US Politics: Guns versus Butter

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It’s all perspective.  In this particular thread I’m pretty right wing.  As compared to the the Republican Party of today I’m basically Trotsky minus a debilitating ice pick.  

WSJ reported they were breaking up infrastructure from child poverty etc. and putting corporate tax with the one and individual with the other (and I guess ramming through reconciliation).  

I don't think you come off as right wing relative to the forum's leftward slant. You're probably a bit more religious than the regular poster in these political threads and you approach finance and economics in a practical, sometimes emotionless way, which as you said, perspective dictates how you may see some things. But otherwise pretty much all the opinions you discuss here are center left if not rather liberal, even if I may stop caring sometimes when you point to subsection (b) of clause (XXXVII) in memorandum (9,498,498,494) which states that we know what the definition of "is" is. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not misunderstanding the concepts, I'm saying that arguing they're all that different in the real world seems silly. Basically what Norman wrote is that it's not an earmark if the Senate passes a $100b in spending for something in the macro sense, but once each Senator wants $1b for their own project it becomes an earmark.

...You do seem to be misunderstanding the concepts because there is a clear difference "in the real world" between passing a generalized spending bill and only voting for it if the spending is directed to your constituency.  That's the reason pork "greases the wheels" - to get MCs on board that otherwise wouldn't - and its importance in electoral politics/reelection have been identified since Mayhew's (1974) credit claiming.

Moreover, the distinction is crucial because the GOP weaponized the term "pork" and often misapplied it and/or muddied the difference just as you are doing now.  And make no mistake, they will do so again - once the Senate brings back earmarks after the House already did.  Correctly applying the term is not just being an academic pedant.  It's imperative to do so in the very real partisan warfare.

[Martell Spy]

‘Yang Is Driving the Race Right Now’

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/will-andrew-yang-be-the-next-mayor-of-new-york.html

Quote

 

But if Yang is such an inviting target for attacks, it raises the question of why none of the attacks have worked quite yet and, more to the point, when they will start to. Yang’s rivals pounced on him the day he announced, and he’s still the front-runner. Maybe the ads will start running in May, and local TV will tune in to the race, and all of this supposed baggage will be Yang’s undoing, but it’s getting late early out there, and New Yorkers appear to like Yang more than the political class seems to understand.

“New Yorkers want hope and optimism,” said Yang campaign manager Chris Coffey. “The only press the other candidates get is when they complain about us. We understand that this campaign is going to get nasty and negative. We are going to stay positive and focused on getting the city back on track.”

The jibe about the press only being interested in Yang might resonate with rival campaigns. “It blots out the sun,” said one operative, who noted with both pleasure and dismay how eager reporters are to run with the negative stories on Yang.

“I get so many more calls these days from reporters wanting me to comment on Andrew Yang than any other candidate,” said Neal Kwatra, a longtime local campaign operative currently unaffiliated in the race. “It tells me what people are interested in. Yang is driving the race right now. Politics has changed, and I think a lot of people haven’t quite caught up to how.”

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

...You do seem to be misunderstanding the concepts because there is a clear difference "in the real world" between passing a generalized spending bill and only voting for it if the spending is directed to your constituency.  That's the reason pork "greases the wheels" - to get MCs on board that otherwise wouldn't - and its importance in electoral politics/reelection have been identified since Mayhew's (1974) credit claiming.

And yet generalized spending bills almost always have built in carveouts. That's as old as time. Also, something from 1974 probably isn't going to be the best guide for things going on today. "All politics is local" doesn't mean the same thing today, after all. Times change.

Quote

Moreover, the distinction is crucial because the GOP weaponized the term "pork" and often misapplied it and/or muddied the difference just as you are doing now.  And make no mistake, they will do so again - once the Senate brings back earmarks after the House already did.  Correctly applying the term is not just being an academic pedant.  It's imperative to do so in the very real partisan warfare.

You can scratch the "often." They always misapplied it when they saw it as a cudgel, even though they engaged in the exact behaviors more times than not. But your splitting of hairs here really only applies to academics. I doubt 1 in 10 Americans could be even bothered to really think about the subject. The way I broke it down is what most people will see, even if technically you're argument is strictly more accurate, but again, that's not really how the world works.

[Fury Resurrected]

5 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

 

Vote for low taxes if you want, but know you're voting all that other shit too. If you can live with it, as well as all the other unsavory folks who also like that shit, cool, but don't cry when people point it out.

Dems are pretty shit too, there is some level of truth behind the both sides argument, but hey, until we have an actual social democrat party, it's what we got.

