Jump to content

US Politics: Cancelling Democracy


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

Biden has full control over the tariffs though. And has been mentioned for months the tariffs are going to increase inflation. This isn't rocket surgery. 

Again, it's also silly to think this would/will make much of an impact on inflation -- which is probably why the administration isn't acting with the urgency you want them to and instead taking into account how it will affect US/China relations.

4 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Another example is the massive rush to pass some economic bill right before the midterms, even though they've had a fucking year to do...anything. 

That's the Senate, not Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's damned obvious and clear romperisto and They All can and will bollox the works and the narrative that 06 Committee is getting out there: that romperisto really and truly, with the full aid, assistance and encouragement of these treasonous poss, was pulling a violent, armed coup in order to steal the election.  That's the one and only reason these heads up his ass cowardly jerkwaddies are now begging to testify, while, of course, testifying only on Their own terms, and say and do what They want, including what questions are asked about what.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime/why-trumpworld-has-started-flinging-itself-at-the-jan-6-committee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Again, it's also silly to think this would/will make much of an impact on inflation -- which is probably why the administration isn't acting with the urgency you want them to and instead taking into account how it will affect US/China relations.

I don't understand how it's particularly silly to take one of our largest trading partners and reduce their costs as something minor to us, especially given how much of the things on the list of inflated costs are on that list. 

It's something that partners on the coast have been asking for for months. If there are other reasons for not doing it, well, so it goes, but the notion it won't do much is clearly a minority opinion.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

That's the Senate, not Biden.

It's Biden too. And Biden is in charge, regardless of how much actual power he's going to be able to drive here. If he can't get Manchin and Sinema to do something they shouldn't do it, but that's clearly not what they're thinking here; they're clearly trying to get something. In which case - why not do it 6 months ago? Why the random urgency now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

but the notion it won't do much is clearly a minority opinion.

Maybe in your circles, not at all in mine.  :dunno:

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

If he can't get Manchin and Sinema to do something they shouldn't do it, but that's clearly not what they're thinking here; they're clearly trying to get something. In which case - why not do it 6 months ago? Why the random urgency now?

This almost seems deliberately obtuse.  Schumer is trying to figure out a way to get Manchin on board - finally.  The reason they didn't do it 6 months ago is because Manchin went on TV and killed the bill.  I'm skeptical Schumer will get anything more than the prescription drug deal out of Manchin, but I'm not gonna fault him for trying again.  And no, it's really not on Biden. 

Even the rest of the Senate Dems have publicly said it's up to Schumer to work out a deal with Manchin at this point, the imagined ability that Biden - with a 40% approval - would be able to step in and get Manchin to buckle is the LBJ version of green lantern thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Maybe in your circles, not at all in mine.  :dunno:

K. Talk to more economists and people at ports, maybe?

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

This almost seems deliberately obtuse.  Schumer is trying to figure out a way to get Manchin on board - finally.  The reason they didn't do it 6 months ago is because Manchin went on TV and killed the bill.  I'm skeptical Schumer will get anything more than the prescription drug deal out of Manchin, but I'm not gonna fault him for trying again.  And no, it's really not on Biden. 

Even the rest of the Senate Dems have publicly said it's up to Schumer to work out a deal with Manchin at this point, the imagined ability that Biden - with a 40% approval - would be able to step in and get Manchin to buckle is the LBJ version of green lantern thinking.

Biden not telling Schumer to get this going is Biden's problem. I'm not suggesting that Biden can move Manchin all that much - if he could, he would have done it the last time the bill was up for work. But Biden could have been telling Schumer to work on this for a while now. That there has been no news, no pressure, nothing - that's on Biden too. 

Of course Biden has been busy not doing things about a whole lot of stuff, so we should cut him some slack. He has been not busy working on immigration, covid, Afghani refugees, abortion action, inflation, drug pricing, election security, gun death prevention and saving democracy. He's swamped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

K. Talk to more economists and people at ports, maybe?

LOL.  Stop being a condescending asshole maybe?

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

But Biden could have been telling Schumer to work on this for a while now. That there has been no news, no pressure, nothing - that's on Biden too. 

....Schumer has been working on this for a while now.  Acting like the stalling is on anyone but Manchin is entirely ignorant of what has happened the last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL.  Stop being a condescending asshole maybe?

Okay, you have to be at least slightly amused about this one. This is much like you being accused by Tywin of liking Klobuchar too much

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

....Schumer has been working on this for a while now.  Acting like the stalling is on anyone but Manchin is entirely ignorant of what has happened the last year.

There has been basically nothing publicly about any of this for the last 6 months. If he's been working on it it has had nothing to  show for it so far, and I don't think that's a good choice with Manchin. It also isn't great for public confidence in the system given a whole lot of people have been asking what's been going on with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KalVsWade said:

Okay, you have to be at least slightly amused about this one. This is much like you being accused by Tywin of liking Klobuchar too much

Oh I can certainly be a condescending asshole at time, but me accusing you of such is exactly like me accusing Ty of liking Klobuchar too much.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

There has been basically nothing publicly about any of this for the last 6 months

Yes there has, just nothing - as you said - to show for it before the prescription drug deal.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I don't think that's a good choice with Manchin.

