US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

[A Horse Named Stranger]

21 minutes ago, Zorral said:

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.

Shout out to the people, that felt the slow incremental change under Obama was not enough, and sat out 2016!

[HoodedCrow]

I am a progressive. However, Trump is a disaster that requires priority voting. First we need to get rid of the GOP, then worry about fine tuning. You can orphan your ideas in a two party system by being so far left that you lose the majority. Ask Muskie, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale  and Carter. There are numerous examples, in Canada, of the left wing not succeeding nationally, or even proportionately, and letting the Conservatives sneak a win.

[Fez]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

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

I'm going to take the high route and just say that your viewpoint expressed here is atrociously fucking stupid, and not make any comments about you as a person.

Change, real lasting change, happens when you convince the moderate center to go along with it. When you convince the apolitical, the nonpolitical, and the usually contented to go along with it. Revolutions (or, less dramatically, policy movements) supported only by students, professors, or the upper middle class fail; it's when they starting convincing broad swathes of the working class and middle class to join in that they succeed. And  the way you get that mass of people on your side is to be "reasonable" and moderate as possible, while casting your opposition as the radical threat to their way of life, and while making sure you don't threaten any of the cultural touchstones that create their identity. And by incrementally moving the terms of the debate towards your goal, so that what was once radical becomes mainstream and accepted. 

And in terms of today. Yes. If you want to accomplish any policy success in the United States in the next four years, you're going to need the support of at least some of the people that voted for Trump in 2016. Not a huge amount; but a few.

38 minutes ago, Zorral said:

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.

Except those conservatives have been extremely incremental, just in the opposite direction of what you'd like. Almost everything that Republicans have successfully done since Trump took office is the logical progression of 40 years of Republicans incrementally changing the terms of debate on issues, gaining and maintaining control of state governments, and appointing conservative justices. 

None of it came out of nowhere. They had everything lined up and waiting for when they had the opportunity to act; with the public on board for a lot it (at least the economic side). Trump through a wrench into things by being so unpopular and by trying to force issues where all this careful work hadn't been done. But as of right now, it looks like he'll be drummed out of office in a few months without accomplishing anything longterm that the Republican party wasn't already on board for.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

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.

Wait until you hear how he was cured with his genius 19-19-19 plan, 19 pizzas, 19 cups of bleach, consumed in 19 hours, and BAMMM!  Cured and back in the saddle!

[A True Kaniggit]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Wait until you hear how he was cured with his genius 19-19-19 plan, 19 pizzas, 19 cups of bleach, consumed in 19 hours, and BAMMM!  Cured and back in the saddle!

It only works if he also sings the Pokémon song. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

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.

Happens. 

Quote

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.  

Well I had the gall to say IDK what they make because some, who are my friends, actually make next to nothing. But high end lawyers? They make a lot more than what a member of Congress makes. The variance is large. And the smartest lawyers don't always actually practice law.

Quote

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

Well, to be fair, I've worked for a number of elected officials, and more importantly, I've worked in political bodies. I know how things work, and reach for too much too quickly is a great way to derail what you want. And hey, guess what, there are some times, rare as they are, that taking the moonshot is the wise thing to do. I just wouldn't rock the boat when possibly the worst president ever looks very weak.

Quote

*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.  

Good for you, and I say that sincerely. But I am getting sick and tired of people who never were willing to do anything and now just post about politics and think they're an activist. Not exactly the same as walking into the office at 7 or 8 in the morning and still being there after midnight. 

And of course I'm not trolling, but your uncle needs to wash those dirty hands.

[Martell Spy]

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

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.

Well, clearly he will start believing in wearing masks, now. If he survives. And Texas of all places now has a mask mandate. It's almost like the cowboys aren't tough enough to handle a little corona.

[A True Kaniggit]

30 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, clearly he will start believing in wearing masks, now. If he survives. And Texas of all places now has a mask mandate. It's almost like the cowboys aren't tough enough to handle a little corona.

A high percentage of Americans in the South are idiots.

I know. I live with them.

And the longer I live, the less I feel inclined to make excuses for them. 

[Gertrude]

6 minutes ago, Triskele said:

GOP Senators mull when to break with Trump.  

That article used Joni Ernst as the example. She should be fucking nervous. The problem is, breaking from Trump now - after covering for all his terrible shit up until now - is not going to earn her any points with anyone who disapproves of Trump and it will just piss off her base. It's a no-win situation and I'm glad to see it. Fuck her and Fuck Grassley. Grassley won't be running again I imagine, but I wouldn't put it past him to retire and let the R governor replace him. He's been grooming his grandson for the job.

[Zorral]

Speaking of TX: just came in from a reconnoiter around the restaurant-bar insane nabe.  Everywhere Very Expensive vehicles, disgorging Very Expensive passengers. Many of those vehicles with license plates -- Texas and Florida.  None of the passengers wearing masks.  The places into which they are sashaying -- nobody is wearing masks either.  Except the servers.  Nobody's anywhere near 6 feet apart.  In many of these places the awnings / tents are essentially inside, and they have some form of a portable a/c unit.  There are of course also NY plates on other vehicles.  But I made a count and about 1/3 were with Florida and Texas plates.

Many of these places have more tables now on the sidewalks and streets than they were able to have inside. There is nowhere for people like us to walk.

Not  cop in sight to enforce anything.  I suppose if they're enforcing, it's in the Bronx.

This is return to NYC's previous catastrophe.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

A high percentage of Americans in the South are idiots.

I know. I live with them.

And the longer I live, the less I feel inclined to make excuses for them. 

