US politics: Everything in moderation, including moderation

[IheartIheartTesla]

On 7/28/2021 at 11:30 AM, Ormond said:

Gracious, I was just coming here to post about how much I love your subtitle for this new thread! So it doesn't piss me off at all.

Thanks! I was just being facetious I guess. Maybe Biden will swing for the fences once in a while following the advice of the great playwright.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

The bipartisan bill could die quickly as Sinema now is trying to block and cut the reconciliation bill. A handful of Senators and a number of House members said they'd only vote for the bipartisan bill if they got serious concessions for green energy (and much higher spending for infrastructure) in the reconciliation deal.

AOC and other progressives are signaling they'll tank the bipartisan bill if Sinema wants to obstruct. Sinema's just awful.

[Mindwalker]

I honestly think Sinema is worse than Manchin. I mean, they're both horrible and probably corrupt, but...

Oh look, isn't this a nice example of... bipartisanship?

In the Race Against Nina Turner, GOP Donors Fund Shontel Brown

As the Democratic primary for Ohio’s 11th Congressional District draws to a close, establishment pick Shontel Brown, a current Cuyahoga County Council Member and county Democratic Party chair, is facing a potential ethics probe for her past work supporting millions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies run by her partner and campaign donors. According to a story published Tuesday by Newsweek and the Daily Poster, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office took interest in an earlier Intercept story and in June referred it to the state auditor’s office, where officials agreed the matter should go before the state ethics commission. Meanwhile, and unrelated to the potential probe, newly released campaign finance disclosures show that Brown and a major Democratic PAC supporting her campaign have been heavily funded by donors who usually support Republicans.(...)

Undergirding these tensions are donors with long histories of support for Republican candidates who are now funding Brown’s campaign, either directly or via the political action committee Democratic Majority for Israel, a major backer of her campaign. Most notable among them is New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a close ally of Donald Trump who donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration and has supported a slew of Republican candidates. (...)

The former chair of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party, Roger Synenberg, donated $1,000 to Brown’s campaign. Synenberg attracted controversy in 2018 for mailing an anonymous letter to a former county auditor, calling him a “snitch” for his role in an unfolding corruption investigation in the county. (...)

Steven Fishman, who donated $20,000 to DMFI on June 14, made over $10,000 in campaign contributions to Republicans running in 2020, including Lindsey Graham,... (...)

State Rep. Juanita Brent, a Turner backer who represents Cuyahoga County in the Ohio House, and was referred to The Intercept by the Turner campaign, panned the role of the GOP in the Democratic primary campaign. “As a Democrat who has helped Democrats all over the state, we cannot condone Democrats that are accepting money associated with Trump,” Brent told The Intercept. “How can we have someone who is the party chair and says that she’s a Democrat’s Democrat but is accepting Republican money?”

https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/nina-turner-shontel-brown-ohio-gop/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Lol corporate culture has moved to increasing most of the wealth to the top, keeping employee wages as low as possible, fighting unions every step of the way, fighting environmental regulations every step of the way, dumping money into feel-good surface solutions.  Anything else is an outlier.  

But yay, diversity training.  Doing the bare minimum to cover your ass in case of a lawsuit is just that- the bare minimum.  

That's nothing new. The point was as leaders with those views retire they'll be replaced by people who are more likely to factor in environmental concerns when making decisions. I'm not arguing that it's going to change right away, but if you have no faith in the government taking action on climate change then the next group have to look to is the corporate world. They're the next best hope at implementing change, even if in the short term they're not good allies for the most part.

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

I doubt the first, because history teaches us otherwise, almost always in all times and places, when it comes to the higher levels of power.

As for the second, you might like to read The Other Black Girl by Zakiya Dalila Harris (2021) as to how it plays out with these corps and diversity, no matter what They say.  

 

2 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

You know, I can't find them right now, but a couple of weeks ago, I read a few articles about diversity training. TL;dr: They don't change anything, including the attitudes of the participants. They are basically a fig leaf for corporations so they don't have to really change anything. I think I bookmarked them, so I'll post the links when I find them.

From the little data I've seen they do change behaviors, at least while in the office. That can also lead to an attitudinal shift, but it's far from a guarantee. 

