U.S. Politics: That's too bad for Carrots

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It just when I see them repeatedly screaming “Just wait for the SCOTUS...” it has to make them wonder, at some point, why the SCOTUS isn’t being brought into the mix.

I mean, c'mon Scot, these people are already believing absurdities that would make 9/11 truthers and moon-landing devotees blush.  The Trump camp can literally blame it on whatever they want to pull out of their ass.  In his Bartiromo interview yesterday he said his own fucking DOJ helped rig the election.

[Maithanet]

If I were talking to an election truther, I would start off by asking whether the 2016 election was rigged.  If it wasn't, how did Trump allow our entire election system to be hopelessly corrupted in just four years?  This is particularly true in a state like Georgia, where the Republican legislature, governor and SecState all enjoyed significant support from Trump over the past four years. 

I'm sure they'd talk themselves in circles explaining this away, as once you free yourself of the burden of evidence you can make any excuse.  But it requires some pretty astonishing feats of mental gymnastics. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You mean the people who think they can hold back evidence at the Trial level and get it before the Supremes when none of the lower courts could see it?  

They aren’t exactly legal eagles that’s for certain.  It just when I see them repeatedly screaming “Just wait for the SCOTUS...” it has to make them wonder, at some point, why the SCOTUS isn’t being brought into the mix.

It's a lot better to claim umbrage and bias when there's no possibility of success than there is a slight possibility of success. This just makes it even more conspiratorial - that IF ONLY they allowed us to bring it to SCOTUS, THEN THEY WOULD SEE.

Again, I'm surprised, Scot - you should be familiar at least with the kind of thinking this involves. There is no factual basis; this is based entirely on faith. And faith in something like this can never be wrong; it can only be wronged.

[Kalbear]

I mean, here's some of the stuff we're dealing with here.

 

You think a little thing like 'facts' are going to get in the way?

[Fragile Bird]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If I were talking to an election truther, I would start off by asking whether the 2016 election was rigged.  If it wasn't, how did Trump allow our entire election system to be hopelessly corrupted in just four years?  This is particularly true in a state like Georgia, where the Republican legislature, governor and SecState all enjoyed significant support from Trump over the past four years. 

I'm sure they'd talk themselves in circles explaining this away, as once you free yourself of the burden of evidence you can make any excuse.  But it requires some pretty astonishing feats of mental gymnastics. 

Tsk, tsk! You aren’t reading the comments sections to election stories enough. The 2016 election was rigged, Trump was elected by the grace of God, and the deep state was sure they were going to control him! Once they saw they couldn’t control him, they rigged the election to make sure he lost, this time around.

Silly!

[Mindwalker]

It's of course really hard to judge from over here. But if it is easier for Biden to integrate/ reach out to (non-Trumpist) Republicans than the progressive wing of his own party - even just with the symbolism of less important cabinet posts, or even lower posts on his staff - that looks highly problematic to me. So he chooses only people he trusts? Maybe that says more about him than about progressives if he can't find even a handful to trust? From Biden's comments, I doubt he even grasps the problem. For him, a prog-friendly pick is picking someone progressives are not pissed at.

And dismissing or mocking them when they feel frustrated about this doesn't seem very constructive.

Btw., not even the Obama-admin stans at Crooked Media (not dissing them) think that giving a cabinet post to Republcans is quite pointless, in their experience it gives you 2 days of nice press and nothing else.

As for Kerry, I noticed that the Sunrise movement as well as Greta Thunberg commented positively. *scratching head* I mean yes, he's worked againt climate change but the solutions he seemed to favor are doubtful to me.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

But if it is easier for Biden to integrate (non-Trumpist) Republicans than the progressive wing of his own party - even just with the symbolism of less important cabinet posts, or even lower posts on his staff - that looks highly problematic to me. So he chooses only people he trusts? Maybe that says more about him than about progressives if he can't find even a handful to trust? From Biden's comments, I doubt he even grasps the problem. For him,  prog-friendly pick is picking someone they are not pissed at.

