US Politics: compromising positions

[lokisnow]

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think Beto's fine. It's too earlier to know if he did a remarkable job turning out Democrats in Texas or if that demographic shift is finally happening and most senate candidates would've done what he did against Cruz. But he clearly does know how to fundraise and excite small donors, and that is an important skill. Probably a useful VP candidate, depending on the nominee. 

However, and I know this is the boring answer, but I think this entire nomination process is just Biden's to lose; and I don't think he'll lose. If he does lose Iowa that maybe changes things, but if he wins there I think the inevitability train will immediately line up behind him.

I agree, my feeling right now is that Biden is going to crush the field, and ye gods that will make the Russian amplified Bernie bros really upset all over again. 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well I don’t think he’s a loser personally, but he lost to Ted Cruz. That’s an instant DQ for me, even if it’s in a red state. And by fraud I mean he seems incredibly phony, and his rhetoric does not match a lot of his actions. I know that can be true of any politician, but he comes off as insincere to me.

Yeah got no problem calling him a loser - that's just a statement of fact - was more talking about the fraud thing.  He comes off a bit phony, yeah, but I think Booker has him beat by a mile in that regard.

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think waiting will also hurt Biden, but at least he already had some national infrastructure to rely on.

I don't think waiting is damaging in Biden's case.  First off, he's like the king (prince?) of the Hamlet routine anyway.  Second, he's polling really well without running.  It's possible his numbers actually drop a bit once he announces, becomes just another candidate, and the left turns its attention to all his myriad vulnerabilities.

[Guest]

As of a few minutes ago, a total of 10 Republican Senators have announced they will vote against Trump's emergency declaration, scheduled for later today. That's even more than I thought actually would, and there are some still on the fence, like Roberts, Rubio, Young, Sasse and Gardner.

The list of announced "Yes" votes so far is : Collins, Murkowski, Paul, Tillis, Lee, Romney, Alexander, Toomey, Portman and Moran.

[Fragile Bird]

Tillis, after making a big splash about his vote, has switched his vote.

The White House actively pursued him and said they would agree to changing the National Emergencies Act.

I think he has been sucked in big time.

eta: He's up for reelection in 2020 in North Carolina, strong Trump territory.

But someone named Blunt said he's vote with the Dems, so it's still 10.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah got no problem calling him a loser - that's just a statement of fact - was more talking about the fraud thing.  He comes off a bit phony, yeah, but I think Booker has him beat by a mile in that regard.

I wholeheartedly agree. Booker is a combination of maximum phony and cheesy.

Quote

I don't think waiting is damaging in Biden's case.  First off, he's like the king (prince?) of the Hamlet routine anyway.  Second, he's polling really well without running.  It's possible his numbers actually drop a bit once he announces, becomes just another candidate, and the left turns its attention to all his myriad vulnerabilities.

He is, but I wonder if he’s already ceilinged out. The same goes for Sanders too. Both are so well known to the base and I would think most likely primary voters have already made up their minds about those two.

20 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

As of a few minutes ago, a total of 10 Republican Senators have announced they will vote against Trump's emergency declaration, scheduled for later today. That's even more than I thought actually would, and there are some still on the fence, like Roberts, Rubio, Young, Sasse and Gardner.

The list of announced "Yes" votes so far is : Collins, Murkowski, Paul, Tillis, Lee, Romney, Alexander, Toomey, Portman and Moran.

Funny, I think I had the over/under at 10 in a previous thread. It doesn’t matter though. Even if they got to a veto proof majority on the first vote, several Republicans would side with Trump on the second vote.

[lokisnow]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Tillis, after making a big splash about his vote, has switched his vote.

The White House actively pursued him and said they would agree to changing the National Emergencies Act.

I think he has been sucked in big time.

eta: He's up for reelection in 2020 in North Carolina, strong Trump territory.

But someone named Blunt said he's vote with the Dems, so it's still 10.