 

Related to climate crisis, how bad is the smoke in various areas of the US? I just left my office and it's like there's a giant fire a mile away. The smoke is like being next to a campfire and having the wind blow it in your face. You can taste it when you breath, and I can't see the Minneapolis skyline at all, which is only a few miles away. I could barely see a tower that's less than a half mile away.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

The bipartisan bill could die quickly as Sinema now is trying to block and cut the reconciliation bill. A handful of Senators and a number of House members said they'd only vote for the bipartisan bill if they got serious concessions for green energy (and much higher spending for infrastructure) in the reconciliation deal.

AOC and other progressives are signaling they'll tank the bipartisan bill if Sinema wants to obstruct. Sinema's just awful.

If they do this then they both deserve to lose their seats. 

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Related to climate crisis, how bad is the smoke in various areas of the US? 

I decided against running yesterday because air quality was so low. The Sawx game at Fenway looked like there was a sepia filter on the broadcast.

[Mindwalker]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If they do this then they both deserve to lose their seats. 

Make that three then.* Mondaire Jones came out and directly said he won't vote for it in those circumstances. Wait, four. Jamaal Bowman, like AOC and Talib, didn't directly say so, but "can't see himself" supporting it. (That's from their Twitter feeds, if anyone wants to look it up.)

*(To be clear, I don't agree with Tywin.)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Make that three then.* Mondaire Jones came out and directly said he won't vote for it in those circumstances. Wait, four. Jamaal Bowman, like AOC and Talib, didn't directly say so, but "can't see himself" supporting it. (That's from their Twitter feeds, if anyone wants to look it up.)

*(To be clear, I don't agree with Tywin.)

So you're okay with blowing up a good deal, even if it isn't perfect, hurting Biden and helping Republican's chances in the next two election cycles? Cool....

Also, Murika:
 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's nothing new. The point was as leaders with those views retire they'll be replaced by people who are more likely to factor in environmental concerns when making decisions. I'm not arguing that it's going to change right away, but if you have no faith in the government taking action on climate change then the next group have to look to is the corporate world. They're the next best hope at implementing change, even if in the short term they're not good allies for the most part.

 

From the little data I've seen they do change behaviors, at least while in the office. That can also lead to an attitudinal shift, but it's far from a guarantee. 

 

Related to climate crisis, how bad is the smoke in various areas of the US? I just left my office and it's like there's a giant fire a mile away. The smoke is like being next to a campfire and having the wind blow it in your face. You can taste it when you breath, and I can't see the Minneapolis skyline at all, which is only a few miles away. I could barely see a tower that's less than a half mile away.

 

This has to be up there for funniest post of the year, good job.

So corporations, are going to save democracy and solve the climate crisis?  You're right they aren't good allies in the short term, and they sure as hell won't be in the long term.   Sure, the ones that directly profit off green energy might, but that's a fraction of corporations. 

Your example of diversity training as how "liberalism has come to dominate corporate culture" is baffling.  How in any material way has liberalism come to dominate coroporate culture?  If you want to define corporate culture as completlely independent and divorced from corporate behavior, maybe you have a point.  Or if you're talking 'liberalism' in the strictly economic sense, sure, 100%.  

Corporate behavior, and as @IheartIheartTesla mentioned, the very reasons for a corporation to exist, are totally isolated and functionally opposed to the majority of liberal goals.  They support things politically when it enriches their shareholders.  And it doesn't even have to be a lot.  If they can pay $500 million to clean up an oil spill that would cost them $501 million to prevent they'll do it every time.  A little chance to make a little more money.  

How are corporations going to save democracy while Citizens United is the law of the land?  How is Citizens United going to change when we can't even get old Liberal Justices to have any awareness of political reality?

 

[Mindwalker]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So you're okay with blowing up a good deal, even if it isn't perfect, hurting Biden and helping Republican's chances in the next two election cycles? Cool....

 

 

I think it's Manchin and Sinema (and a couple of others they are covering for) who are ruining a good deal, hurting Biden and endangering reelection chances. Directly with their refusal to include most anti-voter suppression measures, to abolish or even modify the filibuster, and indirectly with killing most progressive and popular measures. Moreover, they are further ruining the whole world with reducing climate change infrastructure, environmental stuff etc.

And yes, I think it's time that progressives start throwing their weight around, too. I'm sure Pelosi will eventually put them in their place. But sure, it is they who should lose their seats, not the ones in the pockets of Exxon et al...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

This has to be up there for funniest post of the year, good job.

So corporations, are going to save democracy and solve the climate crisis?  You're right they aren't good allies in the short term, and they sure as hell won't be in the long term.   Sure, the ones that directly profit off green energy might, but that's a fraction of corporations. 