Except this depiction doesn't actually reflect the reality of Biden's picks or even the response of most progressives or leftists beyond the echo chamber of these threads and I suppose the twitterverse (I don't really know about the latter but figure it's a safe assumption).  The vast majority of his picks are progressive and have been applauded by many progressive/leftist elites outside of the constant contrarianism of the Jacobin/Intercept crowd.  One caveat there would be his national security picks - Haines, Sullivan, and to a lesser extent Blinken - but anyone thinking these type of people weren't going to populate Biden's, or any other Democratic president's, NSC were simply kidding themselves.  Even the outrage over Tanden is almost wholly personal due to her (counterproductive and misguided imho) engaging in the twitter mudslinging with Bernie supporters over the past four years.

Anyway, almost all of his picks are decidedly much more leaning progressive than they are leaning toward even never-Trumpers/Lincoln Project Republicans.  I guarantee you the Steve Schmidts and David Frums of the world are far less enthused about Blinken, Yellen, Mayorkas, and Tanden on at least a policy level than progressives/leftists.  Further, just look at how 2024 hopefuls - Rubio, Cotton, Hawley - are already lambasting his choices.  As for picking a Republican, yes, I agree it's pointless.  But there's also no real indication this is actually gonna happen.  And even if it did, if it's a token position, who cares?

[Week]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

That's almost a really effective straw man you built there...lol.

How so? You are bandying about "hate" within the Democratic party towards the "Left". Clearly both sides are wary bed fellows however far more in common is shared than with extra-party groups that represent clear and present danger with respect to "hate". 

It's unnecessary, unproductive and feckless to refer to "hate" within the party - particularly ideologically. "Hate" might be what you interpret from posts like mine because you confuse frustration and annoyance - despite agreement - with hate. Or, you are referring to some douche bag talking head - in which case, uh yeah you're going to get agreement there most likely.

[Kalbear]

Another 'legal' expert for Trump, claiming potential fraud in a nonexistent county in Michigan.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I mean, c'mon Scot, these people are already believing absurdities that would make 9/11 truthers and moon-landing devotees blush.  The Trump camp can literally blame it on whatever they want to pull out of their ass.  In his Bartiromo interview yesterday he said his own fucking DOJ helped rig the election.

You have to be kidding me?  He’s claiming the Barr led DOJ rigged the election.

Jesus wept....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

It's not AG position specific (the rumor), the leak I'm referring to is that he'd kicked around Republican cabinet members which means he could be considering Repub for AG. I didnt know you were saying there's no specific rumor about that position. Either way, I wanted to make a broader point that he's not against Rs in his cabinet.

It'll be great if he doesn't pick a single R for his cabinet, AG or not. 

What you quoted was in the context of a Republican for AG. And I wouldn't even consider what you brought up as a rumor. It's obvious Biden may consider a Republican for a lesser cabinet position, and you know what, big deal. Besides, the small pool of candidates largely aren't even Republicans anymore. And it's smart to court continued support from Republicans lost in the wilderness. It's not like it will directly impact much anyways.

[The Anti-Targ]

If you want to put a Republican in Cabinet as some kind of gesture but severely limit their potential to do anything then Veterans Affairs seems like a good spot. Republicans love the military.

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you want to put a Republican in Cabinet as some kind of gesture but severely limit their potential to do anything then Veterans Affairs seems like a good spot. Republicans love the military.

Which is why they've run VA medical system right into the most incompetently run and inadequate of all the services, so say the veterans I know -- though those were mostly grunts. Supposedly it's better if one were a high rank officer.  I have no personal experience, but the stories they tell of their on-going battles with the service, its just plain refusal to serve them, from top to bottom, are horrifying.

It's pretty hard these days of destruction to find any agency with which big harm can be wreak in every widening circles of abuse, dysfunction, dismemberment.  No to mention grifting.  Don't forget They are so used to grifting it's an entitlement.

 

[Ser Reptitious]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you want to put a Republican in Cabinet as some kind of gesture but severely limit their potential to do anything then Veterans Affairs seems like a good spot. Republicans love the military.

Yeah no, that would just play right into the myth of Republicans caring about the military/veterans soooo much more than Democrats (and that is, so the logic would go, why even a Democrat President still chooses a Republican to head that department).

[Martell Spy]

Man, doesn't he get that giving them aid just causes them not to work as hard? What is he, some kind of communist?

DeSantis urges Congress to pass unemployment relief

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/11/30/desantis-urges-congress-to-pass-unemployment-relief-1338611

Quote

 

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday urged Congress to move quickly to pass an unemployment relief package for people left jobless by the coronavirus pandemic.

