Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Which Tyler

US Politics - It's a new dawn. It's a new day. It's a new life for US

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

It's a false flag for the Carolingians.

State rethug parties have gone full / pure Qnon.  The shoggoth's won.

 

The Qs seem to be moving on from Trump, which is scary because a semi-competent psychopath could assume control.

ETA: Also the phrase "assume control" reminds me of Mass Effect 2. Q is a reaper. I'm calling it now.

Edited by Centrist Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

The AP with a NYT worthy both sides take.

Ah, the old sitting down on a couch with a face-eating leopard and finding common ground. You can find out how "Both sides do it" and are equally to blame for the country's problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DMC said:

First off, I agree they should do a standalone bill with the checks and vaccine aid.  This was discussed a few days ago (I believe Thursday), and I honestly don't see a downside to it.  If the GOP still obstructs on it, you can always just throw it into the larger relief bill when you're gonna have to use reconciliation for it anyway - its not like that's gonna lose you any Dem votes.  And you just made the GOP look like the assholes they are.

To answer your question, I guess it's a bit of both.  Biden just got his two week delay (which I also think is stupid) on the impeachment trial, so apparently he actually believes he can magically garner 60 votes for a relief bill, in a fortnight to boot.  Pretty much the entire rest of the party - I've seen a bunch of Dem MCs effectively say this on TV since inauguration - knows they're going to have to use reconciliation, but Biden seems determined to "give the GOP a chance" before doing so. 

There also, it should be noted, is the practical hurdle of actually getting an organizing resolution agreed upon before at least doing the relief bill through reconciliation and perhaps even such a standalone bill.  Until the composition of committees are readjusted, the GOP can practically block anything from getting out of committee in the Senate.

In addition to all this, which I do agree with. I wonder how preoccupied Klain and the others are with identifying how fucked the federal agencies have gotten and trying to fix the immediate crises. And in the absence of firm WH guidance so far, Congress is pulling a Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which is why I anticipate a split.

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Game-Changing Biden Order You Haven’t Heard About
A directive about the regulatory process could lead to progressive movement on climate change, public health and worker safety."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-order-progressive-regulation_n_6009dabec5b6efae63002e20?2hn
.

Quote

 

...Tucked into all of those high-profile moves, though, was a memo with a title seemingly designed to be ignored: “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” Sent to the press at 9:43 p.m. on Wednesday in the middle of the Tom Hanks-led inaugural celebration, the White House was not expecting the dry document to drive headlines or set American hearts aflutter. 

But the memo could unleash a wave of stronger regulations to reduce income inequality, fight climate change and protect public health. Among left-leaning experts on regulation, it’s a signal that Biden could break with 40 years of conservative policy. 

“I realize what I’m about to say to you sounds absurd,” James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, told HuffPost. “It has the potential to be the most significant action Biden took on day one.” 

The order could eventually lead to major changes at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an extremely obscure White House office located inside the only slightly less obscure Office of Management and Budget. OIRA, as it is known, is charged with vetting proposed regulations and has the power to weaken, delay or even kill new rules proposed by other government agencies....

....Lobbyists and other corporate interests have historically seen OIRA reviews as their last chance to block or delay regulations designed to protect consumers and workers and mandate safety measures. During President Barack Obama’s administration alone, it delayed a mandate for the installation of rear-view cameras on cars for years and watered down rules protecting workers from exposure to dangerous silica dust and regulations governing the disposal of toxic coal ash. 

Biden’s order appears set to dramatically overhaul that process, saying regulatory reviews should instead promote “public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations.” It also says OIRA’s director should proactively encourage agencies to develop rules that benefit the public....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

Could be a temporary one, where it costs them an election. It can take different forms. The Democrats had a split in 2016. It wasn't as dramatic as the party fulling splitting in 2, but it existed. There was GOP voters staying home in 2006. There's certain times when a 3rd party candidate gains enough popularity to harm a major party's success in a single election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

The other more moderate elements would be cast out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Could be a temporary one, where it costs them an election. It can take different forms. The Democrats had a split in 2016. It wasn't as dramatic as the party fulling splitting in 2, but it existed. There was GOP voters staying home in 2006. There's certain times when a 3rd party candidate gains enough popularity to harm a major party's success in a single election.

