US Politics: Does the fat man singing count?

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Breaking news: retired General Lloyd Austin to be named Sec. of Defense. Gen. Austin is black.

I was thinking after the Becerra pick yesterday that Biden would need an African American and a woman at Defense and AG.  That meant unless he put Rice at the Pentagon (not the worst idea but he clearly seems scared to appoint her), it'd likely either be Flournoy and Patrick or Austin and Yates.  I much prefer the latter, and I think progressives will as well.  Plus it's nice to have the first black SecDef.  I guess Lisa Monaco is still in the running at AG, but you gotta assume it's gonna be a woman at this point.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think people are saying you can't criticize his picks, but often times it comes across as complaining for the sake of complaining because you don't really like Biden. It's largely counterproductive. 

Fair enough- again, I'm not surprised by any of these, I'm not sure what people were really expecting, but that doesn't make the picks any better.  I'm not sure what about it is counterproductive, but it is a predictable result of having a 'big tent' party.

[Week]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If you read Simon's link it makes it clear that it was a push, and one that she is proud of.  It's not like it was a Maxine Waters / Michael Tracey situation.

 

Neera Tanden is everything wrong with the mainstream Dems, but it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that she would be involved here.  Policy-wise, she's just a more obnoxious version of anyone else we could have expected, so I'm not sure what the surprise is to the far left, or why anyone who is not in what DMC calls the 'Stupid Left' (self included), should be surprised that the 'Stupid Left' is going to let you know we don't like her.  It'd be the same thing if it was Sanders coming into the WH and he named Sirota press secretary.

Simon's link has some legit gripes with Tanden.  Also, if you're going to take shots at Simon for an autocorrect error but not someone else spelling 'Tandeen' on this page it seems like your issue is more with the author than the misspelling.

Why say "punching" then? The opinion, half-truth, and falsehoods really take away from legitimate disagreement. Which, again, compared to Bruce Reed or other potential options - this is at least neutral or avoiding worse potential outcomes.

If you cannot see the difference in misspelling the first letter of someone's name while insulting someone versus an extra "e" - then I don't know what to tell you. Whatever, not a big deal. Funnier more than anything at this point.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Week said:

Why say "punching" then? The opinion, half-truth, and falsehoods really take away from legitimate disagreement. Which, again, compared to Bruce Reed or other potential options - this is at least neutral or avoiding worse potential outcomes.

If you cannot see the difference in misspelling the first letter of someone's name while insulting someone versus an extra "e" - then I don't know what to tell you. Whatever, not a big deal. Funnier more than anything at this point.

 

the top two choices in my phone when I type 'Neera' are 'Meera' and 'beers', so I genuinely don't see your point, but glad you're at least get a laugh out of it.

[Week]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

the top two choices in my phone when I type 'Neera' are 'Meera' and 'beers', so I genuinely don't see your point, but glad you're at least get a laugh out of it.

How hard was it to fix it?

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Week said:

How hard was it to fix it?

It was easy, when I saw the wrong thing I changed it.  I can't speak for Simon but I'd like to think if he for some reason wanted to insult someone by getting their name wrong he'd be more original than just using the wrong consonant recommended by his phone.

I also post typos all over the place and often edit posts because it's easy to miss stuff!  Some people might see the extra 'e' others might miss the 'M'.  I think it's kind of petty to attribute it to bad faith in one case and not the other when both are pretty clearly fucking typos 

 

[Week]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

It was easy, when I saw the wrong thing I changed it.  I can't speak for Simon but I'd like to think of he for some reason wanted to insult someone by getting their name wrong he'd be more original that. just using the wrong consonant recommended by his phone.

I also post typos all over the place and often edit posts because it's easy to miss stuff!  Some people might see the extra 'e' others might miss the 'M'.  I think it's kind of petty to attribute it to bad faith in one case and not the other when both are pretty clearly fucking typos 

 

Whatever, I was enjoying myself - mostly because it made me an ass and a spoony bard (evidently). An assy, spoony bard! Or a spoony, assy bard. Spoony bard ass!

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Policy-wise, she's just a more obnoxious version of anyone else we could have expected, so I'm not sure what the surprise is to the far left, or why anyone who is not in what DMC calls the 'Stupid Left' (self included), should be surprised that the 'Stupid Left' is going to let you know we don't like her.  It'd be the same thing if it was Sanders coming into the WH and he named Sirota press secretary.

 

First of all, I didn't call them the stupid left, John Harris did.  Second, no one's saying you can't criticize anybody.  But I thought Harris' article was worth sharing because it is stupid to call Tanden "the enemy."  It is stupid to characterize almost all of Biden's picks as "right-wing" or beholden to moneyed interests or "neoliberal" (which is a bullshit term nobody leveling it understands anyway).  And it is stupid to object to someone that ran a think tank just because that think tank took big money contributions - while at the same time being either unable or unwilling to identify policies proposed by said think tank that actually appear beholden to moneyed interests.

If you wanna criticize them because they're not as "progressive" as you'd prefer, that's perfectly fine.  But there's a difference between healthy criticism and the disqualifying nature of the above "critiques."  And also, like you said, in terms of Biden's picks, how "progressive" did anyone really expect?  I'd say he's clearly tried to show a balance/olive branch in that regard - which again is why the organized/elite left has largely held their fire thus far.

