US Politics: A Tale of two Joes.

[DMC]

Thought this was a fun article for New Years - 22 things we think will happen in 2022.  I did find the lede a little weird - 

Quote

Predicting future events is hard, but it’s among the most important tasks a journalist can perform. Especially if you work at a section called Future Perfect.

The second sentence makes sense, but the first I find very odd.  Definitely do not think making predictions is an important part of a journalist's job, and it's very strange for three journalists to think it is.  Anyway, they made five predictions focused on US politics - and included probabilities:

• Dems will lose the House and Senate (95 percent) - definitely agree on the former, think the probability on the latter is way too high.
• US inflation with average under three percent (80%) - sounds pretty bold to me, especially the probability, but they make a convincing case.
• Unemployment will fall below four percent by November (80%) - sounds about right as long as omicron doesn't completely fuck us (as they mention).
• SCOTUS will overturn Roe (65%) - to be clear the prediction here is that they will explicitly overturn it, not just "effectively."  The latter is still a distinct possibility, but I agree with the probability.
• Stephen Breyer will retire (55%) - unfortunately I think the probability is just about right, even though ideally it should be way higher.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

  Just sayin', ya know, I don't think there's anyone around with that kind of knowledge of diplomatic history, history in general -- even seeing the end of Napoleon, and so much more, including having been Sec of State before being POTUS. Though JQ and Blinken do rather have in common not being good political candidates when running for office -- or so one might think -- has Blinken ever run for office?  Fortunate for JA that he became MA's favorite son once he lost the presidency.

Taking this out of the covid thread.  First, no, Blinken's never run for office and I don't expect him to ever do so. 

Second, sure, you are of course right that nobody can match JQ's experience and knowledge.  Or really many of the Adams' - including down to Charles Sr.'s son Henry who wrote what is still probably the best political history on the nascent United States.  I'm just saying it's not really fair to compare any contemporary diplomat's experience to what was the closest thing we had to a royal family during the first century of the US (and, overall, I think that's a good thing!).  BUT, in terms of the kinds of experience you're referring to, there are still plenty of people in the foreign service (or emanating from it) that have that - or certainly at least strive to.

[ThinkerX]

A update of sorts on the great divide between D and R - though what intrigues me the most are the 'Independents.'

First, the perception of violence last 1/6. Note the rather high percentages that say violence against the US government is sometimes justified - even among the D's. Also worth noting is the high number of folks who believe the R's will refuse to concede defeat in state elections. 

Republicans and Democrats divided over Jan. 6 insurrection and Trump’s culpability, Post-UMD poll finds (msn.com)

----

Next up, we have the results in for yet another of these much-hyped election 'audits' (by the right, anyhow). This one is from Wisconsen.  Not sure if the people responsible were ignorant or idiotic.  There was another one earlier today from Texas, but I lost track of that article. Both solidly reaffirm the initial tallies. 

GOP Election Audit Demands Info on Dominion Voting Machines in Cities That Don't Use Them (msn.com)

 

 

[Zorral]

Thanks DMC for taking that bit out of the covid thread and bringing it where it belongs.

Henry Adams, as much of an anti-semitic bigoted privileged pill that he was, wrote so much history of the US that he witnessed first hand, and with the advantages of endless table-library talk with his relatives, that one cannot write US history of any kind from the time of John Adams to post the Civil War without reading his work often and carefully. I, for one, keeping reading one way and other all of the Adams, and have since th 1990's when I first began to glean just enough history of the UK, Europe, and the Colonies and the US, to just begin to comprehend what they were talking about.  It's a LOT to know!

I would like to suggest for anyone, particularly outside the USA YAY, who would like to get an insight about the collaboration, collusion and interaction between Big Protestant Evangelical Churches(White, coz the Black Churches here are very different though in Africa they follow the corrupt paths of Fallwell, Bakker, etc.) and politics -- and even our relationships into other countries -- if you can, watch Tammy Faye on HBO Max.  It isn't anything that you think it will be. Woo.  No, it doesn't preach.  Just the pastors do.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Wow you actually watched Tammy Faye Zorral?

I don't think I could stomach that.

What I can remember from the Baker's is that they threw her husband in prison. She started publicly begging over being broke. And then the daughter signed on with one of the adult magazines to do nude centerfolds.

Disturbing Christians that bunch.

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

you actually watched Tammy Faye Zorral?

Do not wish to highjack the US Politics thread for a discussion more appropriate for Entertainment, but this film is very political, but subtly and very quietly so. There are so many reasons Ronald Reagan is in the picture, ah-hem.  And scary.  Because so much of the anti-gay and paedophile hysteria of the right that continues against 'libs' Hillary, etc. -- well their terrors are being acted out by the very people who led the hue and cry in the 70's, 80's and 90's.  Yet, this film is not at all what one expects -- among other unexpected things, it fascinates.