Roy Blunt  is a senator from Missouri, former house whip iirc.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Funny, I think I had the over/under at 10 in a previous thread. It doesn’t matter though. Even if they got to a veto proof majority on the first vote, several Republicans would side with Trump on the second vote.

We'll never get a second vote in the Senate anyway.  It passed the House first, so if it's vetoed, it goes back there.  They had only a handful of Republicans support it the first time, and there's no way they get ~50 more to flip in order to get a veto proof majority.  So this is essentially the last time this issue comes up, unless Pelosi wants to do this vote again in six months (which is her right). 

[Fez]

Alexander Blunt Collins Lee Moran Murkowski Paul Portman Romney Rubio Toomey Wicker

Those are the 12 Republicans so far that voted in favor of the resolution. Tillis flipped, and Gardner also voted no. Tillis is probably the second most vulnerable senator up for re-election in 2020 after Gardner, and I suspect the White House threatened to withhold support for them if they voted aye. They're making the gamble that they can't win without Trump's support. I think that's a mistake though, especially for Gardner, since Heller just proved last year that sacrificing the middle to keep Trump happy will lose you an election in a purple state.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Funny, I think I had the over/under at 10 in a previous thread. It doesn’t matter though. Even if they got to a veto proof majority on the first vote, several Republicans would side with Trump on the second vote.

Oh yeah, I think when it comes back around after Trump's veto you may have a few change their vote to not supporting an override of the veto.

But I think the more bipartisan the vote is, the more likely Roberts, at least, is to take that under consideration when the court cases inevitably make their way to the Supreme Court. 

Plus, since the resolution was never going to get the votes to override a veto anyway, the most important thing this vote does is damage Republican Senate incumbents up for re-election in 2020. You're already seeing county Republican chairs in North Carolina threatening to find a primary challenger for Tillis next year if he votes for the resolution, but he also barely won election in 2014, so voting against it gives a line of attack to his Democratic challenger. The same thing goes for Gardner, McSally and maybe Ernst and a couple more.  And Pelosi can keep scheduling these resolution votes every six months, which means at least 2 more times vulnerable Republican Senators will have to go on the record one way or another during an election year.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, S John said:

In his Senate race here in Texas he was very much a 'take the high road' candidate.  He really didn't want to get down into the mud.  I really like Beto, but if I had one criticism against him it would be that he did not go after Cruz hard enough.  I get what he was trying to do.  He was trying an Obama-esqe strategy of selling hope and optimism against the cynical, fear-mongering Republicans.  But Cruz was just so... attack-able.  And so is Trump. 

If it were me, I would not have been able to resist repeatedly hammering Cruz over his Trump brown-nosing after Trump insulted him, his wife, and his father in front of the whole country.  It is an embarrassment to the state of Texas, IMO, that this fucking worm is our representative in Washington and I think Beto could have made hay out of a couple of 2016 campaign era clips of Ted Cruz on Donald Trump juxtaposed with some post-election clips of Ted Cruz on Donald Trump.  But, he didn't.  Instead Ted Cruz pasted his slogan 'Tough as Texas' all over the state without a hint of irony.  God, that was just SO ripe for mockery that it feels like a missed opportunity to me.  There was one instance where Beto regurgitated Trump's 'Lyin' Ted' nickname and then immediately apologized for it.  Meanwhile Cruz was dragging out old punk-rock era photos, Beto's DUI, making up stupid anti-Beto country jingles for the radio, claiming his nickname was political pandering to Latinos (as if Rafael isn't pandering to Texas good ol' boys with "Ted") ... anything he could get his hands on

All that said... Beto did nearly win as a progressive in Texas.  It took historic Republican turnout to beat him and maybe... MAYBE, there's a chance he could put Texas in play vs. Trump.  He would at least force them to spend resources here.  Maybe he knew what he was doing staying out of the mud, or maybe he would have won if he'd pressed the attack.  Hard to say.  Anyway, I am bullish on Beto, but if I had one concern about him vs. Trump it would be that I could see him not really going after him hard enough.  Maybe this could be resolved by a pitbull VP pick who goes after the President while Beto can keep his hands clean as a 'good guy' candidate.  

