Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lykos

US politics - When the Barr's so low.

Recommended Posts

Elijah Cummings passed away.  Politically, he was the chair of the House Oversight Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Elijah Cummings passed away.  Politically, he was the chair of the House Oversight Committee.

So he was basically unemployed then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about Warren's issues brought up by other candidates during the debate. I remember when Bernie first ran in 2016, and he began talking about middle class tax increases being necessary to fun better social programs and infrastructure (of course, the lion's share of taxes will not be on the middle class). I remember as a struggling middle class single parent, I didn't like this at all.

This time, he's been more precise in his language about it: "Yes, taxes will go up, but that increase for most Americans (not the rich) will translate into massive savings because 1.) you have no premium (which I hear loud an clear, for me and my son, we have 600+ a month in premiums, nearly 25 percent of my check) and 2.) you won't pay extra bills after already paying high premiums. Which again, that translates for me.

So I get it, but is this method still a losing strategy? I think it has to be better than not acknowledging it. 

Warren's great, but I think she needs good answers if she heads into the general elections. Working through difficult answers now is so important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

Elijah Cummings passed away.  Politically, he was the chair of the House Oversight Committee.

A big loss for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah not mentioning her was not an oversight - I think you want someone more qualified when you're 77.

Does that matter in a post-Trump world? It feels like relying on conventional norms is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back these days.

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Can you imagine Booker showing his age?  Can you imagine him being stumped by reporters question or giving cringe-worthy responses that become instant memes?*  Can you imagine him showing even the slightest sign of a lack of stamina?  

I have fond things to say about the three front-runners, but they all also seem so flawed, and I cannot believe that we're trying to save Democracy as we know it with any of the three of them.  I am grasping for an alternative.  I naively thought O'Rourke had potential which he obviously now does not.  I thought Harris seemed formidable too at one point but don't think it's her.  Pete has a lot of strengths and remains intriguing as an unconventional pick, but I see him really failing to catch fire with the Dem base.  

This is part of why the complaints about Booker baffle me.  He's not authentic enough?  Sure, I see that too.  And I"ve made the case that authenticity matters myself.  He's too cozy with wall street and pharma?  Sure, but we're going against Trump right now so that we even get to vote again someday.  

These things are actual flaws, but look at the rest of the candidates we have.  It is very easy to find flaws with all of them from many different angles.  

Booker has so many strengths though.  And he has game and energy and a keen-as-fuck mind.  And we're going against Trump.  And we're going with 70 year olds?  One is clearly in mental decline, another literally just had a heart attack.  

I am not in this post attempting to make even the slightest argument about who my preference is ideologically.  I am having my usual panic about how we're going to war to take out Trump and not feeling good about the generals we're going to war with.  

*everything and everyone's a meme now, I realize

He could be the first bald president!!!

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's remarkable how completely shitty most Republican candidates are and no one even gives a single fuck about that, but Democratic candidates have to shit gold and cum ice cream. 

Seriously, GWB was a shitty candidate that was proven shittier and then got even more votes in 2004. Trump was one of the worst candidates in living memory for anyone. It kind of completely sucks that the US is so right-leaning that the default is Republican, and a Democrat has to prove that people enjoy things like not dying and not having race wars.

Yeah, it’s just like hearing someone say “we’re not talking politics here.” What they’re really saying is “we’re not talking liberal politics here.”   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Does that matter in a post-Trump world? It feels like relying on conventional norms is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back these days.

I'm not sure qualifications like that mattered in a pre-Trump world.  Plus she does have a decade in the Georgia House, whatever that's worth.  OTOH, first and foremost, I'm still allowed to have my own personal standards - and she's very untested facing any type of real press scrutiny.  Second, it could create a narrative similar to McCain/Palin, wherein the old experienced candidate chooses a young (*cough* female!) running mate not ready for the job out of desperation.  In fact it would invite the right to depict her that way from the get-go, and you know they'll try their damnedest.

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He could be the first bald president!!!

Weren't most of the first presidents bald?  Isn't that why they all wore those wigs?  Decorum my ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DMC said:

Still, there's something about Booker I just don't trust, and the last time I had that feeling for a Democratic presidential candidate it was John Edwards.  So, that's my hangup.

Agreed. Something about him just feels fake, and I have a hard time buying someone who is essentially selling themselves as a perfect human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I was thinking about Warren's issues brought up by other candidates during the debate. I remember when Bernie first ran in 2016, and he began talking about middle class tax increases being necessary to fun better social programs and infrastructure (of course, the lion's share of taxes will not be on the middle class). I remember as a struggling middle class single parent, I didn't like this at all.

This time, he's been more precise in his language about it: "Yes, taxes will go up, but that increase for most Americans (not the rich) will translate into massive savings because 1.) you have no premium (which I hear loud an clear, for me and my son, we have 600+ a month in premiums, nearly 25 percent of my check) and 2.) you won't pay extra bills after already paying high premiums. Which again, that translates for me.