[GrimTuesday]

First Hillary drags her way out of whatever cesspool she's been hiding in and now Chris Matthews is bellying his way to the bar to give his wretched take on the state of the Democratic party. If Carville or someone else of his ilk comes out in the next couple days with a trash take like this, I think we might be seeing a concerted messaging campaign coming out of the right wing of the Democratic party ahead of the midterms that will be used to blame the left when the Dems get thrashed.

Reminder that this is the same piece of shit who compared Bernie winning in Nevada to the Nazis taking France and said that listening to Bernie made his think about being executed by socialists in central park.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

If Carville or someone else of his ilk comes out in the next couple days with a trash take like this, I think we might be seeing a concerted messaging campaign coming out of the right wing of the Democratic party ahead of the midterms that will be used to blame the left when the Dems get thrashed.

C'mon, GT, play fair.  Will dinosaurs from the Clinton era like Mathews, Carville, and..Clinton blame the left for any and all losses?  Abso-fucking-lutely.  But by the same token, who do you think you'll be pointing the fingers at come November 9th?  It'd be refreshing if instead of rushing to blame the people you don't like, everybody just admits it's an inherently tough cycle with what looks to be compounded by a very tough environment.  I know, radical thinking from a fantasy land.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Does anyone even still listen to Chris Matthews?  At least if you click on the tweet he's just getting dragged in all the top comments.

Also, the DNC / righter side of Dems will blame the left even when they win, like they did in 2020.   

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

Does anyone even still listen to Chris Matthews?  At least if you click on the tweet he's just getting dragged in all the top comments.

If anyone does still listen to Chris Matthews, I highly doubt they're very active on twitter.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Lermo T.I. Krrrammpus said:

Does anyone even still listen to Chris Matthews? 

No. I do think he was a better interviewer than most, but no one has given a shit what he's had to say since before his comical sign off at the start of his last show.

[GrimTuesday]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

C'mon, GT, play fair.  Will dinosaurs from the Clinton era like Mathews, Carville, and..Clinton blame the left for any and all losses?  Abso-fucking-lutely.  But by the same token, who do you think you'll be pointing the fingers at come November 9th?  It'd be refreshing if instead of rushing to blame the people you don't like, everybody just admits it's an inherently tough cycle with what looks to be compounded by a very tough environment.  I know, radical thinking from a fantasy land.

I mean, I'll be blaming those sorts of people for sure. I think that there is a world of difference between the rising force of the progressive left saying that the "moderate" Democrats who have dominated this party for the better part of the last 30-40 years have failed us and it is time to move on from them, and the "moderate" Democrats who hold virtually every position power in the party trying to stamp out a movement that is powered by the next generation of Democrats. This is about the powerful trying to maintain their power to the very last breath (in some cases literally) instead of getting the fuck out of the way.

Beyond that, I think there is a very compelling argument to be made from the left that while this is, as you said, "an inherently tough cycle with what looks to be compounded by a very tough environment", it has been made worse by nearly a half century of inaction and failure on the part of the Democrats.

I refuse to play fair, this is politics, if you're playing fair, you're probably losing.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think that there is a world of difference between the rising force of the progressive left saying that the "moderate" Democrats who have dominated this party for the better part of the last 30-40 years have failed us and it is time to move on from them, and the "moderate" Democrats who hold virtually every position power in the party trying to stamp out a movement that is powered by the next generation of Democrats. This is about the powerful trying to maintain their power to the very last breath (in some cases literally) instead of getting the fuck out of the way.

It certainly is an asymmetric comparison, no argument there.  However, the progressives have been granted more influence - within Biden's administration and in Congress - than they ever have before.  And while I've always strived to maintain neutrality between the two factions, I have also spent a lot of my time (at least on here) defending the left since Biden took office.  But - and it's a Sir MixaLot sized but - the two sides are both electorally and legislatively codependent.  Which is why I think, maybe, we should all avoid the reptilian reaction to blame each other for an election that isn't going to happen for another 11 months.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

I refuse to play fair, this is politics, if you're playing fair, you're probably losing.

Are you arguing for acting illegally?  Because that sounds like you are arguing for acting illegally.

[Week]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you arguing for acting illegally?  Because that sounds like you are arguing for acting illegally.

Where is illegality endorsed or even mentioned? Why is this what you take from GT's posts about Chris Matthew's - and his ilk's - penchant for unfair attacks on the Left?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Week said:

Where is illegality endorsed or even mentioned? Why is this what you take from GT's posts about Chris Matthew's - and his ilk's - penchant for unfair attacks on the Left?