This is interesting. I don't know (either) how far the high road can go against Trump. I think ideally you'd want to win in that way (not rolling in the mud), but the higher the road the Dems take, the more they seem to lose. I'm conflicted on this.

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Personally that's one thing I like about Harris is that I think she might be the best candidate that can juggle both being compassionate to citizens but twisting the knife with Trump.  I definitely prefer a candidate who can do both. 

I'm not a huge fan of her prosecutorial background...EXCEPT that, I think, if she turned it on against Trump, he'd lose his mind. And that'd be wonderful.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Alexander Blunt Collins Lee Moran Murkowski Paul Portman Romney Rubio Toomey Wicker

Those are the 12 Republicans so far that voted in favor of the resolution. Tillis flipped, and Gardner also voted no. Tillis is probably the second most vulnerable senator up for re-election in 2020 after Gardner, and I suspect the White House threatened to withhold support for them if they voted aye. They're making the gamble that they can't win without Trump's support. I think that's a mistake though, especially for Gardner, since Heller just proved last year that sacrificing the middle to keep Trump happy will lose you an election in a purple state.

Man, we (Colorado) better vote this goon out. He acts like he's a centrist, but his voting with Trump record is one of the highest among senators. I wrote him a letter during the Kavanaugh hearing, and I said that as a lefty, I didn't care much for Gorsusch but understood the vote. I laid out a fairly reasoned argument as to the issues with Kavanaugh (whether he was guilty or not...really hard to not write to him that the asshole was guilty). A couple members of faculty in my department, I found out later, had done the same. Gardner wrote to confirm Kavanaugh, and then about thirty days later (when we'd all cooled off was the reasoning I'm sure), we all got the same letter dismissing our claims and explaining why that was okay.

I keep that letter on the wall above my computer so none of his little statements to the media "oh weed is totally cool guys" will seep through. I hope it's a landslide of retribution. Plus, Colorado is not only firmly turning blue, but people are turning out to vote. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

I agree, my feeling right now is that Biden is going to crush the field, and ye gods that will make the Russian amplified Bernie bros really upset all over again. 

As a Bernie Bro, I disagree. I can't speak for all Bernie Bros (but neither can you), but I think the Bro aspect is overblown. First, this time has already been setup to be more democractic with a field of good, varied candidates. If Bernie loses, any of the others won fair and square. The super delegate issue a number of people had has been dealt with in a reasonable way. Second, around 90 percent of his supporters did not vote for Trump. How many voted for Hillary I've heard is closer to 80 percent (so, most of us), and that's fairly in line with previous primary challenges full of bitterness--such more than 20 percent of Hillary supporters not voting for Obama, etc.

Would Biden do well against Trump? I'd say that overall, yes. Biden would likely appeal to a ton of people. My only concern is that he already has rumors of being overly grabby when around women. Snopes did a good job of debunking some of the photoshopped ones, but his habits of touching/holding women could be interpreted very differently by those women than by him. This seems a significant issue, but I don't really know what can be done about it. The fact the Right is already pedaling this about him reveals a significant handicap for Biden the candidate. This article covers the images floating around--the second especially has potential for trouble. There are videos of a lot of these moments in the articles, and I have to believe these are created by the Right because they fear Biden. But they've got this one ready to launch if he enters the fray. Most likely after he wins the primary and there is little to be done except let him ride out the waves.  

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

As a Bernie Bro, I disagree. I can't speak for all Bernie Bros (but neither can you), but I think the Bro aspect is overblown. First, this time has already been setup to be more democractic with a field of good, varied candidates. If Bernie loses, any of the others won fair and square. The super delegate issue a number of people had has been dealt with in a reasonable way. Second, around 90 percent of his supporters did not vote for Trump. How many voted for Hillary I've heard is closer to 80 percent (so, most of us), and that's fairly in line with previous primary challenges full of bitterness--such more than 20 percent of Hillary supporters not voting for Obama, etc.

