US Politics: Does the fat man singing count?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

My point is that people who call themselves progressive and are quick to exclude people who they disagree with in the broad group of progressives are doing a disservice to the movement for change by attacking Biden's nominations. There is no one yet nominated, and their likely won't be such a person nominated, that merits this kind of sectarian nonsense. It's one thing to push for people you would like to see in the cabinet. It is another thing entirely -  an entirely destructive thing - to attack nominees once their names are put forth and join with the right-wing's joy in weakening this government before it is even constituted. Neera Tanden is not the enemy. But there are real enemies to democracy out there. Let's fight them.

That is fundamentally different from what Obama did. President Obama supports the aims of the very movement that put forward the slogan he was critical of. He just thinks such slogans are self-limiting in building the breadth of the movement needed to make the demands of the movement a reality. He is right. Not that he can change what the leaders of the movement think are the best way to put forth their demands. 

When I was a young man, many years ago, I was involved in many marches to end a war that was obviously unjust and was killing millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans. I also thought that the way to do that was through the most militant demands possible. I found out that there were many who disagreed with me, and that if I didn't listen to others who had a different point of view of what we should be saying, then the movement got a lot smaller than what was needed to actually accomplish stopping that war. It felt good to be militant. It felt even better when the war came to an end because the broad majority of the American people would no longer support it.

"Defund the Police" is, in my opinion, a tactical mistake as a slogan. The idea of changing policing as we know it and how we prioritize the funding of it is an idea that the broad majority of the people of this nation can and will support. We "just" have to be able to build the connections between the people who constitute that broad majority. "Defund the Police" doesn't help do that. That's the point Obama was making.

The problem here however, it seems to me, is both in the formulation of the slogan and the unwarranted reaction to it. Movements develop their slogans and aims through stages, and this slogan maybe changed as it develops, but it is also wrong to blame the slogan for problems of the Democratic Party in the last election. "Defund the Police" was never the slogan of the Democratic Party. It was never the slogan of the Biden/Harris campaign. That Trump seized upon it to push the message that Democrats wanted to get rid of the police in all forms and places isn't surprising in the least. It was a lie, and still is a lie. That is what Trump does. He lies. So the problem is that too many Democratic Candidates were not ready to push the message on social justice / police reform in a way that made sense to many voters. That's the problem of the Democratic Party, not the movement for social justice and police reform. Not the movement to end police killings and brutality. One can criticize the makers of the slogan, but the real problem lies in getting out the message on this subject that reflects the Democratic Party is leading the way forward.

So, when I listen to Obama's criticisms of a slogan by a movement he supports, I understand. When I hear James Carville and others blame Democratic losses on the "Defund the Police" slogan I want to puke.

What sectarian nonsense? I haven't seen anyone out there fighting against Biden picks except the Republicans. I think the Biden.picks really suck, and that's about it. Biden's just showing me he's as bad a choice as I suspected, but whatever. My response to all this was due to a Politico troll writing about how not liking Biden's picks makes people stupid. The sectarian nonsense consistenly comes from the neo liberal, centrist core of the party. 

PS Meera Tanden is the enemy. She is ingrained in the capitalist system that harms.so many Americans. These people do these things willingly. They're not out to help, but to further enrich themselves. Until they're out of politics, inequality will continue to rise as ridiculous rates.

 If you think people online expressing this serves Republicans, then I'd be happy to get into a debate how you supporting these picks perpetuates a cycle of suffering not only in the US but around the world. And that someone like Tanden pushed Clinton to seek reparations from Libya because we bombed them. She is legit terrible.

Also, I'm not going to sit here as a white man in grad school and tell black people their "slogan" has bad optics. I'll let a real humantarian like Obama do that I guess.

[Week]

48 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Wow, your friendship to a Bain Capital employee is an exactly analogous situation to Tanden's, and having been made aware of it I now I recant and accept that we should never, ever point out Democrats' ties to moneyed interests. 

