US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

[sologdin]

we might draw a distinction between shoot-the-burglar statutes, on the one hand, and shoot-the-prowler statutes, on the other.  we might further distinguish from both of these the shoot-anyone-while-afraid doctrine pushed by jittery NRA agitators.  oklahoma goes further still in endorsing the ancient declaration of senatus consultum ultimum, wherein, according to professor agamben, "every citizen seems to be invested with a floating and anomalous imperium that resists definition within the terms of the normal order" (state of exception at 43), to the extent that it apparently permits homicide 

Quote

When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

within the kenomatic state of the senatus consultus ultimum, all citizens are empowered to preserve the juridical order by defying the legal order. this developed later through gratian's decretum:

Quote

If something is done out of necessity, it is done licitly, since what is not licit in law necessity makes licit. Likewise necessity has no law.

it is good to see conservative values on display through the re-urging of ancient roman anti-ochlocratic measures.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This is a bullshit argument.  Any moderate member of congress is going to have "achieved more liberal goals" than someone who isn't an elected official, by any metric that'd you'd use.  By this logic no voter can be more liberal than Joe Manchin.  Bullshit.  Oh you didn't once vote on an ACA related bill?  Because you're a citizen and not a fucking Senator?  Sorry, all congressional Dems are more liberal than you.  Weak sauce.

 

I always find it baffling when arguments like that are made. It's akin to a writer with bad reviews firing back to the critics, "How many books have you written?" You can be far more left than an elected official who falls into the neoliberal trap of becoming the old Republican party. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

There's a marked difference between "hiding" and allowing your opponent to self destruct.  Particularly when your opponent is the incumbent, and has quite obvious self-destructive qualities and behavior, and especially when you can't actually physically campaign anyway.

Weird, this seems like hiding: Biden talks to media for the first time in three months.

I love the language of Politico, pumping him up as some great leader. But the fact remains, he has been a non-entity, and this can only work if things remain as they are right now until November. Biden's squandering his opportunity.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I love the language of Politico, pumping him up as some great leader. But the fact remains, he has been a non-entity, and this can only work if things remain as they are right now until November. Biden's squandering his opportunity.

In what way could increasing your lead from 5 to 9 points over the past two months be "squandering" his opportunity?  You feel he ought to be up by 12 or 15 points instead?  

If this election is a referendum on Trump, Biden will win.  Period.  Biden's strategy is to see to it that it is, and that strategy is working.  Biden could adopt a different strategy, but you're going to have to make the case for why he needs to.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

In what way could increasing your lead from 5 to 9 points over the past two months be "squandering" his opportunity?  You feel he ought to be up by 12 or 15 points instead?  

I mean, we can't ask the man to be Brian Boitano. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So just wanted to check what I had missed out on.

Zorral and DMC are ahving a go at each other. Two New Yorkers calling each other out for acting like jerks. Please, don't go New York on me.

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean, we can't ask the man to be Brian Boitano. 

Almost, but the quesiton is obviously.

What would Bernie Sanders do, if he was here right now. He would kick an ass or two, that's what Bernie Sanders'd do. [yes, I should have thought about running into problems with metrics before I started].

Anyway, on my youtube few of those Republican Voters Against Trump videos popped up. I must say, they make good entertainment, and I could see myself ending up binge watching them. Some are better than others, but I can recommend them as a whole. Watch them before Benioff and Weiss run out of material and are forced to write stuff themselves. It adds weight to the notion, that Biden just leaning back, and watch Trump world implode is the best course of action right now. As in, why ruin an election by adding policy proposals, when you can just make it an election on the POTUS and Republicans having to deal with this orange Albatros downticket.

Going back to the New Yorkers. Serious quesiton tho. Was Engel that bad, that he really needed to get outprimaried. I mean, I just checked him and his positions and wikipedia (I am not American so shoot me for being lazy), and I couldn't help to think that there are probably more deserving targets out there *cough* Chuck *cough*.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What's the difference between "Clara" operating in her conservative state than Doug working in his? 

