U.S. Politics: Self Medicating

[Fez]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Trump thinks he can turn MN red, so its definitely a place to spend some time playing defense.

I'd also think the Biden campaign should go into 2020 without too many historical assumptions like the Clinton campaign did, including buying into notions like the 'blue wall' or the lengthy period of time MN has voted blue. Particularly since voting patterns may be disrupted by COVID 19. I think the battleground strategy should be expanded past the 'usual' 7-8 to something more resembling 14-15, so there are more permutations in play.

That way, even if MN is lost, there should be a few outcomes where the EC is still in play.

Oh for sure. I know some people on Twitter took issue with the RCP initial forecast of the electoral college: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map.html

But I think it does do a pretty good job of reflecting the turnout uncertainty that we face from COVID-19. There are very few states that are actually safe Biden or safe Trump basically no matter how the voting situation looks.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I know some people on Twitter took issue with the RCP initial forecast of the electoral college:

I don't have any problem with that as an initial forecast.  IIRC, RCP is usually very conservative (and not just politically) this early on in the cycle/campaign - let alone the increased uncertainty with covid.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't have any problem with that as an initial forecast.  IIRC, RCP is usually very conservative (and not just politically) this early on in the cycle/campaign - let alone the increased uncertainty with covid.

The articles they've been pushing have been very conservative for the last few years. It feels like a far cry from the site I use to enjoy getting a mix of opinions from. 

ETA: Here's the second story they're running:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/26/the_lockdown_democrats_143287.html

@OldGimletEye,

Stephen Moore has to be one of the dumbest economists of all time. I'm going full @Jace, Basilissa here, the mother fucker barely has a functioning cell in his brain. He is consistently wrong and a known charlatan. He has built a career out of failing forward while always being wrong. Always. Or was Kansas some great social-economic experiment? 

Just read the trash I linked. Most of us could have written something halfway more coherent than this, even if we were on Jace's snake venom. And again, it's the sites second headline.

Their polling is fine, but the stories they push are often times complete shit. If in 2020 you still would publish/share anything Moore has to say, you are just irresponsible, at best. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The articles they've been pushing have been very conservative for the last few years. It feels like a far cry from the site I use to enjoy getting a mix of opinions from. 

It always annoyed me when RCP had a "non-partisan" reputation.  They were founded and have always been run by dyed in the wool conservatives, and while they'd give a decent mix of op-eds - and still do to some extent - the "conservative" links usually predominated and often represent the more extreme wing of the party/ideology.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

It always annoyed me when RCP had a "non-partisan" reputation.  They were founded and have always been run by dyed in the wool conservatives, and while they'd give a decent mix of op-eds - and still do to some extent - the "conservative" links usually predominated and often represent the more extreme wing of the party/ideology.

First, see the edit.

Second, I always saw them as center-right, but like you said the polling data was worth checking and I've always enjoyed seeing the opinions on the other side.

But that's when the Joe Scarboroughs and Bill Kristols of the world were seen as the other side. Even Frum, who I believe you hate, did at least make some decent arguments, even if he was completely wrong overall. I could strongly disagree with an op-ed they'd write, but there was at least some degree of effort to make an honest argument, even if you thought it was trash. But what you read there these days is, well I stopped bothering. That's why I checked just to see and of course Miller's work was something they were pushing. A snake oil salesman if there ever was one. The mother fucker was so dumb he got a Democrat elected to be the Governor of Kansas. 

Maybe Texas isn't so out of play. Fucking Beto, not willing to throw a real punch. He could have beaten Cruz. He really could have. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

First, see the edit.

They've been linking to ridiculously stupid Stephen Moore articles since their inception.

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I could strongly disagree with an op-ed they'd write, but there was at least some degree of effort to make an honest argument, even if you thought it was trash.

The people that actually provide commentary for the site have always been trash conservatives.  It seems what you're bemoaning is they now don't as often link to never-Trumps like Scarborough, Kristol, and Frum that during Dubya's administration were quite influential in conservative opinion-making but obviously aren't anymore.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

They've been linking to ridiculously stupid Stephen Moore articles since their inception.

