US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I would've guessed Super Communism.

It's like regular communism, but it's got blackjack and hookers. 

I thought that was implied, but in a more enlightened future we respectfully call them Ladies of the Night you capitalist pig.

[Paladin of Ice]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

First, I'm not "totally fucking wrong" as you put it. No candidate is working for honest change apart from "hey, we need to get back to what it was like before Trump." Aside from Bernie (and to some small degree), the status quo is the way to go. Bernie opposes billionaires, the others support the continuing direction of the Democratic party--which has been anti-middle and working class for a long time. I know you're seething as you read this, but the progressives seek to undo the damage of the Democratic party for working and middle class people, not preserve it. But I'll give you this, at least Biden seemed generally aware that we're "getting clobbered" out here.

Sorry, but the bolded text in particular is an enormous heaping of horseshit.

Maybe nobody else is as progressive in the particular way(s) that you want, or not progressive and also liked by yourself, but there have been a whole range of candidates with varying degrees of progressiveness. A few just dipped their toes in the water, a few did more than that but didn’t go as far as Warren or Bernie, but still put forward agendas that would have had progressives salivating in any other year.

And then there’s Warren and Bernie, and for all the venom from some of the online bots and a handful of “Bernie or bust” types, (you know, the same ones who protested so long and hard in 2016 about how they would have been delighted to vote for Warren and now are spending 24/7 calling her a lying snake on social media) Warren is just as, if not more progressive than Bernie, and he doesn’t get special bonus points for calling himself a socialist. He’s not the progressive messiah, he’s  not going to singlehandedly save the country by his lonesome like some self-insert fanfic character, and it’s time for some people to stop acting like it. (And really, the idea that one person is going snap their fingers and turn things into a wonderland if only they are president needs to go die in a fire. It’s so much bullshit. Regressives had to labor for over 50 years to get us to this point, it’s probably going to take almost as long to push back, and we should all be prepared for that.)

Progressivism isn’t defined by siding with or getting the approval of Saint Bernie, not least because it’s going to need to be around long after he’s gone if we ever want the world to turn out the way we want.

5 hours ago, Fez said:

 

2) I know several people who work for other Democratic senators on the Hill, and they all tell me the same story. Which is that his office is consistently staffed by incompetents who refuse to put in the work necessary to craft actual, workable legislation. The problem is not that the legislation is too far left and therefore wouldn't pass. The problem is that they never do the basic stuff of: identifying the US Codes they want to change, identifying the implementing agencies and describing how the agencies would operate, establishing funding mechanisms, writing everything in legislative text, etc. They never do the work needed to get things done; instead they just talk in the same massive, sweeping language than Sanders himself always does. And I have every reason to assume that a Sanders White House would operate the same way as a Sanders Senate Office does; and, as we've seen with this administration, a dysfunctional White House (ignoring the massive policy differences for a moment) leads to all sorts of avoidable problems. I think Sanders is more interested in rhetoric than governance and I don't like that.

All of this is basically what I meant when I called him “kind of a fuck up” awhile ago. The last line in particular, about Sanders being more about rhetoric than governing, is at the heart of my issue with him. He’d rather talk big and do nothing than do concrete work that isn’t perfectly ideal. He’s been in office for what 40+ years as an elected official talking about curbing the banks. What has he done in all that time that had as much tangible effect as the CFPB (Warren’s brainchild) did when it clawed back hundreds of millions of dollars for people that they were charged for BS fees and fake accounts?

The guy is invaluable as an advocate for the changes that need to happen, but I really do worry that if he gets into the presidency we’ll find out he’s in the wrong position for his talents. And then it’ll be the case of the dog who catches the car; “Okay, so what now?”

And I don’t think we can afford that now.

[DanteGabriel]

Give Bernie credit as a legislator. He's summoned up the institutional pull and deal-making to rename a heavy handful of post offices.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Give Bernie credit as a legislator. He's summoned up the institutional pull and deal-making to rename a heavy handful of post offices.

I just did the reaction emoji, but that's really fucking funny.

[Zorral]

Handshake analyst breaks down those post debate, still on stage moments between Warren and Bernie.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/15/decoding-the-body-language-of-that-warren-sanders-standoff-099391

Quote

 

....This moment will also make a deep lasting impression. The very last thing a candidate does as we watch him or her onscreen carries what is called the “recency effect.” The moment lingers in our memories and has a powerful influence on our impressions of the candidates. In this interaction, Sanders came across as a negative and slightly aggressive; Warren came across a bit better as she sought the engagement through guarded caution, leaving us to think she might have put down her hands if he had been nice.

