US Politics: A Tale of two Joes.

[Week]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I really enjoy spending my day off arguing with Trumpanistas blowhards defending MTG on NPR’s Facebook thread while it being implied that I’m the same as those Trumpanista blowhards here…

:|

Why tilt at windmills? Are we supposed to be impressed by your enjoyment of sniping at a bunch of bots and bald-dudes in sunglasses?

I haven't seen anyone suggest you are the same as Republicans (the Republican party does not currently exist outside of Trumpers). I think you are a being little fragile here Scot.

Rip has, rightly, pointed out the dangers of moderation in the face of enormous problems. "Incrementalism" that is repealed, barely enacted, etc. perpetuates the status quo *and* its trajectory. The trajectory has been bad for decades and is getting worse.

[DMC]

Well that escalated quickly.  @GrimTuesday, you should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by.  Lay low for awhile, because you're probably wanted for murder.

(I'll respond seriously after I smoke.)

[Rippounet]

32 minutes ago, Week said:

 "Incrementalism" that is repealed, barely enacted, etc. perpetuates the status quo *and* its trajectory.

Aye. If you are confronted with a deliberate strategy of destruction, the logical reaction is to rebuild at least as quickly.
If you don't, you basically accept most of the destruction waged by the other side.

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

In some ways, moderates are worse than Republicans, because they accept the reality of injustice, climate change, and all this other shit, and willfully perpetuate systems that contribute to these things while paying lip service and words of false solidarity and offering only solutions that I would hesitate to even characterize as marginal, much less incremental or revolutionary.

It's always tempting to portray a false friend as worse than an enemy, but of course, it's only because they are so much more frustrating. And yes, all too often, the false commiseration of moderates hides adherence to one of the oldest and most despicable principles on the right: the poor deserve their lot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's always tempting to portray a false friend as worse than an enemy, but of course, it's only because they are so much more frustrating. And yes, all too often, the false commiseration of moderates hides adherence to one of the oldest and most despicable principles on the right: the poor deserve their lot.

I have never said… nor have I ever believed “the poor deserve their lot.”

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Why tilt at windmills? Are we supposed to be impressed by your enjoyment of sniping at a bunch of bots and bald-dudes in sunglasses?

So that they are not sharing their bullshit unopposed.

[GrimTuesday]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have never said… nor have I ever believed “the poor deserve their lot.”

Man, are you under the impression you're the moderate? We're speaking in generalities, not about any one specific person. If I say that "moderates'" favorite past time is jabbing at little raggamuffins on the street with sharp stick, are you gonna come out and tell us that you don't do that? I'd be glad to hear you aren't out there poking street urchins with a sharp stick but also I wouldn't assume you specifically were. You don't need to defend moderates if what we are talking doesn't apply to you.

[DMC]

First of all, to clarify, when I asked GT to "play fair," it had nothing to do with dirty tricks (which I'm generally fine with, within reason, but generally should be directed at the opposition - ya know, that fascistic party over there - rather than each other).  The establishment and progressives sniping at each other and rushing to blame one another for an election 10 months in the future is NOT "dirty tricks."  It's just counterproductive finger pointing that can only hurt the ability to stem the losses come November.

3 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

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.

I think this is overlooking quite a bit.  One clear victory for the progressives is in judicial appointees.  Biden's picks have been predominately and decidedly left-leaning, and obviously they will have all the discretion they want in their jobs after the Dem Senate confirms them (which they have, even Manchin hasn't blocked any judicial nominee to my knowledge.  Hell, Lindsey Graham has voted for most of them). 

Another big one is the general approach of the administration and congressional leadership regarding the policy agenda.  The "centrist" (or "moderate" or "conservative" or "neoliberal") warnings spearheaded by Larry Summers not only weren't heeded but actively attacked by the administration. 

More importantly, it wasn't "moderates" that blocked the reconciliation bill.  Mark Warner worked with Bernie Sanders to propose a compromise on a $3.5 trillion framework, and every Dem member of the Budget committee championed it.  All but one of the "House moderates" were true to their word and voted for the reconciliation bill when it finally got to the floor.  Let's put the blame where it belongs - Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.  Grouping the likes of Jon Tester and Stephanie Murphy with those two obstructionists simply is not fair.

In addition, of course, the CPC asserted itself and demonstrated its influence by getting Pelosi and the leadership to acquiesce to their demands far more than they ever have.  They were ultimately unsuccessful, but that's because the entire party - starting with Biden and the leadership - failed.  And the progressives were proven right.  Biden isn't blaming and having Jen Psaki call the progressives liars, that's reserved for Manchin.

Finally, there's been complaints that Biden is not doing enough unilaterally.  This is true in some ways - certainly on immigration his administration's (lack of) conduct has been shameful - but in a lot of cases it's either overblown or ignorant of how much he can do.  And even there, along with a host of other areas, his ability to employ unilateral tools is actively being sabotaged by Republican judges.

Anyway, to reemphasize why I replied in the first place, playing the blame game is petty cable TV and internet bullshit.  Are Matthew's and Carville's antics eye-roll inducing (to put it charitably)?  Sure, but engaging in that nonsense isn't going to aid the progressive cause in any discernible way, and on the aggregate level it can only depress turnout when the Dems are already inherently disadvantaged in the turnout battle due to being incumbents.  And that, inarguably, fucks us all.

[Week]

57 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So that they are not sharing their bullshit unopposed.

Shoveling the incoming tide.

Anyhow-

 

Some good noises -- I expect to be disappointed by this many more times. If Voting Rights are voted on, sans filibuster, then I will eat my hat. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Shoveling the incoming tide.