There was no split in 2016, certainly not to the degree scot was fallaciously talking about. 

Could there be enough to make people stay home? Sure! Though probably not in 2022. 2024 maybe, but it ain't gonna be some third party that Trump is leading. It'll be some Kasich like bullshit that won't do fuckall. Trump remains absurdly popular in the gop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the interesting thing to watch will be how much/to what extent GOP MCs that vote(d) for impeachment are "cast out," starting with - obviously - Liz Cheney.  McCarthy has repeatedly had her back thus far, although the pressure from inside his conference clearly led to him now voicing "concerns."  There is already a primary challenger, but it does not appear to be a serious one as of yet.  Generally, you would think time would be on Cheney's side just in terms of the basic wound-healing and temperature-settling aspects. 

If the Trumpists really are intent on a purge, though, such efforts may not materialize/elucidate publicly for a considerable time due to the legwork of recruiting quality challengers and nature of when/how campaigns are funded.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

There will never be a split because it is political suicide. There might be a fight, but eventually the party will be united and the others cast out. 

Maybe, just maybe, you are underestimating the sheer delusional stupidity of the Trump crowd?  - especially in light of the republican congressmen's reaction to the Capital Riot and the bizarre decree from the Arizona GOP denouncing their own.   That said, I anticipate quite a few Trump loyalists 'primarying' more rational GOP office holders in 2022, possibly to the point where the democratic party might snag a few of those seats because of the sheer insanity of the victors.  Kind of like what happened in a certain southern state not that long ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

To say that the Democratic party is entirely neo-liberal would be incorrect, but it is inaccurate to say that the Democratic party does not have neo-liberal elements. They, just like the Republicans, heavily prefer market solutions to the government driven programs that we saw during the time period of the post-war consensus. For example giving businesses infusions of cash rather than simply giving people money directly, or through government jobs programs as we saw in the great recession and as we saw during this crisis. Also Obamacare, the crown jewel of the 90's-2020, is decidedly a neo-liberal construction of healthcare reform. Reagan, and subsequently Clinton absolutely destroyed the post-war consensus (with an assist from Carter to get the ball rolling), and the roots of neo-liberalism still run deep.

My point is rather that the term neo-liberal is incorrect and a slur. Liberal Democrats from the time of FDR have advocated for the use of market forces, as well as government intervention, to be used to effect progressive social change. Somehow, the idea that the Democratic Party, or US Liberals, have been against the use of market forces is a rather absurd rewrite of history. Liberalism in the US has never been anti-Capitalist, nor against using market forces where they were effective in accomplishing a social good. US Liberalism, since the New Deal, is all about building safety nets and expanded opportunity through government regulation and intervention within the confines of a Capitalist system. A system that has market forces as part of its very existence, even if those forces are distorted by monopoly practices. US Liberalism isn't against market forces or Capitalism and never has been.

Your case in point of Obamacare is a prime example of this. Any confusion of a Milton Friedman's or a Ronald Reagan's approach with the expansion of medical coverage under the ACA is absurd. The neo-liberal approach to medical coverage is to destroy any government involvement in its entirety.  That is exactly what Friedman did in Chile after the Pinochet coup. That is what neo-liberals advocated in the destruction of New Deal and Great Society programs. What Obama did was the antithesis of Reagan or Friedman. And, yes, it included the use of market forces to bring down the price of the expansion of medical coverage to 20 million plus people. Yet we have people like Cornel West using the same term of "neo-liberal" to describe President Obama and the largest expansion of medical coverage to working people since medicare. It is, quite frankly, horseshit. When applied like West does to Obama, it is a sectarian slur against allies who have nothing to do with the neo-liberal politics as we know them.

I have no problem with criticism of Obamacare in that it didn't do enough. I do have a problem with attacking it for doing an incredible amount of good for a great many people. I have a great deal of problems with confusing Obama with Reagan by lumping their politics under the same term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

possibly to the point where the democratic party might snag a few of those seats because of the sheer insanity of the victors.