GrimTuesday said… “I refuse to play fair, this is politics, if you're playing fair, you're probably losing.”

I’m asking GrimTuesday what he means by that because “refus[ing] to play fair” is pretty open ended and ambiguous.

[GrimTuesday]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

It certainly is an asymmetric comparison, no argument there.  However, the progressives have been granted more influence - within Biden's administration and in Congress - than they ever have before.  And while I've always strived to maintain neutrality between the two factions, I have also spent a lot of my time (at least on here) defending the left since Biden took office.  But - and it's a Sir MixaLot sized but - the two sides are both electorally and legislatively codependent.  Which is why I think, maybe, we should all avoid the reptilian reaction to blame each other for an election that isn't going to happen for another 11 months.

I've been mostly absent from this website over the last year, but I have have seen you defending progressive on the rare occasions I have popped in. I do disagree that progressives have been granted a large amount of influence. There certainly are some great people in roles that are generally considered to be influencial, but for the most part, I'm not seeing that those people's council is being acted on by the leadership within both the executive branch or either of the legislative bodies of congress. It all comes down to the simple fact that I think both sides are getting ready to plunge a knife in the other, and I'd rather do the stabbing over being stabbed. This is not to say that I think that the coalition must be shattered, but I think Progressives need to be ready to state their case for why they are the faction best suited to lead, and this is laying the groundwork for it.

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

GrimTuesday said… “I refuse to play fair, this is politics, if you're playing fair, you're probably losing.”

I’m asking GrimTuesday what he means by that because “refus[ing] to play fair” is pretty open ended and ambiguous.

Oh stop your dishonest pearl clutching. It is not open ended and ambiguous. If you read DMC's post, he says I should play fair in relation to my attacking the "moderate" Democrats for doing the exact same thing thing that I intend to do to them. No where do I even imply I am advocating for doing illegal shit. There are loads and loads of shitty, dishonest things that one can do in politics that are perfectly legal, and I think that so long as it is within the boundaries of the law, we should avail ourselves of every avenue to power. If you think anything has ever actually been achieved by being nice and honorable, you're delusional.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

51 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I've been mostly absent from this website over the last year, but I have have seen you defending progressive on the rare occasions I have popped in. I do disagree that progressives have been granted a large amount of influence. There certainly are some great people in roles that are generally considered to be influencial, but for the most part, I'm not seeing that those people's council is being acted on by the leadership within both the executive branch or either of the legislative bodies of congress. It all comes down to the simple fact that I think both sides are getting ready to plunge a knife in the other, and I'd rather do the stabbing over being stabbed. This is not to say that I think that the coalition must be shattered, but I think Progressives need to be ready to state their case for why they are the faction best suited to lead, and this is laying the groundwork for it.

Oh stop your dishonest pearl clutching. It is not open ended and ambiguous. If you read DMC's post, he says I should play fair in relation to my attacking the "moderate" Democrats for doing the exact same thing thing that I intend to do to them. No where do I even imply I am advocating for doing illegal shit. There are loads and loads of shitty, dishonest things that one can do in politics that are perfectly legal, and I think that so long as it is within the boundaries of the law, we should avail ourselves of every avenue to power. If you think anything has ever actually been achieved by being nice and honorable, you're delusional.

Ahhhh…the “if you ain’t cheaten.. you ain’t trying…” attitude.  Enjoy that.  I’ve disliked it my entire life.

[Week]

36 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ahhhh…the “if you ain’t cheaten.. you ain’t trying…” attitude.  Enjoy that.  I’’vr disliked it my entire life.

These last two posts have been pretty unfair from you, Scot.

GT is griping, fairly and reasonably, about some of the nastiness that comes from the Carvilles, Clintons, Matthewses, etc. directed at the Left. Your initial response is to ask to clarify if he means to do something illegal (he clearly didn't) and then to 'tut tut' at him about "dirty tricks" kind of behavior. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Week said:

These last two posts have been pretty unfair from you, Scot.

GT is griping, fairly and reasonably, about some of the nastiness that comes from the Carvilles, Clintons, Matthewses, etc. directed at the Left. Your initial response is to ask to clarify if he means to do something illegal (he clearly didn't) and then to 'tut tut' at him about "dirty tricks" kind of behavior. 

How else is “I refuse to play fair, this is politics, if you're playing fair, you're probably losing.” to be interpreted?  
 

I maintain that I have disliked “dirty tricks” much less advocacy for “dirty tricks” my whole life.  Dirty tricks suck whoever is using them.