Would Biden do well against Trump? I'd say that overall, yes. Biden would likely appeal to a ton of people. My only concern is that he already has rumors of being overly grabby when around women. Snopes did a good job of debunking some of the photoshopped ones, but his habits of touching/holding women could be interpreted very differently by those women than by him. This seems a significant issue, but I don't really know what can be done about it. The fact the Right is already pedaling this about him reveals a significant handicap for Biden the candidate. This article covers the images floating around--the second especially has potential for trouble. There are videos of a lot of these moments in the articles, and I have to believe these are created by the Right because they fear Biden. But they've got this one ready to launch if he enters the fray. Most likely after he wins the primary and there is little to be done except let him ride out the waves.  

Biden is handsy and sanders wrote rape fantasies, neither is worse than grab them by the pussy.

i seriously doubt the Russian amplified Bernie bros will all quietly accede to Biden or booker or Beto or any woman winning because it’s “fair and square” this time around.

and the super delegates have been turned into a time bomb, not defused, and that bomb is going to explode all over the convention because no one will have a majority on the first ballot and the Bernie bros are going to riot like it’s 1972 (or was it 68?)

if anything, given the absurd numbers of candidates running and the proportional allocation of most delegates the reforms to the super delegates have made them far worse than they were before (and all they ever were were a bogeyman for Bernie bros to boohoo about)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

We'll never get a second vote in the Senate anyway.  It passed the House first, so if it's vetoed, it goes back there.  They had only a handful of Republicans support it the first time, and there's no way they get ~50 more to flip in order to get a veto proof majority.  So this is essentially the last time this issue comes up, unless Pelosi wants to do this vote again in six months (which is her right). 

I know. I was just trying to highlight that these "principled" Republican voters aren't principled at all by and large when push comes to shove.

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But I think the more bipartisan the vote is, the more likely Roberts, at least, is to take that under consideration when the court cases inevitably make their way to the Supreme Court. 

That's an interesting take I had no considered that much. I'm not sure if it's right or not, but it's something to think about.

[lokisnow]

On 3/13/2019 at 2:47 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, didn't mean to entirely conflate them, just was going for the bad joke. However, I didn't think the Plumbers were all apart of CRP. Do I have that wrong?

 

Also, going back a few weeks, I did read the article you linked about a 27 member SC. I think in a vacuum it's not a bad idea, however, it would have to be done in a bipartisan fashion and we both know that will never happen. In fact it likely would even drive the parties further apart and that's not what America needs right now. 

So if trump loses on November 3 2020 and announces four appointments to the Supreme Court on November 4, and McConnell immediately schedules floor votes for them for December 28, 29, 30, and 31. And they are all then confirmed, would you say that democrats responding with their own appointments would be something that cannot be done because it would only make a toxic situation worse?

[Martell Spy]

OK, I'm not a Booker fan, but he definitely has one thing going for him.

 

Quote

 

Rosario Dawson, the actress and political activist, has confirmed that she is in a relationship with Sen. Cory Booker.

While walking through Reagan National Airport on Thursday, Dawson was asked by TMZ whether there was any truth that she is in a relationship with Booker, the New Jersey Democrat who is running for president.

“Yeah,” Dawson replied. “Yes, very much so.”

She later added that their relationship was going, “so far, so wonderful,” and that they tried to see each other whenever they could because they’re both “very busy.”

 

Actress Rosario Dawson confirms relationship with Cory Booker

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/rosario-dawson-cory-booker-dating-1221753

[Kalbear]

My suspicion is that the court will easily pass that the XO is constitutional. The argument is really, really simple, and is hard to refute:

- the NEA already provides what a POTUS can do as far as allocating money, and that's already been put into law. If congress wants something else, pass something else

- once that money is allocated, the NEA treats that money as already allocated to it; in other words, any money in certain areas that congress allocates can, by rule, be allocated to emergency actions, and this is a feature of all that money. If you don't like it, don't allocate it in the first place. 

