Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Mickey Mouse Operation

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

:lmao:

On behalf of all the internet pervs.

Thank you.

(somehow I have the odd feeling, that I really should add, that it was a freaking joke (obviously), and that I don't think Ty is into that revenge porn thing).

Talking about jokes - and to get back into Stupid Watergate. Graham is hellbent on wrecking any last shred of credibility he might have had, isn't he?

Of course not, you kinky German freak. I just keep them to remind myself who the fling was given I never save the numbers, and occasionally a drunken me will reach out for some late night action.

As far as Graham goes, he still has credibility? I thought he lost the last shred of that when he stabbed his “best friend” in the back to save his political career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big person from Dept. of Education is retiring and ripping the student loan system as he goes out saying we should have mass-forgiveness.  Trump apointee.

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Triskele said:

A big person from Dept. of Education is retiring and ripping the student loan system as he goes out saying we should have made-forgiveness.  Trump apointee.

And he was actually a CEO at several loan profiteering companies before this (obviously why he was hired). It's kind of an amazing development that would be a big deal in any sane administration but it's like the 350th most noteworthy thing to come out of Washington today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, argonak said:

These tactics are straight out of the fascist playbook.  We ignore them at our peril.  Each step they take us closer to out and out violence and political intimidation.  These people clearly have no respect for our laws or our processes.  This is going to get worse.

I really do think this is alarmist.  Sorry, but the GOP pulling a stunt like this does not signify the path to fascism.  This is the same party that shut down the government and played with the debt ceiling during the Obama administration.  They've engaged in much more dangerous stunts.  Does that mean they're inching towards fascism?  I mean, I guess, in terms of they've been growing further and further extremist right for about 35-40 years now. 

But singling this bullshit out - which was clearly just a way to appease Trump's whining - seems an all-too-typical overreaction.  Sometimes I wonder what the reaction would be on these threads if I played you guys certain selections from the Nixon - and LBJ - tapes.  Talk about straight out of the fascist playbook.  Those white supremacists intent on committing violence are going to commit violence regardless of something that amounts to a douchebag frat prank that violated national security.  I don't see any correlation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 7:01 AM, Zorral said:

CNN reports the room is still uncleared. The hearings are not going on.  It's a coup via shutting down the process of impeachment.

 

How many steps removed are they from bearing arms against govt tyranny?

Share this post


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

I really do think this is alarmist.  Sorry, but the GOP pulling a stunt like this does not signify the path to fascism.  This is the same party that shut down the government and played with the debt ceiling during the Obama administration.  They've engaged in much more dangerous stunts.  Does that mean they're inching towards fascism?  I mean, I guess, in terms of they've been growing further and further extremist right for about 35-40 years now. 

But singling this bullshit out - which was clearly just a way to appease Trump's whining - seems an all-too-typical overreaction.  Sometimes I wonder what the reaction would be on these threads if I played you guys certain selections from the Nixon - and LBJ - tapes.  Talk about straight out of the fascist playbook.  Those white supremacists intent on committing violence are going to commit violence regardless of something that amounts to a douchebag frat prank that violated national security.  I don't see any correlation here.

But doesn't that mean they will get to a breaking point and shit will really hit the fan, and not just be isolated individuals / fringe of fringe groups who start with the violence?

Singling out one event is like singling out one hurricane and saying "see climate change is real". It's not one event on its own, its when it's one among a the pattern of events that's pointing to a particular threat to the safety and stability of the society. Conversely, dismissing one mass shooting as not being a reason to bring in tighter gun laws when mass shootings are happening on a regular basis is downplaying what could well be a significant crisis.

What's the broader context of this Capitol invasion? Is it an isolated single event, or is it an escalation in a concerning pattern of behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's not one event on its own, its when it's one among a the pattern of events that's pointing to a particular threat to the safety and stability of the society.

That's the point though.  This is indeed one among a pattern with the GOP.  A pattern with myriad examples that, in its current form, can go back 40 years, at least.  Overall, partisan theatrics is kind of a part of American history.  And political party history, for that matter.  Was reading the details yesterday of when they "stormed" in, and I think my favorite quote was from one Dem Rep who essentially responded "don't you guys have anything better to do?"  Indeed. 