The example that I think even many "Trumpist" MCs can recall and accordingly caution against is the last time there was this type of primarying it veered out of their control and cost them three Senate seats.  Mike Castle almost certainly would have beaten Chris Coons in the 2010 Delaware race, but Coons easily beat Christine O'Donnell.  In 2012, Todd Akin ended up winning a crowded primary in Missouri - he wasn't even the candidate backed by the Tea Party - which allowed Clair McCaskill to win a second term.  And Richard Mourdock's successful primary challenge of Dick Lugar in Indiana led the election of Dem Joe Donnelly.

Such an insurgency may work in gerrymandered House seats - see Eric Cantor's toppling - but the only example of it working during the Obama era in the Senate was the 2010 Utah race wherein Mike Lee ousted incumbent Bob Bennett as the GOP nominee then easily won the general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DMC said:

The example that I think even many "Trumpist" MCs can recall and accordingly caution against is the last time there was this type of primarying it veered out of their control and cost them three Senate seats.  Mike Castle almost certainly would have beaten Chris Coons in the 2010 Delaware race, but Coons easily beat Christine O'Donnell.  In 2012, Todd Akin ended up winning a crowded primary in Missouri - he wasn't even the candidate backed by the Tea Party - which allowed Clair McCaskill to win a second term.  And Richard Mourdock's successful primary challenge of Dick Lugar in Indiana led the election of Dem Joe Donnelly.

Such an insurgency may work in gerrymandered House seats - see Eric Cantor's toppling - but the only example of it working during the Obama era in the Senate was the 2010 Utah race wherein Mike Lee ousted incumbent Bob Bennett as the GOP nominee then easily won the general.

problem is, all to many Trump fans seem contemptuous of both reality and political history.  Given that, at least some primary fights against 'RINO's' seem probable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

problem is, all to many Trump fans seem contemptuous of both reality and political history.  Given that, at least some primary fights against 'RINO's' seem probable

Aye, I'm not talking about the voters - gods only know what or who they'll target and favor.  I'm talking about the GOP congressional leadership stepping in and making sure incumbents/preferred challengers have the institutional/financial support to stave off such self-destructive primarying efforts.  McCarthy and Scalise remember such backfirings very well, and the Senate leadership even more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brother of a Secret Service agent, who was at one point the head of Michelle Obama's protection detail, took part in the invasion of the Capitol building and has been charged with attacking a police officer during that assault. The secret service brother had no idea his sibling was involved in the attack.

And, as has been previously reported might happen, Sarah Sanders has announced she will run for the position of Governor of Arkansas. Lying has it's own rewards, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Sarah Sanders has announced she will run for the position of Governor of Arkansas. Lying has it's own rewards, right? 

Well I think her father has something to do with her being a viable gubernatorial candidate in Arkansas as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1/24/2011562/-31-law-enforcement-officers-in-12-states-linked-to-Trump-incited-Capitol-riot

At least 31 law enforcement officers in 12 states are being investigated after being linked in some way to the attempted coup at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, according to an Associated Press review.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well I think her father has something to do with her being a viable gubernatorial candidate in Arkansas as well.

True, but I think she's beatable.  Arkansas has often elected Dem governors even now it is ruby red.  My dream scenario involves her being beaten in a primary or general, and Lara Trump running in NC and winning the primary only to lose the general.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Arkansas has often elected Dem governors even now it is ruby red.  My dream scenario involves her being beaten in a primary or general, and Lara Trump running in NC and winning the primary only to lose the general.  

I mean, true, Mike Beebe did beat Hutchinson in 2006, but he probably would have lost to Win Paul Rockefeller if he hadn't got sick/died.  If Sanders wins the primary - hardly a given as the current Lieutenant Governor and AG are also running - she's gonna beat the Democratic challenger.

As for dream scenarios and the Trump spawn, the most satisfying would be Ivanka beating Rubio in the primary then losing to a Dem - preferably Val Demings, but that may just be my Orlando bias.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...