Piss on liberals from liberal places who don't act like liberals. That's fair. But the ones surviving in red states, afford them the fact that they will need to take positions you may not like. Trust me, they may not like them either. But sometimes you got to do it to keep your seat. 

This all just sounds like someone who needs to learn more about politics.

Nothing I said was bs. It's a hard truth you've got to eat. And you seem to not get that, or don't want to accept it.

And yes, those two, specifically, would work harder than just about anyone you'll ever meet.

ETA: Also, well paying is relative. They're actually all grossly underpaid. 

As usual, not engaging with any argument, but then you never really had one in the first place, other than "centrist Dem MOCs are the leftists of the world". 

They make $174,000 a year with benefits.  I don't know what fucking planet you live on where that is grossly underpaid.  Some of us live in this world, not just on it.  

You think any* of these people are going to do shit about actual police reform?  You live in a fantasyland of privilege.

 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Weird, this seems like hiding: Biden talks to media for the first time in three months.

I love the language of Politico, pumping him up as some great leader. But the fact remains, he has been a non-entity, and this can only work if things remain as they are right now until November. Biden's squandering his opportunity.

That was NOT the first time in three months Biden has talked to the media, that’s bullshit. I’ve seen him interviewed numerous times in three months. It was the first time there was a ‘press conference’, because a couple of reporters were at the event and he took questions. But he’s been on tv via Zoom or whatever he uses repeatedly. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What would Bernie Sanders do, if he was here right now. He would kick an ass or two, that's what Bernie Sanders'd do. [yes, I should have thought about running into problems with metrics before I started].

Sadly, I think he'd more likely ask people agree with his rigid philosophy and then claim it was their fault he lost. But what do I know?

31 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

As usual, not engaging with any argument, but then you never really had one in the first place, other than "centrist Dem MOCs are the leftists of the world". 

They make $174,000 a year with benefits.  I don't know what fucking planet you live on where that is grossly underpaid.  Some of us live in this world, not just on it.  

You think any* of these people are going to do shit about actual police reform?  You live in a fantasyland of privilege.

 

Oh, that's not fair. I love engaging with arguments, especially the ones that challenge me and make me reconsider my own beliefs. But yelling bullshit a lot on a topic I know more than you about isn't exactly going to make me be my best self. Would it make you? Of course not.

So let's break this down. 

I prefer people who can accomplish things, and yes, that does tend to be the more moderate people, even if, like I said, privately they're not moderates at all. And you really need to understand that. 

And yes, considering what they do, that is being underpaid. Look at the average pay in other fields. Then ask yourself which is more important. If you paid your politicians more and told them they could spend a lot less time fund raising, don't you think the field would improve? 

Also, I mean, my city did just basically nuke its police force. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sadly, I think he'd more likely ask people agree with his rigid philosophy and then claim it was their fault he lost. But what do I know?

Oh, that's not fair. I love engaging with arguments, especially the ones that challenge me and make me reconsider my own beliefs. But yelling bullshit a lot on a topic I know more than you about isn't exactly going to make me be my best self. Would it make you? Of course not.

So let's break this down. 

I prefer people who can accomplish things, and yes, that does tend to be the more moderate people, even if, like I said, privately they're not moderates at all. And you really need to understand that. 

And yes, considering what they do, that is being underpaid. Look at the average pay in other fields. Then ask yourself which is more important. If you paid your politicians more and told them they could spend a lot less time fund raising, don't you think the field would improve? 

Also, I mean, my city did just basically nuke its police force. 

What do you think made your city do that?  Was it people like Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin?  Was it down at the voting booth?  Or did it maybe have something to do with the protests?

But sure, Joe Manchin is more of a friend to the left than a social worker guiding people to needle exchanges or heating assistance, because they vote on bills.   You're still ignoring the argument, and whining about me cursing instead.  

Re:congressional salary:

Wtf do you think the average person makes?  $174,000 is a lot of money.  They aren't grossly underpaid by any standard.  

[Zorral]

Only one of us is a NYer.

