Jump to content

US Politics: Biden vs. Ron DeCardassian in the Delta quadrant


Ormond

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Ok.  And how is this an aberration now rather than a reflection of trends that have been permeating for the last 30 years?

The aberration was the notion of a functioning democracy with actual representation that could pass legislation. Probably lasted for what, the 60s though the mid 90s. We've been going back to the authoritarian racist policies steadily since then - but the important word here is back. As someone else said, racism is so ingrained in the US that when you fight racism it looks like you're fighting the US. The more interesting question to me is not why is it getting so bad - because that is as you say, an ongoing trend of backsliding from democracy towards what the US has been most of its history. No, the question I would have is how we actually got that semblance of equality for 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kaligator said:

The aberration was the notion of a functioning democracy with actual representation that could pass legislation. Probably lasted for what, the 60s though the mid 90s. We've been going back to the authoritarian racist policies steadily since then - but the important word here is back.

Heh.  Well, first, I think you're conflating a lot of things here to fit a certain narrative.  Acting like legislation "ended" in the mid 90s is a bit silly.  There was a lot more progressive legislation that passed during the Obama administration than the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations - which accounts for a lot of your timeframe there when things were apparently ideal.

Second, acting like democracy didn't actually improve when comparing the "60s-mid-90s" to "mid-90s-today" is a complete fallacy.  Both in terms of "function" - i.e. how states have taken their own initiative to be more "democratic."  Yes, it may be in only blue states at this point, and you can get all blue about that, but that doesn't change the fact there's been exactly the changes progressive institutionalists have insisted upon for years and actually is finally happening in recent decades.

Third, there has never been this powerful of a leftist bloc within government.  Like, seriously, ever.  Bernie Sanders is chair of the Budget Committee.  The CPC is the most influential caucus in the Democratic party.  Are their counterparts outright fascists?  Yeah.  But acting like "we've been going back" on a consistent bend since the mid-90s is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm surprised that's your take on U.S.-European relations. I would think our inaction and collapsing political state would make Europe realize she can't rely on us at this point in time. 

The EU faces three problems: the disintegration from within, constant ideological attacks from outside and the denial of key members to accept changing realities, that a „let’s just go on as before“ attitude doesn’t work anymore. 

Poland and Hungary (and a few others) are morphing step by step, right in front of our eyes, into proto-clerical-fascist authoritarian regimes (others follow slowly) and the EU is completely incapable of doing anything of relevance about it. Those countries follow an agenda which stands against all core values of the EU. And nothing happens. Then there is the constant barrage of rightwing regimes/administrations against the „EUSSR“ and our liberal values: Turkey, Russia, UK, Republican USA. And to round it all up you have a core member without whom no structural change is possible like Germany who simply lives in denial of what happens and blocks any reasonable strategic initiative (as proposed by Macron/France for example). Germany is the classic example of someone burrying one‘s head in the sand (as long as the spice flows or our export companies make good business). 

I will always be a supporter of the core idea and ideals of the EU but I am very pessimistic. We don’t have the intrinsic will for structural changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

This could only happen due to a Senator dying after a GOP candidate gets elected in a recall vote.  In the very unlikely event that happens, I hardly think it means it was because liberals weren't "team players."

The polls for the California recall generally only show Newsom keeping the Governorship by a couple points which is within the margin of error.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/california-recall-polls/

In the not unlikely event that happens I would hope Feinstein announces plans to retire before the recall or shortly thereafter before a republican gets sworn in.

But she like Breyer, and Ginsburg, has been reluctant to letting go of her position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

In the not unlikely event that happens I would hope Feinstein announces plans to retire before the recall or shortly thereafter before a republican gets sworn in.

.....It's in the event of her death that's mostly unlikely, thought that would be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She’s 88. She’s older than Ginsburg when she died in a time when only Republicans could replace her

Ginsburg was also clearly in very bad health in the months before her death, being frequently hospitalized.  Feinstein is not, it's just stories of her being senile.  Which, duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ginsburg was also clearly in very bad health in the months before her death, being frequently hospitalized.  Feinstein is not, it's just stories of her being senile.  Which, duh.

You would not use this rational for why it’s silly for liberals to worry about  Breyer procrastinating on his retirement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You would not use this rational for why it’s silly for Breyer procrastinating on his retirement.

 

Sure I would.  It's very unlikely Breyer is gonna die in the next year or so either.  Difference is, this is also obviously the best chance for Breyer to get replaced by a Dem -- and that may well expire after the midterms.  The same is not the case for a Californian Senator.  At all.

ETA:  Frankly, it'd be better if Breyer DID die in the next 15 months, so the dynamic is entirely different .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure I would.  It's very unlikely Breyer is gonna die in the next year or so either.  Difference is, this is also obviously the best chance for Breyer to get replaced by a Dem -- and that may well expire after the midterms.  The same is not the case for a Californian Senator.  At all.

ETA:  Frankly, it'd be better if Breyer DID die in the next 15 months, so the dynamic is entirely different .

If Feinstein dies before the midterms under a Republican governorship Breyer will not be replaced by a dem.

Their razor thin majority would be gone. So yes it’d be good for democrats if this 88 year old woman took one for team and step down now. It lessens the chance of dems losing the senate even before the mid terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If Feinstein dies before the midterms under a Republican governorship Breyer will not be replaced by a dem.