Now, with only AG left in terms of the big four, and his national security picks all but done (except for CIA), the remaining cabinet and cabinet-level posts are mostly domestic policy-oriented.  This, I think, is where he can more readily satisfy the left with certain picks, and I hope he does.  That's what I tried to do with my "ideal" picks in the other thread.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Fair enough- again, I'm not surprised by any of these, I'm not sure what people were really expecting, but that doesn't make the picks any better.  I'm not sure what about it is counterproductive, but it is a predictable result of having a 'big tent' party.

Because the complaints are by and large not tied with any real solutions. I think it's fair to complain at the macro level that Biden hasn't thrown the left a few more bones, but tearing down the individual choices to the degree I've seen isn't helping anyone. Compared to what we got over the last four years, I don't think any of Biden's picks have been all that objectionable, and I think the outcry over Tanden highlights that. She's earned her strips and is in line with general progressive thought. It seems like her biggest crime is that she's been critical of Sanders. 

[Gaston de Foix]

I've been thinking about the evolution of my own political thinking over the last 5 years (the five stages of antitrumpism).  What's striking is how wrong I was throughout. 

1.  Trump is a joke, an opportunistic showman who won't win the nomination and if he does he will lead the Republican party into oblivion [Mirth].

2.  Trump won because many folks voted irresponsibly/stayed at home to give 2 fingers to the establishment.  Political mistakes, Comey,  Clintonian baggage, anti-incumbency after 8 years of Obama.  A fluke presidency with fluke majorities in Congress. Let's take back Congress to minimize damage. There's a big blue wave coming.  And who knows, maybe Trumpism will create a more durable Dem majority in the long term [Bargaining].

3.  Trump's twitter rants, his denial of American exceptionalism, his failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, the criminal indictments of his associates, the obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, and his impeachment all make it clear he's destined to be a one-term president.  He's a failed experiment a la George Wallace/Richard Nixon.  The Senate Rs may have disgraced their oaths but the American people remain fundamentally decent and Trump has never touched 50% in the polls. We'll see a lot of these guys shamefacedly slink black to the middle of the road once Trump is defeated electorally [Anger]  

4.  There's a certain hidden wisdom in the American electorate: they may discount what a President says but they pay attention to results.  Politics isn't symmetrical, America is a center-right country.  Rs get away with shit that would sink Dems.  What moves the polls is the economy and how well the president keeps Americans safe.  200K dead Americans and an economy in the toilet seal this election.  Biden is leading in virtually every poll in every swing state.  The real question is if Biden gets a senate majority so he can break Washington free from gridlock and get a couple of legislative wins.  Excellent chance there too. [Denial].

5.  Trump has lost but Trumpism has won and is here to stay.  Biden will get nothing done legislatively, and probably lose the House in 2022.  The Senate ain't coming back to the Dems either through Georgia or through pickups in 2022 (the only realistic prospect is PA). Good, decent Americans, like the Iowans who made Barack Obama president support Trump by a majority. [Depression].

[SFDanny]

31 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

  

@SFDannyat some point in the future we're not going to be able to use Fear of Trump as the reason we can't have nice things, every single time.  I mean Pelosi is already trying to argue that the Senate relief bill is fine even though it's less than what they could have gotten three months ago because Biden is President-Elect.  As if that helps anyone who needs to pay rent or heating bills.

I'm not sure how you got that idea from anything I've written. I don't use the fear of Trump or the fear of fascism as a tool to deny progress and a better life for people. Far from it. I'm all for pushing through the most substantive changes possible. I want the Biden administration to be aggressive and push through its agenda, and I want people to push the administration to make their agenda even better than they promised. Case in point, I would like Biden to use an executive order to forgive up to $50,000 in student debt on the first day of his presidency. What Warren and Schumer have been pushing him to do. The simple fact is the more we can win against Trump and his enablers, the better the possibilities for passage of meaningful legislation effecting people across the board.

As to the specific complaint against Pelosi and a relief bill, do you think she should refuse to pass such a bill if it doesn't include everything you think is needed? Who does that hurt most? Again, I think people should press the Senate to include as much aid as is possible, but to blame Pelosi for recognizing the critical need for passage of some kind of relief bill, even if that means that Biden has to immediately push for more once he is in office, doesn't really recognize the impact of no relief money to countless of people. Nor is it a recognition of who is responsible for no passage of such a bill over the last many months. 

btw, thanks for the correction on my misspelling Tanden's name. I've corrected it. As usual, I spelled it correctly and wrong in the same post. My apologies if that offends you. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because the complaints are by and large not tied with any real solutions. I think it's fair to complain at the macro level that Biden hasn't thrown the left a few more bones, but tearing down the individual choices to the degree I've seen isn't helping anyone. Compared to what we got over the last four years, I don't think any of Biden's picks have been all that objectionable, and I think the outcry over Tanden highlights that. She's earned her strips and is in line with general progressive thought. It seems like her biggest crime is that she's been critical of Sanders. 