THIS. One thing the right sucks at is calling out their own for being wrong. They are happy to call out their own for not licking Trump’s boots thoroughly enough, but the Republican voters who ***claim*** they only vote for republicans because they want lower taxes could absolutely call out Republicans who try to restrict civil liberties for women, minorities, and the LGBTQA communities (I would still say they are bad people for selling the civil liberties of others for their perceived tax savings, but that’s a separate point). But, Republican voters don’t do that. They could engage in selecting candidates who don’t do those things (or run themselves), but they don’t do that. 
 

The best example, of course, is Trump’s (first) impeachment. If they wanted to stand upon principle and get rid of a treasonous, lying, grifting, racist, sexist, rapist- they could have. And they would have had Mike Pence for their president and would have been seen as heroes who put country before party and probably skated through the 2020 general keeping the White House and senate. But they *like* those things about Trump, or at least are not bothered enough by them to criticize him. 
 

The left will GLEEFULLY eat its own. You will see the posters you are referring to about kids in cages in this thread criticizing Biden all the damn time. Al Franken got drummed out of town. Democrats are trying like hell to sink Andrew Cuomo. That only happens to Republican politicians if they turn out to be secretly gay.

You want people to take your support of the GOP based on taxes seriously? Then hold them accountable for all the other shit, and be ready to explain why a 5% tax break should you ever break $400k a year is more valuable to you than a gay couple’s right to marriage. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet generalized spending bills almost always have built in carveouts. That's as old as time. Also, something from 1974 probably isn't going to be the best guide for things going on today. "All politics is local" doesn't mean the same thing today, after all. Times change.

Well, earmarks were pretty old, yes.  But they've also been banned since 2011 and will presumably return soon.  You still don't seem to be grasping the difference between generalized spending and particularized earmarks.  As for the Mayhew reference, the point I was making there is simply that the use of pork has always played a roll in electoral politics. 

In actuality, yes, research shows that credit claiming became less effective as a reelection tool with the rise of polarization.  And I'm frankly skeptical of how effective it will be "greasing the wheels" in this day and age compared to how much it used to be.  But, like I said, using it as a wedge - and misrepresenting what it actually is - can definitely still be a very potent weapon the GOP as earmarks return.  Which, again, is why it's imperative to accurately describe pork and not conflate it with other spending.

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But your splitting of hairs here really only applies to academics. I doubt 1 in 10 Americans could be even bothered to really think about the subject. The way I broke it down is what most people will see, even if technically you're argument is strictly more accurate, but again, that's not really how the world works.

You're wrong.  If (mis)using pork wasn't an effective campaign tool for the GOP, they wouldn't have banned it in the first place.  It's very naive to think they won't employ the same strategy again, and rather baffling for you to parrot their same misunderstanding of the term.

[ThinkerX]

unsubstantiated internet rumors of a serious corona virus outbreak at Mar A Lago

[Ran]

Again? I thought they were reporting on one recently that was tired to a fashion show on the premises. Same thing or a new one?

[Fragile Bird]

Hey hey hey, the outbreak was among workers, by definition that’s not serious.

People in Palm Beach don’t have to wear masks, darling!

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

 

The left will GLEEFULLY eat its own.  

This is like our prominent hobby.  Post was great.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think you come off as right wing relative to the forum's leftward slant. You're probably a bit more religious than the regular poster in these political threads and you approach finance and economics in a practical, sometimes emotionless way, which as you said, perspective dictates how you may see some things. But otherwise pretty much all the opinions you discuss here are center left if not rather liberal, even if I may stop caring sometimes when you point to subsection (b) of clause (XXXVII) in memorandum (9,498,498,494) which states that we know what the definition of "is" is. 

Lol, think you are projecting.  I’m for healthcare reform, but opposed to single provider.  I’m anti-UBI.  I actually think raising individual rates on earned income is a fools’ errand (though will bang my anti-Cg preference drum from my lonely soapbox forever).  I think a lot of government spending is wasteful and many government programs do end up being inefficient; I also believe that those in power tend to accumulate and hold onto power and that government can be oppressive to individual freedoms.  However, I also believe in public goods and think that the idea that the market solves all problems is ludicrous, and also that private organizations can be oppressive, particularly if permitted to accumulate monopoly power. On the other side of the coin, the idea that the government can solve all problems is also deeply flawed.  I believe unions are necessary but do not always do GOOD. I don’t believe in free college or student debt forgiveness, BUT I think that access to a university education should be more generally available for those for whom it makes sense (a much smaller part of the population than we think) and that the current increase in the cost of college is unsustainable.  I would invest heavily in community colleges and technical training.  I am for universal free pre/three-K, and in fact would establish a crèche system for childcare tomorrow if I could.  I believe both in individual responsibility AND in grace/luck/fortune (and that gratitude for the latter is important).   I’m slow to brand any particular individual as “evil”, but make exceptions for much of the Trump administration.  I think most people are both greedy and self-motivated (though not always for money) and also at the same time incredibly generous, kind and helpful within their own communities, however they define that group.   I find ideological purity tests of any kind distasteful and off putting.  I don’t believe that life is or ever will be “fair” and am deeply skeptical of the concept of “fair” in a relative sense as I think it often serves as cover for selfish whining and exclusion (just and fair are different concepts imo).  I think that the enlightenment philosophers (including our own boy Jefferson) came at their idea of fundamental human rights from a deep place of privilege and that there is, in fact no such thing (I’d rename them the entitlement philosophers if I had my own way).  That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that we should not be striving for a more just society - we should be, because we should love our neighbors (i.e., our communities) and we should cherish them, as our love for all our fellow humans and our world should be the center of our existence and our joy.  I am deeply pragmatic, a stoic (in the classic philosophical sense) by inclination, but believe in the exultation of the beauty of contentment.  So anyhow, I often feel out of step with a lot of the posters in this thread.  

