U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I mistyped.  I was trying to say “major party” not “majority”.

The typo really doesn’t change a thing. Major parties also shoot themselves in the foot. Just look at Brexit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The typo really doesn’t change a thing. Major parties also shoot themselves in the foot. Just look at Brexit.

I disagree.  Why would a party deliberately nominate someone legally ineligible for the office they are nominating them for.  What a waste of time and effort.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  Why would a party deliberately nominate someone legally ineligible for the office they are nominating them for.  What a waste of time and effort.

Idk man, Democrats do dumb things. I’ve seen it up close. They wouldn’t nominate someone ineligible for an office, but never underestimate Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Just look at what FB wrote at the end of the last page. Democrats keep allowing Republicans to project their own actions onto themselves. Why not stand up and fight back? Oh wait, that makes too much sense.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And so with that the die is cast. Interesting that leadership decided to go narrow instead of wide. My best guess is they know there’s no chance he’s being removed so they’re protecting their 2020 candidates.  

I wish they would have just tried to impeach 10 months ago on emoluments and human rights violations like kids in cages.  Would have been much easier for people to understand and this Horowitz report is going to be pro-Trump gold.

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And so with that the die is cast. Interesting that leadership decided to go narrow instead of wide. My best guess is they know there’s no chance he’s being removed so they’re protecting their 2020 candidates.  

The two articles are exactly what's been expected for weeks now, so I definitely don't think that's surprising.  I suppose there was a last minute push to add a Mueller obstruction of justice charge after last week's hearings.  But the only political reason I've heard to add that one is so Dem MCs in Trump-won districts could vote against one of the articles to show their "independence."  But that's just overthinking things and way too inside-baseball.  

Anyway, man, y'all are a bunch of Eeyores today.  I'm not sure about coupling the revised NAFTA deal on the exact same day as impeachment, but Pelosi definitely wanted get the deal done soon for fairly obvious political reasons.  Moderate Dems desperately wanted this so they could take some type of legislative victory home to their constituents.  Plus, leaving the trade deal to a presidential election year would mean you're almost certainly not gonna reach an agreement - that's what held up passing the original NAFTA for almost two years.  Plus plus, Pelosi has to get this deal through, work out a budget deal, and impeach the president all before Christmas.  She legitimately is racing against the clock.

Moreover, getting Trump, the Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO (let alone Mexico and Canada) to all agree on a trade deal is a pretty damn remarkable legislative accomplishment for Pelosi.  Yes, it's a political victory for Trump, but this isn't a zero-sum game - it's also a political victory for House Democrats.  Over the past year Pelosi has secured a number of concessions that have managed to get the unions on board.  Remember Trump basically had a deal with Canada and Mexico a year ago, it's Pelosi who has pulled that deal significantly and consistently to the left.  

Anyway, the impeachment of the president was not able to get Trump's approval to budge one way or another.  Does anybody really think there are voters out there saying, "Gee, I was for removing Trump from office, but now that they got this trade agreement..."? 

Finally, why the hell would the Horowitz report be good for Trump?  If that's the case, someone should tell Bill Barr to stop attacking his own IG and his report.  

[The Anti-Targ]

16 hours ago, felice said:

People do have to pick and choose what they read - there's far, far too much data available these days for any one person to absorb more than a tiny fraction of it. The media are absolutely responsible for the impressions given by misleading headlines etc.

Yes they do. But then, they should only wax lyrical about articles they have read beyond the headline and click bait caption. But we should not refrain from criticising media for putting misleading statements in headlines and captions when it appears to be a deliberate tactic. If they want to do that they should just turn themselves into unabashed gossip mags and drop any pretense to being genuine journalism.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

 Moreover, getting Trump, the Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO (let alone Mexico and Canada) to all agree on a trade deal is a pretty damn remarkable legislative accomplishment for Pelosi.  Yes, it's a political victory for Trump, but this isn't a zero-sum game - it's also a political victory for House Democrats.  Over the past year Pelosi has secured a number of concessions that have managed to get the unions on board.  Remember Trump basically had a deal with Canada and Mexico a year ago, it's Pelosi who has pulled that deal significantly and consistently to the left.  