This isn't a "coup."  It's one faction of the House trying to distract from Taylor's damaging testimony by disrupting the workday of the other faction of the House.  And in that vein, the best response is no response because that's the best way to not distract from the abuses of power committed by the Trump administration.  It will not disrupt the stability of the republic any more than your average Trump tweet degrades our national image.  There are security concerns, sure, but other than, it's all just more horseshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else kind of astounded about how Biden's fundraising looks like shit but his poll numbers aren't budging and are maybe even improving?  

When I hear things like "that's not where the party is" or variations of it I've tended to agree, but when I see how consistently Biden's position has held I think something like "there's more to this party than we think" or something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Barr has now opened a criminal investigation into the origins of the Russian election interference investigation.

Way to go, Republicans, undermine the duties of the various intelligence divisions! All to satisfy the orange monster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Triskele said:

Anyone else kind of astounded about how Biden's fundraising looks like shit but his poll numbers aren't budging and are maybe even improving?  

When I hear things like "that's not where the party is" or variations of it I've tended to agree, but when I see how consistently Biden's position has held I think something like "there's more to this party than we think" or something.  

It's not really that surprising. Biden doesn't have any particularly fanatical following, which means they're not doing small donations. He's not very good at campaigning so far, so he's not drumming up more support. He's basically got all the lazy dems who aren't sure about anyone else. 

Normally he'd be getting the large money donations too, but Buttigieg is eating his lunch there. And I guess normally he'd be getting money from the likes of Steyer, but again - oops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said a couple weeks ago, it's time to recognize that Biden's support is durable and unlikely to dissipate without something unanticipated happening.  He's even recovered from a brief Warren surge the first week this month.  His porous fundraising is an important indicator, but he'll have enough money to at least get him to when people start voting in February.  Hate it when this happens, but I agree with Silver that it's pretty bonkers that the candidate who has maintained a lead in polling average since announcing (and before, for that matter) has hovered around only 20-25 percent in the betting markets - and this mostly reflects that the people who both produce and consume political media are well-educated coastal elites (..*raises hand*).

That being said, while Biden looks he'll be fine for the time being outside of some unknown inflection point or debate debacle, he has a clear vulnerability once voting starts:  he is losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the trend lines in both don't look too encouraging (especially Iowa).  If he doesn't win either, it's very easy to envision a rather rapid collapse of support.  And that's because of his manifest vulnerability - including his fundraising weakness and the distaste of many party activists.

Thing is though, he does seem to have a firewall in South Carolina.  It's very hard to see Buttigieg eating into Biden's support among South Carolinian African Americans even if he gets some run following a strong showing in Iowa.  The only way I see Warren even getting that support is if she wins both IA and NH, in which case she's almost certainly gonna be the nominee anyway.  Weirdly, Biden has benefited from how the primary has evolved.  A potential Buttigieg surge probably hurts Warren just as much as Biden, and his main competitors for the black vote - Harris and Booker - don't look to be emergent anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Robertson compares Trump to Neville Chamberlain:  

Quote

Robertson believes that American withdrawal from the region will embolden other enemies to make plays for territory much like Hitler did, stating "The Kurds, we have abandoned them. They are being slaughtered by the Turks and we have given a major port of Syria, and I promise you as I'm sitting here right now, Russia is going to come against us, Turkey is going to come against us, China is going to come against us, North Korea is going to come against us."

Coupled with recent troubling poll numbers with white evangelicals, Syria has the potential to be far more threatening to Trump's reelection hopes than impeachment.  Trump won 81% of white evangelicals in 2016, and he absolutely needs at least that margin - and turnout - to win again:

Quote

63 percent of white evangelical Protestants in the PRRI study said terrorism is a major concern for them — more than immigration (55 percent), which has been Trump’s single biggest issue, or health care (53 percent). Those figures come amid warnings that the U.S. pullout from Syria could rekindle terrorism in Europe and cause a resurgence of the Islamic State. Already, a separate NPR/Marist survey found that nearly 30% of white evangelicals believe U.S. security has been weakened by Trump.