ETA:  I also believe in the power of change, the power of growth and the power of forgiveness.  None of us are static, we all learn and develop, and fossilizing an opinion over anyone or yourself is self-defeating.

[Fez]

Potentially big SCOTUS decision this morning, depending on how its applied in the coming years. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf

Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the 3 liberals to rule that police shooting a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" (since it is being done to stop the flight). This therefore means that there any given shooting of this type can be examined under the fourth amendment to determine if it is an unreasonable seizure, and damages could be awarded if courts rule that it is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

That's one big fucking paragraph, MZ. I'll address it and DMC's post in a bit.

[S John]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

ETA:  I also believe in the power of change, the power of growth and the power of forgiveness.  None of us are static, we all learn and develop, and fossilizing an opinion over anyone or yourself is self-defeating.

I liked your whole post but this part particular resonated with me. I don’t think the left eating their own, as mentioned up thread, is always a good thing. I understand that holding people accountable is important but purity tests that apply not only to recent times, but well into the past are bullshit. It appears to me that if one has transgressed today’s standards at any point in their lives, then fuck your forever. Last week Bill Maher described this as a phenomenon with all the fire and brimstone of religion with none of the salvation and redemption. I don’t think that’s an entirely unfair characterization.

Case in point, Virginia governor Ralph Northam. Big time blackface scandal. Totally unacceptable, yes, but it WAS a long time ago. And it really looked like something he did all the time and was known for based on photos and his suggestive nickname. Many folks on the left calling for his head, to be drummed out of Richmond like Al Franken was from the Senate. But Northam kinda just said ‘nah’ and went on about his business.

As a result of that, under his governorship Virginia has made no-knock warrants illegal, passed restrictions on the militarization of police, decriminalized marijuana with full legalization in the works, passed protections for LGBTQ, instituted stricter background checks for gun ownership, and just this week abolished the death penalty in a state where blacks were historically executed at a rate 3x that of whites. He’s removed confederate monuments from what was once the Capitol of the Confederacy. Many other things on the blue state wish list have come into being under Northam and in a state that has deep conservative roots and a nasty history when it comes to race relations.

Point being, I don’t think Northam is the kind of guy who would suit up in blackface at his next Halloween party. When he was young he repeatedly did something stupid but obviously he is not that person anymore and hasn’t been for some time. People grow up, they change, they evolve. Would Virginia have accomplished Northam’s agenda if he’d have resigned in disgrace? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s hard to argue he has not been effective at unhitching Virginia from its Confederate and Jim Crow legacy.

Society is too obsessed with finding the gotcha from the past when it comes to public figures. That unflattering old photo of miming a boob grab or a regretful old tweet and coming to the conclusion - fuck this person forever. Fuck them today for who they were when they did that. I just can’t get behind that. I think it’s wrong and it does feel like a gleeful pastime of the left. I really think Trump’s inability to do or have done ANYTHING that would turn his base is a direct result of that climate. He didn’t give a fuck and as maddening as that was to me and many others, his people loved him for it. Anyway, accountability IS extremely important but it needs to be applied with common sense and it too often is not. 

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, S John said:

Anyway, accountability IS extremely important but it needs to be applied with common sense and it too often is not. 

I think there are some things that, even in your distant past, are essentially unforgivable.  But the bar for that needs to be pretty high, and definitely higher than something you did in the last year or so. 

But I totally agree that if the Democrats become the party where no apology is ever good enough, they will regret it. 

[Kalbear]

The problem with the Northam stuff is the hiding of the story. If he came forward willingly and said he had made a mistake without the massive press digging into his past thatd be one thing- but it almost never happens like that. 