DeSantis made his remarks to reporters Monday in Kissimmee, a central Florida city that is home to thousands of Walt Disney World workers. The Walt Disney Co. has announced plans to lay off more than 30,000 employees, including 18,000 at the Orlando theme park.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Which is why they've run VA medical system right into the most incompetently run and inadequate of all the services, so say the veterans I know -- though those were mostly grunts. Supposedly it's better if one were a high rank officer.  I have no personal experience, but the stories they tell of their on-going trials and just plain refusal to serve are horrifying.

 

But that's because it's been run down under Republican administrations. A Republican head of VA still has to put in place the policies of the Biden administration, and if Biden chooses to improve services and commits budget to it then the VA secretary is obliged to implement those policies and spend that money for that purpose. The main thing is to make sure you find a Republican who isn't on the grift gravy train who will find ways to misappropriate the money for their business mates.

[Zorral]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/30/trump-losing-twitter-followers-biden-gains-them

Maybe twitter merely deactivated a bot or two?

~~~~~~~

Quote

A Republican head of VA still has to put in place the policies of the Biden administration, 

Surely you jest, @The Anti-Targ  for no one in These Times can be that naive about republicans ... can they?

[Ser Reptitious]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

To be clear, as Ty said, the discussion regarding Buttigieg centered on him building upon his impressive primary performance.  Going to the state legislature after winning(ish) the Iowa caucus is decidedly a huge-ass step down.  Even a US Congress seat would be pretty meh - as would any statewide office outside of governor or (US) senator.  The discussion on his specific politically future - and why moving out of Indiana may be wise for such prospects - isn't too relevant to this discussion.  

For an illustrative comparison, take Andrew Yang.  He got some run during the primary season as well, and now is seriously considering running for mayor of New York.  Now you may be like - "see, he's pursuing a local office."  And, yes, technically.  Except there's about 1.6 million more people in NYC than in the entire state of Indiana.  Moreover, Yang didn't win a single delegate and dropped out on the night of the New Hampshire primary at the same time Buttigieg came in a close second in the contest after "winning" Iowa.

Yang running and winning the mayoralty of NYC would be great for both the party (since DeBlasio seems to be deeply unpopular and likely to lose) and for him personally. 

While Buttigieg abandoning his native state and moving (as an outsider) to Maryland or Virginia (for example) and running for office there doesn’t do much for the party. I get that from his personal ambitions’ point of view it makes sense, but I’m looking at this from a “what’s good for the party’s overall health (locally, state-wise, and nationally)” point of view.

Quote

These races demonstrate that Indiana and Missouri are plainly drifting away from Democrats at the statewide level.  That doesn't mean you abandon them or don't engage in a 50-state effort, certainly!  But it does underline that that strategy needs to be balanced by being realistic.

I think we’re in agreement, provided that ‘being realistic’ means that there is no expectation that things in those states (state-wide, at least) will change in the Democrats’ favour in the near future, but that it is nonetheless vital for the party’s long-term future to keep recruiting and building in these places, and to especially help promising candidates, even in tough battles (they may not win the first time around, but the building up of name recognition may get them over the line the second time around). 

[Ser Reptitious]

23 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But that's because it's been run down under Republican administrations. A Republican head of VA still has to put in place the policies of the Biden administration, and if Biden chooses to improve services and commits budget to it then the VA secretary is obliged to implement those policies and spend that money for that purpose. The main thing is to make sure you find a Republican who isn't on the grift gravy train who will find ways to misappropriate the money for their business mates.

...and then that Republican will get the credit for ‘fixing the VA’ (which, in the public’s view, probably wasn’t broken in the first place because of Republicans, but rather because it is an unwieldy government bureaucracy and so of course it took a Republican to fix it!).

[Zorral]

It would be totally dreadful for NYC.

1 minute ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Yang running and winning the mayoralty of NYC would be great for both the party (since DeBlasio seems to be deeply unpopular and likely to lose) and for him personally. 

NYers would hate him for all the same reason de Blasio is deeply unpopular with all sections of the city that aren't the real estate interests.  Plus he's at least as half-baked most of the time has de Blasio's wife has exposed herself and de Blasio to be -- and entirely without any experience in running anything remotely like NYC.  Maybe he could buy it like Bloomberg did, but at least B was a name NYers knew, and was part of certain sections of the NYC ruling classes, particularly media and real estate. In his own way B has some concern for NYC that is personal. Yang's got exactly zero.