Think all this isn’t important? It is. We choose our candidates based on their non-verbal behavior. In a study, Harvard undergraduates who viewed soundless, 10-second video clips of unfamiliar candidates in real races were able to pick the winning candidate at a rate significantly better than chance. But when the sound was turned on and students could hear what the candidates were saying, they were no better than chance at predicting the winner. Certainly, words matter, a politician’s viewpoint and plans of action matter, but research suggests that the nonverbal behavior has 4.3 times the impact in a message.....

 

Then he goes on to tout his book, but nevermind.

 

[DanteGabriel]

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

I just did the reaction emoji, but that's really fucking funny.

Oh it turns out I exaggerated. Only two of the seven bills in thirty years he's been primary sponsor for were to rename post offices.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

55 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Handshake analyst breaks down those post debate, still on stage moments between Warren and Bernie.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/15/decoding-the-body-language-of-that-warren-sanders-standoff-099391

Then he goes on to tout his book, but nevermind.

 

Tell that dude to do the work that really needs be done: Analyzing how those LSU players were so skilled at the $100 handshake.

OBJ, not the hero we need, but the hero we deserve.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, this seems like a fair and reasonable way to describe warren and her policies and rhetoric towards billionaires. 

She is certainly resistant to embracing that part of her past. But say what you will, I don't think I can convince someone like you about anything. Nor will I try, it seems a waste of time.

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I’ve been making the same argument as butterbumps  since 2016, and if you think Bernie will cause change, he will, but not the kind you want. His presidency has failure written all over it, and if he does fail he’ll set back leftists causes for a generation. You’ve been complaining about moderates a lot. Guess what, I’m to the left of communism, and I still think it’s wiser to back a moderate candidate because winning matters more than getting everything you want.

Well, I'm at least to the left of Bernie, not communism necessarily. I have to disagree with you. The longer the current structure stays in place, the harder it will work to stop people like Bernie from ever getting a chance in the first place. I don't see change happening with him except to put some things in place that hurts the billionaires. I don't expect college to be free, and I don't expect him to give us medicare for all, but I do see him chipping into the side of the oligarchy and hopefully inspiring more people to run.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

 

This is easily contradicted is you just glance at the platforms of any of the top candidates (or probably any of the candidates, but I can't keep track of them all).  Each candidate is proposing plenty of changes that "progress" from the status quo or the Obama era.  More importantly, the policy agendas of even the "moderate" candidates are significantly more leftist/progressive than anything we've seen before, including Obama or Hillary 2016.  I guess from a socialist/neo-marxist perspective you could argue only Sanders or Warren are truly trying to upend the establishment in a structural way, but that's a ridiculous standard to place on anyone that's trying to win the electoral college in the United States.  And the policy distinctions between Sanders and Warren are so minuscule it betrays one's own biases/preferences to suggest the former can be described as "progressive" while the latter cannot.

 

Smart. Smart, smart stuff, as usual.

2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Sorry, but the bolded text in particular is an enormous heaping of horseshit.

Maybe nobody else is as progressive in the particular way(s) that you want, or not progressive and also liked by yourself, but there have been a whole range of candidates with varying degrees of progressiveness. A few just dipped their toes in the water, a few did more than that but didn’t go as far as Warren or Bernie, but still put forward agendas that would have had progressives salivating in any other year.

And then there’s Warren and Bernie, and for all the venom from some of the online bots and a handful of “Bernie or bust” types, (you know, the same ones who protested so long and hard in 2016 about how they would have been delighted to vote for Warren and now are spending 24/7 calling her a lying snake on social media) Warren is just as, if not more progressive than Bernie, and he doesn’t get special bonus points for calling himself a socialist. He’s not the progressive messiah, he’s  not going to singlehandedly save the country by his lonesome like some self-insert fanfic character, and it’s time for some people to stop acting like it. (And really, the idea that one person is going snap their fingers and turn things into a wonderland if only they are president needs to go die in a fire. It’s so much bullshit. Regressives had to labor for over 50 years to get us to this point, it’s probably going to take almost as long to push back, and we should all be prepared for that.)

Progressivism isn’t defined by siding with or getting the approval of Saint Bernie, not least because it’s going to need to be around long after he’s gone if we ever want the world to turn out the way we want.

All of this is basically what I meant when I called him “kind of a fuck up” awhile ago. The last line in particular, about Sanders being more about rhetoric than governing, is at the heart of my issue with him. He’d rather talk big and do nothing than do concrete work that isn’t perfectly ideal. He’s been in office for what 40+ years as an elected official talking about curbing the banks. What has he done in all that time that had as much tangible effect as the CFPB (Warren’s brainchild) did when it clawed back hundreds of millions of dollars for people that they were charged for BS fees and fake accounts?

