Jump to content

US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

It drops in quality after season 4 when Sorkin got too coked out and left.

I only caught the first season. The show is too tied to a failed relationship, and said failure was 100% my fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Liberal means a leftist who isn't afraid of the term. Progressives are.
 

 

I mean, I think that there is for sure something of a schism within the Democratic party and defining terms is important in determining who comes out on top. There are substantive policy differences between "liberals" and "progressives", and one of the reasons that I think that "liberals" react the way they do is because they don't want people to make those distinctions between them and progressives. "Progressives" on the other hand are seemingly the ascendant part of the party, who are trying to win power within the party by making clear who supports what. If they do not do that, it is much harder to win because the other side can cloak themselves in your politics while having no intentions of following through unless forced.

I will say that Biden actually had a banger of a speech today, even a lot of the left wing folks I follow were impressed by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I only caught the first season.

Heh.  The clip you posted if from the last (seventh) season.

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

There are substantive policy differences between "liberals" and "progressives"

What exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Heh.  The clip you posted if from the last (seventh) season.

What exactly?

I'd characterize the difference as strategic rather than based in policy. McConnell might have forced all Democrats to adopt progressives' strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'd characterize the difference as strategic rather than based in policy. McConnell might have forced all Democrats to adopt progressives' strategies.

Agree. See the differences as lying mostly in methodology, strategy and style differences rather than in overall goals.

---------------------------------

CNN's blog. Murkowski is the only one I take somewhat seriously. The rest are opportunists, liars, going for a post-Senate lobbying job or will twist their headspaces into believing they're defending the US from socialists, antifa, whatever.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-live-updates/h_73403b4eaf42724ec9db79154591d223

Here is a list of four Republicans senators who have said they will oppose a vote before the election:

  1. Maine Sen. Susan Collins told the New York Times, “I think that’s too close, I really do."
  2. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in September said, "Fair is fair," and she would not vote to replace RBG before the election."
  3. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in October 2018 said, "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election. And I've got a pretty good chance of being the Judiciary [Chairman]. Hold the tape." 
  4. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said in July he would follow the Biden rule, "I'm just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992... They set the pattern. I didn't set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can't have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents."

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, S John said:

Makes me wonder if McConnell thinks that Trump is going to lose the election. To the extent that R’s care about optics at all, ramming an SC pick through in a lame duck session after an election where the Republicans lose is a pretty bad look. 

McConnell may be calculating that if they get a third SC judge under Trump, that really might be the ceiling of what can be accomplished with Trump at the helm. So if he loses the election, so what? I’m sure that behind closed doors a good number of the Republican enablers and boot lickers wouldn’t be too upset about seeing the backside Trump. If he wins again fine, if not? Got 3 SC justices out of it. Not a bad haul.

I was thinking along these lines as well, but I keep running into the fact that McConnell must realize that Democrats will use the nuclear option in response to his escalation if they win the trifecta. They won't even have a choice, because they'll never be able to get anything done.

The only other thing I can think of is, if McConnell thinks Trump will lose (which, let's face it, McConnell is a realist), then maybe he's trying to split the baby: try to juice turnout with the proposal, and then backing down as a cynical "good faith" effort by offering to drop the nomination during the lame duck if Trump loses, provided Democrats promise not to pack the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'd characterize the difference as strategic rather than based in policy.

Right, the difference is in strategy and subsequently tactics, not ideology.  Liberals almost uniformly agree with the policy goals of "progressives."  I consider myself both a liberal and progressive ideologically because I agree with the policy goals of the GND, or M4A, I just also think it's electorally stupid for the party presidential nominee to push those policies because they aren't popular enough yet.  That doesn't change my ideology.  Any difference between "progressive" and "liberal" is completely fabricated by internet warriors that want to feel morally superior by spewing more vitriol at (usually older) liberals because the latter may or may not disagree with them on how to wins elections.

