US Politics: compromising positions

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I would.  That'd be a really stupid VP pick considering you almost certainly cost the Dems a Senate seat and it's not like the added-benefit of Brown on your ticket is every conceivably going to be worth it.  At all.

 

4 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Taking sherrod for vp would be breathtaking in the scope of its stupidity.

right now I think Biden / Harris or Biden / Abrams is the most likely ticket. 

And beto for RFK style AG, Barack is back as SoS

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Harris will do great on the coasts, and might be surprisingly strong in some Southern areas, but I've yet to see how she will have a ton of appeal to middle American. Brown, OTOH, does, and you can use him to campaign in the Midwest. He will be very useful in the states Clinton lost that we all expected her to win, plus he might put Ohio in play as he is quite popular in his state. And lastly, he balances the ticket's demographics out. Risking a Senate seat for a slightly better chance at reclaiming the WH is worth it, especially if you think 2020 will be decided in the margins like 2016 was. 

Also, IDK why people keep gravitating to people who lost. And Abrams has already sad that what she's considering is a Senate run, so just rule that one out. 

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Then I add you to the list of effing nut cases, if that's what you believe.

eta: I forgot to add "lol". I didn't mean that as a hard-ass response

 Don't lie BIRD!

59 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

The more outraged you get about the flag hugging iconography, the more you prove trump right. I would guess the current plan is he’s going to be doing a flag hug at every single political event for the next twenty months, and the more it induces amusing paroxysms of irritation from the libs and guarantees tv coverage of the hugs and thrice weekly front page covers of the hug, the more it will work.

if you hate it, ignore it. Give it no oxygen, don’t acknowledge it exists. The more awareness you give to his iconography the more effective you make it.

It's not about hate or outrage or being offended, it's about pointing out that it's weird AF to hug a flag like that, and he looks like a dork when he does it. Again, mockery is a key arrow in your quiver against Trump.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Harris will do great on the coasts, and might be surprisingly strong in some Southern areas, but I've yet to see how she will have a ton of appeal to middle American. Brown, OTOH, does, and you can use him to campaign in the Midwest. He will be very useful in the states Clinton lost that we all expected her to win, plus he might put Ohio in play as he is quite popular in his state. And lastly, he balances the ticket's demographics out. Risking a Senate seat for a slightly better chance at reclaiming the WH is worth it, especially if you think 2020 will be decided in the margins like 2016 was. 

Also, IDK why people keep gravitating to people who lost. And Abrams has already sad that what she's considering is a Senate run, so just rule that one out. 

 

I think the thing you're missing is that VP picks almost never improve your ticket, but can occasionally make your ticket worse. 

And there are a whole lot of other picks out there that'll be fine for the midwest that won't lose you a senate seat. 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think the thing you're missing is that VP picks almost never improve your ticket, but can occasionally make your ticket worse. 

And there are a whole lot of other picks out there that'll be fine for the midwest that won't lose you a senate seat. 

 

 

My argument is that Brown could be the exception. And again, I am only for him if Harris is the nominee. You'll need a white man from the Midwest if she wins the primary, and he's the only one I can think of that might actually add some value. Defeating Trump has to be the primary goal, and if giving up a Senate seat is the price for that outcome, so be it. 

[lokisnow]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Harris will do great on the coasts, and might be surprisingly strong in some Southern areas, but I've yet to see how she will have a ton of appeal to middle American. Brown, OTOH, does, and you can use him to campaign in the Midwest. He will be very useful in the states Clinton lost that we all expected her to win, plus he might put Ohio in play as he is quite popular in his state. And lastly, he balances the ticket's demographics out. Risking a Senate seat for a slightly better chance at reclaiming the WH is worth it, especially if you think 2020 will be decided in the margins like 2016 was. 

Also, IDK why people keep gravitating to people who lost. And Abrams has already sad that what she's considering is a Senate run, so just rule that one out. 

 Don't lie BIRD!

It's not about hate or outrage or being offended, it's about pointing out that it's weird AF to hug a flag like that, and he looks like a dork when he does it. Again, mockery is a key arrow in your quiver against Trump.

The realities of the strength of identity politics and promotion of diverse demographics as the core identity of the democrat party in 2019 mean that Biden May ONLY select from women and/or minorities for his VP, this will hold true for all the white male candidates, including Sanders. A two white dude ticket will not happen for democrats this cycle.

if Kamala Harris comes in second to Biden, or he needs her delegates to get a majority on the first round, she pretty much becomes the john Edwards automatic VP bid.

