US Politics - And Now it Begins

[Guest]

Just now, Week said:

Consider the fragility and defeat in this. Consider for a moment voting as a woman or black american over the last 100 years (in the elections they were allowed to vote at least). Then feel free to continue your keening.

I just recognize that Democrats don't really have any desire to fix things for those poor women or Black Americans, but will happily keep exploiting them for their votes to keep the status quo until they can't possibly keep it from changing, like with gay marriage.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The snapping and hand signals didn't help.

I didn't say they didn't have fucking stupid ways of communicating; just that they're my people. 

It's Thanksgiving; everyone has an idiot uncle.

[Week]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I just recognize that Democrats don't really have any desire to fix things for those poor women or Black Americans, but will happily keep exploiting them for their votes to keep the status quo until they can't possibly keep it from changing, like with gay marriage.

Democrats as a whole? There are zero? Not a one? If yes, then you are not a serious person behaving as a rational actor here. That is demonstrably false and, frankly, insulting to a lot of excellent folks that have been let down by the leadership.

The leadership is old, frail, and calcified -- we need to move on from Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, et al -- and I generally agree that they lack the political will to make changes that younger, more progressive members of the caucus advocate for. 

[Guest]

Just now, Week said:

Democrats as a whole? There are zero? Not a one? If yes, then you are not a serious person behaving as a rational actor here. That is demonstrably false and, frankly, insulting to a lot of excellent folks that have been let down by the leadership.

The leadership is old, frail, and calcified -- we need to move on from Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, et al -- and I generally agree that they lack the political will to make changes that younger, more progressive members of the caucus advocate for. 

Any Democrat who currently controls the levers of power in the Democratic party, yes.

[Kalbear]

 

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

At this point, centrists and the left are just caught in an ouroboros of Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football, with all of us just switching places as Charlie Brown.

"I promise I'll let you kick it this time! That platform is SO progressive! We will have TEAMS with lefties!"

It is obvious lefties never have had, and never will have, a seat at the table, and we will be blamed for establishment failures whether we turn out en masse or not.

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice, I can't get fooled again.

As @Week said, there are MASSIVE gulfs between what you want and what you think I want. 

I do NOT think that Dems are going to appease any Republican politicians. None! You might get like Murkowski or Romney on one or two things, but largely you're getting fuckall from them. 

I DO think it's clear that some Republican voters might consider voting for Biden because the data is clear that they did due to ticket splitting - but that's really not that big a deal. But honestly they'll probably mostly go back to Republican asshat du jour. 

I also think that you cannot nominate absurdly progressive people to positions of power right now because Republicans are simply not going to confirm them. And any idea of who might be wanted to be nominated has to start with that as a basis. I wish that weren't the case; I wish so very much that Warren could be SecTreas and I think Sanders as SecLabor would be good in some ways. But that's not going to happen!

I am NOT blaming lefties for establishment failures. I don't even know what failures are being talked about here, other than the possible nomination of centrist, experienced Dems into positions of foreign influence. And again, I ask - what is the proposal from the left - withdrawal from IMF and the World bank? I'm serious - what is the goal here? If you don't have a goal, why are you complaining about it?

Let's be a bit real. The platform and a lot of goals on it were only possible with a senate majority. Including a LOT of the EO-level things. You can wish that this was different - I certainly do - but Collins got elected, and that was by far the easiest next pickup for Dems. Now, there are a lot more things that Biden can do (and has pledged to do) that should be majorly good things for progressives that would simply not happen if people like Warren and Sanders weren't sitting at the table - things like removal of student debt, of having an actual Climate person at the NSC for the first time ever, of evaluating and changing the whole federal prison guidelines, of making better energy efficiencies and clean air/power. These are all things Obama barely did and Biden is saying he will do. DACA coming back in full, massive overhauls in immigration and ICE, all of these are possible.

But things like Puerto Rico statehood, getting any judges confirmed, getting any clean infrastructure or green new deals, getting any kind of single payer system or even a public option - all of that is gone.