I think that keeping the House while Trump is in office for another 4 years is far worse than losing the House and kicking Trump out. That is absolutely a zero-sum game. And House Democrats will not do well if Trump is doing well in an election year anyway, so chances are good that both things got hurt there. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Anyway, the impeachment of the president was not able to get Trump's approval to budge one way or another.  Does anybody really think there are voters out there saying, "Gee, I was for removing Trump from office, but now that they got this trade agreement..."? 

I think that there exists a whole lot of low-information voters who will look at the few accomplishments he has and say 'good enough', and anything that improves those accomplishments in their mind is bad. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Finally, why the hell would the Horowitz report be good for Trump?  If that's the case, someone should tell Bill Barr to stop attacking his own IG and his report.  

Because it proves the Carter Page thing, or at least gives credit to it. All the other stuff is bullshit, but just like the Mueller report anything that has even a small amount of backing to his lies will help him tremendously, and all the majority of stuff is ignored.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that keeping the House while Trump is in office for another 4 years is far worse than losing the House and kicking Trump out. That is absolutely a zero-sum game.

First, your calculus is different than Pelosi's, whose job it is to protect her caucus.  Second, waiting to make a deal "until there is a Democratic president" is playing with dynamite.  There's no way to predict what Trump may do in the meantime, so of course there's no way to predict whether Dem intransigence on making a deal would help or hurt his reelection chances.  Pelosi always takes the risk averse course.  I don't know if that's the right move here, but I'm not surprised she's taking the tack of "when in doubt, take the deal that actually reduces uncertainty for millions of workers."  Moreover, while it may not play like this politically I agree, this was a legislative victory for Pelosi.  She moved the status quo significantly to her side and engineered a much better policy outcome.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that there exists a whole lot of low-information voters who will look at the few accomplishments he has and say 'good enough', and anything that improves those accomplishments in their mind is bad. 

I think if you're a low-information voter you're entirely unlikely to base your vote choice on a trade deal.

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

All the other stuff is bullshit, but just like the Mueller report anything that has even a small amount of backing to his lies will help him tremendously, and all the majority of stuff is ignored.

It doesn't help him tremendously, and neither did the Mueller report.  Both just reinforce opinions on each side.  And, as per usual, the administration is already muddling their Orwellian propaganda by Barr attacking the report while Trump is saying it validates his bullshit.

[Zorral]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/trump-order-judaism-nationality/index.html

Quote

 

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Wednesday to interpret Judaism as a nationality and not just a religion, a move that the Trump administration believes will fight what they perceive as anti-Semitism on college campuses, a White House official said.

The impending order was first reported by The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/us/politics/trump-antisemitism-executive-order.html?

" .... The order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion, to prompt a federal law penalizing colleges and universities deemed to be shirking their responsibility to foster an open climate for minority students ..."

The move would trigger a portion of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that requires educational institutions receiving federal funding to not discriminate based on national origin, according to senior administration officials. The Department of Education can withhold federal funding from any college or educational program that discriminates based on race, color or national origin, according to the Civil Rights Act.

Religion is not covered in that portion of the law so the administration would have to interpret Judaism as a nationality in order to potentially punish universities for violations

 

.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

First, your calculus is different than Pelosi's, whose job it is to protect her caucus. 

You're right; my calculus is to protect my son. I think that she's making a very stupid mistake. 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Pelosi always takes the risk averse course.  I don't know if that's the right move here, but I'm not surprised she's taking the tack of "when in doubt, take the deal that actually reduces uncertainty for millions of workers."

I'm sure that's the case. Dems are in general actually trying to govern, still, and do things that help people, instead of do whatever it takes to get their political agenda across the line. I admire their tenacity in the face of doom, but it still leads to yet another advantage for Trump. This asymmetrical warfare bullshit kind of sucks. 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

  Moreover, while it may not play like this politically I agree, this was a legislative victory for Pelosi.  She moved the status quo significantly to her side and engineered a much better policy outcome. 

I don't see how it's her victory. What, she got her caucus to vote on the deal that Trump authored? How is that her victory? It's not her law, she didn't get any real concessions for it (I realize that she DID, but it's very hard to point to anything that doesn't require a lot of talking to). Trump wanted a new trade deal, he got Pelosi to give him one. It shows that he can get dems to actually agree with him and work with him, and that means he gets that wonderful 'will do bipartisan' thing, all the while painting the dems as the partisan party. 