Anyhow-

 

Some good noises -- I expect to be disappointed by this many more times. If Voting Rights are voted on, sans filibuster, then I will eat my hat. 

I hope the voting rights legislation passes.  It’s important.

Do you think the Republicans will end the Filibuster if they gain the Senate back in 2022 and the Democratic majority hasn’t acted before the 2022 election?

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I hope the voting rights legislation passes.  It’s important.

Do you think the Republicans will end the Filibuster if they gain the Senate back in 2022 and the Democratic majority hasn’t acted before the 2022 election?

If they feel confident that they can step on the throat of democracy without repurcussions then yes. I think it more likely they wait for a GQP elected-Executive rather than risk backlash in the 2024 election cycle.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Week said:

Some good noises -- I expect to be disappointed by this many more times. If Voting Rights are voted on, sans filibuster, then I will eat my hat. 

I'm very curious exactly what "rules changes" will be voted on.  It'd be nice if over the next two weeks Schumer et al. make clear exactly how they're going to try to ensure voting rights are passed.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you think the Republicans will end the Filibuster if they gain the Senate back in 2022 and the Democratic majority hasn’t acted before the 2022 election?

There's no reason to abolish (or curtail) the filibuster if your party doesn't hold the presidency.

[Kalbear]

There's barely any reason for Republicans to abolish the filibuster, period. They get almost everything they actually want - judicial noms, SCOTUS noms, tax cuts, immigration blocking, destruction of various agencies - all for 'free', without any real changes to filibuster rules. The only thing that Trump probably would have wanted is his border wall bullshit, and even that got to be worked around via creative accounting and use of the emergency act. 

Right now Republicans get everything they want when they're in charge, AND get to block Democrat rules and governance except when they completely fuck things over. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

The only thing that Trump probably would have wanted is his border wall bullshit,

No to mention that probably wouldn't have gotten 50 votes during the 115th Congress.

[Zorral]

If the Dems -- which they won't -- concertedly pushed for week after week coverage of these aspects of Ashli Babbitt Martyr to the voters (and the many, many, many other comparable stories of the behaviors of these ilks), would that be considered a dirty trick which should not be allowed in elections and politics?

"Ashli Babbitt a martyr? Her past tells a more complex story"

https://apnews.com/article/ashli-babbitt-capitol-siege-a15c7e52a04d932972b7a284c7a8f7df

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

would that be considered a dirty trick which should not be allowed in elections and politics?

No.  But I think you're overestimating the political salience, and potential benefits, of the Dems amplifying how crazy these people are.  Most voters that matter already understand and agree with that.  Telling them to care more about it is not, in fact, going to get them to care more about it.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  But I think you're overestimating the political salience, and potential benefits, of the Dems amplifying how crazy these people are.  Most voters that matter already understand and agree with that.  Telling them to care more about it is not, in fact, going to get them to care more about it.

This. And honestly, the only people who actually care about Babbitt are the ones who aren't remotely going to be listening to Dems anyway. Sometimes it's better to /ignore than to amplify. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Maybe it would be more palatable if the Democratic establishment kept fighting for it, say... at least as intensely as the Republicans fight for tax cuts?

My mom recently came back from a few months in the US. The stories she told us are chilling. Rows of tents of homeless people in the cities while the wealthy hide in their mansions in gated neighborhoods. American students talking of moving to Europe for a better future... Misery and desperation juxtaposed with abundance and hyper-consumerism...
The anecdotal evidence is reflected in the reports and figures: inequality rising, extreme poverty rising... etc. This isn't a game or an abstraction: it's the real world of your fellow citizens.

It's not polarization, it's the lack of empathy of people who don't feel the bite of poverty, who pretend to ignore that it is right next to them.

Another way to put it: there is a crisis, and moderates are the ones ignoring it. History won't be kind to y'all.

Just curious, did your mother (or have you) heard about how we deal with homelessness? "Anti-homeless architecture." This country has lost any sense of morality in favor of capital. People defend this by saying, "It's necessary because homeless people hurt my property value."

[Zorral]

That's probably the case with the cultists who are devoted to a proven rapist, so a husband-stealing pos would also be lauded by all these cultist female types? Even Ashli, who went after the very person she wronged and hurt, and tried to kill her. It's pretty hard to get more rethuglican thinking than that Ashli, that's fer shure!  I hurt you, so now you must be punished, particularly as you have the temerity to even say you've bee hurt! 

[Rippounet]

46 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Just curious, did your mother (or have you) heard about how we deal with homelessness? "Anti-homeless architecture."

Yes, this is not exclusive to the US (the same causes have the same consequences throughout the world now).

I'm led to wonder: at what point does the relentless degradation of collective wellbeing become a "crisis"?

[DireWolfSpirit]

There's a little cancerous pea planted deep into the American psyche to reject collectivization.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence where it would benefit their well being.

Examples being a public that rejects unions, rejects universal healthcare.

The class warfare-ists have been overwhelmingly successful at hoodwinking millions of Americans into thinking stupid shit like paying $40 a month in union dues is a bad bargain, a bad tradeoff mind you, for things like significant wage increases and real pensions.

We also see people who the class warfare-ists have been able to hook-line-sinker accept the world's most expensive healthcare for below avg return in services.

This all accomplished because they've (American public) been hypnotized into believing collectivization equals boogie man bad.

We've reaped what our own prejudices have sowed, and the elite and class warfare-ists have masterfully used that ignorance to their advantage.