[lokisnow]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My argument is that Brown could be the exception. And again, I am only for him if Harris is the nominee. You'll need a white man from the Midwest if she wins the primary, and he's the only one I can think of that might actually add some value. Defeating Trump has to be the primary goal, and if giving up a Senate seat is the price for that outcome, so be it. 

If democrats can’t win the governor in Ohio in 2018, there is zero chance that brown would deliver Ohio as a vp pick in 2020. No one in Ohio cares about an ohioan becoming veep, they’re not voting for him, they’re voting for the top of the ticket, so the voters that put him as senator over the top will not be putting his veep ticket over the top. Particularly if they like trump more than the top of the ticket.

[Rippounet]

In "news from the other side", Breitbart had this very interesting article about Trump "abandoning "Amerifa First" reforms" by saying the US needs more immigration:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/06/trump-immigration-workers-more/

It's interesting because such an article is as close to criticizing Trump as Breitbart will ever go. But it signals that Trump's base *could* still abandon him if he's not extremely careful.

Quote

 

For the fourth time in about a month, Trump suggested increasing legal immigration levels. With Apple CEO Tim Cook sitting next to him at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said he not only wanted more legal immigration but that companies needed an expansion of new arrivals to grow their business.

“We’re going to have a lot of people coming into the country. We want a lot of people coming in. And we need it,” Trump said:

[...]

The comments are a direct rebuttal of the president’s commitments in 2015, 2016, and 2017, where he vowed to reduce overall legal immigration levels to boost the wages of U.S. workers and reduce the displacement of America’s working and middle class.

 

Also interesting -to me- is the fact this kind of article reveals a lot about the ideas -and myths- on the right. We have a particularly nice bit on economics here:

Quote

 

Increasing legal immigration beyond their already historically high levels would crush the wage and job gains that Trump’s “Hire American” economy has made possible thus far. Nationwide, wages rose 3.0 percent in 2018. For Americans who switched jobs, wages rose by 4.6 percent and by 5.2 percent in Minnesota where few migrant workers choose to live.

[...]

Mass immigration, whether legal or illegal, puts downward pressure on Americans’ wages, researchers have repeatedly noted.

Every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an American workers’ occupation reduces their weekly wages by about 0.5 percent, researcher Steven Camarotta has found. This means the average native-born American worker today has their weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.5 percent because of current legal immigration levels.

In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by perhaps more than 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.

Likewise, every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.

The mass importation of legal immigrants — mostly due to President George H.W. Bush’s Immigration Act of 1990, which expanded legal immigration levels — diminishes job opportunities for the roughly four million young American graduates who enter the workforce every year wanting good-paying jobs.

In the last decade alone, the U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage foreign workers. Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. by 2060. This would represent an unprecedented electoral gain for the Left, as Democrats win about 90 percent of congressional districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national average.

 

It's rare for Breitbart to actually write anything of substance, so this kind of article is precious to better understand Trumpism and try to predict its evolution. Ethno-nationalism is not going away any time soon, but it's still possible that Trumpism flounders in the next few years.

 

[lokisnow]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

It's not about hate or outrage or being offended, it's about pointing out that it's weird AF to hug a flag like that, and he looks like a dork when he does it. Again, mockery is a key arrow in your quiver against Trump.

If you think it’s weird d it just proves you’re not a “Real American,” if you think he looks dorky they think he looks sincere, and you mocking him for it means you’re coming across as mocking patriotism. There is no good response to it other than giving it absolutely no response. Don’t feed the troll. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My argument is that Brown could be the exception.

Why? 

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And again, I am only for him if Harris is the nominee. You'll need a white man from the Midwest if she wins the primary

Why? Why not, say, Klobuchar? Or Buttigieg? I'm pretty sure there are others as well. 

 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Harris will do great on the coasts, and might be surprisingly strong in some Southern areas, but I've yet to see how she will have a ton of appeal to middle American. Brown, OTOH, does, and you can use him to campaign in the Midwest. He will be very useful in the states Clinton lost that we all expected her to win, plus he might put Ohio in play as he is quite popular in his state. And lastly, he balances the ticket's demographics out. Risking a Senate seat for a slightly better chance at reclaiming the WH is worth it, especially if you think 2020 will be decided in the margins like 2016 was. 

First, I'm not assuming Harris will be at the top of the ticket.  If I was, I'd still think Brown is a poor choice for a number of reasons.  Second, it's still entirely unclear how Harris or most other candidates will perform in the Midwest.  But it the candidate does feel the need to shore up Midwest support (even though I agree with Kal that the VP candidate is almost always entirely ineffectual), there are plenty of better options than probably ceding a Senate seat.*  Third, Brown is incredibly unlikely to put Ohio in play.  If Ohio is in play, that means the Dem nominee is very likely to win anyway.  Fourth, I reject the notion that any "demographic balance" means there needs to be a white male on the ticket.

