Jump to content

US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Orwell, I’d like you to meet the naked Emperor:  

Quote

Now Trump himself has come up with an answer – and it’s not one anyone was expecting. The problem, apparently, is energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Talking before an audience of Republican legislators in Baltimore on Thursday night, Trump gave a rambling speech in which he tackled criticism of his recent plans to weaken regulations on environmentally friendly bulbs.

“The lightbulb,” the president began. “People said: what’s with the lightbulb? I said: here’s the story. And I looked at it. The bulb that we’re being forced to use! No 1, to me, most importantly, the light’s no good. I always look orange. And so do you! The light is the worst.”

But that was not the end of it. Trump complained that the energy-efficient bulb is many times more expensive than its incandescent predecessor and, he claimed, needs to be treated as “hazardous waste” if it breaks.

Energy-efficient bulbs such as halogen incandescents, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) typically use about 25 to 80% less energy than traditional incandescents, and can last up to 25 times longer.

But that wasn’t good enough for Trump. He continued: “What are we doing? It’s considered hazardous waste, but it’s many times more expensive and frankly the light is not as good. So we’re going to sell them, but we’re also going to sell incandescent bulbs. People are very happy about it. It’s amazing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/13/trump-orange-skin-hue-lightbulbs-energy-efficient

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Some libertarians somewhere are probably circle-jerking themselves off to this load of verbal dumbassery.

"Finally! True freedom! I can buy cheap, wasteful, and shitty incandescents again!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

See, this attitude is explains exactly why I actually believe the US will never have universal health care. The idea that other countries in the world have UHC to subsidize business, ‘sweet sweet government largesse’, is utterly bizarre.

Other countries have UHC because they came to realize that all citizens should have health care, that it was a basic right of citizenship. And gee whiz, they did it because they thought about what citizenship should include, not because it was enshrined in their constitution.

Do try to remember that for decades Americans pointed their fingers at Europe and sneered at benefits like health care because ‘taxes are so high in Europe’, and no right-thinking American would choose health care over low taxes. Look at their price of gas!

The argument in the US is all about cost dollar-wise, not cost human-wise. And the $ is the almighty and will win.

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely in the "healthcare is a human right" camp. I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes, where profit > All, and it just seems like a no-brainer from an economic standpoint, which is the consideration that would apply in the case of U.S. business owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

They matter for the purposes of internal politics and unifying the party if nothing else. Biden will do a better job than Hillary at getting Democrats to rally to the cause. This is why back in 2016 I was calling for Sanders to get out early. Hillary et al.’s pettiness was going to drive them away, and the Sanders people weren’t without blame too. Biden won’t suffer from that in large part due to his skills as a retail politician.

Wow I can't believe I disagree with so few words in so many ways.  First and foremost, what the hell does retail politics have to do with uniting the party?  No matter how much time a candidate spends going door-to-door, or glad-handing at coffee houses, or holding town halls at libraries and high school gyms, they are only going to reach a small percentage of the democratic electorate face-to-face even in small states, let alone large states and the national democratic electorate.

Second, one key indicator of uniting the party or the "internal politics" of the party is through lining up party activists.  And based on Seth Masket's ongoing project interviewing early-state Dem activists, Biden's hardly dominating there - he's basically grouped in a top tier with four other candidates.  Indeed, Masket's interviews suggest Biden is the third least liked candidate among party activists, as only Gabbard and Sanders had a higher percentage of activists saying they would not consider supporting the candidate (to be clear, only in the primary).  This squares with polling data showing the demos of Biden's coalition - and the demos of those he's least popular.  Activists aren't going to be persuaded by Biden's folksy charm.  Now, obviously we don't have something to compare this to IRT 2016 since Masket (nor anyone else) didn't conduct an analogous study in that cycle, but I think it's safe to say Clinton had a significantly higher percentage of activist support - if evidenced only by Sanders and his supporters' incessant whining about the DNC and "party insiders."

Third, the other key indicator of establishment support would be the endorsement primary.  While Biden is slightly in the lead there, he obviously does not have nearly the percentage of support Hillary enjoyed, even this early.  Now, clearly part of this is simply due to the fact that there are far more viable candidates competing this cycle whereas Hillary really only had to contend with Sanders, but at least at this point there's far more uncertainty concerning whether Biden can muster the full force of the party as an organization behind him.