Your example of diversity training as how "liberalism has come to dominate corporate culture" is baffling.  How in any material way has liberalism come to dominate coroporate culture?  If you want to define corporate culture as completlely independent and divorced from corporate behavior, maybe you have a point.  Or if you're talking 'liberalism' in the strictly economic sense, sure, 100%.  

Corporate behavior, and as @IheartIheartTesla mentioned, the very reasons for a corporation to exist, are totally isolated and functionally opposed to the majority of liberal goals.  They support things politically when it enriches their shareholders.  And it doesn't even have to be a lot.  If they can pay $500 million to clean up an oil spill that would cost them $501 million to prevent they'll do it every time.  A little chance to make a little more money.  

How are corporations going to save democracy while Citizens United is the law of the land?  How is Citizens United going to change when we can't even get old Liberal Justices to have any awareness of political reality?

 

Like I said before, you've written off government, so the only other entity powerful enough to affect change are corporations. Your criticisms of them are valid, and I personally wouldn't want to rely on them, but I can play devil's advocate and give you the best argument for why at some levels they can make positive changes, even if a lot of it is just virtue signaling for the cameras. 

13 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

I think it's Manchin and Sinema (and a couple of others they are covering for) who are ruining a good deal, hurting Biden and endangering reelection chances. Directly with their refusal to include most anti-voter suppression measures, to abolish or even modify the filibuster, and indirectly with killing most progressive and popular measures. Moreover, they are further ruining the whole world with reducing climate change infrastructure, environmental stuff etc.

And yes, I think it's time that progressives start throwing their weight around, too. I'm sure Pelosi will eventually put them in their place. But sure, it is they who should lose their seats, not the ones in the pockets of Exxon et al...

I don't believe it's an either or situation. Sinema isn't saying she's a no vote, just that she may favor a smaller number. If the final human infrastructure bill is 2.5t instead of 3.5t, is it worth sinking it all? If intraparty fighting sinks the bill, how are Democrats going to run on the message that they're the party that actually knows how to govern? 

[Mindwalker]

Why is it called "fighting" when progressives do it and "negotiating" when the ultracorps do it?

Oh, and Sinema doesn't need to threaten a no vote when everyone is jumping through hoops at her favoring smaller numbers.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I don't believe it's an either or situation. Sinema isn't saying she's a no vote, just that she may favor a smaller number. If the final human infrastructure bill is 2.5t instead of 3.5t, is it worth sinking it all? If intraparty fighting sinks the bill, how are Democrats going to run on the message that they're the party that actually knows how to govern? 

I'm not convinced they ever have been in my lifetime.

[Mindwalker]

And sorry, the Dems are horrible at messaging, no matter what. The progressive wing regrowing some ovaries doesn't change that.

Seriously, there were several incidents during the last 2 or 3 weeks when I thought, Why don't they run with this? Why isn't every Dem house member on cnn, msnbc etc. making a statement about that? And they don't.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

Why is it called "fighting" when progressives do it and "negotiating" when the ultracorps do it?

It's a two way street, and negotiating can lead to fighting. Either side sinking the deal is a complete disaster.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm not convinced they ever have been in my lifetime.

I guess the ACA magically appeared then. Seriously, this is hyperbolic, and I hate to break it to you, but neither you nor I would probably do a better job. Very few people reading this could. 

[Martell Spy]

Carl Levin, Michigan’s longest-serving senator, dies at 87
Carl Milton Levin was born in Detroit on June 28, 1934, and he stayed in the Motor City for most of his life.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/29/carl-levin-michigan-dies-501727

Quote

 

DETROIT — Former Sen. Carl Levin, a powerful voice on military issues in Washington and a staunch supporter of the auto industry back home in Michigan during his record tenure in the U.S. Senate, has died. He was 87.

The Harvard-educated civil rights attorney and former taxi driver, who for decades carried his faded 1953 auto union membership card in his wallet, died Thursday, his family announced in a statement.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a two way street, and negotiating can lead to fighting. Either side sinking the deal is a complete disaster.

I guess the ACA magically appeared then. Seriously, this is hyperbolic, and I hate to break it to you, but neither you nor I would probably do a better job. Very few people reading this could. 

Not being republican doesn't mean they do a good job.  Most jumped in the third way shit in the 90s, blindly went along with the Iraq War, yeah, ACA was a good thing, it was also a band aid on a gunshot wound, and the Dems as a party being indebted to the insurance industry didn't just come out of no where.  Was it the best that could have happened at that time?  Yes.  

