US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

[BigFatCoward]

52,000 cases in a day, is there any chance that the number gets so high that the people begin to get a false sense of patriotism?  

Is the US buying all the supplies being trumpeted as a huge win for the administration?

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

Regarding the $174K for Congresspeople: yes, it sounds like a lot, but that's still only upper middle class money which doesn't mean much for people who are near the top of the social hierarchy.

And isn't that the problem?

The salary of elected officials is a classic problem of political philosophy. If it is too high you run the risk of having people who seek financial gain only (rather than people genuinely motivated to serve) while if it is too low you run the risk of officials being easily corrupted by interest groups.

The problem becomes almost impossible to solve in a highly unequal society. $174k is high compared to the median salary in the US but low for the dominant classes (the oligarchy). Add the well-known issue of the "revolving door" and you can see that this problem has no simple solution.

[IheartIheartTesla]

The new job numbers are quite good, which Trump is (right now) promoting in a news conference, even though he did absolutely nothing to make it happen. Still at 11% unemployment though, but expect a slight uptick in his numbers (his wayward supporters are just looking for a reason to go back in the fold)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Ok, now here is the problem with this idea, namely that you win a lot of small victories that add up to a big one. Democrats don't win a lot of small victories, they win a few and declare the work is through. It took about 101 years between the time that the slaves were emancipated and when the civil rights act was passed. People were born, lived and died in that time span. That is the problem with incrementalism, there are real human costs to that inaction and to say we have to take it slow because moving too fast might upset the apple cart ignores the fact that all the apples are rotten. Then add to that the other party just keeps chipping away the meager gains we achieve and what are we left with? That isn't even considering that a lot of Dems also have corporate masters and special interests they serve as well which makes it even harder to achieve anything of true note.

We have the luxury of talking about these issues as a policy proposal, meanwhile people are suffering and dying from lack of healthcare, police violence, toxic drinking water, climate change, and exploitative capitalist practices to name just a few of our societies greatest ills. Politicians shouldn't be counseling moderation, they should be getting their asses in gear and thanking their lucky stars that a large proportion of Americans are too beaten down and focused on just surviving to get out and do it like they did in Paris 1789 (Please note that I do not endorse violent revolution).

But was the goal not ultimately accomplished? And yet is there not still a lot of work that needs to be done?

Things take time. Rushing them, even if it's the feel good argument, may not be the best strategy to making it work. Trust me, there are many things I wish I could just snap my fingers or wiggle my nose like that witch and make them so, but that's not how the world works. You must be careful, and yes, slow. That's basically how things work. Once in a while you get lightning in a bottle and can do something quickly. Those instances are very rare though, and treating everything like that is a good way to make nothing happen, at best.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

LO fucking L.

You're so fucking out of touch.  I gave you the fucking info you were too lazy to look up and you ignore it because your grandfather made $100 million in one year.  Who's the one who doesn't know how the world works?

Eta: There's nothing "fellow bleeding heart" about it.  We might vote for the same person for president every four years, that's about it.

Don't sweat it, life is a gradual release from ignorance.

 

Someone isn't reading. I never said my grandfather made that, and in fancy ballrooms when you were looking for him, the easiest way to find him was by going to the kitchen, because someone who crawled out of a Jewish ghetto with nothing and experience bigotry their entire life feels more comfortable with the underpaid wait staff than with the blue bloods.

You didn't look anything up for me. I'm not sure you even cited anything I didn't know. 

But yes, we may vote the same way every four years. Now, how much time have you spent working on getting these people elected? Because voting is the bare minimum you can do.

And yet I'm the ignorant one?  

 

[Fez]

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I'll stay nice, but quite honestly the idea that moderates are the ones achieving anything is... er... let's say, funny. That's a reading of history that... er... I hadn't seen before.

Seriously?

Who accomplished more?

Teddy Roosevelt or Robert M. La Follette?

Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine?

Adolphe Thiers or Maximilien Robespierre?

Otto von Bismarck or Kaiser Wilhelm II?

Carrie Chapman Catt or Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

 

And on the negative side, who did more damage?

John Boehner or Ron Paul?

Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz?

Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater?

 

Being closer to the center, wherever that may be, being perceived as the moderate option, not upsetting too many people at any one time, and pushing slowly but forever, that's how to accomplish lasting change.

 

[Gorn]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Who accomplished more?