There does seem to be an implicit demand in the reaction to these announced/rumored/leaked (it's been all three) that people in the upper echelon of government should not have ever worked in big business. Which, to me, asks the question - "what should they have done?" I'm curious what the realistic answer would be and what the implications are of an entire cabinet comprised of folks that pass this litmus test. They haven't been in government, they haven't been in business, so they're activists and thinkers without government experience?

I realize I sound obtuse and biased - I am genuinely interested in what people think.

[Week]

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

What sectarian nonsense? I haven't seen anyone out there fighting against Biden picks except the Republicans. I think the Biden.picks really suck, and that's about it. Biden's just showing me he's as bad a choice as I suspected, but whatever. My response to all this was due to a Politico troll writing about how not liking Biden's picks makes people stupid. The sectarian nonsense consistenly comes from the neo liberal, centrist core of the party. 

PS Meera Tanden is the enemy. She is ingrained in the capitalist system that harms.so many Americans. These people do these things willingly. They're not out to help, but to further enrich themselves. Until they're out of politics, inequality will continue to rise as ridiculous rates.

 If you think people online expressing this serves Republicans, then I'd be happy to get into a debate how you supporting these picks perpetuates a cycle of suffering not only in the US but around the world. And that someone like Tanden pushed Clinton to seek reparations from Libya because we bombed them. She is legit terrible.

... uhh ... the tweet works here too. Pretty rude to misspell "Neera" as well.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

OK, fair explanation -- not unfair IMO -- so then to the substance of the criticism (the contradiction of "what sectarian nonsense?" vs "Meera [sic] Tanden is the enemy") or the previous post I made?

If someone supports Tanden, I'm not out to get them. If AOC, for example, really loves Tanden, I'm not out leading a coup to dethrone her. I just cannot play along that my dislike of her is attributed to sectarian attitudes or misinformed people. There is plenty of reason to not support her, and, if the Republicans weren't so obstructionist in nature, they'd realize she's not so different from them. But the only "sect" I've claimed to represent is that of not calling progressives who oppose Biden's picks "stupid" or misinformed. 

[Week]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

If someone supports Tanden, I'm not out to get them. If AOC, for example, really loves Tanden, I'm not out leading a coup to dethrone her. I just cannot play along that dislike of her it attributal to sectarian attitudes or misinformed people. There is plenty of reason to not support her, and, if the Republicans weren't so obstructionist in nature, they'd realize she's not so different from them. But the only "sect" I've claimed to represent is that of not calling progressives who oppose Biden's picks "stupid" or misinformed. 

Calling her "the enemy" is a harsher line that this one that you've drawn in the sand here. Essentially, calling her a Republican "she's not so different from them" is a ranker, baseless insult as well -- considering the present state of the Rethuglican party and her attacks on GOP politicians over the last few years.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

16 minutes ago, Week said:

There does seem to be an implicit demand in the reaction to these announced/rumored/leaked (it's been all three) that people in the upper echelon of government should not have ever worked in big business. Which, to me, asks the question - "what should they have done?" I'm curious what the realistic answer would be and what the implications are of an entire cabinet comprised of folks that pass this litmus test. They haven't been in government, they haven't been in business, so they're activists and thinkers without government experience?

I realize I sound obtuse and biased - I am genuinely interested in what people think.

Why can't they have been in government? You can draw from elected officials and career civil servants. Also, more activists and academics sounds great. Hell, Biden himself is a career politician. 

I don't expect any President in the near future to put together a cabinet totally free of potential conflicts of interest or unseemly influences, but I hate the fact that so many people react to that as if it's a preposterous idea, and that it's deserving of scorn to even point out the connections. Maybe someday we can get to a place where we are not constantly staffing our government with people tied to the industries and interests they're meant to regulate, maybe we can't. What I know for sure is we'll never get there by lowering our expectations to the point of demanding we not even talk about it. 

[Week]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Why can't they have been in government? You can draw from elected officials and career civil servants. Also, more activists and academics sounds great. Hell, Biden himself is a career politician. 