But Dems are also partly responsible for the fact that their party is indebted, and always has been, to wall street, the MIC, the insurance industry, the oil companies.  

re:bolded, 

I feel sorry for you.  These people shouldn't be lionized for throwing the smallest scraps possible to the people that they ostensibly serve.  They don't deserve complacent adoration, they deserve constant scrutiny and need to be reminded that they can be voted out. I'm not sure what power my vote actually has, but they shouldn't feel entitled to it just because they are the second shittiest option.

also: if you want to say stuff like the bolded, why even bother talking about any of this (US Politics) other to just say, "well, I dunno but whatever happens, it was the best that could have happened."

***ok shouldn't have said "most" went along with the Iraq War, but let's say a disturbing number did.  and most did go along with the Patriot act

 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Kaligator said:

He doesn't have to get more support. He simply has to reduce Biden's support. That's the point. 

That would still increase his margins in the national vote.  My point is that it's very unlikely he's going to decrease his margins in the national vote and manage to win the EC.

If Biden increases support - meaning he's more popular - in blue states, it's very likely he would also increase popularity in the swing states in question.  The two are (obviously) correlated.  The extant research indicates most suppression tactics have minimal effects on turnout, if any -- and it remains to be seen if the current measures being employed in Georgia and Arizona (the Wisconsin GOP legislators' ability to circumvent a gubernatorial veto remains very much in question) even curb turnout of the targeted voters, if they have an effect at all. 

It is very unlikely such measures would successfully quell the corresponding rise in Biden's popularity in these states under such a scenario.  In fact, it's at least just as likely many of these measures backfire and increase turnout among the voters the law was targeting to suppress.  The more dangerous aspect of these bills*, again, is giving partisan officials more capability to ignore/overrule the actual election results (and/or disqualify actual votes).  Also the Texas law potentially enables partisan officials to purge voters, but there's no such provisions in the Georgia bill and I'm not aware of anything like that in Arizona or Wisconsin either.

7 hours ago, Kaligator said:

I don't see why given population trends in states. That said, I would say that the overall amount of people voting in 2024 will be less than 2020, but the margin will be greater.

A million votes nationally would be 20,000 per state, evenly distributed.  Considering the size - all three are pretty big states - and partisan makeup of the three states in question, it would be statistically miraculous if Biden gained such support nationally but somehow managed to lose tens of thousands of votes in those three states.

*At least substantively.  Obviously anti-democratic bills are disgusting and wrong whether they're effective or not.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

So you're okay with blowing up a good deal, even if it isn't perfect, hurting Biden and helping Republican's chances in the next two election cycles? Cool....

Pelosi has always been clear she's not allowing a vote on the bipartisan deal until the Senate sends them a reconciliation bill as well.  So, it wouldn't really be the "progressives" tanking the bill.  That being said, this is a lot of drama over negotiating.  Sinema - and Tester and Manchin - reserve the right to negotiate the reconciliation bill, especially considering it hasn't even been written yet.  They've all confirmed they'll vote to advance the budget proposal, so this is much ado about nothing.  Let Sinema and Manchin do their performance of "tough negotiating," and if the resulting Senate bill really is gutted, then there's actually a problem.  History suggests they're more interested in the attention than actually extracting meaningful changes in the legislation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

yeah, ACA was a good thing, it was also a band aid on a gunshot wound,

I'm just going to delete everything around this because it only highlights my point. The task of passing the ACA was incredible. We don't need to relitigate every detail, but the fact that it passed despite every obstacle it faced, all while being a Republican bill if we can be honest, just speaks to how our politics works and it's gotten a lot worse in the decade since the ACA passed. To ignore this and be angry that you're not getting what you want just reflects a lack of understating of the realities of the current state of affairs.

Or did you like AOC shaming her fellow Democrats for not supporting the most leftist agenda only to admit that something more in line with what Biden proposed was ultimately going to be the only thing that could pass? Pretty easy to do in a safe seat where you only have to protect your left flank.....right?

55 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I feel sorry for you.  These people shouldn't be lionized for throwing the smallest scraps possible to the people that they ostensibly serve.  They don't deserve complacent adoration, they deserve constant scrutiny and need to be reminded that they can be voted out. I'm not sure what power my vote actually has, but they shouldn't feel entitled to it just because they are the second shittiest option.

Please, spare me. I don't lionize most of these people. 99% are no better or worse than most people, and you'd probably be disappointed by a number of them that you actually like.