And that totally fucking sucks! But that's not going to change because I tell you that bitching about Israel policy without an idea of what you want changed is not a good idea.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

but will happily keep exploiting them for their votes to keep the status quo until they can't possibly keep it from changing, like with gay marriage.

I think it's offensive to ascribe such motives to people that largely disagree on the strategic pragmatism of effecting change.  Even if you disagree with on policy preferences or the efficacy of policy outcomes, there is still large agreement on the overall goals among "moderates" and "leftists."  And I'm not just talking about people on this board, I'm talking about Democrats at the elite level.  Many if not most of them chose that career at least in part in an effort to do good.  Many often lose their way, either willingly or unintentionally, sure, but this type of posture is never going to be helpful.  Further, it's based on a in-out group paradigm that "leftists" generally think is fundamental to the iniquities of this country and world.

[kairparavel]

Emily Murphy finally does her job.

 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, kairparavel said:

Emily Murphy finally does her job.

She did?  Sweet.  Heh, just googled her name to check, and the first news result is an Atlantic article from 11 hours ago titled 'Why Won't Emily Murphy Just Do Her Job?"

[Week]

13 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Any Democrat who currently controls the levers of power in the Democratic party, yes.

Nevermind -- DMC put this better than I did. h/t to you, sirrah.

9 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

Emily Murphy finally does her job.

Some good news is welcome break from the aforementioned circular firing squad.

Other good news re: the first point.

 

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That is way too dismissive if the shit that Israel has been pulling for decades. There is no moral equivocation. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses and should be condemned in whatever form and in whatever guise they appear. IMO you should criticise your friends more strongly than your enemies. If you can't convince your friends to change their ways, then what hope have you of getting your enemies to change?

It is definitely hard to convince anyone of anything if you are being a hypocrite, so getting our own houses in order would be a good start, but we can at least try to convince our friends to start walking that path with us.

I disagree. I think there's a very big difference between supporting a country who has a single prison larger than Israel and dealing with Israel. Now, you could potentially argue that because the US is an ally of Israel we could influence them more than we could influence China, and that's reasonable. But if you had a chance to make China better? Definitely go with that first.

Weirdly I think Trump had something of the right idea in the region. Everyone getting on board with Israel means that you don't have to back the military in Israel nearly as much, and that may in turn allow you to reduce funding to that side without jeopardizing a massive war. But it's very complex in general, and I don't know that there are any easy answers - and I especially don't think simply telling Israel to fuck off and taking away all their money is going to produce the kind of results that the US really wants in the region. 

I'm very much in favor of Palestinian support and stopping occupation of Israel in settlements. I think the US should move their embassy away from Jerusalem, and that's something that Biden can likely reverse pretty quickly. Beyond that, though, I want zero sudden moves.

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess with Michigan certifying the result that means Joe has his 270 in the bank now. So there is no longer any pretense to continue to delay the transition process. I suppose the Trump cult will continue its efforts to overturn PA and...(?) in the hopes that they can get Biden's ECV total as low as possible and then hold out some kind of hope that they can get an unprecedented number of people to be faithless electors. A forlorn hope, but no doubt some will be determined to cling to it until the EC actually casts its votes.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's offensive to ascribe such motives to people that largely disagree on the strategic pragmatism of effecting change.  Even if you disagree with on policy preferences or the efficacy of policy outcomes, there is still large agreement on the overall goals among "moderates" and "leftists."  And I'm not just talking about people on this board, I'm talking about Democrats at the elite level.  Many if not most of them chose that career at least in part in an effort to do good.  Many often lose their way, either willingly or unintentionally, sure, but this type of posture is never going to be helpful.  Further, it's based on a in-out group paradigm that "leftists" generally think is fundamental to the iniquities of this country and world.

Suffice it to say that I'm not inclined to chalk as much up to the corrupting influence of power, as that power just revealed their nature, but YMMV.

Regardless, the outcome thus far has been indistinguishable, regardless of motive.