- while it's clear that building a multi-year wall project to deal with a supposed 'emergent' situation is bullshit, it is well within the powers of the POTUS to do so, and there's no legal basis to deny it. 

The big problem here is that it is a massive norm violation, like Merrick Garland, and like Merrick Garland there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

More about this horribleness at Lawfare, which reached similar conclusions.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Biden is handsy and sanders wrote rape fantasies, neither is worse than grab them by the pussy.

i seriously doubt the Russian amplified Bernie bros will all quietly accede to Biden or booker or Beto or any woman winning because it’s “fair and square” this time around.

and the super delegates have been turned into a time bomb, not defused, and that bomb is going to explode all over the convention because no one will have a majority on the first ballot and the Bernie bros are going to riot like it’s 1972 (or was it 68?)

if anything, given the absurd numbers of candidates running and the proportional allocation of most delegates the reforms to the super delegates have made them far worse than they were before (and all they ever were were a bogeyman for Bernie bros to boohoo about)

I've heard you say this about Bernie's rape fantasies, but you understand he was making an academic argument about gender issues, right (in 1972)? It is poorly done, but it is an argument about gender roles being destructive. It mirrors so much of 70s and particularly 80s academic postmodern writing about sexual repression, gender roles, and race. I don't know what to tell you either way. If a person writes an argument, a theory, a piece of fiction, and you want to hold that up to a person perhaps touching women, assuming he has a right to touch, kiss, and hold women without consent, then yeah, this is a discussion not worth having. Bernie is no saint, but those two things are in no way the same, and your distortion of the writing as a "rape fantasy" is willfully deceptive. I'm not here to put these offenses in a categorical list of worst to best. If Bernie Sanders has to go because people find his writing from forty-five years ago indicative of the way he thinks and behaves, then I guess he has to go. But no rhetorical, creative, blundering point will be safe, I suppose.

I'm not sure what Russian amplified Bernie Bros are either. I suppose I could go through a list of logical fallacies and point to what you're doing, but is it worth it at this point? Your anger for Bernie is showing. You might as well let it go. He's here, and he's in the conversation, and no amount of straw manning will change that. This is how the majority of us "Russian ampflified Bernie Bros" reacted when he lost and we went and voted for Clinton. She wasn't the favorite, but...I just lost interest in this conversation. You've dug in. It's pointless.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

I've heard you say this about Bernie's rape fantasies, but you understand he was making an academic argument about gender issues, right (in 1972)? It is poorly done, but it is an argument about gender roles being destructive. It mirrors so much of 70s and particularly 80s academic postmodern writing about sexual repression, gender roles, and race. I don't know what to tell you either way.  

It doesn't matter what you tell him - he knows that. 

But when you put in attack ads that Sanders wrote about women fantasizing rape, and he has to explain about how he was making an academic argument about gender issues and it was 40 years ago - how effective do you think that'll be? 

Honestly, the better attack ad is simply deeclaring that he's a socialist - another self-inflicted label that he can't fight without using a lot of words - and that'll hurt him far more. 

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

I'm not sure what Russian amplified Bernie Bros are either. I suppose I could go through a list of logical fallacies and point to what you're doing, but is it worth it at this point? Your anger for Bernie is showing. You might as well let it go. He's here, and he's in the conversation, and no amount of straw manning will change that. This is how the majority of us "Russian ampflified Bernie Bros" reacted when he lost and we went and voted for Clinton. She wasn't the favorite, but...I just lost interest in this conversation. You've dug in. It's pointless.

I think you're deliberately not understanding that "BernieBros" does not mean 'supporters of Bernie Sanders" any more than 'sexist men' means 'men who like sex'. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

So if trump loses on November 3 2020 and announces four appointments to the Supreme Court on November 4, and McConnell immediately schedules floor votes for them for December 28, 29, 30, and 31. And they are all then confirmed, would you say that democrats responding with their own appointments would be something that cannot be done because it would only make a toxic situation worse?

I mean, that won't happen, but if the Republicans did that, I'd see it as a point of no return.