Part of people growing and changing is them also showing genuine remorse for prior hurtful actions and understanding why they needed to change. You can't have one without the other, and too often people who are calling for heads are calling for that remorse demonstrated, which is in very short supply. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I agree that there are cases where I'd like to see more of a spirit of forgiveness, but I also find the "purity test" accusation extremely frustrating. Very often it's a means to deflect criticism and stifle debate, when no actual purity test is being imposed. This was a huge portion of the Hillary vs Bernie and then Biden vs Bernie discourse; Bernie and supporters were accused of imposing purity tests. The truth was that he and the vast majority of his supporters ended up supporting them Democratic nominee at the end of the day, in spite of their differences. There was, ultimately, no purity test. You could have looked at Bernie's long Congressional history of falling in line time and again on major legislation and known that. Or you can try to claim a moral high ground by accusing people of imposing a purity test,  which is simpler than engaging in good faith. 

[S John]

9 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The problem with the Northam stuff is the hiding of the story. If he came forward willingly and said he had made a mistake without the massive press digging into his past thatd be one thing- but it almost never happens like that. 

Part of people growing and changing is them also showing genuine remorse for prior hurtful actions and understanding why they needed to change. You can't have one without the other, and too often people who are calling for heads are calling for that remorse demonstrated, which is in very short supply. 

As to your first paragraph, I’m surprised to find such a naive take from a reliably cynical poster.   Like I agree with you in  theory, but in reality - in today’s climate, that would have been an epic self-own. I don’t blame him for just kinda hoping that wouldn’t come out and carrying on with his business and ultimately letting his record as a public servant speak for itself.

On the second paragraph, I agree that showing remorse is important, but it needs to be accompanied by a general acceptance of that remorse and forgiveness. If they do it again, then we get out the pitchforks. But I don’t think forgiveness and redemption are currently a part of what’s going on today and that is where my problem is.
 

[S John]

20 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think there are some things that, even in your distant past, are essentially unforgivable.  But the bar for that needs to be pretty high, and definitely higher than something you did in the last year or so. 

But I totally agree that if the Democrats become the party where no apology is ever good enough, they will regret it. 

Agree, but should be a very high bar short of actual criminal activity. I’m mainly referring to fuck ups that would be considered acts of speech and protected under the first amendment, not like crimes that went unprosecuted. 

[DMC]

So an update on Congress' efforts to rein in presidential war powers.  Barbara Lee's bill to repeal the 2002 AUMF will get a committee vote (Foreign Affairs) today and will likely get a floor vote soon.  There seems to be consensus in rescinding both the Iraq AUMFs (as well as the 1957 one that should've been repealed ages ago), but NOT the 2001 AUMF that commenced the deliciously nebulous "war on terror:"

Quote

Addressing the post-9/11 authorization, approved in the days following the terror attacks, will be an entirely different story. That broad measure has been used as a legal justification for military operations and drone strikes throughout the Middle East and northern Africa by presidents of both parties. Replacing the 2001 authorization to better reflect the threat environment is a gargantuan task, requiring a consensus between the Biden administration and the several competing factions on the Hill.

“I think we could get 60 votes to repeal 2002. It’s much more difficult to rewrite 2001,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been active on the war powers front. “And again, we really need buy-in from the administration to help us do that. … It may be that we just need to start exercising this muscle first.”  [...]

To that end, Young said he expects the White House to insist that the updated authorization does not interrupt existing conflicts, does not include an expiration date, and allows military operations targeting various terrorist threats across country boundaries.

The 2001 AUMF does need to be replaced by something, but I suspect Young is right about Biden's demands on any updated authorization.  And considering cooperation from the White House will be necessary, that..suggests there's still a long way to go for any substantive change.  Moreover, even if an agreement is worked out, there's still tackling revising/updating the 73 War Powers Act to give Congress more teeth - which would be essential to the first branch reclaiming its constitutionally-provided rights.

34 minutes ago, S John said:

Many folks on the left calling for his head, to be drummed out of Richmond like Al Franken was from the Senate. But Northam kinda just said ‘nah’ and went on about his business.

The thing to remember about the Northam scandal is that the LG and AG - the next two in the gubernatorial line of succession - were (soon) also embroiled in their own scandals.  It created some fascinating form of MAD for the Dems, and interestingly all three survived.  Hell, Fairfax (the LG) is currently running for governor and Herring is running for his third term as AG.  Anyway, if Fairfax was in good standing at the time I suspect Northam would have been forced to resign.

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So anyhow, I often feel out of step with a lot of the posters in this thread.  

Like Ty said, maybe if you used shorter/more paragraphs, you'd feel more comfortable.