*Keep in mind that due to Ohio's rules, if Brown is elected VP the special election to replace him would take place in 2022 - the first midterm for the Democratic president.

[Kalbear]

Oh yeah, Manafort got 47 months. Judge called his guidelines for the crime too harsh, and thought Manafort led an otherwise blameless life. 

It's amazing how when you're rich and white the guidelines are too harsh. 

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1103808636336439296

[Gertrude]

I am fucking speechless. Disgraceful.

eta: Note, I am not surprised, just outraged. He's a part of the ruling class, afterall.

[Kalbear]

The good news - I guess - is that he's also due to be sentences for his other crimes, and it's very likely given this result that she'll give him the maximum, 10 years. 

 

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The good news - I guess - is that he's also due to be sentences for his other crimes, and it's very likely given this result that she'll give him the maximum, 10 years. 

Hope so but I don't have a lot of faith right now.

[Morpheus]

Expect more of the same with the next sentencing, corruption runs deep.

[karaddin]

11 hours ago, Fez said:

Here's the thing that bothers me the most, and, again, it's not even directly about Omar. If I were any other minority and said I was feeling threatened by something a politician or public figure said, most folks on the left would be falling over to defend me. Even if people thought I was making too much of the issue, there'd still be tons of talk about the difficulties minorities face and how we need to be more sensitive to their perspective; which is all true. However, because I'm Jewish, all I hear is how we need to listen to what the politician/public figure said, or even that they are right, and my concerns are dismissed out of hand as being a pro-Israeli reactionary. There is no attempt to understand why I feel threatened and certainly no defense of me; except from the right wing, are fucking hypocritical insane nonsense people.

So my problem isn't really with Omar, it's with the large group of the left that just immediately took her side and abandoned me. It's especially galling because I even agree with her underlying sentiments about Israel. I think their government is terrible and there is no excusing basically anything they've done since 2005. Jews are always the first group that are abandoned, and they always have been. Seems that some things never change.

I know the conversation has moved on already but I wanted to address this. I get where you're coming from, and I think in the current environment your vigilance is not just understandable but sensible. Particularly your concern about anti-Semitism being ignored by the left. In this particular case I think you're misinterpreting what she meant, I agree with others in the thread that think she's referring to politicians and cases like the anti-BDS legislation. If she did mean what you interpreted then I absolutely agree with your issues with it.

I don't know if you saw/remember the issues in Aussie parliament a bit over a year ago but we had a bunch of politicians get kicked out of parliament on the basis of dual citizenships rendering them ineligible for office. At the time it was discussed that the status of Jewish MPs was unresolved because the right of return could be interpreted in the same way that had caused issues for others and Brook and I both felt that even testing that in court has the potential to set a very bad precedent. Right of return should not be seen as a foreign allegiance.

I just wanted to confirm to let you know that your concern is seen, understood and shared even by some that disagree on this particular case being what you fear it is.

[Guy Kilmore]

On thought I've seen on Manafort's sentence is that by making it light, it makes it weirder to pardon him.  I'm not sure I buy that line if reasoning.....

[A True Kaniggit]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Oh yeah, Manafort got 47 months. Judge called his guidelines for the crime too harsh, and thought Manafort led an otherwise blameless life. 

It's amazing how when you're rich and white the guidelines are too harsh. 

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1103808636336439296

 

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The good news - I guess - is that he's also due to be sentences for his other crimes, and it's very likely given this result that she'll give him the maximum, 10 years. 

 

If it makes you fell any better, remember the guy is 69. Even with the low numbers, unless he beats the average, it's pretty much the rest of his life.

[S John]

eh, it would certainly feel like a punishment to me if I was sent to prison for four years.  And with another sentencing coming it will likely be more than that.  I think going to prison for any amount of time would be a ridiculously uncool thing to happen.  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, lokisnow said:

If you think it’s weird d it just proves you’re not a “Real American,” if you think he looks dorky they think he looks sincere, and you mocking him for it means you’re coming across as mocking patriotism. There is no good response to it other than giving it absolutely no response. Don’t feed the troll. 

I don't know. I served in the military, deployed, and I was a teacher. Typically, people from the right assume me to be patriotic. When I see Trump hugging the flag, I think it's fucking creepy, and it's worth pointing out that it's creepy. In all my years of service, I never needed to hug the flag.

[HoodedCrow]

I thought the judge who calls himself “Caesar of the courtroom” was angling for a SCOTUS appointment. Isn’t that how it works?