Fourth, while I thought Bernie was being his typical ornery, self-righteous, recalcitrant self by staying in so long, he deserves none of the blame for Hillary's troubles.  The aforementioned turnout and third party issues (as well as Obama-Trump voters, for that matter) were the result of Hillary's deficiencies as a candidate and campaigner, plain and simple.  Sanders' relatively surprising primary success was a symptom not the cause of a large swath of Democratic (and Independent) voters who had held at least a distaste for her for decades (myself included, although I certainly never considered supporting Bernie).   

Fifth, while that could be good news for Biden - because I agree he is a superior campaigner to Hillary and doesn't have an entrenched opposition even within his own party - the anti-Hillary/Bernie 2016 folks have become even more emboldened and obstinate over the past three to four years, and very well could be virulently anti-Biden.  All one needs to do to understand this is visit HuffPo a couple times a week - there's almost always a hit piece on Biden published there every few days.

Sixth, while Hillary basically had it wrapped up by Super Tuesday - she had an insurmountable pledge delegate lead due to the Dems' PR allocation and this is when Bernie should have dropped out if he was a mature adult - Biden is far less likely to do so, meaning it's probably gonna take him more time to get the party org united behind him.  Now, I could see a scenario in which Biden wraps it up by Super Tuesday.  If he wins either Iowa or NH, he could well dominate SC (especially if Harris and Booker are marginalized by then) and ride that momentum into a decisive delegate haul on Super Tuesday.  But this was pretty much long expected to play out for Hillary in 2016 (and it did), whereas Biden's probability of doing so is far lower.  Hillary's likelihood was probably ~80%, whereas Biden's likelihood is definitely <50%.  He still has the best chance out of any candidate to do this, but again this simply reflects the fact there are more viable candidates this cycle, at least for now.

Seventh, and finally, just as Bernie should have dropped out after Super Tuesday, Hillary should have dropped out after Obama rattled off 10 straight primaries in February 2008 - building a similarly insurmountable delegate lead.  Plus the 2008 primary was far more contentious and while there was a lot of hand-wringing about it, it clearly didn't hurt Obama in the general in the least.  Which suggests contentious primaries and the nominee's general election success are orthogonal.  A nominee's ability to unite the party establishment/organization/"internal politics" behind her campaign is pretty much solely dependent on the candidate's own appeal/skill to build a broad coalition, as well as environmental factors - e.g. how contentious the internal politics of the party are at the time independent of any of the presidential candidates; how much motivation the party has to unite.  In terms of the latter, Biden certainly has an advantage there since the party is obviously much more motivated and far less complacent about beating Trump this cycle.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with Biden's skill as a retail politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Makes me think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeVCka26BTE

What's the link one may ask? It's a PR strategy to fight environmentalism. Not a great one for anyone with half a brain, but possibly efficient for Trump voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's this -- Disney-ABC (Disney owns ABC) ran this as a commercial last night during the Dem Debate; this is really evil shyte.

https://deadline.com/2019/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-debate-ad-socialism-elizabeth-heng-1202733669/

Also, a 2fer, because Sanders and Warren are, like AOC -- social commies, or something.  And rapistbedbuginchief flew a banner over Houston prior the debate announcing that Socialists will kill Houston's economy (presumably after another Cat 5 + hurricane kills the city generally?). 

https://deadline.com/2019/09/trump-campaign-democratic-debate-socialism-abc-news-1202732337/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Then there's this -- Disney-ABC (Disney owns ABC) ran this as a commercial last night during the Dem Debate; this is really evil shyte.

I don't see what to complain about with that ad - AOC's avid support for Khmer Rouge forced marriage is clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't see what to complain about with that ad - AOC's avid support for Khmer Rouge forced marriage is clear.

O noze!  It's happened! DMC has caught what afflicts liar in chief! :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2019 at 7:02 PM, Zorral said:

Exactly. What kind of frackin' economy is this that when some of the most highly valued, massive corps like amazon, don't actually make money?  What they do instead is BUY their rivals of every kind.  What are they buying WITH?

I admit, I am knowledge challenged in these areas of finance and economics.  But they all seem massive ponzi schemes  . . . . 

