GrimTuesday Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: Tanden is a pretty reasonable person overall. And she's perfectly qualified. Quit with your tribalistic bitching. No, I will not. I don't care if she is qualified, I don't care if you think she is a "pretty reasonable person", The woman spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, she is not going to be an ally in passing progressive legislation which is my number 1 priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 29, 2020 Author Share Posted November 29, 2020 19 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said: No, I will not. I don't care if she is qualified, I don't care if you think she is a "pretty reasonable person", The woman spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, she is not going to be an ally in passing progressive legislation which is my number 1 priority. And yet, as an individual, she's probably achieved more goals of the left than you have. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said: No, I will not. I don't care if she is qualified, I don't care if you think she is a "pretty reasonable person", The woman spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, she is not going to be an ally in passing progressive legislation which is my number 1 priority. She is NOT THE PROBLEM. Frankly every Democrat in public service would like to pass meaningful progressive legislation (depending on how you define it). Even Joe Manchin. The problem is the Republicans. Just because she is feisty on twitter doesn't mean she and you don't share values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said: No, I will not. I don't care if she is qualified, I don't care if you think she is a "pretty reasonable person", The woman spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, she is not going to be an ally in passing progressive legislation which is my number 1 priority. Ah, now I understand. It's not that she spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, it's that she spent the last 4 years criticizing Sanders. She worked really well with Warren over the time. But she did not get along with Sanders and specifically a number of his spokespeople. This makes so much more sense now. I was really confused how there was all this animosity that I wasn't seeing towards the Left, but apparently the Left is only Sanders and his supporters. Anyone else is No True Leftsman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said: It's not that she spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, it's that she spent the last 4 years criticizing Sanders. Yep. What she's actually been spending most of her time doing is running the most prominent liberal think tank in the country (CAP) outside Brookings. Anyway, I like Cecilia Rouse as the chair of the CEA - and pleasantly surprised she'll be the chair over Jared Bernstein. I also like Wally Adeyemo as deputy at Treasury. Pretty meh on Tanden, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 35 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said: She is NOT THE PROBLEM. Frankly every Democrat in public service would like to pass meaningful progressive legislation (depending on how you define it). Even Joe Manchin. The problem is the Republicans. Just because she is feisty on twitter doesn't mean she and you don't share values. People think way too highly of the Democrats. More liberals need to wake up to the fact that it's not just Republicans standing athwart progress, but also the corrupting influence of money on Democrats as well. The Center for American Progress, where Tanden is President, is bankrolled by powerful corporations and special interests who are hostile to a robust progressive agenda. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/center-for-american-progress-donor-list-101140 "Those corporations and trade associations represent a cross section of corporate America and include Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Google, defense giant Northrop Grumman, T-Mobile, Toyota, Visa, GE, among others. CAP did not disclose the donation amounts. America’s Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP — a major player in the health care debate contributed to the group, as did Hollywood’s advocacy arm, the Motion Picture Association of America. Other corporate donors include Microsoft, PepsiCo, Samsung, CVS Caremark, Comcast NBCUniversal and many others." They even got into hot water recently because they were receiving funding from the United Arab Emirates. https://inthesetimes.com/article/center-for-american-progress-uae-lobbying-fara-disclosures-influence "This January, the Center for American Progress (CAP) declared it would no longer accept funding from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). ... The pledge came amid public outcry over Saudi Arabia’s murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post, in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. Since 2014, CAP had received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the UAE, a close ally of Saudi Arabia. CAP, founded by Clinton staffer John Podesta, is widely seen as the think tank that wields the most influence on the Democratic Party. During this time, the group had been conspicuously silent on the U.S.-UAE-Saudi war on Yemen, which was condemned by human rights groups." These people are not idiots and they're getting something for this money. Influence. And it's endemic to the system. Are Neera Tanden and CAP the worst actors? Probably not by a long shot. But please stop assuming the best of the Democratic Party. I know Republicans make them look good, but they're basically corrupt, because we have a political system of legalized corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 20 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: because we have a political system of legalized corruption. Funding think tanks is not legalized corruption. Would you rather have them be funded by the government rather than private interests? Would that be less corrupt? Do you not want think tanks at all? Or just right-leaning think tanks and the interests that bankroll them? The revolving door is of course a huge concern, but the issue is regulatory capture in the form of the relationship between government agencies/Congress and lobbyists/firms that are directly employed by private interests. That's not the same as contributing to a think