Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Unwashed

U.S. Politics: Welcome to the Suck

Recommended Posts

Just now, Martell Spy said:

So get someone terrible on healthcare and student loans in there? It sounds like you don't just want to not appease the left, but to grind them under heel.

That is exactly how this will be seen, as a reminder to know our place and that we don't matter.. A lot of the left are still pretty bitter about how the primary went and we make up roughly a third of the party and given the leftward shift as far as young voters, represent the future. Pissing us off in favor of picking up a handful who long for the polite inhumanity of the Bush years (as opposed to the rude inhumanity of the Trump years) and will stab us in the back the second they can is a good way to make sure that we actually start to really give up on this party.

I consider myself to be a member of the far left part of the Democratic party, but still a Democrat, and this would be like spitting in our faces. a platform is how a candidate tells you what they are running about, the people they surround themselves with are how they tell you they are going to govern. Picking guys like Larry Summers as advisors has already shown us the direction Biden is leaning, don't give us further reason to doubt him.

Share this post


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

So get someone terrible on healthcare and student loans in there? It sounds like you don't just want to not appease the left, but to grind them under heel.

I think that’s a little bit dramatic.  I want to win.  I’m calculating that in the end the left will hate Trump more than they’ll hate a moderate VP pick.  Believe me, I wish we had an electorate with the voting sensibilities of Denmark, but what we have is Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Biden is old as shit and showing it.  It won’t be difficult for people to realize that whoever it is will be more likely than a typical VP to become the President. It can’t be someone that would get blown out in swing states or states we need to flip if they were at the top of the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, S John said:

I think that’s a little bit dramatic.  I want to win.  I’m calculating that in the end the left will hate Trump more than they’ll hate a moderate VP pick.  Believe me, I wish we had an electorate with the voting sensibilities of Denmark, but what we have is Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Biden is old as shit and showing it.  It won’t be difficult for people to realize that whoever it is will be more likely than a typical VP to become the President. It can’t be someone that would get blown out in swing states or states we need to flip if they were at the top of the ticket.

So what you're telling me is we have engineered a situation where the candidate who everyone said is clearly losing the plot due to age must now pick someone who is exactly the same as him because he is probably either going to die or have to resign due to infirmity and can't risk being in anyway progressive despite the fact that Biden won on the strength of his connection to Obama (and the party basically telling everyone to line up behind him) not his actual polices. Please welcome to the stage Vice Presidential nominee, Amy Klobuchar.

And it is not this year that I am worried about. As I said before, the left wing of the party is going to become a progressively large and larger part of the party, and if you show them early on that you would rather keep the power in the hands of a bunch of old people who don't really care about them or what matters to them, they are less likely to become involved in a positive way. The time of the boomer is coming to an end, and unless you want to find yourself with an even more jaded and disaffect base in the future, you have to start making overtures now.

Also if anyone wanted to be disgusted by the moderate Democrats, this was in a recent letters to the editor in the New York Times

Quote

To the Editor:

I totally disagree with this editorial. I don’t want an investigation. I want a coronation of Joe Biden. Would he make a great president? Unlikely. Would he make a good president? Good enough. Would he make a better president than the present occupant? Absolutely. I don’t want justice, whatever that may be. I want a win, the removal of Donald Trump from office, and Mr. Biden is our best chance.

Suppose an investigation reveals damaging information concerning his relationship with Tara Reade or something else, and Mr. Biden loses the nomination to Senator Bernie Sanders or someone else with a minimal chance of defeating Mr. Trump. Should we really risk the possibility?

Martin Tolchin
Alexandria, Va.
The writer is a former member of The Times’s Washington bureau and a founder of Politico.

Fucking scum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, S John said:

I think that’s a little bit dramatic.  I want to win.  I’m calculating that in the end the left will hate Trump more than they’ll hate a moderate VP pick.  Believe me, I wish we had an electorate with the voting sensibilities of Denmark, but what we have is Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Biden is old as shit and showing it.  It won’t be difficult for people to realize that whoever it is will be more likely than a typical VP to become the President. It can’t be someone that would get blown out in swing states or states we need to flip if they were at the top of the ticket.

They aren't going to get blown out in swing states since Biden is at the top of the ticket. VP only matters a bit at the margins. It's a harmless sop to the left. And I'd like to see more of Warren in the future, personally and I don't consider myself a full on leftist and I doubt I'm alone. 

If Sarah Palin is the example of a bad VP choice mattering, well Warren is the opposite of that buffoon.

Doesn't necessarily have to be Warren. Gretechn Whitmer for example is a hero of the pandemic and would please many in different wings of the party. 