The guy is invaluable as an advocate for the changes that need to happen, but I really do worry that if he gets into the presidency we’ll find out he’s in the wrong position for his talents. And then it’ll be the case of the dog who catches the car; “Okay, so what now?”

And I don’t think we can afford that now.

Oh, you guys are welcome to try and claim the progressive title for yourself, but you're not. Don't worry, your neo-liberal candidate of choice will become the democratic nominee. Everything will be okay, and you can paint them as progressive as you want because none of this really matters. Bernie and Warren will not win.

A lot of us are truly suffering, and we have been for a long time. Pete, Biden, and Klobuchar have no interest in truly relieving that. It's okay you don't care, but don't tell me what we can't afford now. I am well aware of what I can't afford currently, and I am well aware of the unending inflation that continues to box many of us out. 

Edit: I will agree with some of what you said. Bernie is not a progressive messiah as you seem to think people believe. In my opinion, he's far too moderate on many things. He's just the best thing we've got.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Smart. Smart, smart stuff, as usual.

I enjoy how your only response lately is to tell me how smart I am.  Thanks!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I enjoy how your only response lately is to tell me how smart I am.  Thanks!

Insightful. Very, very good comment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, I'm at least to the left of Bernie, not communism necessarily. I have to disagree with you. The longer the current structure stays in place, the harder it will work to stop people like Bernie from ever getting a chance in the first place. I don't see change happening with him except to put some things in place that hurts the billionaires. I don't expect college to be free, and I don't expect him to give us medicare for all, but I do see him chipping into the side of the oligarchy and hopefully inspiring more people to run.

The cliche that politics is like a pendulum is often overstated, but I don't think it is with him, and I greatly fear a right wing backlash if he's elected, both because of SOCIALISM!!!! and because he's likely going to fail (thus SOCIALISM IS ALWAYS A FAILURE!!!). 

Progress is slow. It's better to nudge the country to the left with more realistic policies and politicians than taking a pornographic hack at it.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The cliche the politics is like a pendulum is often overstated, but I don't think it is with him, and I greatly fear a right wing backlash if he's elected, both because of SOCIALISM!!!! and because he's likely going to fail (thus SOCIALISM IS ALWAYS A FAILURE!!!). 

Progress is slow. It's better to nudge the country to the left with more realistic policies and politicians than taking a pornographic hack at it.

I see what you're saying. I grudgingly agree one hundred percent, and ultimately, this is why I vote for whomever the nominee is. I think the Squad is really the heralding of things to come, and I hope we keep seeing that trend. Sanders isn't going to win--it's nice he's having a moment of recognition right now, but I don't think he'll catch Biden. 

I do, on the other hand, think a "safe pick" like Biden is a huge liability in the general, but we'll see I guess.

Edit: I wanted to add, that what you fear about Bernie's approach is precisely his biggest problem. He won't budge. While I love that about him, it won't fly with people who haven't been brainwashed like the rest of us socialists.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can't spell and DMC was going to shame me because he's a rotten Yankees fan.

?  Whenever I shame you it's because I'm a dick, not because I'm a Yankees fan.  Although I suppose the two are strongly correlated.

10 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I do, on the other hand, think a "safe pick" like Biden is a huge liability in the general, but we'll see I guess.

Edit: I wanted to add, that what you fear about Bernie's approach is precisely his biggest problem. He won't budge. While I love that about him, it won't fly with people who haven't been brainwashed like the rest of us socialists.

Entirely agreed with all of this.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I agree one hundred percent, and ultimately, this is why I vote for whomever the nominee is. I think the Squad is really the heralding of things to come, and I hope we keep seeing that trend. Sanders isn't going to win--it's nice he's having a moment of recognition right now, but I don't think he'll catch Biden. 

Quote

I do, on the other hand, think a "safe pick" like Biden is a huge liability in the general, but we'll see I guess.

I think the reason you go safe is because there are a lot of people who don't like Trump, but won't support a legit leftist (see @Mlle. Zabzie). It's a lot easier to get them to go for a moderate. 

Do not forget, Americans like liberal policies more than conservative ones, but the country's starting point is still from a conservative position.

Quote

Edit: I wanted to add, that what you fear about Bernie's approach is precisely his biggest problem. He won't budge. While I love that about him, it won't fly with people who haven't been brainwashed like the rest of us socialists.

It's nice to have gadflies in the legislature, not in the executive.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

?  Whenever I shame you it's because I'm a dick, not because I'm a Yankees fan.  Although I suppose the two are strongly correlated.

There are 10 year olds from NYC who've never seen a Yankees championship. How sad.

Hey @DanteGabriel, how many championships have 10 year old New Englanders enjoyed?

