Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

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

What exactly?

Honestly, when I use liberal, I associate it with third way politics. The idea that there is some kind of nobility in compromise, technocratic tinkering, and a closer association to big business and capital. This is of course something of a no true Scotsman fallacy since there are those who identify as "liberals" who aren't for all of these things and there are "progressives" who aren't opposed to all of these things.

Their end goals may be similar, but the idea that their vision on how to achieve those things and what the end result looks like is the same same I am going to disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GrimTuesday said:

Honestly, when I use liberal, I associate it with third way politics.

Yeah, I just don't understand that.  Third way politics is the blue dogs.  It's Dick Fucking Morris.  The third way is trying to fuse the liberals with the conservatives - or at least moderately conservative.  That's why it's called the third way.  The first two ways are liberal and conservative.

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

the idea that their vision on how to achieve those things and what the end result looks like is the same same I am going to disagree with you.

I honestly don't know if this is true, and neither do you.  Because both academic and commercial pollsters do not compare progressives to liberals.  Like I said, the terms are ideologically interchangeable.  Is there a discernible difference on strategy/tactics?  Maybe.  But I suspect not nearly as much as you seem to be assuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Honestly, when I use liberal, I associate it with third way politics. The idea that there is some kind of nobility in compromise, technocratic tinkering, and a closer association to big business and capital. This is of course something of a no true Scotsman fallacy since there are those who identify as "liberals" who aren't for all of these things and there are "progressives" who aren't opposed to all of these things.

Sorry for the tag team, but...

This is a joke. You're on the left of the political spectrum, quit nitpicking. You're stuck on the wrong things.

Quote

Their end goals may be similar, but the idea that their vision on how to achieve those things and what the end result looks like is the same same I am going to disagree with you.

There are many paths with many overlapping courses. Do they all travel the same journey? Do they all achieve their pursuits? Do they all find what they're searching for? The answer is always no. But if the paths are on the same general trajectory, why cut each other down when the other way hates everything you're walking towards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the Republicans try to push through a Supreme Court nomination before the election, the nominee would presumably appear in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Kamala Harris is on that committee. I wonder how that would play with the American public at large?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Old Zog said:

So if the Republicans try to push through a Supreme Court nomination before the election, the nominee would presumably appear in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Kamala Harris is on that committee. I wonder how that would play with the American public at large?

She'll be seen as an uppity grandstander making politics out of the non-partisan supreme court. What American public are you thinking of?

Also, I would like to add for the record that I think Democrats are bad people and I am pleased with the new order. Long live our Republican values. I am not a dissident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I am not a dissident.

You are not a dissident, dawg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

She'll be seen as an uppity grandstander [...]

This is what I'm honestly curious about. Most of the folks I know would be really fired up - in a positive way - seeing Sen. Harris aggressively take on whoever the nominee is. But I live in the Bay Area. The Democrats don't need to run up the score here any more than they already will. Likewise, I'm sure many conservatives would react negatively to Sen. Harris, but many of them live in states President Trump will already certainly win. How does this move things in swing states?

I worry that the more the election is about Harris (and the less it is about Biden) the better for Trump. But I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Old Zog said:

Most of the folks I know would be really fired up - in a positive way - seeing Sen. Harris aggressively take on whoever the nominee is.

I don't see much benefit in Harris questioning Trump's nominee, but I also don't see much loss in it either.  It's not gonna move the needle much either way, if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats lead in the generic ballot continues to shrink.

They won the house in 2018 with 9 points.

I think it’s becoming a likely possibility that democrats lose the house as well as fail to capture the senate and presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think it’s becoming a likely possibility that democrats lose the house as well as fail to capture the senate and presidency.

It's really not.  According to Cook, the GOP would have to sweep all 28 tossups (along with 14 lean GOP seats) AND pickoff 5 lean Dem seats.  According to Sabato it's even worse.  They have 232 seats in at least the lean Dem column.  So, obviously, the GOP would have to pick up 15 of them along with the 11 tossups they have.  That statistical likelihood of such a result is well under 1 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DMC said:

You are not a dissident, dawg.

Technically she's a wannabe Swaddle-Dawg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, I just don't understand that.  Third way politics is the blue dogs.  It's Dick Fucking Morris.  The third way is trying to fuse the liberals with the conservatives - or at least moderately conservative.  That's why it's called the third way.  The first two ways are liberal and conservative.

I honestly don't know if this is true, and neither do you.  Because both academic and commercial pollsters do not compare progressives to liberals.  Like I said, the terms are ideologically interchangeable.  Is there a discernible difference on strategy/tactics?  Maybe.  But I suspect not nearly as much as you seem to be assuming.

I think that we still have a lot of folks who are ideologically attached to some aspects of the third way movement. Pay-Go shit, obsessing about the deficit, this idea that we can't have a 3.4 trillion dollar messaging bill so just go for 3 trillion, allowing the health insurance companies to have a say in healthcare reform (which they then tried to torpedo), free trade. Also I'm pretty sure that the other two ways were socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Saying that the terms are ideologically interchangeable is ignoring the change in usage that we have seen in the last four years. Words evolve, things change, and I think that using progressive to delineate the left wing from the liberal centrist/right wing part of the party. It's kind of like the fact that Populist was created as a name for a left wing political party in the late 19th century, and now it is a stand in for any party that tries to win through mass mobilization and playing to the passions of the mob

As for how different the strategy and tactics are, "liberals" tend to favor technocratic, incremental solutions (no need to start that discussion up again since it will just go in circles, again) where as "progressives" tend to be more populist in how they approach the electorate and favor bolder and more sweeping reforms. I think that is a considerable difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sorry for the tag team, but...

This is a joke. You're on the left of the political spectrum, quit nitpicking. You're stuck on the wrong things.

There are many paths with many overlapping courses. Do they all travel the same journey? Do they all achieve their pursuits? Do they all find what they're searching for? The answer is always no. But if the paths are on the same general trajectory, why cut each other down when the other way hates everything you're walking towards? 

Your way or no way. Purity politics rears it's head again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...