Teddy Roosevelt or Robert M. La Follette?

Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine?

Adolphe Thiers or Maximilien Robespierre?

Otto von Bismarck or Kaiser Wilhelm II?

Carrie Chapman Catt or Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

 

And on the negative side, who did more damage?

John Boehner or Ron Paul?

Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz?

Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater?

 

Being closer to the center, wherever that may be, being perceived as the moderate option, not upsetting too many people at any one time, and pushing slowly but forever, that's how to accomplish lasting change.

 

- Roosevelt vs La Folette, Jefferson vs Paine, Boehner vs Paul and Reagan vs Goldwater are flawed comparisons of people with vastly different amounts of power. It's like comparing random forum members with US senators.

- Thiers vs Robespierre - clearly Robespierre. Abolished slavery, accomplished land reform & universal male suffrage, removed Catholic church from French political life, won a major external war, defeated a major internal rebellion. All in less than one year in power.

- Bismarck vs. Wilhelm II - I have no idea why you're comparing those two. Besides, Bismarck was not a "moderate" in any sense of the word.

- Catt vs. Stanton - without Stanton's previous efforts, Catt's wouldn't have been successful

- McConnell vs. Cruz - neither of them is "moderate", they're both equally radical

[Fez]

Just now, Gorn said:

- Roosevelt vs La Folette, Jefferson vs Paine, Boehner vs Paul and Reagan vs Goldwater are flawed comparisons of people with vastly different amounts of power. It's like comparing random forum members with US senators.

- Thiers vs Robespierre - clearly Robespierre. Abolished slavery, accomplished land reform & universal male suffrage, removed Catholic church from French political life, won a major external war, defeated a major internal rebellion. All in less than one year in power.

- Bismarck vs. Wilhelm II - I have no idea why you're comparing those two. Besides, Bismarck was not a "moderate" in any sense of the word.

- Catt vs. Stanton - without Stanton's previous efforts, Catt's wouldn't have been successful

- McConnell vs. Cruz - neither of them is "moderate", they're both equally radical

1. They reached those levels of power because of the stances they had.

2. Nearly everything Robespierre did was undone shortly after he died and there was an emperor followed by a restored monarchy. Thiers created a republic that lasted 70 years until the Nazis defeated them. Also, Robespierre did implement the reign of terror. So if we're talking about net positive good for people, you gotta keep that in place. 

3. Sure Bismarck was a moderate. After unifying Germany he did his utmost to maintain the political status quo in Europe, the definition of a moderate, to keep peace. He also implemented a variety of successful social programs that significantly improved life for the average Germany people; things like sickness insurance, accident insurance, and disability insurance. German emigration to the United States significantly declined after these programs went into effect. And he did this over the objections of more conservative politicians, but he was certainly no socialist.

4. I'd argue that Stanton significantly set back the movement through some of her actions. Not ones that would be considered more radical at the time (like driving a wedge between white women and minority women), but it is part of her legacy.

5. On the spectrum of Senate Republicans, McConnell is far more moderate than most of them. He doesn't care about libertarianism, or Trumpism, or conservative orthodoxy; he just cares about keep power. He is willing to cut deals with Democrats whenever he thinks it is in his interest to do so. And he will always get to keep as a footnote in his biography that he was the deciding senate vote against a constitutional amendment to criminalize flag bruning.

[Gorn]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

1. They reached those levels of power because of the stances they had.

2. Nearly everything Robespierre did was undone shortly after he died and there was an emperor followed by a restored monarchy. Thiers created a republic that lasted 70 years until the Nazis defeated them. Also, Robespierre did implement the reign of terror. So if we're talking about net positive good for people, you gotta keep that in place. 

3. Sure Bismarck was a moderate. After unifying Germany he did his utmost to maintain the political status quo in Europe, the definition of a moderate, to keep peace. He also implemented a variety of successful social programs that significantly improved life for the average Germany people; things like sickness insurance, accident insurance, and disability insurance. German emigration to the United States significantly declined after these programs went into effect. And he did this over the objections of more conservative politicians, but he was certainly no socialist.

4. I'd argue that Stanton significantly set back the movement through some of her actions. Not ones that would be considered more radical at the time (like driving a wedge between white women and minority women), but it is part of her legacy.