[Larry of the Lawn]

52 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

She is certainly resistant to embracing that part of her past. But say what you will, I don't think I can convince someone like you about anything. Nor will I try, it seems a waste of time.

Well, I'm at least to the left of Bernie, not communism necessarily. I have to disagree with you. The longer the current structure stays in place, the harder it will work to stop people like Bernie from ever getting a chance in the first place. I don't see change happening with him except to put some things in place that hurts the billionaires. I don't expect college to be free, and I don't expect him to give us medicare for all, but I do see him chipping into the side of the oligarchy and hopefully inspiring more people to run.

Smart. Smart, smart stuff, as usual.

Oh, you guys are welcome to try and claim the progressive title for yourself, but you're not. Don't worry, your neo-liberal candidate of choice will become the democratic nominee. Everything will be okay, and you can paint them as progressive as you want because none of this really matters. Bernie and Warren will not win.

A lot of us are truly suffering, and we have been for a long time. Pete, Biden, and Klobuchar have no interest in truly relieving that. It's okay you don't care, but don't tell me what we can't afford now. I am well aware of what I can't afford currently, and I am well aware of the unending inflation that continues to box many of us out. 

Edit: I will agree with some of what you said. Bernie is not a progressive messiah as you seem to think people believe. In my opinion, he's far too moderate on many things. He's just the best thing we've got.

Bernie and Warren are the only candidates that actually seem interested in redistributing wealth, and addressing healthcare and climate change, in a more than nominal way.  I am more disgusted than ever with the moderate wing of the Democratic party and I totally hear you.  

As far as @Tywin et al. And nudging the country in the right direction, there is something to be said for that, but some of the issues (healthcare, economic inequality, climate change) are pressing issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later.  It's very difficult to stomach someone like Biden who has been on the wrong side of just about any important issue in his political career vs someone like Sanders.  I can appreciate the arguments that Sanders seems like more style than substance but I think it's overblown.

Also completely do not buy the pendulum theory  that Sanders would set the left back.  On anything more than party election victories I'm not seeing this effect.  This country has been in a massive rightward swing since the 70s on pretty much everything other than lgbtq rights.

Eta, on the pendulum: ffs if 8 years if Obama running a very centrist, maintain the status quo administration got us Trump why even bother running anyone to the left of Joe Manchin?

 

[DanteGabriel]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

?  Whenever I shame you it's because I'm a dick, not because I'm a Yankees fan.  Although I suppose the two are strongly correlated.

The Venn diagram is a circle of course.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are 10 year olds from NYC who've never seen a Yankees championship. How sad.

Hey @DanteGabriel, how many championships have 10 year old New Englanders enjoyed?

Assuming they have some infant memories of the Bruins in 2011, six. Bruins, two Sox, three Pats. Damn underachieving Celtics.

It feels a little cheap to be weaponized against a Yankees fan, but I'll allow it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

As far as @Tywin et al. And nudging the country in the right direction, there is something to be said for that, but some of the issues (healthcare, economic inequality, climate change) are pressing issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later.  It's very difficult to stomach someone like Biden who has been on the wrong side of just about any important issue in his political career vs someone like Sanders.  I can appreciate the arguments that Sanders seems like more style than substance but I think it's overblown.

There are certainly issues to gamble on, and of the three you listed I'd absolutely be willing to take a wild swing if we could get some meaningful action on climate change. But those type of wild swings have consequences. For example, Johnson was absolute in the right to pass the VRA and the CRA, but even he knew that the consequences would be severe. And they were.

Quote

Also completely do not buy the pendulum theory  that Sanders would set the left back.  On anything more than party election victories I'm not seeing this effect.  This country has been in a massive rightward swing since the 70s on pretty much everything other than lgbtq rights.

See above. We have real life examples of it happening, and Sanders represents a real risk of it occurring and everything you just cited is a result of one of those massive swings.

Quote

Eta, on the pendulum: ffs if 8 years if Obama running a very centrist, maintain the status quo administration got us Trump why even bother running anyone to the left of Joe Manchin?

But the Tea Party and Trump are direct swings cause by the mere presence of a black president. Would they have happened if a generic white male Democrat had won? Probably not. Hence, an increase in the scale of the swing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It feels a little cheap to be weaponized against a Yankees fan, but I'll allow it. 

When you can stunt, stunt. It's what you get to do because you know the rest of us are mocking you for your unhealthy relations with your sports teams. 

Like seriously, deeply unhealthy. 

[DanteGabriel]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When you can stunt, stunt. It's what you get to do because you know the rest of us are mocking you for your unhealthy relations with your sports teams. 

Like seriously, deeply unhealthy. 

Andrew Wiggins is definitely coming around, bro.