I don't expect any President in the near future to put together a cabinet totally free of potential conflicts of interest or unseemly influences, but I hate the fact that so many people react to that as if it's a preposterous idea, and that it's deserving of scorn to even point out the connections. Maybe someday we can get to a place where we are not constantly staffing our government with people tied to the industries and interests they're meant to regulate, maybe we can't. What I know for sure is we'll never get there by lowering our expectations to the point of demanding we not even talk about it. 

I've pretty consistently seen criticism of most anyone in an administration run by Obama, so -- folks from the state-level, I guess? The continued criticism, which I may be wrong on -- these threads move fast -- is the dearth of alternatives suggested. 

[Week]

Anyways, adjacent to this conversation -- 

A lot of young folks are looking pretty foolish in that thread.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

I've pretty consistently seen criticism of most anyone in an administration run by Obama, so -- folks from the state-level, I guess? The continued criticism, which I may be wrong on -- these threads move fast -- is the dearth of alternatives suggested. 

I don't follow the thread super closely either, but I'd be surprised if anyone has registered blanket objections to anyone who served in the Obama administration. If specific Obama era officials are being objected to, I suspect it's not on the basis that they've worked in the federal government, but something else (like how they parlayed their government experience into a big payday afterward). 

I am not in a position to name specific alternative names, nor do I think that's a reasonable expectation of an average citizen. But when I'm presented with names of people and facts about them, I feel I'm entitled to an opinion on them. And, again, I don't expect a pristine government tomorrow, but I doubt it would be literally impossible to staff the government without hiring people with ties to big money. And if it is, we're never going to make it otherwise if we don't even talk about it. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

30 minutes ago, Week said:

Calling her "the enemy" is a harsher line that this one that you've drawn in the sand here. Essentially, calling her a Republican "she's not so different from them" is a ranker, baseless insult as well -- considering the present state of the Rethuglican party and her attacks on GOP politicians over the last few years.

I think she is the enemy of progress (to be specific), but that said, this isn't a line in the sand for anyone except me. I think she represents the true foundation of republican politics: consolidation of money at the expense of the majority. I don't think she's a racist, homophobic, tyrant thug--not even close. But the core of the Democratic party has become a party of big money, and that to me, is the enemy of progress.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What?

This is laugh out loud bonkers and captures everything that is wrong with the radical left. 

(20) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Pretty sad how much people have been conditioned to believe that not getting crushed by costs of healthcare, housing, education, and low wages is either “radical left politics” or “nice but unrealistic”" / Twitter

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

And, again, I don't expect a pristine government tomorrow, but I doubt it would be literally impossible to staff the government without hiring people with ties to big money. And if it is, we're never going to make it otherwise if we don't even talk about it. 

Ok, then let's talk about it.  I tried to when she was first announced and got no response, so I'll just copy and paste that post: 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think she represents the true foundation of republican politics: consolidation of money at the expense of the majority.

Here is CAP's proposed Medicare Extra for All plan proposed during Tanden's tenure:

Quote

To address these challenges, the Center for American Progress proposes a new system—“Medicare Extra for All.” Medicare Extra would include important enhancements to the current Medicare program: an out-of-pocket limit, coverage of dental care and hearing aids, and integrated drug benefits. Medicare Extra would be available to all Americans, regardless of income, health status, age, or insurance status.

Employers would have the option to sponsor Medicare Extra and employees would have the option to choose Medicare Extra over their employer coverage. Medicare Extra would strengthen, streamline, and integrate Medicaid coverage with guaranteed quality into a national program.

While it isn't single payer, do you think that plan was formulated by the "enemy" consolidating money at the expense of the majority?  Do you think the insurance industry would be in favor of that plan?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think she is the enemy of progress (to be specific), but that said, this isn't a line in the sand for anyone except me. I think she represents the true foundation of republican politics: consolidation of money at the expense of the majority. I don't think she's a racist, homophobic, tyrant thug--not even close. But the core of the Democratic party has become a party of big money, and that to me, is the enemy of progress.

She may be the enemy of your definition of progress, which to be clear, is not realistic. But she would be a progressive force. It's odd that you seem to hate her just as much as Republicans do.