Oh sure, but if you're still doing that in 2020, well, it speaks volumes. The article was comical. 
 

Quote

The people that actually provide commentary for the site have always been trash conservatives.  It seems what you're bemoaning is they now don't as often link to never-Trumps like Scarborough, Kristol, and Frum that during Dubya's administration were quite influential in conservative opinion-making but obviously aren't anymore.

I mean, okay, but these were the types I could actually talk to at parties (not that I'd ever be at one with them unless I lied my ass off to get into the door). But I do miss when you could at least speak with sane conservatives, even if you thought what they were promoting was various levels of evil. This new breed, and the sycophants that followed them, they have literally nothing to offer, and are in fact generally bad people.

So let's take one for example: Hugh Hewitt. The piece of shit spent literally two years saying Trump was the worst person ever, but, I'm guessing, he was at risk of losing is revenue streams, so guess what? All hail Trump.

Fuck these new breed of awful assholes. I could at least respect some of them at times back when things were normal. But not anymore. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fuck these new breed of awful assholes.

I guess I'm just not seeing where the likes of Stephen Moore and Hugh Hewitt are a "new breed" of assholes.  Both have been around a very long time.  Not to say there aren't certain special new breeds of assholes - there certainly are many - but RCP has always been happy to usher them in/push their links.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I guess I'm just not seeing where the likes of Stephen Moore and Hugh Hewitt are a "new breed" of assholes.  Both have been around a very long time.  Not to say there aren't certain special new breeds of assholes - there certainly are many - but RCP has always been happy to usher them in/push their links.

Sorry, by new breed I meant this new wave of conservatism, or Trumpism, since the former is dead in many ways. Anyone with a shred of integrity left, and continuing to publish such obvious two face liars only diminishes yourself. 

Hence why I don't read RCP anymore. At best I skim the headlines and look at their polling, but even with the latter I really don't want to give them traffic. 

[Martell Spy]

Apparently it is still cool for Trump to incite his followers to kill media figures though by accusing them of murder on Twitter.

 

Twitter has finally started fact-checking Trump
After the president tweeted misleading information about mail-in ballots, Twitter applied a warning label to Trump’s tweets for the first time.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/26/21271210/twitter-fact-check-trump-tweets-mail-voting-fraud-rigged-election-misleading-statements

Quote

On Tuesday afternoon, Twitter placed labels underneath Trump’s tweets claiming that mail-in voting ballots in the 2020 presidential race will be “anything less than substantially fraudulent” and lead to a “Rigged Election.” If you click the labels, they take you to a fact-checking page that calls out the president’s false statement.

 

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The articles they've been pushing have been very conservative for the last few years. It feels like a far cry from the site I use to enjoy getting a mix of opinions from. 

ETA: Here's the second story they're running:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/26/the_lockdown_democrats_143287.html

@OldGimletEye,

Stephen Moore has to be one of the dumbest economists of all time. I'm going full @Jace, Basilissa here, the mother fucker barely has a functioning cell in his brain. He is consistently wrong and a known charlatan. He has built a career out of failing forward while always being wrong. Always. Or was Kansas some great social-economic experiment? 

 

Yeah, he is pretty much a dumb ass. But, his propaganda serves certain sorts of people's interest.

[Fury Resurrected]

There are two photos going around allegedly of the MPLS cop who murdered George Floyd.

One, that features a man who looks like him in a hate that says make whites great again, is fake

the second, featuring him and a couple other MPD officers on stage with 45, is genuine.

 

I hope that photo gets wallpapered all over this election.

[mcbigski]

On 5/24/2020 at 1:33 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Man, I need to remember to read threads fully before responding.

@DMC, that was as hilarious as it was savage. 

I do like @mcbigski though, if not because I try to extend the best to people (and you have been an awful troll, dude, you're better than that).

But mcbigski and I compete in a Pick'em league that I run, and I fear that is probably going to get all kinds of fucked up now. 

DMC missed a few references and misconstrued a few more.  Clearly his position on Putin's preference in 2016 is something we're not going to find common ground on either way.  But if you think Putin wants fracking in the US, cheaper oil, and Russian commandos getting greased in the middle east and Trump as President, then that's something he and I are probably too far apart on.