I'm sure it'll  do great for some capitalists and improve the life a small deal of a few people too. It'll also mean the US completely withdraws from the Paris agreement, we slide more into authoritarianism and kleptocracy, and 2024 will be an electioneering hellscape where some Republican asshat will win with 40% of the vote. 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

It doesn't help him tremendously, and neither did the Mueller report. 

So you admit that it does help him, and when you asked 'how does it help him' this answers your question? Good talk. 

 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that she's making a very stupid mistake. 

I think we've both agreed for years now there's very little that's going to change people's perceptions on Trump.  Why do you think that a trade bill passed in December is going to be impactful enough in November so as to be "very stupid?"

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I admire their tenacity in the face of doom, but it still leads to yet another advantage for Trump. This asymmetrical warfare bullshit kind of sucks.

This gets back to the zero-sum game thing.  It's not a zero-sum game when uncertainty is involved.  That's literally how game theory evolved.  Pelosi is taking the safe course, and while I can't tell you that's the best possible strategy, you can't tell me it isn't.  I think it's hard to fault her for this considering it's pretty much worked thus far with the shutdown and with impeachment.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What, she got her caucus to vote on the deal that Trump authored? How is that her victory?

She got the AFL-CIO to say this was a "vast improvement" over NAFTA, while still keeping the establishment GOP (e.g. the Chamber of Commerce) and Trump on board.  How is that not a victory?  That would be a huge accomplishment 25 years ago.  Now?  Are you serious?

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It shows that he can get dems to actually agree with him and work with him, and that means he gets that wonderful 'will do bipartisan' thing, all the while painting the dems as the partisan party. 

Again, this is just Eeyore thinking.  If anyone thinks this shows how much Trump is bipartisan and the Dems somehow are not, then they were going to vote for Trump anyway.  Most "low-information" voters probably aren't even aware of the trade deal yet.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So you admit that it does help him, and when you asked 'how does it help him' this answers your question? Good talk. 

Uh, what?  You said it "helped him tremendously."  And I said it didn't help him because that's ridiculous, it just reinforced existing positions.  So sure, good talk, you're wrong.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think we've both agreed for years now there's very little that's going to change people's perceptions on Trump.  Why do you think that a trade bill passed in December is going to be impactful enough in November so as to be "very stupid?"

Because the people who matter in this election are the ones who want to look at wins like this. This doesn't matter to, like, 97% of the population in any way nor does it affect the election in any way, but it plays GREAT to the auto workers and the factory workers in the midwest, some of whom might have stayed home. They get to hear how Trump passed a great trade agreement that even the AFL-CIO likes. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

This gets back to the zero-sum game thing.  It's not a zero-sum game when uncertainty is involved.  That's literally how game theory evolved.  Pelosi is taking the safe course, and while I can't tell you that's the best possible strategy, you can't tell me it isn't.  I think it's hard to fault her for this considering it's pretty much worked thus far with the shutdown and with impeachment. 

Is Trump out of office? Are any of her caucus re-elected yet? I don't see what she's gained so far. She hasn't lost ground too much (only a couple points in the generic rep/dem poll), but the idea that this is actually working is certainly not backed by evidence. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

She got the AFL-CIO to say this was a "vast improvement" over NAFTA, while still keeping the establishment GOP (e.g. the Chamber of Commerce) and Trump on board.  How is that not a victory?  That would be a huge accomplishment 25 years ago.  Now?  Are you serious? 

25 years ago we didn't have Trump. And while I think it's an improvement in a lot of ways, it doesn't matter so long as Trump can claim a major victory, which he can. It wasn't her deal, it wasn't her proposal, and no one is going to look back on this and say that Pelosi made a great deal. She's still playing a political game of multiple winners and mutual benefit. That isn't the game we have now. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, this is just Eeyore thinking.  If anyone thinks this shows how much Trump is bipartisan and the Dems somehow are not, then they were going to vote for Trump anyway.  Most "low-information" voters probably aren't even aware of the trade deal yet. 

