far the primary season has largely borne this out with some of the most inane hit pieces targeting Harris and Klobuchar while others don't remotely get the same treatment. 

I'm not saying that it has to be that way - but I think it's reasonable to consider that the US is more anti-women than anti-black people, and that is a legitimate fear. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that 2016 vs. 2008 taught us that being a woman is more harmful politically than being a black man. And so far the primary season has largely borne this out with some of the most inane hit pieces targeting Harris and Klobuchar while others don't remotely get the same treatment. 

I'm not saying that it has to be that way - but I think it's reasonable to consider that the US is more anti-women than anti-black people, and that is a legitimate fear. 

Yeah.  I agree with this in general.  Still not sure it matters if, hypothetically, a woman wins the nomination and then has to decide between a man and a woman as the VP candidate.  Ceteris paribus, would I think the male VP candidate would be more electable than the female VP candidate?  Yep.  But all else is not equal.

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not saying that it has to be that way - but I think it's reasonable to consider that the US is more anti-women than anti-black people, and that is a legitimate fear. 

I agree -- misogyny/sexism is far more broadly accepted than racism. It's enshrined (at least to a degree) in many major religions/denominations.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that 2016 vs. 2008 taught us that being a woman is more harmful politically than being a black man.

I'd also like to pushback on this substantively.  It's not a fair comparison because Obama wasn't just a black male nominee.  He was a black male nominee that inspired a lot of people regardless of race, sex or creed.  In contrast, Hillary by 2016 was someone that had been at least hovering around mainstream political media for nearly a quarter century.  And didn't really inspire much of anybody.  I was 31 in 2016 and couldn't remember a time that Hillary wasn't at least tangentially a part of the national conversation.  That longevity is inherently going to hurt any candidate - and certainly was the fatal blow to her.  Did some of that have to do with her being a woman?  Yeah.  But it also highlights how she's a bad comparison for any future female candidate.

[ThinkerX]

No doubt there is at least some bias, but I just took an MSNBC poll (had to do so to read the article)  72% of 57,000+ people 'that Fox News is too closely allied with the Trump White House.'

Numbers like that should indicate a near plurality of republicans, but...

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd also like to pushback on this substantively.  It's not a fair comparison because Obama wasn't just a black male nominee.  He was a black male nominee that inspired a lot of people regardless of race, sex or creed.  In contrast, Hillary by 2016 was someone that had been at least hovering around mainstream political media for nearly a quarter century.  And didn't really inspire much of anybody.  I was 31 in 2016 and couldn't remember a time that Hillary wasn't at least tangentially a part of the national conversation.  That longevity is inherently going to hurt any candidate - and certainly was the fatal blow to her.  Did some of that have to do with her being a woman?  Yeah.  But it also highlights how she's a bad comparison for any future female candidate.

I think there are plenty of ways to rationalize it, and it's hard to pull it apart - but there are a LOT of points to argue that it wasn't just Clinton's familiarity that was a problem. The fact that the vast majority of content centered around Clintons' email issues when things like the Trump admin and prior Obama officials doing the same thing did not register is an example. A counterexample to this might be the gender-swapped debates, where people surprisingly found Trump as woman way more charming than Clinton as man, though part of that was that Clinton constantly smiling made people consider 'him' effeminate.

I also think that familiarity bred contempt and that Clinton wasn't a great candidate, but I think that one of the reasons she was considered not a great candidate was because she was a woman, and there are a whole lot of people who will simply see that as wrong, and then rationalize away why they feel said wrongness.