I wouldn't say awful troll so much as Cassandra or a righteous majority of one, but time will tell.

By pick'em league you run, you mean Pick'em league that mcbigski often wins and almost always top 3's in right?  Though since I took a gratuitous shot at Kraft and switched my team name from White Harbor Bakers to Orchids of Asshai, performance has suffered.

You won't have me to kick around anymore in C this year though.  Taking my talents to Experts.

On 5/24/2020 at 7:26 PM, Freshwater Spartan said:

Similarly, this why I hope Biden doesn't pick Warren as much as I like her. She was young enough (barely) to be President but way too old to be VP.

As for your other point, Obama will go down as one of the most intellectually gifted, morally upright and politically incompetent Presidents ever. Fewer Presidents have lead their party so poorly in the purpose of winning elections at all levels and passing legislation that would stand the test of time. Future historians will be comparing Carter with Obama on these points challenging each other on who was worse. 

I loved Obama  but he absolutely gutted the Democratic party. 

Like Kal and Ty said, (I think), Obama spent his capital.  He got ACA over the finish line.  Maybe he could have done that sucking up a bit less of the oxygen and leaving a stronger bench, but he wasn't ineffective.  His instincts were usually wrong, (look at the Iran deal for example) and it's too bad he got his way so often but it's not like he was ineffective.

On 5/24/2020 at 8:01 PM, GrimTuesday said:

Biden was a fine pick for the time, in fact, back then what we consider his baggage now, was actually considered something of a strength. A lot of people feared what would happen if a black person where to become president, Biden's appeal back then was that he would act as a counter balance to the, let's face it, racist feelings that the many white Americans feel. Kind of like when a company hires a minority to shut up those who would call them racist, Biden was a diversity hire.

Well no.  Biden was useless then and has only gone downhill.  What did he say, that Obama was the first black candidate to be bright and clean and articulate?  He was always a tire fire but at least he used check himself some.  If you don't believe me Fat, then you're just a lying dog faced pony soldier who isn't really black.

-----

I do confess, I was pretty deep into it Saturday night.  It's not so much that the media is full horseshit.  But when they act like they have a higher calling as the defenders of the weak, while parroting government and corporate interests, but still pretensing that they are afflicting the comfortable, I have to call bullshit.  And yes, government and corporate interests are far too aligned.  If they didn't try to mask their bias as some sort of truthsaying, I'd get less agitated.  But really, I wouldn't need a third hand to number all of the reporters in the national media that aren't total garbage.

[DMC]

7 hours ago, mcbigski said:

And yes, government and corporate interests are far too aligned. 

When we're talking about government and corporate interests aligning, we're talking about regulatory capture.  Regulatory capture happens far much more when the ideology you consistently espouse - and specifically encourage - on here leads to policy outcomes.  That's an empirical fact.  And it's been put on turbocharge since Trump's taken office.  But you can't respond to that, can you?  Nor the broad incompetence Trump's demonstrated since the beginning of the pandemic.  All the rest of the Russia bullshit or whatever, it really doesn't matter anymore even though you're objectively wrong on it (and no, I don't think it has anything to do with US fracking).  I can very readily empathize if you were three sheets to the wind, but inquiring minds still want to know if you'll blow John Ratcliffe or not.

[Freshwater Spartan]

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

 

Like Kal and Ty said, (I think), Obama spent his capital.  He got ACA over the finish line.  Maybe he could have done that sucking up a bit less of the oxygen and leaving a stronger bench, but he wasn't ineffective.  His instincts were usually wrong, (look at the Iran deal for example) and it's too bad he got his way so often but it's not like he was ineffective.

 

 Well said. Obama lacked the instincts and temperament to be strong brass knuckles political leader that could lead his party to win elections and passing legislation that will stand the test of time. The jury is still out on the ultimate impact of the ACA. Maybe it won't be gutted. Maybe it lays the foundation for future reform.

My hangup is that he couldn't win elections when it wasn't about him. Maybe Obama was effective but he was a poor party leader. I think you are fixated on 2009-2010. I often think about the other years.