 

Share this post


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

I mean, he's not wrong... you don't have to go on about cutting them off, but it is important to no allow this bullshit narrative that Trump peddles about Blue States being the ones who are poorly run because they actually have social programs and don't spend nearly as much time making it as difficult as possible for those in need to get access to them. Florida under Rick Scott actively made it harder to apply for unemployment by making their website a confusing mess.

Cenk has the finesse of Fred Flintstone, so any cogent point he might make gets lost in the poor Sam Kinnison impression.

Share this post


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

Um, what?  Biden's VP pick should not be about mollifying the left.  It should be about making sure you don't scare the people we need to win the election, as well as putting in a potential replacement for Biden that represents the whole party.  Not like, one third of it.  

He better start mollifying someone because a poll found about a third of Democratic voters don't want him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/05/reade-allegations-hurt-bidens-bid-to-unite-democrats-238662

Share this post


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

That is exactly how this will be seen, as a reminder to know our place and that we don't matter.. A lot of the left are still pretty bitter about how the primary went and we make up roughly a third of the party and given the leftward shift as far as young voters, represent the future. Pissing us off in favor of picking up a handful who long for the polite inhumanity of the Bush years (as opposed to the rude inhumanity of the Trump years) and will stab us in the back the second they can is a good way to make sure that we actually start to really give up on this party.

Just FYI, chances are good the very progressive left that represents a third (probably less, but whatever) is NOT going to be the ones who end up being the party reps down the line. The problem is that we know that even fewer young people are voting now. So either one of two things will happen - either the young of today will continue not voting at their pace later, in which case the Democratic party is doomed, or the young of today aren't the ones currently voting, and about twice as many people who are not voting are going to be voting in their 30s and 40s. 

But realistically, Biden's pick isn't going to piss off a third of the Democratic bloc unless he picks an outright racist. If he picks a centrist democrat, it'll piss you off, and a few boarders, and a few outwardly spoken people who have already pledged not to vote for Biden for various reasons, but it almost certainly isn't going to piss off the rest. One of two things have to be true: either Sanders supporters are really That Bad and won't vote for dems in the same way that other dem loser supporters have voted for dems, and that sucks and they should be blamed for dems losing - or Sanders supporters aren't really that bad, and there's very little harm that a VP pick can do.

Which would you like to pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that regardless of whether Sanders supporters are that bad, picking someone to the right of Biden is a pretty bad faith move that would encourage more of them to be that bad.

The absolute worst case (from the far lefts point of view) should be someone about equal to Biden, and asking for someone at least slightly left of him as a nod towards unity is reasonable. Picking someone to appeal to Republican voters over 1/3 of your own base would be an incendiary move that comes across as intending to piss them off. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what's being suggested as the pick here and "around Biden but younger" is what was meant, in which case that's fine. If the pick was someone significantly right of him though I'd be blaming him for alienating the voters as much as them not voting at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Just FYI, chances are good the very progressive left that represents a third (probably less, but whatever) is NOT going to be the ones who end up being the party reps down the line. The problem is that we know that even fewer young people are voting now. So either one of two things will happen - either the young of today will continue not voting at their pace later, in which case the Democratic party is doomed, or the young of today aren't the ones currently voting, and about twice as many people who are not voting are going to be voting in their 30s and 40s. 

But realistically, Biden's pick isn't going to piss off a third of the Democratic bloc unless he picks an outright racist. If he picks a centrist democrat, it'll piss you off, and a few boarders, and a few outwardly spoken people who have already pledged not to vote for Biden for various reasons, but it almost certainly isn't going to piss off the rest. One of two things have to be true: either Sanders supporters are really That Bad and won't vote for dems in the same way that other dem loser supporters have voted for dems, and that sucks and they should be blamed for dems losing - or Sanders supporters aren't really that bad, and there's very little harm that a VP pick can do.

Which would you like to pick?

And so your solution is to further alienate them? Great fucking move man, just genius. I don't know how you don't understand this, Young people don't vote because they don't see their their interests are represented by their leaders. We're not demanding full scale revolution here, we're asking for a token VP pick so that we have have someone we can point to with our more disaffected peers to show them that we do actually have a voice and hopefully be able to start bring them around to being participants rather than observers.. You do not build participation by telling people that they have to do things your way or no way, you do it by ceding ground and allowing them into the process, which is not happening and that is why you are getting this all or nothing backlash from young people. Those of us who haven't already given up are sick of being on the outside looking in, we want to be part of things, but instead we are dismissed.

You don't get to dismiss and ignore even outright demean people any time they come out to play on your team, then act mystified when they stop showing up, this is kindergarten shit.

Edited by GrimTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So the people (I almost put "the moderates/establishment" - I'm just pointing that out because I AM really working on not being reductive when it comes to this) get the safe pick in Biden, AND a non-scary backup? That seems...a little unfair.