And thank goodness, the governor has postponed the reopening of restaurants and bars for indoor eating and drinking!  That's the first bit of good news in these last weeks of increasingly terrible news of this nations irredeemable refusal to contain and manage and restrain the virus as the economy circles down to dead, fred -- except for the corrupt ultra wealthy who are still ultra wealthy.  A huge difference right there between the 14th century and 2020 -- bubonic plague actually brought opportunity for whole groups to begin to achieve a bit of economic opportunity and upward mobility -- though the ruling classes of the time also fought that movement with everything they could bring to that class war.

This pandemic? they don't even die, much less lose wealth, and they are continuing at ever accelerating rate to extract what little anyone else may have preserved so far.

[Rippounet]

56 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I prefer people who can accomplish things, and yes, that does tend to be the more moderate people,

In the grand scheme of things, no, and this assertion is rather oxymoronic - since by definition a moderate would be likely to accomplish very little.

I think this is why your remarks elicit such reactions, because they contain an obvious fallacy. By definition, moderates do not achieve major social changes.
This mistake is through no fault of your own though. The fact that "moderates" could indeed accomplish a lot at this point is simply due to the current nature of US politics, with popular advocates of government action on the one hand, and Republicans intent on eliminating it on the other hand.
It's a rather peculiar situation imho, in which "moderation" may actually be far more radical than the word implies. Or, to use simpler terms, the US political landscape is a bloody mess right now.

But in the grand scheme of things, I would -ironically- agree with Mr Goldwater that moderation is certainly not a virtue...

[Fez]

There's a strong argument to be made that in most circumstances incrementalism accomplishes far more long-term change than radicalism. And moderates tend to favor incrementalism more than others; ergo, center-left moderates have accomplished more to improve society than the far left.

[IheartIheartTesla]

It didnt take too long for PPP to come out with a Colorado Senate ad, and its Hickenlooper up by 11 against Gardner. Also, another poll out of NC that has Tillis down by 10, but I prefer to think its much closer than that. Peters also up fairly comfortable here in Michigan.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Both the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act were ushered in by moderates, but who embraced radical change partly in response to the changing environment around them (and in Johnson's case, he did use a lot of arm-twisting to accomplish his goals, so there is something to be said for that style of accommodation).

So I guess its not just how the person would fall under the political spectrum in normal times, but also how they respond to externalities. I am hopeful Biden would be in the Johnson mold.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

So I guess its not just how the person would fall under the political spectrum in normal times, but also how they respond to externalities. I am hopeful Biden would be in the Johnson mold.

I'm also somewhat hopeful on this front.  Not that Biden will become an ardent lefty, but I think that if the Democrats are moving towards something ambitious, I could easily see Biden continuing to put pressure on Democratic Senators to get things done (which is something he proved good at as VP).  If Democrats take the Senate, even with just 50 votes, I fully expect at the very least a big infrastructure/climate investment bill to help jumpstart the economy and take a big step on Renewable Energy.  Won't be Green New Deal big, but still a very big bill by any other standard.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

What do you think made your city do that?  Was it people like Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin?  Was it down at the voting booth?  Or did it maybe have something to do with the protests? 

Probably self preservation, and again, it's just a promise to promise in the future to promise and maybe try something. That's how the world works.

Quote

But sure, Joe Manchin is more of a friend to the left than a social worker guiding people to needle exchanges or heating assistance, because they vote on bills.   You're still ignoring the argument, and whining about me cursing instead.  

Have I not spent many posts trashing Manchin?

Quote

Re:congressional salary:

Wtf do you think the average person makes?  $174,000 is a lot of money.  They aren't grossly underpaid by any standard. 

Average person with their degrees? A lot more than that. Most of these people take a pay cut to become public servants. Like giant pay cuts. Now will they make that up on the back end? Most likely. But that's not how things should work. Which was the crux of my argument. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

There's a strong argument to be made that in most circumstances incrementalism accomplishes far more long-term change than radicalism. And moderates tend to favor incrementalism more than others; ergo, center-left moderates have accomplished more to improve society than the far left.