tank. Further, whining about the CAP's donors is like whining about Democratic candidates that take contributions from corporations. Public financing of campaigns would be great, but until that happens, it's incredibly stupid for one party to play by rules that don't exist. It's running campaigns with one hand tied behind your back. ...Actually, it's worse than that example, or one more degree of separation. At least there the worry about corruption is because elected officials might be beholden to their influence in decision-making. Private think tanks don't make decisions on behalf of the public. You're whining about the influence corporations have on the possible influence think tanks have on elected officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimTuesday Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said: Ah, now I understand. It's not that she spent the last 4 years slandering leftists, it's that she spent the last 4 years criticizing Sanders. She worked really well with Warren over the time. But she did not get along with Sanders and specifically a number of his spokespeople. This makes so much more sense now. I was really confused how there was all this animosity that I wasn't seeing towards the Left, but apparently the Left is only Sanders and his supporters. Anyone else is No True Leftsman. Well, considering Sanders supporters make up the bulk of the left, I'm going to go with yes, this is a problem. People talk all the time about how we can't put in progressives because it will alienate "moderates" but no such courtesy is extended to the left which is also part of this coalition. 14 minutes ago, DMC said: Funding think tanks is not legalized corruption. Would you rather have them be funded by the government rather than private interests? Would that be less corrupt? Do you not want think tanks at all? Or just right-leaning think tanks and the interests that bankroll them? The revolving door is of course a huge concern, but the issue is regulatory capture in the form of the relationship between government agencies/Congress and lobbyists/firms that are directly employed by private interests. That's not the same as contributing to a think tank. Further, whining about the CAP's donors is like whining about Democratic candidates that take contributions from corporations. Public financing of campaigns would be great, but until that happens, it's incredibly stupid for one party to play by rules that don't exist. It's running campaigns with one hand tied behind your back. ...Actually, it's worse than that example, or one more degree of separation. At least there the worry about corruption is because elected officials might be beholden to their influence in decision-making. Private think tanks don't make decisions on behalf of the public. You're whining about the influence corporations have on the possible influence think tanks have on elected officials. I get where you are coming from, but CAP is extremely influential in the Democratic party, and if they are acting as an Ideological pass through for corporate interests, that's a problem. They're doing the exact same thing that everyone criticizes right wing think tanks for. Remember the time when she said that it was a good idea to demand Libya pays us back for destabilizing their country with their oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 4 hours ago, Mindwalker said: Apparently there are rumors that Biden wants to give the AG post to a Republican... 4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: A never-Trumper who wants to root out evil? Yeah, that's the thing, even a Republican AG who goes after Trump or any of the former trump administration or his family for anything will be seen as a RINO Shill, by the rabid base. It won't placate anyone, so not sure wif it could be any kind of meaningful gesture. It would have to be a Trumpist who didn't get fired, but who doesn't worship at Trump's feet. I don't think AG is the place to go with such a person. Honestly if there was going to be some kind of gesture I'd say offering Chris Liddell (current Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Coordination) an ongoing role would be a gesture, but it would also be a long way from any kind of Justice position. One problem is that he isn't a American. He may be willing to take it for a short period, because he actually wants the top job at the OECD, and my guess is having the Trump admin as your last employer may not to wonders for your chances of being appointed to the top OECD job. A 6 month stint in the Biden administration may cleanse that palette and convey the impression that he can work with all types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 13 minutes ago, DMC said: Funding think tanks is not legalized corruption. Would you rather have them be funded by the government rather than private interests? Would that be less corrupt? Do you not want think tanks at all? Or just right-leaning think tanks and the interests that bankroll them? The revolving door is of course a huge concern, but the issue is regulatory capture in the form of the relationship between government agencies/Congress and lobbyists/firms that are directly employed by private interests. That's not the same as contributing to a think tank. Further, whining about the CAP's donors is like whining about Democratic candidates that take contributions from corporations. Public financing of campaigns would be great, but until that happens, it's incredibly stupid for one party to play by rules that don't exist. It's running campaigns with one hand tied behind your back. ...Actually, it's worse than that example, or one more degree of separation. At least there the worry about corruption is because elected officials might be beholden to their influence in decision-making. Private think tanks don't make decisions on behalf of the public. You're whining about the influence corporations have on the possible influence think tanks have on elected officials. How naive do you have to be to claim think tanks have nothing to do with influence peddling and the revolving door in the face of a specific example of the president of a think tank moving into a powerful role in the Biden administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: How naive do you have to be to claim think tanks have nothing to do with influence peddling and the revolving door in the face of a specific example of the president of