How is it unfair?  Look, there are two possibilities here.  Either the VP pick doesn't matter at all and is just a sop to a particular group, in which case you're saying the far left are going to get up in arms over something that doesn't matter, or because of Biden's age (and the possibility of more allegations) it is a critical selection.  In which case the far left by calling for the VP to be of their persuasion are really trying to do a quick end game around the primary process; especially given how many in that group (on these boards) have also been the ones saying Reade's allegations are a sticking point. 

Either way, the progressive left is either whining over something they don't see as important, or trying to win the primary via a run-around.  

My personal view is that the VP pick is more important this cycle, because of Biden's age.  And therefore, the pick should reflect the mix of broad policies that "won" in the primary.  It should not be someone to the right of Biden, but someone who is in a similar place and will be happy to champion his policies.  My preference would be Harris, who tried (unsuccessfully) to run a position between the centrist and far left spot, so I would think should be acceptable.  

4 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Who are these people who we need to avoid scaring off? Bill Krystol? David Frum? Those people should have been exiled for being the handmaidens to Bush's war crimes. I refuse to believe that we should try to curry favor to discontented Republicans, who cheered as the far right rose now are bothered by the fact that it has reached it's logical destination but is a little bit rude, no fuck those people. Democrats will come out to vote for Not Trump, there's no one who is going to vote for Biden is going to be turned off by a VP pick who has no real affect outside of raising their profile.

The main people to avoid scaring off are those who switched between Trump and the Democrats in the 2018 mid-terms and who continued voting Democrat in the 2020 primaries.  The ones who are polling well right now for Dems.  The ones who actually vote, and if they don't vote Dem will vote Republican.  And were willing to do so for Trump 4 years ago.  

3 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

So what you're telling me is we have engineered a situation where the candidate who everyone said is clearly losing the plot due to age must now pick someone who is exactly the same as him because he is probably either going to die or have to resign due to infirmity and can't risk being in anyway progressive despite the fact that Biden won on the strength of his connection to Obama (and the party basically telling everyone to line up behind him) not his actual polices. .....

We have engineered a situation where around 60% of the party voted for candidates other than Warren & Sanders, with the media generally portraying them as the progressive options, and the rest as centrist (which was not totally true, but heh).   Because of the candidates age, then yes the person who is meant to be his #2 and his backup, should reflect similar policies.  Apart from the fact the fairest candidate is a similar one, yes we don't want to risk losing the people who actually vote who appear to have shifted to the Dem side.  Versus a group who really should vote against Trump.  

And just be clear, the only ones saying Biden has lost the plot due to age are Sanders supporters and Republicans.  Nobody else is saying that. 

3 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

And it is not this year that I am worried about. As I said before, the left wing of the party is going to become a progressively large and larger part of the party, and if you show them early on that you would rather keep the power in the hands of a bunch of old people who don't really care about them or what matters to them, they are less likely to become involved in a positive way. The time of the boomer is coming to an end, and unless you want to find yourself with an even more jaded and disaffect base in the future, you have to start making overtures now.

And as the left becomes larger and larger, they should win more and more of the seats in the house and Senate, and have more influence in the primaries.  You know, when you/we (because my policy preferences are actually very left) actually vote.  Right now, they aren't the majority.  That means they can influence, but expecting to have your candidate be the face of the party seems a bit unfair.  

This whole "start making overtures" bit is crap.  Biden's policy positions are the most progressive ever put up by a Dem, and he has moved further left since winning the nomination on bankruptcy and with the committees he's negotiated with Sanders.  

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

He better start mollifying someone because a poll found about a third of Democratic voters don't want him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/05/reade-allegations-hurt-bidens-bid-to-unite-democrats-238662

The poll asked if Biden should be replaced.  28% said yes.  Given I've argued to replace Biden, I'd be in that group.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Biden if I had a vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple Chicago Fed economists are calculating the true unemployment rate as high as 34% at this stage of the pandemic.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fed-unemployment/chicago-fed-economists-see-u-cov-jobless-rate-as-high-as-34-idUSKBN22H1NV

Also another bleak reminder in this story-

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/flu-vaccine-effectiveness-cdc/index.html

The latest flu vaccine only effective about 50% of the time.

I.O.W's , even when there is a covid vaccine, it may not be a magic wand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grim, I'm sorry, but having read your posts I see nothing but special pleading. The left really need to get the VP pick because otherwise they'll walk, but it's also a waste of time making a VP pick that would appeal to independents or other voters, because the left are special. They're the future of the party and must be treated differently. Everyone else must vote to get rid of Trump at any price. Except the left. It doesn't matter if you scare off independents. Only if you piss off the left, whose votes matter more. And so on. At every turn, the question is begged and the vital importance of doing whatever it takes to mollify left-wing refuseniks is assumed. Some evidence that this is such a critical voting bloc that it outweighs every other would be useful.