But it's certainly not an ideological distinction.  In fact, the three main studies that track ideology - the ANES, GSS, and CCES - use a 7 point Likert scale from conservative to liberal, progressive doesn't even appear on the item.  Same with gallup, and I'd have to check but almost sure pretty every major commercial firm as well.  And Ty's right - all identifying as "progressive" instead of liberal does is capitulate to the GOP's attack on the term liberal since, well, Goldwater 64.  If you want an actual ideological distinction it'd be between liberal and socialist, or social democrat if you'd like.  Not progressive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Agree. See the differences as lying mostly in methodology, strategy and style differences rather than in overall goals.

---------------------------------

CNN's blog. Murkowski is the only one I take somewhat seriously. The rest are opportunists, liars, going for a post-Senate lobbying job or will twist their headspaces into believing they're defending the US from socialists, antifa, whatever.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-live-updates/h_73403b4eaf42724ec9db79154591d223

Here is a list of four Republicans senators who have said they will oppose a vote before the election:

  1. Maine Sen. Susan Collins told the New York Times, “I think that’s too close, I really do."
  2. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in September said, "Fair is fair," and she would not vote to replace RBG before the election."
  3. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in October 2018 said, "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election. And I've got a pretty good chance of being the Judiciary [Chairman]. Hold the tape." 
  4. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said in July he would follow the Biden rule, "I'm just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992... They set the pattern. I didn't set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can't have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents."

 

 

I believe Murkowski, and I think Romney will have no part; he voted to convict after all. Collins is spineless and will fold. I honestly believe a yes vote would be catastrophic for Republicans in tight races. I think McSally/Daines/Tillis/Graham /Loeffler all make that decision. Perdue might abstain; he's not running against Collins. Will be very interested to see what Roberts/Alexander do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

Even if all of this is true I still think there's some serious animus brewing where a faction within the progressive side of the coin has it out for the liberals in a way that seems meaningfully different in the past few years.

It certainly is an emerging movement to push harder for more leftist policies.  Generally I think that's a good thing.  But changing the name isn't necessary, and frankly I find it feckless.  Jimmy Matthew Santos Smits is right in the West Wing clip Ty posted.  You're gonna malign me cuz I'm liberal?  That's right, fuck you I'm liberal.  So is most of this country on most of liberal policies.  Claiming you're "progressive" while denigrating liberals is the political equivalent of douchebag hipsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, the difference is in strategy and subsequently tactics, not ideology.  Liberals almost uniformly agree with the policy goals of "progressives."  I consider myself both a liberal and progressive ideologically because I agree with the policy goals of the GND, or M4A, I just also think it's electorally stupid for the party presidential nominee to push those policies because they aren't popular enough yet.  That doesn't change my ideology.  Any difference between "progressive" and "liberal" is completely fabricated by internet warriors that want to feel morally superior by spewing more vitriol at (usually older) liberals because the latter may or may not disagree with them on how to wins elections.

But it's certainly not an ideological distinction.  In fact, the three main studies that track ideology - the ANES, GSS, and CCES - use a 7 point Likert scale from conservative to liberal, progressive doesn't even appear on the item.  Same with gallup, and I'd have to check but almost sure pretty every major commercial firm as well.  And Ty's right - all identifying as "progressive" instead of liberal does is capitulate to the GOP's attack on the term liberal since, well, Goldwater 64.  If you want an actual ideological distinction it'd be between liberal and socialist, or social democrat if you'd like.  Not progressive.  

 

7 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Even if all of this is true I still think there's some serious animus brewing where a faction within the progressive side of the coin has it out for the liberals in a way that seems meaningfully different in the past few years.

For me, it comes down to this sole consideration - are Democrats fighting as hard and dirty to win as Republicans are? If not, why not? If we aren't, we deserve to lose, because we already know the endpoint of this story.

Or - they jam through one of theirs during the lame duck, we jam through ten of ours on inauguration day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I don't mean this so much about SS in particular, but anecdotally it seems like there's been a huge surge in progressives using harsher language to describe liberals in recent years.  