We're not much better here up North. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

That article used Joni Ernst as the example. She should be fucking nervous. The problem is, breaking from Trump now - after covering for all his terrible shit up until now - is not going to earn her any points with anyone who disapproves of Trump and it will just piss off her base. It's a no-win situation and I'm glad to see it. Fuck her and Fuck Grassley. Grassley won't be running again I imagine, but I wouldn't put it past him to retire and let the R governor replace him. He's been grooming his grandson for the job.

When you make a deal with the devil thinking all is well, and then come to realize you made a deal with a shitty devil, things start to unravel. 

[ants]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

GOP Senators mull when to break with Trump.  

That seems to be from this longer article, or they both have the same source:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/trump-despondent-as-numbers-crater-loser-label-looms

I'm not sure if I really believe the Republicans will abandon Trump while he's still running, or what that would actually look like.  Go lukewarm and stop mentioning him, I could see that.  

[Kalbear]

The only way Republicans will abandon Trump is if he is shown to be a massive, huge loser. A few - like Romney - are going to position themselves as the next leader by way of their opposition for a while. Others will just sweep it under the rug, just like they did with Bush. And nothing will change.

I don't know how to keep saying it, but for the vast majority of corporate Republicans and politicians Trump has been absolutely incredible. He has done basically every single thing they wanted, and in response they just had to say that they were deeply concerned now and then. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/1/2020 at 5:07 PM, 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.  

I don't think the radical versus incremental distinction is particularly helpful. I think it should be more along the lines of 1) does the intended policy change have a good chance of bringing about the intended result (of course the this assumes the intended result is desirable), 2) will there be a political price to pay?, 3) if there is a political price to pay, is the intended trade off to bring about the policy worth it?

2&3 of course can be tricky. For example, I'd love to nuke our current healthcare system and go with single payer. And I'm sure it would likely work better in the long run for most people. But, I'm quite convinced it would likely have few hiccups before working itself out and the uncertainty of a new healthcare system would likely make a lot of people angry. The Democrats would likely find themselves out of power, perhaps for a long time, if they attempted it and maybe lose their long earned credibility on healthcare matters. It's just not a risk I'm willing to take.

 

[Martell Spy]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think the radical versus incremental distinction is particularly helpful. I think it should be more along the lines of 1) does the intended policy change have a good chance of bringing about the intended result (of course the this assumes the intended result is desirable), 2) will there be a political price to pay?, 3) if there is a political price to pay, is the intended trade off to bring about the policy worth it?

2&3 of course can be tricky. For example, I'd love to nuke our current healthcare system and go with single payer. And I'm sure it would likely work better in the long run for most people. But, I'm quite convinced it would likely have few hiccups before working itself out and the uncertainty of a new healthcare system would likely make a lot of people angry. The Democrats would likely find themselves out of power, perhaps for a long time, if they attempted it and maybe lose their long earned credibility on healthcare matters. It's just not a risk I'm willing to take.

 

There is always backlash. Sometimes it is worth it though and you don't really know for 10 to 20 years if it was worth the price. In the case of the ACA it seems to have been worth it as most of the law is still standing and it has grown more popular with time.  And you can defuse backlash some by making popular policy decisions. (Hard to say exactly how much backlash there was to the ACA due to racial animus and gerrymandering, etc. playing a part)

There is also a danger in tinkering around the edges and letting decades slide by with no progress. Look at the state of climate change and the wholly inadequate response.

[Maithanet]

Apparently there was some GOP internal polling that had Trump down in Kansas.  KS has a Dem governor and a higher than national average proportion of college educated voters.  But it's also 84% white (and probably a higher percentage than that of voters).  If that number were just 75%, Biden probably has a real chance, but as it is, KS flipping is still a moonshot.  

BUT, there is an open Senate race there, and Republicans don't have a strong candidate lined up.  KS is a cheap media market.  It's a rare example where the moral victory of Biden losing by just single digits might actually pay off if it helped the Senate candidate.  

[Gertrude]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't know how to keep saying it, but for the vast majority of corporate Republicans and politicians Trump has been absolutely incredible. He has done basically every single thing they wanted, and in response they just had to say that they were deeply concerned now and then. 

How much of this is Trump specific rather than just R control? Would, say, Kasich have had the same impact?

My main beef with voters is not that they vote for Trump if they're republican.* They are never voting for Clinton or Biden. It's that Trump came out of the primary and people SUPPORT him. It's the shit-lords that bothered to shape what this R administration would look like and they said, yeah - that guy.

 

* I mean I have beef, but it's more on the level of disagreement than 'are you fucking kidding me?'

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

How much of this is Trump specific rather than just R control? Would, say, Kasich have had the same impact?

I'm not sure if Kal would agree, but I think that Trump has accomplished less for Republicans than a hypothetical Kasich or Rubio administration.  If Kasich had won the nomination, he almost assuredly beats Clinton, probably more easily than Trump did, because Clinton just isn't popular.  He still gets 2 SC justices, still passes a tax cut.  Probably gets an infrastructure bill passed in the first two years, and thus the stock market/economy is even better in 2018.  Democrats probably fail to flip the House or make as significant gains in the governorships.  Then there's all of 2019 to get even more Republican priorities passed, whatever that might be.  Then in the face of the pandemic, Kasich is definitely going to do a better job, masks would be worn nationally and likely we're looking at 30-50% less cases/deaths right now.  He'd still be in for a tough reelection fight, but he wouldn't be down 10 points.  

The big differences are the tax cut is probably a shade less regressive, which helps the working class Republicans but doesn't help the plutocrats.  The immigration policies are less punitive, which the plutocrats don't care about but the working class Republicans do.  There is more competence in the administration, fewer self inflicted wounds like "good people on both sides", the Roy Moore embarrassment, gassing peaceful protesters and the maskless Tulsa debacle.  

[DanteGabriel]

Maith's analysis seems spot on to me. Trump's incompetence and inability to control his sphincters cost them a lot of easy legislative victories.