17 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

(20) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Pretty sad how much people have been conditioned to believe that not getting crushed by costs of healthcare, housing, education, and low wages is either “radical left politics” or “nice but unrealistic”" / Twitter

Okay, AOC said something. And? 

[Week]

52 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think she is the enemy of progress (to be specific), but that said, this isn't a line in the sand for anyone except me. I think she represents the true foundation of republican politics: consolidation of money at the expense of the majority. I don't think she's a racist, homophobic, tyrant thug--not even close. But the core of the Democratic party has become a party of big money, and that to me, is the enemy of progress.

Narrator: This is not specific. Also, citation needed.

You're very willing to arbitrarily tar a wide swathe of people with a generalization -- whether there is some truth to it with some members -- remains insulting and inaccurate. This ad hominem does nothing to either effect progress or blunt the impact of money in politics.

Demanding progress, accountability, and removing money in politics is not furthered by othering and attacking purported and potential allies as enemies. Again, how to make friends and influence people -- you need someone to actually agree with you and support what you believe in. The lack of any coalitional strategy within a cohort where change is possible is how one loses back to back primaries against "weak", centrist candidates.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 minutes ago, Week said:

Narrator: This is not specific. Also, citation needed.

You're very willing to arbitrarily tar a wide swathe of people with a generalization -- whether there is some truth to it with some members -- remains insulting and inaccurate. This ad hominem does nothing to either effect progress or blunt the impact of money in politics.

Demanding progress, accountability, and removing money in politics is not furthered by othering and attacking purported and potential allies as enemies. Again, how to make friends and influence people -- you need someone to actually agree with you and support what you believe in. The lack of any coalitional strategy within a cohort where change is possible is how one loses back to back primaries against "weak", centrist candidates.

These people are not friends. Change will come slowly, but I do believe Millennials and Gen Z are going to finally push the cronies out.

 

[Week]

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

These people are not friends. Change will come slowly, but I do believe Millennials and Gen Z are going to finally push the cronies out.

 

Surprised to see you say this considering the vitriol typically levelled at those advocating incrementalism and pragmatism (enemies of progress, no?). Do you think change will come faster or slower by attacking the CVs and motives of appointees? Would you listen to the opinion of someone calling your preferred pick the enemy of progress?

 

 

Answers: Slower and no.

 

Also, cute edit -- unfortunately, I don't think FuSoYa is walking through that door to save us from Zeromus -- and not sure why you'd edit your ad hominem and not the incorrect spelling of someone's name who you also happen to be insulting. To each their own.

[Martell Spy]

Donald Trump is not a political genius

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/04/opinions/trump-myth-political-genius-harrow/index.html

Quote

Trump also did worse than other Republicans in 2020, signaling that voters preferred the Republican Party over Trump himself. The overall House vote, for instance, was about 2 points closer than the presidential race, which means that several million more people voted for Biden and a Republican House candidate than the reverse.
Trump also ran behind Republican Senate candidates in many key states, and those margins were particularly wide where the candidates were known for breaking with Trump. In Maine, moderate Republican Susan Collins won her race by nearly 9 points while Trump lost the state by 9 points. In Nebraska, frequent Trump critic Ben Sasse beat his Democratic challenger by substantially more than Trump's margin over Biden in the Cornhusker State.
All of this leads to one conclusion: if Republicans are smart, they will quickly realize Trump is a polarizing demagogue who poses a liability to the GOP. In 2012, when Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote and lost to Barack Obama by about 4%, Romney's performance was widely considered disastrous. That loss lead Republicans to conduct the famous autopsy report that declared the GOP was "increasingly marginalizing itself" at the federal level and noted "public perception of the Party is at record lows."

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

These people are not friends. Change will come slowly, but I do believe Millennials and Gen Z are going to finally push the cronies out.

 

Politics in many ways is the art of working with people you may disagree with. If you say that someone who agrees with you >90% of time isn't just a friend, but an enemy, then yeah, you're a radical. Enjoy being a Sith. 

[Sharpes]

Just confirmed Giuliani tested positive for covid-19. They might also want to test him for hair dye toxicity and sanity.