Their razor thin majority would be gone. So yes it’d be good for democrats if this 88 year old woman took one for team and step down now. It lessens the chance of dems losing the senate even before the mid terms.

I'm not saying it would be bad for the Dems if Feinstein had stepped down before the recall vote - although that time has pretty much passed.  What I'm saying is you have a very poor understanding of probability.  For your worst case scenario to happen it'd have to be:  Newsom losing recall + Feinstein or another Dem Senator dying (which would have nothing to do with the recall, of course) + Breyer dying or retiring. 

All of that happening in the next 16 months is much less likely than either - Newsom winning the recall + Breyer dying or retiring OR Breyer not retiring or dying, making the Newsom recall irrelevant OR Feinstein simply surviving, which makes it all irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Newsom losing recall

A Likely scenario given the recent polls.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Feinstein or another Dem Senator dying (which would have nothing to do with the recall, of course) 

Feinstein won’t die because of the recall nor would any Democratic senator.

Its just a likely scenario for an 88 year old woman to die within a year.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Breyer dying or retiring. 

Dying or retiring under a Republican controlled senate.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Newsom winning the recall

The odds of him winning are not that greater than him losing.

Most polls month either has him losing or only winning by a couple points.

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Breyer dying or retiring OR Breyer not retiring or dying, making the Newsom recall irrelevant.

I’m sorry what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A Likely scenario given the recent polls.

Looking less likely recently.

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Its just a likely scenario for an 88 year old woman to die within a year.

Again, you're comparing this to a woman who was already in ill health.  Neither you nor I have any reason to think Feinstein will die in the next year.  My grandmother is almost literally the same age.  I really don't anticipate her death in the next year either.

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dying or retiring under a Republican controlled senate.

The "Republican controlled Senate" part is a constant in terms of whether they win back the chamber in the 2022 midterms, there's no reason to include that part.

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The odds of him winning are not that greater than him losing.

Most polls month either has him losing or only winning by a couple points.

See above.

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m sorry what?

...If you want me to clarify, the "OR" parts separate the probabilities.  Otherwise, things should be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Less likely than a couple weeks ago? Perhaps. Still again most are just showing him winning by a narrow amount. One even losing by a fair amount though I concede that’s as much an outlier as the one showing Newsom winning by 12 points.

It is at this point a likely scenario for Newsom to be recalled,

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Again, you're comparing this to a woman who was already in ill health

I’m comparing an 88 year old woman to an 87 year old woman.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Neither you nor I have any reason to think Feinstein will die in the next year. 

She’s 88. That is the reason I think there’s a significant chance than most people in congress for her to die next year.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

My grandmother is almost literally the same age.  I really don't anticipate her death in the next year either.

 

There people who live past their 100th birthday right now and who will live another year sure.

Feinstein and Breyer could live another 15 years and at that point democrats could be in even more secured position to replace them.

I see no good reason to bank the Democrats’ agenda on the health of people in their mid and late 80s not dying when it’s not convenient.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Neither you nor I have any reason to think Feinstein will die in the next year. 

It’s constant if Feinstein dies under a Republican governor in California and she can’t be replaced.

Unless the democratic legislature could pass a law giving them power to appoint a senator.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

See above.

I saw above. It doesn’t actually contradict what I said.

I noted Most polls either showing Newsom  winning by a couple points or losing. 
More polls can come out with him looking a lot better with near or even more double digit leads. If that happens I’ll concede his odds of winning the recall are significantly greater than  losing it.

At present I’m not taking confidence in his 4 point lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one poll by Survey USA that shows Newsom losing in the 538 aggregate and another one shows him tied. I dont see a whole bunch of polls showing him losing, so you'll have to point us to those ones. I mean, its closer than one would think mostly due to Dem voter apathy, and I note that the LV screen shift has only happened recently, so I think more data is required.

However, if you are using only the polls as your guide I dont overwhelming evidence that he's losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I see no good reason to bank the Democrats’ agenda on the health of people in their mid and late 80s not dying when it’s not convenient.

I..don't either.  But that's pretty much reality.  This isn't a really a Democrat or Republican thing.  It's a politicians are way too old thing.  Other than that, there's not much to argue about other than you seem to not understand probabilities.  And that all this has basically nothing to do Democrats being "bad team players," which was the original point I objected to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Its just a likely scenario for an 88 year old woman to die within a year.

 

What is your definition of "likely"? To me "likely" means something has over a 50% chance of happening. The average life expectancy for an 88 year old woman in the United States is 5.64 years, and Feinstein being highly educated and getting excellent health care are factors that are going to raise her life expectancy above average. So I would never say it's "likely" she will die within the next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

What is your definition of "likely"? To me "likely" means something has over a 50% chance of happening. The average life expectancy for an 88 year old woman in the United States is 5.64 years, and Feinstein being highly educated and getting excellent health care are factors that are going to raise her life expectancy above average. So I would never say it's "likely" she will die within the next year. 

But why doesn’t she just retire, why even take the risk? We have seen with Bader-Ginsburg what the result can be. It would be the intelligent, solidary, unselfish and serving the public good thing. When you reached that age, anything can happen very fast and very unexpected. The only explanation left is vanity and the „fear to be forgotten“, but that’s also rather narcissistic and selfish. Bader-Ginsburg really fucked over many future generations, it’s hard to not count this against her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...