I suppose it depends on what you're considering incrementalist and what you're considering radical. How big a change should no longer be construed as incrementalist? There's probably no perfect society and no 'end point' to necessary change, so in that sense everything's incremental. But there are also clearly times when we move in leaps in bounds instead of tinkering around the edges. 

I look at the New Deal as being a pretty radical restructuring of the role of the federal government, and probably still the most important long term accomplishment of progressives, either radical or incrementalist. Certainly it's fair to say there were more radical alternatives, but I don't think that makes it incrementalist. 

If we look back a little further to one the defining issues of American history- slavery- the incrementalist record is pretty poor. Moderates condemned generations of black Americans to live as slaves, and in the end it took an extremely bloody civil war to end slavery anyway, and it happened very suddenly. Then, after radicals briefly tried to protect the Civil Rights of black Americans over the objections of moderates, there was about another century of segregation until, over a relatively brief timescale the Federal Government stepped in to end legal segregation, only after a mass movement demanded it. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

If we look back a little further to one the defining issues of American history- slavery- the incrementalist record is pretty poor. Moderates condemned generations of black Americans to live as slaves, and in the end it took an extremely bloody civil war to end slavery anyway, and it happened very suddenly. 

Yet it was not a New England abolitionist, but a Western moderate who finally ended slavery.  And there is also evidence that Lincoln's insistence that the Civil War was about union, not slavery, that was instrumental in maintaining Northern support for the war in the first two years.  

Abolishing slavery was undoubtedly a radical change, but whether it can be laid on the feet of strident abolitionists or moderates is highly debatable.  Both sides obviously played a role, as is almost always the case.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Probably self preservation, and again, it's just a promise to promise in the future to promise and maybe try something. That's how the world works.

Have I not spent many posts trashing Manchin?

Average person with their degrees? A lot more than that. Most of these people take a pay cut to become public servants. Like giant pay cuts. Now will they make that up on the back end? Most likely. But that's not how things should work. Which was the crux of my argument. 

Ok, you're just evading the point.  You said you don't like Manchin.  Fine!  That has absolutely nothing to do with why I quoted you in the first place and you know it, because you said that McCaskill and Manchin have accomplished more liberal achievements than Grim Tuesday.  Which is the bullshit statement that got is here in the first place!  Your argument that McCaskill is more of a liberal than Grim Tuesday just because she's a senator is bad.  Is that better?  

What degree is $174k the average salary for, and how many MOCs hold that degree?  Is Chuck Grassley taking a pay cut to be a Senator?   Would love to see some evidence of this, that they are grossly underpaid.  Senators are closer to vampires than they are to the sparkly, plucky, heroes you're describing. 

Someone with a law degree is probably not making that.

Re:bolded, huh, well if that was the crux I guess it was.  You'd never know it by what you actually wrote.  I mean, you already admitted that they make it up on the back end, so I can't see anyway that would make them grossly underpaid.  Why don't you list some senators who would be earning much more in the private sector?

You've backed all these claims up with nothing beyond "I know more about this than you.". You certainly haven't shown it.  You worked for a member of congress.  Doesn't mean you know fuck all about what's best for leftist causes, or the best way for a cause to achieve a goal. 

Back to your city, since you ignored my question: did Amy Klobuchar, Joe Manchin, and Claire McCaskill bring about this possible revamping the PD?  Or was it something else?  Was it a sitting Senator?  Or did a bunch of people in your community have something to do with it?  Has your City Council now achieved more leftist goals than the protestors and rioters?  Where does change come from?

Just admit that your statement that started this entire thing was bullshit, or explain why it wasn't.  Why are you holding up these moderate Senators as more helpful to the left than the people who are moving the needle?  

Please just educate me.  I'm sorry ok!  I'm a fucking moron who doesn't know anything about politics, please enlighten my stupid blue collar ass.  You know so much more about this than me, please explain 

 

Eta:

Maybe the salary thing is a moot point, because there is no job where $174k a year is grossly underpaid.  Just because some people in a similar profession might make more, doesn't mean that's underpaid.  It just means that there's not much correlation between how hard you work and what you earn.  Would still love to see some data to back up your assertion that they are grossly underpaid.