a think tank moving into a powerful role in the Biden administration? I dunno. How dumb do you have to be to not understand the distinction between actual registered lobbyists employed by private firms - which is the actual definition of the revolving door - and donating to a think tank? How dumb do you have to be to conflate think tanks with the actual regulatory capture? What exactly do you want those actually qualified to staff the political-appointee level of the bureaucracy to do while their party is out of power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 Ha, I just saw the headline that the $3 million recount the Trump campaign paid for in Wisconsin netted Biden and extra 132 votes. At this point, the only way Trump can get back into the White House is defrauding to vote by having state legislatures in the Biden switch states declare their state's votes null and void and appoint Trump electors. Or a corrupt and compliant Supreme Court finding in favour of Trump on 37 ECV's worth of states which somehow invalidates enough votes for Biden to flip the states back to Trump. Are there even enough cases likely to go to the Supreme court that could have that result? It seems like the end of the road, but there may be a few potholes to get over yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimTuesday Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, DMC said: I dunno. How dumb do you have to be to not understand the distinction between actual registered lobbyists employed by private firms - which is the actual definition of the revolving door - and donating to a think tank? How dumb do you have to be to conflate think tanks with the actual regulatory capture? What exactly do you want those actually qualified to staff the political-appointee level of the bureaucracy to do while their party is out of power? If she was just a rank and file person, that is fine, but she was the president. She is one of the main people who are making decisions in terms of who they take money from, she has a massive mount of influence in driving policy, and there is no way you don't think that donors make a difference in what policies a think tank favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 11 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said: If she was just a rank and file person, that is fine, but she was the president. Podesta and her (and Sperling and Daschle) founded CAP precisely to counteract right-wing think tanks and develop policy for the Democratic party during the Bush administration. These think tanks - and, for instance, WestExec founded by Blinken and Fournoy - are essentially the substitute for shadow governments in our system. Should their donors be public? Absolutely. Major donors for CAP include Bill Gates and George Soros, btw. Do donors have influence? Yes. But it's not as simple as just looking at the donor list and assuming a think tank is going to be beholden to those companies' interests. When Podesta was hired as counselor by Obama, I guarantee you he wasn't keeping some internal list on CAP's donors when he was giving Obama policy advice - just as Obama wasn't with his donors when making policy decisions. Obviously it plays a role and there is influence there, the system is far from perfect. But such influence can quickly get vastly overstated - especially when we're talking about donating to a think tank. In the case of elected officials, there's an obvious remedy in campaign finance reform. But, again, I ask, what's the alternative with think tanks? Do you not want them at all? Do you not want them to take private donations? Or is it ok only if you happen to like the places they're getting private donations from? Or, as you suggest, is it not ok for people to form and run them if they're likely to be hired by their parties when they retake the presidency? Because it it's the latter, you're simply not gonna see many influential think tanks anymore. And, again, it's stupid to play by rules the other side is not. To be clear, what you don't want is actual regulatory capture, actual revolving doors between agencies and the private industries they're supposed to be regulating, and things like actual lobbying groups directing legislation - like the oil lobby literally writing Dubya's energy bill. But it's frankly naive to think that's the same thing as donating to a think tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said: Ha, I just saw the headline that the $3 million recount the Trump campaign paid for in Wisconsin netted Biden and extra 132 votes. At this point, the only way Trump can get back into the White House is defrauding to vote by having state legislatures in the Biden switch states declare their state's votes null and void and appoint Trump electors. Or a corrupt and compliant Supreme Court finding in favour of Trump on 37 ECV's worth of states which somehow invalidates enough votes for Biden to flip the states back to Trump. Are there even enough cases likely to go to the Supreme court that could have that result? It seems like the end of the road, but there may be a few potholes to get over yet. There is no way. It's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: There is no way. It's over. He could pay for the tour...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 What would you call the opposite of a Communist? Responding to an asshole on the comments section of a story who wants to know if I’m a communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimTuesday Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: He could pay for the tour...? Great, now I'm just imagining Trump showing up to white house tours every day to loudly complain about how they were robbed and the tour goers should be here to see him not Sleepy Joe and to try and make everything about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said: What would you call the opposite of a Communist? Responding to an asshole on the comments section of a story who wants to know if I’m a communist. Capitalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimTuesday Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: What would you call the opposite of a Communist? Responding to an asshole on the comments section of a story who wants to know if I’m a communist. A capitalist dog fit only for forced labor in Siberia. Oh, you're talking about yourself? This is embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.