So I get it, but is this method still a losing strategy? I think it has to be better than not acknowledging it. 

Warren's great, but I think she needs good answers if she heads into the general elections. Working through difficult answers now is so important.

Yes, they need to make it clear that people are ALREADY paying a massive amount of money for health insurance, between themselves and their employer, and that money would just instead go to medicare.  Medicare which has the lowest costs and no profit incentive.

There are certain services which we cannot afford as as society to allow to be run as unregulated private entities.  Fire departments, Police departments, water and electricity.  Health care and internet should be added to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. Something about him just feels fake, and I have a hard time buying someone who is essentially selling themselves as a perfect human being.

I'm really frustrated by the infighting amongst the DNC.  A political party should be better organized than this.   At this point I'd almost vote for a literal donkey over Trump.  Someone doing literally nothing would have run the executive branch better than mr orange ove the past few years.

Hell with the economy the way it is, the donkey would get re-elected.

Edited by argonak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure qualifications like that mattered in a pre-Trump world.  Plus she does have a decade in the Georgia House, whatever that's worth.  OTOH, first and foremost, I'm still allowed to have my own personal standards - and she's very untested facing any type of real press scrutiny.  Second, it could create a narrative similar to McCain/Palin, wherein the old experienced candidate chooses a young (*cough* female!) running mate not ready for the job out of desperation.  In fact it would invite the right to depict her that way from the get-go, and you know they'll try their damnedest.

Weren't most of the first presidents bald?  Isn't that why they all wore those wigs?  Decorum my ass.

Eisenhower and Ford were both bald. Tywin seems to think "bald" is a synonym for "fully shaved head." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon Sondland on why he told Bill Taylor to stop texting:

Quote

“Any implication that I was trying to avoid making a record of our conversation is completely false. In my view, diplomacy is best handled through back-and-forth conversation.”

Uh...isn't texting a back-and-forth conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So of all the craziness and general shittiness of the news cycle lately, Something cut through the awful to actually make me laugh (and not in a good way).

It's regarding the story of Trump inviting the family of the British boy killed by a US diplomat to meet said diplomat candid camera style. Trump, of course, said "Boris asked him to do it" - it wasn't his idea, of course not, he's just trying to help a friend. Boris says, "uh, no. Don't pin that shit on me dude."

It's just the daily (hourly) reminder that under all of the very serious shit the president has done, there's a layer of ridiculousness that your brain can't even hold. He's done so much clowntastic crap that I've already forgotten and at the time was sure nothing could top that. I've had to be reminded that his press secretary was caught literally hiding in the bushes, he used a ceremony honoring native American vets to press a Pocahontas joke, his insistence on that crazy handshake / yank that he thinks is strong.

Of course we're getting the book on the horrible crimes and misjudgements of Donald J Trump, I just really want to make sure we get the book that showcases his buffoonery because we need to remember that shit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Gordon Sondland on why he told Bill Taylor to stop texting:

Uh...isn't texting a back-and-forth conversation?

The online Merriam Webster definition of conversation:

Quote

 

a(1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas… "we had talk enough but no conversation; there was nothing discussed.— "Samuel Johnson

(2): an instance of such exchange : TALK "a quiet conversation"

b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups "conversations among the senators"

c: an exchange similar to conversation "We had a conversation by e-mail."

 

As a 68 year old myself, my first reaction to the word "conversation" is to think it only refers to oral communication, as per the first definition. "Conversation" by texting or email strikes me as a very new use of the word and I don't think Sondland should be criticized for that word choice if what he meant was he thinks diplomacy is best done by oral communication. 

(I think he's probably lying; it's just that I think his meaning is clear to me.)

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And amidst all this shit, the WH just announced that the G7 will indeed be held at Trump's property, because of course it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Eisenhower and Ford were both bald. Tywin seems to think "bald" is a synonym for "fully shaved head." 

Nah, just cracking a joke about how appearances impact presidential campaigns. You’re fighting a real uphill fight if you’re a short, fat, bald and bearded man running for president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ormond said:

(I think he's probably lying; it's just that I think his meaning is clear to me.)

As a 34 year-old myself I avoided texting as long as pragmatically possible.  But now my mom mostly communicates by text.  Anyway, the above was my point, and the focus was more on the "back-and-forth" aspect than the definition of conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

And amidst all this shit, the WH just announced that the G7 will indeed be held at Trump's property, because of course it will.

They're just going for it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the "NO QUID PRO QUO!" defense...

From what I'm seeing on social media, this presser was nuts. They also announced that next year's G7 will be at a Trump property and they don't care at all how that looks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Eisenhower and Ford were both bald. Tywin seems to think "bald" is a synonym for "fully shaved head." 

Martin Van Buren, that old genocidal freak, was also bald.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...