To be fair, that PRRI poll also showed 99% of GOP white evangelicals oppose impeachment and removal.

Share this post


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

That being said, while Biden looks he'll be fine for the time being outside of some unknown inflection point or debate debacle, he has a clear vulnerability once voting starts:  he is losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the trend lines in both don't look too encouraging (especially Iowa).  If he doesn't win either, it's very easy to envision a rather rapid collapse of support.  And that's because of his manifest vulnerability - including his fundraising weakness and the distaste of many party activists.

Thing is though, he does seem to have a firewall in South Carolina.  It's very hard to see Buttigieg eating into Biden's support among South Carolinian African Americans even if he gets some run following a strong showing in Iowa.  The only way I see Warren even getting that support is if she wins both IA and NH, in which case she's almost certainly gonna be the nominee anyway.  Weirdly, Biden has benefited from how the primary has evolved.  A potential Buttigieg surge probably hurts Warren just as much as Biden, and his main competitors for the black vote - Harris and Booker - don't look to be emergent anytime soon.

But remember that Nevada votes before South Carolina as well.  While Biden has polled well with Latinos, it is nowhere near as well as his support in the AA community.  Warren has been making a strong push in Nevada, and if she wins NH (which looks likely) and gets top 2 in Iowa, I could easily see her winning Nevada as well.  In that scenario, Biden might turn into a rerun of 2008's Guiliani campaign, where he was the frontrunner but polled badly in early states so he committed to campaigning in Florida (which voted fifth), and lost all momentum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But remember that Nevada votes before South Carolina as well.

I'll believe Nevada has a significant impact on the race when I see it.  I'm not sure why it doesn't, but I think a lot of it has do to with being a Saturday primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabbard is claiming that she’s going to give up running for re-election in her district to focus on the presidential campaign.

Now that’s what I call good news! Might even be worth popping champagne over if it meant she was going away forever, but sadly I’m sure she has a lucrative career ahead of her going on right wing media and being their pet ex-Democrat who spends all her time talking and writing books about how terrible Democrats and liberals are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

I'll believe Nevada has a significant impact on the race when I see it.  I'm not sure why it doesn't, but I think a lot of it has do to with being a Saturday primary.

It's clearly the 4th more important, but if it feeds the narrative that Biden is losing momentum, it could be very important nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

It's clearly the 4th more important, but if it feeds the narrative that Biden is losing momentum, it could be very important nonetheless. 

Yeah, maybe.  But Biden's still looking better there than IA and NH, albeit with sparse and older polling - both of which are also reasons I didn't mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 writing books about how terrible Democrats and liberals are

yeah, she should be cautious of strange political bedfellows.  a marxist radical and a de maistrean reactionary might both have systemic objections to liberal capitalism, but the premises of the objections are completely antagonistic to each other: too little/too late versus too much/too soon.  if either objects to liberalism, they object to each other a fortiori. 

the comical thing is that this a fortiori objection does not always occur in the laboratory of history--we see fascist theory before WWII thinking of bolshevism as merely a branch of 'manchester liberalism,' which is construed as the main enemy within the rightwing doctrine. this makes an easy transition to modern crypto-fascist accusations that vanilla liberals are secret socialists.  

ETA--

and is the human scum custom title taken yet?

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


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

 writing books about how terrible Democrats and liberals are

yeah, she should be cautious of strange political bedfellows.  a marxist radical and a de maistrean reactionary might both have systemic objections to liberal capitalism, but the premises of the objections are completely antagonistic to each other: too little/too late versus too much/too soon.  if either objects to liberalism, they object to each other a fortiori. 

the comical thing is that this a fortiori objection does not always occur in the laboratory of history--we see fascist theory before WWII thinking of bolshevism as merely a branch of 'manchester liberalism,' which is construed as the main enemy within the rightwing doctrine. this makes an easy transition to modern crypto-fascist accusations that vanilla liberals are secret socialists.  

ETA--

and is the human scum custom title taken yet?

Being human scum seems to involve being self identified as a Republican. Tempting as it seems as a title, give it a second thought. 

Share this post


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

×