5. On the spectrum of Senate Republicans, McConnell is far more moderate than most of them. He doesn't care about libertarianism, or Trumpism, or conservative orthodoxy; he just cares about keep power. He is willing to cut deals with Democrats whenever he thinks it is in his interest to do so. And he will always get to keep as a footnote in his biography that he was the deciding senate vote against a constitutional amendment to criminalize flag bruning.

1. OK, I'll give you Roosevelt. Paine never ran for US president, Paul never ran for Speaker of the House. Reagan and Goldwater were equally radical, they just had different opponents under different circumstances.

2. Except none of those reforms could have been "put back into bottle" for long. Land reform wasn't undone, and it permanently solved the issue of famines in France. Abolition of slavery, although short-lived, directly led to freedom for Haiti. Reversals of suffrage and secularism were themselves short-lived. As for Reign of Terror, abolition of slavery alone gives him more positive points in my book than Reign does negative ones.

3. Again, I'm not sure why you're comparing the two. They're not moderate vs. radical; they're two different statesmen with different goals in different generations.

4. Fair enough.

5. I would disagree about McConnell being apolitical, he cares very much about conservative orthodoxy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Who accomplished more?

Teddy Roosevelt or Robert M. La Follette?

Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine?

Adolphe Thiers or Maximilien Robespierre?

Otto von Bismarck or Kaiser Wilhelm II?

Carrie Chapman Catt or Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

 

And on the negative side, who did more damage?

John Boehner or Ron Paul?

Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz?

Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater?

 

Being closer to the center, wherever that may be, being perceived as the moderate option, not upsetting too many people at any one time, and pushing slowly but forever, that's how to accomplish lasting change.

 

I still think bad things should happen to McConnell. What he's done to something I care deeply about. The mother fucker.

Ted's just an asshole. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

19 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Hey, I have zero issue with taking what gains you can when you can get them.  But as some kind of axiom that the smallest progress is best, I think it's super flawed.  I think the entire 'incrementalism vs radicalism' is a false dichotomy.  

Yeah, incrementalism is bullshit. It's like when Feinstein yelled at those kids about climate change and lectured them she knows how things work, and they have to work slowly blah blah blah, and in the decades she's "served," the issues of income inequality, climate change, incarceration of black men, etc. is worse. The other side swings for the fences, and they've reshaped this country since the New Deal. Democrats take tiny chunks out of their massive changes to the structure of this society, and they celebrate that at a win. They are inept, and what's worse, they know it. They've gotten rich on it.

12 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Absolutely atrocious, this ruling effectively obliterates the protection from religion many secular citizens have long cherished.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-espinoza-montana-religious-schools.amp

We will have generations of state sanctioned Young Earth Creationist, babbling idiots convinced Jesus rode dinosaurs and his daddy created the world in 7 days about 4000 yrs ago.

As if we weren't already deficit challenged over scientific knowledge and critical thought. 

We just opened a bullet train towards 3rd World living standards for future wide swaths of unemployable, untrainable, morons. But hey they will be great marksman I'm sure. Cuz you know being handy with your assault weapon is critical amirite?

It is atrocious, and it has so many ramifications beyond funding private religious schools. However, if we're going to pay for their bullshit, then they've got to pay for the things we know will help people right now: medicare for all, housing all of our homeless whether they work or not (because they're fucking humans), making sure no one goes hungry, etc. This ruling is the result of the Democratic strategy of incrementalism. 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Who accomplished more?

You don't get out of a fallacy by adding others on top.

The problem now is that you consider that legislative or institutional achievements are the one metric to use.
That's not how history works.
When considering any major social change, legislative or institutional achievements are the final steps of the process (and then, that's a best case scenario).
To focus on the "accomplishments" like you do... That's confusing the cause and the consequence. It's thinking the XIIIth amendment was the actual reason for abolishing slavery... rather than the result of the abolitionist movement (that was far older than Lincoln, uh?). Like saying the 19th amendment was why women got the right to vote... not feminism or suffragettes. Like saying the Civil Rights Act ended segregation or discrimination... etc, etc.

It's ridiculous, it's laughable, and it reveals... You care so little for social progress that you'd rather it happened in the past or in the future.

I'm not one for ad hominem attacks but this strikes me as the discourse of someone who not only has never had to fight for anything, but who doesn't give a shit about the people who do. It's so disconnected from any kind of progressivism that it's pretty much equivalent to conservatism.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Being closer to the center, wherever that may be, being perceived as the moderate option,

This implies the existence of a radical option.