They will be though. I don't care about now, I care about in October where he's saying how he got this great trade deal through with bipartisan support while the dems simply were trying to impeach him without any other support. And he'll be right, even! Again, asymmetry - Dems want to actually govern, and that means they can cut deals. Republicans are not willing in the least to do this, and so dems get nothing done when they have power. To me, this would enforce the idea that if you want something done, you need a Republican POTUS, and we've heard that kind of thinking before - as wrong and hideous as it is. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, what?  You said it "helped him tremendously."  And I said it didn't help him because that's ridiculous, it just reinforced existing positions.  So sure, good talk, you're wrong.

You're right, I said it helped him tremendously. You asked how it helped him at all. And instead of talking about impeachment when the articles were announced, he got to flood the airwaves with a whole lot of I told you sos. That's a pretty big deal, IMO. 

Though I really should have been more clear - basically anything that simply reinforces existing positions is a win for Trump. He's the incumbent, he's the one with the defensive position, he's the one that needs a chink in the armor. Anything that lets him buy time or keeps things as they are is a win for him. One that he can actually use in campaign ads and debates? Even better. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This doesn't matter to, like, 97% of the population in any way nor does it affect the election in any way, but it plays GREAT to the auto workers and the factory workers in the midwest, some of whom might have stayed home. They get to hear how Trump passed a great trade agreement that even the AFL-CIO likes. 

First, it's unfounded to say this magical three percent are primarily auto/factory workers from the midwest.  But let's say they are.  You think you're gonna get their vote be being obstinate about a NAFTA reform agreement until a Democrat is elected president?  Maybe that will work, but I definitely wouldn't hang my hat on that.  Much rather have the unions like the AFL-CIO champion Pelosi with the credit for gaining concessions they were seeking.  Hard to argue with that politically, let alone the policy implications.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Is Trump out of office? Are any of her caucus re-elected yet? I don't see what she's gained so far. She hasn't lost ground too much (only a couple points in the generic rep/dem poll), but the idea that this is actually working is certainly not backed by evidence. 

What the hell kind of stupid questions are those?  The point is that trying to gauge what will work or not in defeating Trump is not as simple as being like "this will hurt or help Trump."  Therefore, it's not a zero-sum game.  The cautious route may well be what both Trump and Pelosi prefers right now.  That doesn't necessarily mean either is wrong, unless they have a time machine.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It wasn't her deal, it wasn't her proposal, and no one is going to look back on this and say that Pelosi made a great deal. She's still playing a political game of multiple winners and mutual benefit. That isn't the game we have now. 

I think this is just wrong.  I guarantee you if this deal goes through almost every educated write up on the process will identify Pelosi as the catalyst and dealmaker.  Like I said, I agree with you that might not be the case politically, but you're vastly overestimating the costs of Trump getting a slight bump in the polls over the holidays (which usually happens for a president anyway) in relation to the benefits of agreeing to a deal palatable to most rather than leaving NAFTA's future in Trump's hands for the next eleven months.  Talk about giving a kid a pony on Christmas.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And instead of talking about impeachment when the articles were announced, he got to flood the airwaves with a whole lot of I told you sos. That's a pretty big deal, IMO. 

If impeachment hasn't moved the needle yet, which I think we can both agree it hasn't, what makes you think it'd matter if they had the news cycle to themselves today?  As I intimated originally, I'm not sure it was the best move to do both on the same day.  I would not have advised doing so.  But I think its effect is negligible.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

basically anything that simply reinforces existing positions is a win for Trump.

And that's where your position is silly.  Anything that reinforces the status quo of around 42 to 54 percent approval/disapproval is decidedly not a win for Trump.  Just have to count to 100 to realize that.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

And that's where your position is silly.  Anything that reinforces the status quo of around 42 to 54 percent approval/disapproval is decidedly not a win for Trump.  Just have to count to 100 to realize that.

You read the Nate Cohn article about this, right? A 42% general poll does not mean a big loss. Hell, it doesn't mean a loss at all, thanks to how battleground states work. This is the same problem that Democrats have with demographics being on their 'side' - it's true that demographics are improving, but they're improving in all the wrong places for Dems. Winning California 70% to 30% doesn't help at all. What matters is those battleground states - that 3% that I was mentioning - and so far, Trump is if anything gaining ground from where he was in 2016. 