They are buying them with what would be their profits. Amazon invests virtually all of what would be their profits back into themselves through the form of investing in Amazon and acquiring rivals. They are not losing money in the traditional sense they are just doing what a lot of start ups  do perpetually but so far most investors seem ok with it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Wow I can't believe I disagree with so few words in so many ways.  First and foremost, what the hell does retail politics have to do with uniting the party?  No matter how much time a candidate spends going door-to-door, or glad-handing at coffee houses, or holding town halls at libraries and high school gyms, they are only going to reach a small percentage of the democratic electorate face-to-face even in small states, let alone large states and the national democratic electorate.

Fifth, while that could be good news for Biden - because I agree he is a superior campaigner to Hillary and doesn't have an entrenched opposition even within his own party

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have used "retail politics" as I was using it in an atypical way. What I was trying to get at is Biden has the best chances to quickly unify the party if he becomes the nominee because of how good he is at working within the party and because he is the least likely of all candidates to face any kind of significant internal backlash. I still see this as a four (and really three) horse race, and I have a hard time seeing how Warren, Sanders and Harris will be able to quickly unify the party. 

Quote

Fourth, while I thought Bernie was being his typical ornery, self-righteous, recalcitrant self by staying in so long, he deserves none of the blame for Hillary's troubles.  The aforementioned turnout and third party issues (as well as Obama-Trump voters, for that matter) were the result of Hillary's deficiencies as a candidate and campaigner, plain and simple.  Sanders' relatively surprising primary success was a symptom not the cause of a large swath of Democratic (and Independent) voters who had held at least a distaste for her for decades (myself included, although I certainly never considered supporting Bernie).   

I agree with your assessment of Hillary's campaign deficiencies, but I don't think Sanders is entirely blameless. Sander's desperation forced him to hit Hillary harder than he otherwise had, and it further entrenched his supporters dislike of Clinton and decreased the chances that some might vote for her. Given how narrow the margins were, I'd say that played a role in her defeat.

Quote

Seventh, and finally, just as Bernie should have dropped out after Super Tuesday, Hillary should have dropped out after Obama rattled off 10 straight primaries in February 2008 - building a similarly insurmountable delegate lead.  

Agreed, and in a small way it hurt her in 2016 that she didn't. 

 

And with that, the regularly required relitigation of 2016 has occurred :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What I was trying to get at is Biden has the best chances to quickly unify the party if he becomes the nominee because of how good he is at working within the party and because he is the least likely of all candidates to face any kind of significant internal backlash. I still see this as a four (and really three) horse race, and I have a hard time seeing how Warren, Sanders and Harris will be able to quickly unify the party. 

Ah.  Well I just wrote a lot due to a misunderstanding then.  Anyway, I don't know about that - I agree on Sanders of course.  Warren still worries me a bit - maybe not within the party but in terms of driving away white male independents that do disapprove of Trump and probably lean Dem in the general with any of the other three, as well as perhaps also having a repeat of Clinton's AA turnout problem.  And I think Harris might have a easier/better time getting the left on board.  They may hate her due her prosecutorial record, but they hate Biden for lots of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ah.  Well I just wrote a lot due to a misunderstanding then.  Anyway, I don't know about that - I agree on Sanders of course.  Warren still worries me a bit - maybe not within the party but in terms of driving away white male independents that do disapprove of Trump and probably lean Dem in the general with any of the other three, as well as perhaps also having a repeat of Clinton's AA turnout problem.  And I think Harris might have a easier/better time getting the left on board.  They may hate her due her prosecutorial record, but they hate Biden for lots of reasons.

Lol, when I saw the length of your post I was curious if I hit a nerve or something. 

I agree Warren has a chance Sanders likely won't have, but I don't know if I'm as worried as you (though I still am worried). It seems like she's found her voice in the last few months. I always thought she was a bit timid, but lately she's been on the attack, which is great to see. She's probably my number two choice at this point. I also am getting higher on Castro, but he's still a long shot (great VP option though, assuming Biden isn't the nominee). With Harris, I feel like she's going to have to play so much hardball to actually win, and that could leave a wake of bodies trailing her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

They’re probably trying to avoid the right wing media taking that statement and putting it in a commercial as just “Taxes will go up!”

It’s a rather small minority of people that pay attention to news/politics all the time and will actually know or go out to learn the nuance and truth in those things, or even know what Medicare for all means. Most Americans are so disconnected from the workings of any true universal healthcare system that they imagine they’ll still need to pay insurance premiums and that their taxes will go up on top of that. Warren and, to a lesser extent, Sanders, don’t want to hand ammunition to the Right that will be used to confirm that misinformation and misunderstandings.