By that metric he could have appointed Wayne La Pierre head of his School Shooting Task-Force and you guys would be saying "I don't see the problem here..."

@Week are you catching Ty's 'typo' here?

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I'm not sure how you got that idea from anything I've written. I don't use the fear of Trump or the fear of fascism as a tool to deny progress and a better life for people. Far from it. I'm all for pushing through the most substantive changes possible. I want the Biden administration to be aggressive and push through its agenda, and I want people to push the administration to make their agenda even better than they promised. Case in point, I would like Biden to use an executive order to forgive up to $50,000 in student debt on the first day of his presidency. What Warren and Schumer have been pushing him to do. The simple fact is the more we can win against Trump and his enablers, the better the possibilities for passage of meaningful legislation effecting people across the board.

As to the specific complaint against Pelosi and a relief bill, do you think she should refuse to pass such a bill if it doesn't include everything you think is needed? Who does that hurt most? Again, I think people should press the Senate to include as much aid as is possible, but to blame Pelosi for recognizing the critical need for passage of some kind of relief bill, even if that means that Biden has to immediately push for more once he is in office, doesn't really recognize the impact of no relief money to countless of people. Nor is it a recognition of who is responsible for no passage of such a bill over the last many months. 

btw, thanks for the correction on my misspelling Tanden's name. I've corrected it. As usual, I spelled it correctly and wrong in the same post. My apologies if that offends you. 

No, I wasn't offended by the misspelling, I recognized it for what it was, just didn't like to see Simon getting flak for what was pretty clearly the exact same thing.  In fact, I consider your posting style a model of how to post responsibly and politely.  

The reason I mentioned you with my post you quoted was your answer to why calling Tanden 'enemy' was wrong or sectarian bickering.  It's because the mainstream dems trot out the argument that the other guy is worse or that the end is nigh and is always right around the corner, and yet when it comes to shit like universal healthcare or police violence against minorities or a living wage or ending imperialism or climate change they drag their feet and say that whatever happens, it was the best that they could do.  "We can't push for more, we already got the ACA."  "Well maybe a public option, but no promises.   We have people in swing districts to think about."  

I don't doubt your sincerity, at all, on any of what you've written here.

I just think that you're wrong.  I predict we will not get another $1200 pittance, that Dem leadership will say they don't have the political capital to try for even a a third of the HEROES act ( or even whatever trash the GOP offered in September) and that they won't really even try much to make it happen.  We'll hear that it's going to put too much pressure on moderate candidates in swing districts in 2022, that we cant talk about it because of the GA special elections, that we can't talk about it because Trump is still trying to win or he could mount a coup or some shit.  

And come inauguration, we'll hear that "we have to think about the deficit".  Except it's always the working class that picks up that tab, one way or another.  And we can't complain, because that'd be helping the GOP.  

Pelosi shut down the last bill because she was worried it would help Trump.  They could have passed a UI bill on it's own but she wouldn't do it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

By that metric he could have appointed Wayne La Pierre head of his School Shooting Task-Force and you guys would be saying "I don't see the problem here..."

This is lazy. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is lazy. 

So was what you wrote, that was the entire point.

[Larry of the Lawn]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/05/neera-tanden-bullying-joe-biden-cabinet

Is this some hit piece?  Just some Bernie Bro whining?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

So was what you wrote, that was the entire point.

No, what's lazy is calling a qualified pick an enemy and a Republican when both comments are flatly bizarre, as is what you wrote. That's not comparable to my comment at all. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, what's lazy is calling a qualified pick an enemy and a Republican when both comments are flatly bizarre, as is what you wrote. That's not comparable to my comment at all. 

Your standard was literally "compared to what we got over the last four years".  

Betsy DeVos.  Zeinke.  Scott Pruitt.  

You are 100% excusing anyone other than a blatant attempt at regulatory capture with that metric.

Where did I call Tanden a republican?  I mean that's clearly not true.  Or are you just shifting the goal posts back to something totally different, but making it sound the same by repeating the 'lazy' designation but talking about something else?

Is there some deeper meaning to "compared to what we got over the last four years" that isn't referring to the fact that "at least she wasn't a Trump pick"?

[Larry of the Lawn]

"Compared to Hitler, I don't think Henry Kissinger is all that objectionable"

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Where did I call Tanden a republican?  I mean that's clearly not true.  Or are you just shifting the goal posts back to something totally different, but making it sound the same by repeating the 'lazy' designation but talking about something else?

You didn't, but others certainly did. Along with, well, basically every suggestion on Biden's cabinet. Which is sort of the point. 

It's especially weird because many other progressives are lauding many of the picks. The problem appears to be that Sanders fans don't like them, and while Sanders is a good chunk of progressives they certainly aren't all of them or even most of them. 

I'm all for criticizing Tanden. Tanden is not a great political figure for a lot of reasons - too cozy to special interests, too cozy to Clinton, way too willing to get into bullshit off-message fights with the likes of Sanders asshats. Her pros are probably not enough to outweigh her cons. But it is absolutely fucking bullshit to say that someone who has proposed a literal medicare for all plan for the US is a republican or the 'enemy'.