So yes, anything that reinforces that status quo is good for Trump, because he's in a perfectly good position right now, especially given how shitty the Dem candidates have so far been. And Pelosi handing him a rare legislative win? Come on, man. This also has the added benefit of negating the argument that Trump can't be dealt with or bargained with and that he always backs out of deals, something that the Dems had before. Now? They look like chumps. You're almost certainly right that the 'educated' people will give Pelosi massive credit for eating Trump's lunch, and the 17 people who are educated will read those, and the 200 million who aren't will not give one single solitary fuck, and will instead be able to see this and say 'wow, Trump does get things done'. 

Quote

First, it's unfounded to say this magical three percent are primarily auto/factory workers from the midwest.  But let's say they are.  You think you're gonna get their vote be being obstinate about a NAFTA reform agreement until a Democrat is elected president?  Maybe that will work, but I definitely wouldn't hang my hat on that.  Much rather have the unions like the AFL-CIO champion Pelosi with the credit for gaining concessions they were seeking.  Hard to argue with that politically, let alone the policy implications.

Actually, if dems were smart they wouldn't have had Pelosi take the lead on this - they would have had one of their actual candidates take the lead. Castro, or Warren or Sanders - all of them be the ones who are proposing this and making it theirs and in the negotiating room with Trump. And then they can play over and over how they got a big win for the AFL-CIO. THAT would have helped them. But this? How does Pelosi negotiating things help the Democratic position? 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You read the Nate Cohn article about this, right? A 42% general poll does not mean a big loss. Hell, it doesn't mean a loss at all, thanks to how battleground states work.

Heh, yes, I have.  And I'll believe a president can get reelected with a 42% approval - and more importantly a 54% disapproval - when I see it, thanks.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and the 200 million who aren't will not give one single solitary fuck, and will instead be able to see this and say 'wow, Trump does get things done'. 

Once again, most of those 200 million will almost certainly not be affected at all by a trade deal in December when - and if! - they cast their ballot.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Castro, or Warren or Sanders - all of them be the ones who are proposing this and making it theirs and in the negotiating room with Trump. And then they can play over and over how they got a big win for the AFL-CIO. THAT would have helped them. But this? How does Pelosi negotiating things help the Democratic position? 

Sorry, forgot to respond to this.  That's great in theory, but how would this be pulled off in reality?  Pelosi doesn't want to show favoritism to any presidential candidate right now.  She'd have to wait for someone to win the nomination, at which point the deal would definitely be off the table anyway.  Don't see how this is a legit complaint, or even a remotely pragmatic proposal.

[sologdin]

order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion

wtf. they're not even trying to be coy any more with this nuremberg law bullshit.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

51 minutes ago, sologdin said:

order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion

wtf. they're not even trying to be coy any more with this nuremberg law bullshit.

Not even a little bit.  

[Rippounet]

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/trump-order-judaism-nationality/index.html

Let's not forget this bit:

Quote

For instance, it describes as anti-Semitic “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” under some circumstances and offers as an example of such behavior “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

So this decision manages to i) classify Judaism as a nationality, which is deeply wrong, ii) improves the protection of Jews against discrimination, but also iii) confuse anti-semitism with anti-sionism.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, sologdin said:

order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion

wtf. they're not even trying to be coy any more with this nuremberg law bullshit.

I don't think it is historically correct to think that the idea that Jewishness is a nationality as much as a religion was invented by the Nuremberg laws. It's been part of anti-Semitism since the beginning, but also is a position that many people within the Jewish community itself would go along with. I remember a discussion on this board several years ago when one of our regular posters who lives in Israel -- and who is NOT a "right winger" in the Israeli context -- said that Judaism IS both a religion and an ethnicity. The idea of Jewishness as an ethnicity is embodied in Israel's "law of return", where one gets the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen if one is a Jew, and where Jewishness is not defined by having any religious beliefs or adhering to any Orthodox Jewish traditions or customs, but simply by having one grandparent who was a Jew -- a genealogical and therefore "ethnic" definition.

This doesn't mean I personally approve of this becoming the definition of "Jewishness" in American law. But I don't think it's fair to just blame this bad idea on the Nazis.