Yeah, I get that, but I was referring to Warren specifically being asked if her healthcare plan would affect middle-class taxes, and she kind of just did the side-step and didn't answer the question.  I feel like this is the messaging shit that needs to get straightened out - the thing is that I've heard that clip that made me post that a couple times on the radio today, I feel like she missed a good opportunity to correct this common misunderstanding.  

I know that the Repubs are always going to be pushing the "Dems tax us all to death for social programs that only poor, brown, or drug addicts qualify for", and this was an easy spot to counter that.  

Eta: my point was she was basically perpetuating that misunderstanding by avoiding that specific question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best government money can buy.

Health groups backed dark money campaign to sink 'surprise' billing fix

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/health-groups-dark-money-hospital-bills-legislation-1495697

Quote

 

A group calling itself Doctor Patient Unity has spent nearly $30 million on a campaign designed to kill the leading congressional legislation that would make it harder for hospitals and doctors to spring massive, unexpected bills on patients.

Its funding source has been secret thanks to the rules surrounding this “dark money” group, but multiple sources tell POLITICO that doctor staffing firms Envision Healthcare and TeamHealth are significant sponsors — showing just how powerful corporate medicine has become in trying to derail changes to a system that has put thousands of Americans in debt.

The group emerged shortly before Congress' August recess and began running $28.6 million in ads targeting prominent lawmakers, according to Advertising Analytics, an independent tracking firm. The goal was to stop legislation that would hold insured patients harmless for sometimes staggering bills for out-of-network care by setting federal rates to resolve billing disputes. Both the Senate health and House Energy and Commerce committees have passed versions of this policy.

The two health staffing companies have both previously been accused of shifting the cost of uncompensated care in billing disputes to patients. Both say that's no longer the case and that they support a federal solution to surprise billings. But they don't like the congressional panels' approach, which they call government "rate-setting." Their involvement was first reported by the New York Times.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

When you wrote about this last winter you suggested that there were four powerful checks on this possibility: the Electoral College, Congress, state governors, and the Defense Department. I wonder if you are more or less sanguine about each of them, seven months later?

I’m an optimistic guy, but I have to be less sanguine—because, seven months later, I haven’t seen any of these checks taking seriously this concern. In fairness, some need prompting to do so. For example, it’s the political parties that should require their electors for the Electoral College to pledge that they won’t withhold, delay, or alter their votes based on the claims or protestations of any candidate, including Trump himself. But I don’t see the parties requiring that, or even discussing whether to require it. And others—such as Congress or state governors—don’t need prompting at all to make the sort of commitments I urged back in February. Yet they don’t seem to be making those commitments. And remember: This is about ensuring that valid election results are respected, whichever way that cuts. That shouldn’t be controversial.

 

What Happens if Trump Won’t Step Down?
National security expert Josh Geltzer on why we should be prepared for the worst.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/joshua-geltzer-election-peaceful-transition-of-power-donald-trump.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Whistleblower complaint found to be both 'urgent' and 'credible'—but the White House is hiding it ..."

What can it be?  Has this cretinous traitor provided enormously sensitive National Security information to Putin, the Saudis, ?????

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/14/1885451/-Whistleblower-complaint-found-to-be-both-urgent-and-credible-but-the-White-House-is-hiding-it

 

Quote

 

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has issued a press release and a subpoena to the acting Director of National Intelligence over a subject that looks deeply concerning. A month ago, someone inside the U.S. intelligence community filed a whistleblower complaint alleging a “flagrant problem” or “violation of the law.” That complaint appears to have been aimed directly at actions by acting DNI Joseph Maguire. Since that filing, the Inspector General for the intelligence community has looked into the matter and found that it’s not only “credible,” but an “urgent concern.”

A month later, this urgent concern about a flagrant violation is still being hidden by Maguire. The clock ran out for Maguire to release this whistleblower report on Sept. 3. But he did not release it. In fact, he didn’t even let Congress know that there was such a report.

As Schiff notes, even if the original report didn’t allege a violation of the law, the failure to release the report absolutely is a violation of the law. This instance is both extremely serious and utterly unprecedented.

“A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the IC IG determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees. Never. This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...