ETA: I'm also just pointing out that I'm picking my side, but I wasn't the one drawing the line; after the primary and the bullshit after the election, it became pretty clear that people like me aren't welcome in the party. I know, no big loss.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I disagree. I think there's a very big difference between supporting a country who has a single prison larger than Israel and dealing with Israel. Now, you could potentially argue that because the US is an ally of Israel we could influence them more than we could influence China, and that's reasonable. But if you had a chance to make China better? Definitely go with that first.

Weirdly I think Trump had something of the right idea in the region. Everyone getting on board with Israel means that you don't have to back the military in Israel nearly as much, and that may in turn allow you to reduce funding to that side without jeopardizing a massive war. But it's very complex in general, and I don't know that there are any easy answers - and I especially don't think simply telling Israel to fuck off and taking away all their money is going to produce the kind of results that the US really wants in the region. 

I'm very much in favor of Palestinian support and stopping occupation of Israel in settlements. I think the US should move their embassy away from Jerusalem, and that's something that Biden can likely reverse pretty quickly. Beyond that, though, I want zero sudden moves.

So you disagree with me while most of your post is actually agreeing with me. Cool.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess with Michigan certifying the result that means Joe has his 270 in the bank now. So there is no longer any pretense to continue to delay the transition process.

Yeah Michigan certifying seems to clearly be what motivated Murphy.

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Regardless, the outcome thus far has been indistinguishable, regardless of motive.

That may be so, but ascribing such motives to "moderates" or the "Dem establishment" is quite obviously counter-productive and self-defeating.

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Suffice it to say that I'm not inclined to chalk as much up to the corrupting influence of power, as that power just revealed their nature, but YMMV.

Regardless, the outcome thus far has been indistinguishable, regardless of motive.

One big thing to see is what Biden can do to change the VRA. I honestly don't know entirely what he can do other than SERIOUSLY enforce consent decrees with the DOJ, but I'm cautiously hopeful there's something that can be done there. I think a lot of people on all the sides are pretty annoyed by some of the voting irregularities and bullshit lines and stupid counting rules in places like Pennsylvania. And I have a lot of hopes that people actually enjoy mail voting. 

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

So you disagree with me while most of your post is actually agreeing with me. Cool.

Yes? because I'm trying to showcase some of the places that can have some work done. I'm also mostly disagreeing with @GrimTuesday, who doesn't appear to have a position other than "Israel SUUUUCKS" and pointing out that you should not just leave them to drift in the wind. 

I think there is a LOT more that Biden can do to make China change. I also think a lot of the things to make China change are good for other policies, like climate change and clean energy. I don't see nearly as many opportunities to do that with Israel. 

[Trebla]

"...no, now it ends."

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I'd say Bush fucked up pretty damn royally and repeatedly well before Katrina - and so would and did many many others.  Obviously, everyone pales in comparison to Trump when it comes to being teflon for gaffes-to-scandals-to-crimes-to-light treason that would've destroyed any other politician.  But I'd say the most important point is Dubya didn't start losing intraparty support until a second term that Trump was denied.

It's possible his support would wane during a second term if people didn't think they needed to tie themselves to him for their own electoral purposes.

[Week]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

That may be so, but ascribing such motives to people to "moderates" or the "Dem establishment" is quite obviously counter-productive and self-defeating.

Ding, ding, ding.

Also, would like to see more of this:

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I'm wondering if Trump is going to start appointing his second term cabinet to steal attention away from Biden (not that Biden's cabinet is terribly exciting).  He'd need to really make some big splashes to get the neccesary attention. 

Rudy Guiliani at AG!

Joe Arpaio at DHS! 

Stone Cold Steve Austin at Defense! 

How dare you! Besides, how could Trump forgive this:

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

That may be so, but ascribing such motives to "moderates" or the "Dem establishment" is quite obviously counter-productive and self-defeating.

This was my edit:

ETA: I'm also just pointing out that I'm picking my side, but I wasn't the one drawing the line; after the primary and the bullshit after the election, it became pretty clear that people like me aren't welcome in the party. I know, no big loss.