I agree. But there are a lot of what I would call liberals on this board who I respect. I think some of us lefties get tired of ad hominem, personal attacks. I am not one of those. They're fun for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Even Schumer is now flirting with supporting a much bigger student loan forgiveness policy, ans Biden looks like he gets that he can't be afraid to spend.  Something is dragging them left.

Post Covid and the economic damage changed things dramatically. Even Romney was talking UBI. Things like loan forgiveness now crosses as desperately needed economic stimulus. It's a post WWII situation where we now have to spend to dig ourselves out - as long as we do it with the goal of spending to prop the economy. 

We had space briefly where we could freeze the economy for a few months to get Covid under control and then just plug everyone back in place with manageable damage. Trump is doing everything to blow up Covid and then we have Fall/Winter coming. The longer the economy stumbles, the worse it gets because we get that much further from being able to just plug things back in place making big measures more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

 

For me, it comes down to this sole consideration - are Democrats fighting as hard and dirty to win as Republicans are? If not, why not? If we aren't, we deserve to lose, because we already know the endpoint of this story.

They aren't. They fought harder against their Sanders than they have against Trump. At least take those dirty tactics to the general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

It certainly is an emerging movement to push harder for more leftist policies.  Generally I think that's a good thing.  But changing the name isn't necessary, and frankly I find it feckless.  Jimmy Matthew Santos Smits is right in the West Wing clip Ty posted.  You're gonna malign me cuz I'm liberal?  That's right, fuck you I'm liberal.  So is most of this country on most of liberal policies.  Claiming you're "progressive" while denigrating liberals is the political equivalent of douchebag hipsters.

In my eyes it's simply, Americans prefer someone who is confidentially wrong over someone who is meekly right, and this battle over terminology feeds into the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, S John said:

Makes me wonder if McConnell thinks that Trump is going to lose the election. To the extent that R’s care about optics at all, ramming an SC pick through in a lame duck session after an election where the Republicans lose is a pretty bad look. 

McConnell may be calculating that if they get a third SC judge under Trump, that really might be the ceiling of what can be accomplished with Trump at the helm. So if he loses the election, so what? I’m sure that behind closed doors a good number of the Republican enablers and boot lickers wouldn’t be too upset about seeing the backside Trump. If he wins again fine, if not? Got 3 SC justices out of it. Not a bad haul.

I agree. I also think at this point, McConnell is only concerned about how he'll be remembered--and to the Republicans, he's a hero. McConnell paved the way for running over and dismantling the "principles" that govern elected leaders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

They aren't. They fought harder against their Sanders than they have against Trump. At least take those dirty tactics to the general election.

I wasn't necessarily speaking about the campaign, but how hard they are going to work to get rid of the filibuster and other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I wasn't necessarily speaking about the campaign, but how hard they are going to work to get rid of the filibuster and other stuff.

I may still disagree, but this distinction is ultimately irrelevant now since abolishing the legislative filibuster is pretty much the consensus of the Democratic party, let alone liberals.  Obama, who still is the godfather of the party, is now against the filibuster.  So I don't any beef there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConnell's 'Dear Colleague' letter to GOP Senators:

The key sentences are in paragraph 2; where he urges GOP senators "inclined to oppose" having a vote to "keep their powder dry" and not get locked into a stance they may latter regret. It makes me wonder if he's already hearing from senators in tight races, nervous about having a vote before the election. And he doesn't want to have his hand forced in any way yet.

But after the election is tricky too. If Biden wins and Democrats take the senate, he has to know that a nominee getting rammed through would lead to court packing in January. It may anyway, if it happens before the election. But, a lame duck Republican party, on its way to the minority, doing Banana Republic shit like that would absolutely lead to it.

There's also the issue of Trump. Does Trump want a confirmation before the election, to run on the accomplishment, or after the election, to motivate his voters? He and McConnell might not see eye-to-eye on which is the better option. There's also the practical issue; that GOP senators in tight races may want to be home to campaign (such as they can in COVID times).

I have no idea what happens. But personally, I assume there will be a confirmation either way, so I'd prefer it happen before the election. I think, of the two options, the backlash to that would help Democrats the most.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...