The idea that it's better to stay near the center if there is a choice is... damn, it's stupid. By that reasoning, progress would look like Zeno's arrow paradox: never going anywhere. Thank god most people don't believe such idiocy.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

not upsetting too many people at any one time,

Yeah, let's not upset the Trump voters.

That's how you'll get progress. Makes total sense.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 hours ago, ants said:

In the last thread the post of yours I quoted:

• Stated there was speculation that Trump may drop out of this race, but if he did would still do the debates with Biden
• Said that Biden's whole strategy was to pretend he's not running.  
• That if Trump drops out, "Joe's probably in more trouble"
• And that "Democrats can't see past next week"

I am definitely saying that if Trump drops out, the Dems current strategy was/is extremely successful, since Trump will only withdraw if he thinks he will lose so bad it will be embarrassing and hurt his brand.  Therefore, Biden will be positioned to win at that point in time.  You may criticise what Biden is doing, but it is only increasing his lead in the polls.  If it works, it works.  

But then you also wanted to have a dig that the Democrats should be able to foresee that their approach would be so successful that Trump would walk away, and have elected a different candidate....

Yes, I'm saying that the idea that the Democrats should have voted for a different candidate because they should have foreseen that Biden would be too successful, is freaking biased of you.  And if you credit all of Trump's failures to BLM and COVID, again, are you really blaming Democrat voters for not foreseeing those two events?  Really?  

First, I was stating two possible scenarios on how Trump could make Biden's disappearing act backfire. Obviously if he drops out he wouldn't debate Biden. Trump could stay in and debate Biden--he has nothing to lose, and due to Biden's strategy of hiding and letting Trump destroy himself, he now has to get out there and say things which might drive people away from him. Trump could also drop out and the Dems would really be in big trouble. 

The Dems strategy is successful only against Trump, got it. Great. But if they don't win because of this strategy due to several factors that could happen, then it's an idiotic strategy. Let someone like Romney step in and pull back all those on-the-fence people. 

And their approach has nothing to do with Trump walking away. Trump did it to himself. Are you telling me that if Biden had a presence and was talking about his plans for the U.S. that would have made things switch to Trump's favor? Biden has nothing to do with Trump's meltdown. That's all Trump. Biden should be out there not fighting him, but maybe showing he has a presence, that he is a leader--he could, I don't know, provide a narrative of a hopeful future where the U.S. isn't burning to the ground. 

Your last paragraph makes no sense. I'm not saying we should have voted differently. That's in the past. Biden needs to do something now because he is the candidate for the Presidency. He needs to demonstrate presidential qualities. 

Anyone who has a difficult task to do in their life, if their strategy is to hide and let outside forces do the work for them? That's a stupid fucking strategy. But maybe Trump will stay in, keep blundering around for several more months, and Biden will emerge from his bunker as President. What a signal to us that we're not all fucked.

ETA: And if you think Biden's strategy is to sit back and let Trump lose (as opposed to Biden win), you're giving him way too much credit. He is a gaffe machine, and he is an incredibly weak candidate. Hiding him so he doesn't step on his own dick while Trump melts down is what is really going on here. That gives me very little confidence in anything related to him. He wants to be President. Stand up and be a damned leader.

[Lollygag]

@Simon Steele Are you aware that you're promoting a major Trump campaign goal?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/503485-gop-fears-bidens-low-key-campaign-is-paying-off

Quote

Meanwhile, Republicans have watched with growing alarm as President Trump’s polling numbers have fallen to frightening new lows for an incumbent.

The Trump campaign is desperate to draw Biden into the fray, believing the gaffe-prone former vice president would make some potentially game-changing mistakes during unscripted moments in the public eye.

...

The president’s allies are demanding that Biden get out more and that the news media livestream his events or pressure him to be more accessible.

...

But there is little the Trump campaign can do right now to get Biden to change his strategy, though they continue to try. 

“The only way to smoke him out is to start throwing haymakers directly at Biden,” said one Republican who is close to the campaign. “It needs to come from the campaign and the president directly, and they need to be the kinds of shots that force a response. Right now, the Biden campaign has no incentive to respond. But I also think at a certain point the press pool will get frustrated by the lack of press conferences and access and Biden will start to feel organic pressure to be more accessible.”