I don't know what this means.  It's been Manchin who's publicly put this on the backburner repeatedly.

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

It also isn't great for public confidence in the system given a whole lot of people have been asking what's been going on with it. 

The alternative is to raise public awareness of your inability to get Manchin on board throughout the last six months.  Which was the PR mistake to begin with - making the prolonged negotiations so public throughout last summer/fall.  Repeating that mistake certainly would not help public confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

There have been times when half the lawyers in Ontario, according to surveys by the Law Society, wished they were doing something, anything, else.

I bet there are a lot of lawyers feeling that way in the US right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ThinkerX  So what though. Just make them vote against everything remotely good for the American people, over and over. Get the comms out relentlessly taking it to the Pubs. The Dems might not be able to make the people believe in them, but the real silent majority [imo] are the Americans that love and want better from their country. Emotions are high and run the gamut, use it even if [general] they-Dems don't amount to much more than being cynical, capitalistic bastards.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There have been times when half the lawyers in Ontario, according to surveys by the Law Society, wished they were doing something, anything, else.

I bet there are a lot of lawyers feeling that way in the US right now. 

Feels like the only field where you regularly hear people describe themselves as a recovering "insert profession." 

46 minutes ago, JGP said:

@ThinkerX  So what though. Just make them vote against everything remotely good for the American people, over and over. Get the comms out relentlessly taking it to the Pubs. The Dems might not be able to make the people believe in them, but the real silent majority [imo] are the Americans that love and want better from their country. Emotions are high and run the gamut, use it even if [general] they don't amount to much more than being cynical, capitalistic bastards.  

I wonder if this would eventually render the SC meaningless. It seems like the conservatives are flirting with that possible outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I wonder if this would eventually render the SC meaningless. It seems like the conservatives are flirting with that possible outcome.

That'd be pretty taboo for the Republicans, wouldn't it, but they've shown their own contempt for Justice. Gamed out, likely. Put AOC in for Schumer while he's out and give her carte blanche for a bit. Shake the fuck out of them lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just say that Buttigieg continues to show that he has the best verbal/debate skills of any of the Dem presidential candidates. Watching him take apart FOX ‘journalists’ has become fairly regular programming during this administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday my neighbor told me that somebody went on the news and complained about the Monticello tour being honest about slavery and Jefferson's failures in that.  Since it is 115 degrees out, we didn't linger over it, but sure enough, some guy with a soft spot in his skull was offended by the tour.

I remember the issues of Jefferson's relationship to the institution of slavery being an element of the tour the first time I did it back in the 1980s, so claims that this is a new phenomenon seem hollow.  The slave quarters were obvious features both there and at Mount Vernon, too.

Also, unless your view of the Founding Fathers was formed in third grade and has never changed since, you have to understand that they were all fallible in the ways we all are.  Furthermore, only someone who has never read anything Jefferson wrote can think that Jefferson wasn't conflicted about slavery - he benefitted from it personally, yet he knew it was wrong, and he wrote specifically about this very personal dilemma.

You have to operate a very determined and intentional kind of either intellectual dishonesty or else incuriosity to take offense at mentions of slavery at Monticello.  I understand the temptations of the internet and media age to use the politics of outrage over perceived offenses, but I still find them outrageous.

On a lighter note, Business Insider has an ironically funny excerpt from the upcoming book, Thank You for Your Servitude.

"George W. Bush told Mitt Romney that he thought Rick Perry was dumber than he was.  "People thought I was dumb," Bush said. "Well, wait till you get a load of this guy.""

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

You have to operate a very determined and intentional kind of either intellectual dishonesty or else incuriosity to take offense at mentions of slavery at Monticello.  I understand the temptations of the internet and media age to use the politics of outrage over perceived offenses, but I still find them outrageous.

I actually read the whole NYP article whining about this.  It was very telling that they listed the leadership/board members of Monticello's foundation at the end and their ties to Dems.  Melody Barnes was named chair last year.  She ran the DPC during Obama's first term and is also a black woman.  Pretty sure that's what they're pissed about.

One quote from a complaining visitor I thought was kind of funny was one of the tour guides saying Jefferson never built anything and was "just a tinkerer" and the visitor lamenting "what are you talking about?  He designed UVA and this building!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I particularly admired her baffled outrage learning that even the Monticello gift shop's bookstore (enormous selection of merch, and the variety and number of books on offer is more like library and than bookshop, btw) has books that are against slavery and for abolition.  Just fancy that!  Additionally, one must choose, and pay for, the tour of Monticello that focuses on Monticello and its enslaved population.  There are several tours on offer, and this is only one of them. 

I've taken all of them. BTW. I've done the tour that focuses on slavery, i.e. the other side of the Mulberry hedge, three times.  It got more detailed and inclusive aas the archeological and historic research has gotten more and more extensive and detailed.

The horticulture, garden and agricultural tour is fascinating, if one has any interest in these matters even outside of historical perspective.  If one's interest in these matters also is historical, it's really invaluable.

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...