 

[OldGimletEye]

10 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Like Kal and Ty said, (I think), Obama spent his capital.  He got ACA over the finish line.  Maybe he could have done that sucking up a bit less of the oxygen and leaving a stronger bench, but he wasn't ineffective.  His instincts were usually wrong, (look at the Iran deal for example) and it's too bad he got his way so often but it's not like he was ineffective.

Say you want about Obama, but

He is wasn't as bad as the idiot before and the idiot after him. How does a party manage to elect to such big idiots within a span of generation?

I've yet to hear a realistic Republican alternative to the Iran situation.

Obama wasn't perfect, but Republican during his time were just bat shit crazy. The whole response to the GFC was just fucking crazy. They never had any coherent plan with respect to Iran, other than maybe a military conflict which nobody, in their right mind, wanted. And their screw ups in Iraq are the stuff of legend. And lets not forget their 10 years of fucking lying about their plan for healthcare.

You know I'm not always pleased with the Democratic Party or the left. But, after watching over 20 years of Republican dipshittery what choice is there?

They want to be taken seriously, and then let idiots like Stephen Moore write columns for them.

Obama's biggest mistake was being naive about the Republican Party. He thought he could work with them. But, rather than reflecting on the disastrous Bush presidency and changing course, Republicans instead doubled down. And Obama was too slow to come to grips with that. And after watching his ordeal with the Republican Party, you think Biden would have learned the lesson. So, I wasn't really pleased with Biden when he hinted that he could "work" with Republicans. I'm highly doubtful that anyone can.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

The jury is still out on the ultimate impact of the ACA. Maybe it won't be gutted. Maybe it lays the foundation for future reform.

Regardless of other vapid and baseless criticisms of the Obama administration, this just simply isn't true.  The proverbial jury decidedly affirmed the ACA.  So did the courts.  It won't be gutted.  And its popularity has already laid the foundation for future reform.  It's been a decade.  There's another case out there, sure, but that just means the individual mandate is at risk.  Which hasn't been enforced at least since Trump took office anyway (not sure if it was ever really enforced).  

[Mexal]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Obama's biggest mistake was being naive about the Republican Party. And after watching his ordeal with the Republican Party, you think Biden would have learned the lesson. So, I wasn't really pleased with Biden when he hinted that he could "work" with Republicans. I'm highly doubtful that anyone can.

Nobody can, but if you look at the people who voted Democrat in 2018 (besides the normal coalition), a lot of them were suburban white men/women with college educations who normally vote Republican. It wasn't the Bernie, young progressives that won the Dems the House, it was former Republicans and they're the ones who will control the White House. You don't have to go right to cater to them completely but throwing a nod their way when campaigning isn't going to hurt anyone but the purists.

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Nobody can, but if you look at the people who voted Democratic in 2018 (besides the normal coalition), a lot of them were suburban white men/women with college educations who normally vote Republican. It wasn't the Bernie, young progressives that won the Dems the House, it was former Republicans and they're the ones who will control the White House. You don't have to go right to cater to them completely but throwing a nod their way when campaigning isn't going to hurt anyone but the purists.

This all fine if you roll up people that tend to vote Republican and the Republican Party into one entity.

I'm not opposed to having a bit more "moderate" politics to win elections. But, I don't see that as being the same thing as playing nicely with elected Republican leaders.

And of course, this doesn't take into account that people with college educations are seemingly preferring to vote left anyway, which seems to be happening not only in the US, but everywhere. A generation ago, if you had a college degree you generally voted Republican. That isn't true anymore.

[Freshwater Spartan]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Regardless of other vapid and baseless criticisms of the Obama administration, this just simply isn't true.  The proverbial jury decidedly affirmed the ACA.  So did the courts.  It won't be gutted.  And its popularity has already laid the foundation for future reform.  It's been a decade.  There's another case out there, sure, but that just means the individual mandate is at risk.  Which hasn't been enforced at least since Trump took office anyway (not sure if it was ever really enforced).  

Do you think the ACA as it stands currently solves the health care crises, guarantees quality health care for all and serves as a model law that will be upheld for future generations of what is right and true? 

I don't.