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone isn't reading. I never said my grandfather made that, and in fancy ballrooms when you were looking for him, the easiest way to find him was by going to the kitchen, because someone who crawled out of a Jewish ghetto with nothing and experience bigotry their entire life feels more comfortable with the underpaid wait staff than with the blue bloods.

You didn't look anything up for me. I'm not sure you even cited anything I didn't know. 

But yes, we may vote the same way every four years. Now, how much time have you spent working on getting these people elected? Because voting is the bare minimum you can do.

And yet I'm the ignorant one?  

 

1.  Sorry, you mentioned your grandfather was a lawyer who wouldn't take a pay cut to go into politics, and then mentioned a lawyer in your family once made 100million in a year so why would they take a pay cut to work in politics.  Shouldn't have assumed it was the same person.

 

2. (Bolded) I did fucking look up the average and median attorney salaries in the US.  Fuck this nonsense.  And then you had the gall too say "IDK what lawyers make".  And then when that figure was less than the $174k, counter to your claims, you just waved it away with "well I know lawyers who make more".   Cool if you already knew that but were ignoring it because it ruined your argument.  

The condescension isn't becoming.  You volunteer anywhere?  You worked on Amy Klobuchar's campaign?  Good for you.  

*Yes, I've canvassed before.  When I lived in DC I went door to door giving out information on lead lines in the cities water system for an internship, and what steps you could take to minimize the risks. In San Diego in 2008 I knocked on doors and made phone calls for the city DA campaign, also for Proposition 8, and I distributed Obama scwhag through a local progressive group.  

But change doesn't just come from political campaigns and politicians.  The current situation with your Minneapolis police being a prime example that counters your claims on this topic, which you're just ignoring.  

If you've been trolling, kudos, I'm honestly impressed.  Otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself.

*and none of this matters!  believe it or not shit happens outside of elections!  I've gotta say, i have vast experience in politics because i saw a politic once, and human psychology because i studied psychology (with humans!)  I wish in one hand and shit in the other, and dreams and rainbows and bleeding hearts, sorry I support that but can't actually support it until a focus group says i can.  My uncle used to shit in both his hands and then wish they were both empty.  My aunt on the other hand...This is the way the world works, take it from me, kid!

[Fragile Bird]

Well, well, well. Herman Cain, who chairs Trumps Blacks for Trump group, tested positive for Covid-19 and is in hospital, suggesting it’s serious. He attended the Tulsa rally, and posted pictures of himself seated, maskless, in the stands, surrounded by other black supporters.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine?

He accomplished making the new USA safe and justified for white supremacy and people like him to live off the selling of human bodies without ever doing a day's work himself for over 60 years.  Which we live with every minute of every day ever since.  So yah he accomplished more than anybody, yay him.

[maarsen]

Trying to change society, whether one is a radical or a moderate, is damned hard to do. I would consider myself more radical on the social justice side of things than most of the people I deal with in my life. There is a deep aversion to change in most people even if the change is for the better. Look at the French revolution mentioned in an earlier post. Land reform, universal male suffrage and the end of the Catholic church in government was all done, but once the monarchy was restored, there was a lot of resistance to changing things back to the way it was before the revolution.

In my own experience as a union executive, getting even small changes in the labour contract was extremely hard to do as we faced resistance to any changes from our members and from  management.  The only way to get any change through on both sides was to be devious as can be and use an incremental path to a desired goal. Lots of little victories worked better than one big victory over the long run.

[Kalbear]

I'll say it again. Regardless of radical or moderate, what has resulted in the most change in the most reliable way has been local and state changes which get picked up and used as a benchmark for federal changes. Civil Rights, women's suffrage, gay marriage - all are great examples of this. The ADA is one of the few I can think of as an example that didn't. Medicare and Social Security might be another, depending on what kind of change you're looking for. 

[Zorral]

And the 'radical' white supremacists have rolled back Civil Rights, women's rights, in a matter of a years, sometimes a few months or weeks. Ya, incremental, moderate change really works.  So well it works that now any white person thinks s/he can point a gun and even kill anyone who isn't white and no problema.  Hey the cops don't worry about it, why should they?

Plus, yaknow, the very slow moderate even to doing nothing has done such good job dealing with covid-19, so successfully has this been that there are over 50,000 new cases in the US today.  Over 10 thousand of them in Florida alone.

Tell us some more fairy tales.