 

Share this post


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

And just be clear, the only ones saying Biden has lost the plot due to age are Sanders supporters and Republicans.  Nobody else is saying that. 

I am going to vote for Joe Biden because he's unquestionably better than Trump in every way, including mental fitness. But it is simply not the case that only Sanders supporters and Republicans have raised concerns about Biden in this area. What's happened is that since Biden became the presumptive nominee, Democrats have circled the wagons and deemed it unacceptable to talk about it. But back earlier in the campaign this issue was raised by both mainstream rivals to Biden and even by his allies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

The number of people who died because of Marxism pales in comparison to the number of people who have been sacrificed at the alter of capitalism. That is not to say that those deaths that happened in the name of Marxism is OK or that somehow it excuses or minimizes, simply that everyone who loves to point out the death toll of Communism fails to factor the destruction wrought by capitalism. It's so easy to say that 20-48 million people died in the great leap forward, or that the Soviet are responsible for about 94 million deaths, but it is a lot harder to calculate how many people died as a result of capitalistic practices that put profits over the lives and well being of people. It's almost as if all that fancy economic talk is just window dressing for exploitation and calculated corporate murder.

Take a shot at it.  We don't need to be exact here, but let's avoid sloppy thinking.  You want that to be true, so you think it's true and say it's so not even close that it's obvious.  Not asking for an exhaustive account, but it should be easy enough to get to 100 million excess deaths from free markets if what you say is true.  I'll wait.

And wait.

Don't worry about looking silly, plenty of the usual apologists will back you up regardless.

Edited by mcbigski

Share this post


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

You don't get to dismiss and ignore even outright demean people any time they come out to play on your team, then act mystified when they stop showing up, this is kindergarten shit.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

"Give us what we want or we'll take or ball and go home. KAG 2020 - YOU'RE IN KINDERGARTEN."

"It's a token VP pick."

"Everyone (citation needed) thinks he's brain addled, so the VP pick is crucial."

Friend, Grim Tuesday, you do your point of view a great disservice here. If the tables were turned, how would you react to moderates demanding that Bernie pick Klobuchar or Buttigieg as VP. OR ELSE. I don't expect that you would react graciously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont confuse 'free markets' with capitalism. Its easy to include state sanctioned imperialist policies by private companies and come close to that number pretty easily. I'm sure the usual denialists will find ways to discount it, but I wouldn't worry about it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

You want that to be true, so you think it's true and say it's so not even close that it's obvious.

Sounds like the motto of the Trump administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Take a shot at it.  We don't need to be exact here, but let's avoid sloppy thinking.  You want that to be true, so you think it's true and say it's so not even close that it's obvious.  Not asking for an exhaustive account, but it should be easy enough to get to 100 million excess deaths from free markets if what you say is true.  I'll wait.

And wait.

Don't worry about looking silly, plenty of the usual apologists will back you up regardless.

We can start with the attempted extermination of the indigenous peoples of North America, then move on to the legacy of slavery in the US. Then we can move on to the Monroe Doctrine and all the upheaval in the US sphere of influence in Latin America and the resultant loss of life to make the world safe for banana growers. Then onto the 20th century and the Southeast Asia conflicts in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos. And then back into Latin America again to make it safe for plutocrats again, oh and drug dealers in the US to help pay for it all. Then we can focus on the Middle East and to make oil companies feel safer and richer,  and lets invade Iraq and set that region of fire also. I am sure the death toll and the toll of human misery is well past any markers set by Nazis, Communists, and the like. You see, the US has been doing it for so much longer than anyone else.

This is all off of the top of my head and I am sure I can do better if I went to the books. There is a reason the US is hated and despised in large chunks of the world.

Edited by maarsen
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, maarsen said:

This is all off of the top of my head and I am sure I can do better if I went to the books. There is a reason the US is ahted and despised in large chunks of the world.

The USA is only part of the picture.

Multiple famines, massacres, invasions and assorted other atrocities under the British empire.

The entire history of the Belgian Congo.

Re Indochina, see also the French empire prior to any US involvement.

Share this post


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

Take a shot at it.  We don't need to be exact here, but let's avoid sloppy thinking.  You want that to be true, so you think it's true and say it's so not even close that it's obvious.  Not asking for an exhaustive account, but it should be easy enough to get to 100 million excess deaths from free markets if what you say is true.  I'll wait.

And wait.

Don't worry about looking silly, plenty of the usual apologists will back you up regardless.

Ever heard of a thing called war?

What is it good for?

Money! 

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...