US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[DMC]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

Because, while that might have been the definition you were using, it was not the definition bauble and Kal were using and you were disagreeing with the use of.

If you google "learned definition" the first result you get is "(of a person) having much knowledge acquired by study."  That's the definition I was using, and then clarified that when Kal responded (I also clarified what I meant by "cynicism" when responding to Jace).  The only thing I was "mocking" was Kal's certainty, because nobody can be certain of such a thing.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So what?

My first association with the word "learnt/learning".

Watson and Pavlov. So classical conditioning. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So what?

My first association with the word "learnt/learning".

Watson and Pavlov. So classical conditioning. 

Ok.  That's not what I meant and I said as much (which frankly I thought was pretty clear from my original response - my point was there was no reason or basis to jump to Kal's conclusion, because there isn't).  So what?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok.  That's not what I meant and I said as much (which frankly I thought was pretty clear from my original response - my point was there was no reason or basis to jump to Kal's conclusion, because there isn't).  So what?

You did basically the exact same tautology that James Arryn did, choosing to evaluate a definition of a word in only the way you care about to make your next statements correct, ignoring the actual way the word is used. 

Shockingly this is not particularly conducive to convincing anyone. 

Furthermore, if you really believe that learned behavior cannot  ever have anything to do with emotional reactions and you're involved in politics or political viewpoints, you're gonna have a REAL bad time.  

As to my certainty, I say things with my chest - just like you say what you believe learned means and won't back down despite being corrected by actual teachers and psychologists - but that doesn't mean that I 100% know them. That's what I think will happen. I'll admit when I'm wrong too. Putting in a bunch of weak-ass qualifiers about 'I think' and 'I feel' is great for collaborating with my directs, but is bullshit when you're talking on a message board. I note you're not doing that about 'learn', as an example. 

[Mindwalker]

Did anyone expect something different from Manchin this time around?!

[Mlle. Zabzie]

55 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep!  I'm even trained in that discipline!  But we're not talking about probabilities, I was referring to your certainty/jumping to the conclusion that progressives will blow up the deal.  Certainty is not probability.

I'll never beat the king, Mr. 64 Warning Points.

Ok, then.  If you said that to begin with we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not sure why that needs pointing out when I clarified the definition I was using in the text you quoted.

Man, everyone's the semantic police today.  Manchin's opposition to any tax provisions targeting the rich is relatively new.  Manchin was emphasizing tax reform as he key priority as recently as April.

Dude, I just really want someone to nerd out with me on tax policy.  Manchin psychology is irrelevant to my interests.

[polishgenius]

26 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Did anyone expect something different from Manchin this time around?!

I've learned not to be shocked. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You did basically the exact same tautology that James Arryn did, choosing to evaluate a definition of a word in only the way you care about to make your next statements correct, ignoring the actual way the word is used. 

No, it's actually simply a confusion in the definition of "learned" as in "a learned journal" as opposed to "learned" as just the past tense of "learn."  I meant the former, as I've clarified about four times now.

24 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Putting in a bunch of weak-ass qualifiers about 'I think' and 'I feel' is great for collaborating with my directs, but is bullshit when you're talking on a message board.

My original comment was simply that there's no reason - as in tangible evidence or basis - to jump to that conclusion and it was just a knee-jerk reaction.  Again, if that's your prediction, fine, but the only reason this dumbass semantics debate got started is because I was responding to your apparent certainty in jumping to that conclusion.  That's how I took your statement because that's how you worded it.

20 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Dude, I just really want someone to nerd out with me on tax policy.  Manchin psychology is irrelevant to my interests.

LOL fair enough.  Clearly right now I'm busy with much stupider discussions.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Poobah said:

Genuine question, given that this Manchin fellow seems to be a Republican in all but name who exists only to hamstring the Democratic party can't the party do anything to shank him politically? Like how the fuck is he even a member of the party if he does nothing to support the party? Can't they take away his toys, refuse to give him money, tell him he can't have a D next to his name and run a different candidate for his seat? Why do democrats at the grassroots level support and vote for him?

As much as Manchin sucks in many different ways, he is far more liberal than Collins or Murkowski, who are already outliers in the GOP. And Manchin still fulfills the single most important part of his job without complaint, which is vote in favor of Biden's judicial nominations. Without Manchin, maybe 2 or 3 of Biden's 70 confirmed judges would actually be on the bench (and Jackson would not be on the Supreme Court, so we'd be facing a 7-2 conservative bench soon enough).

Because he does this, and because no other Democrat could win in West Virginia, he remains an invaluable part of the party. Even though he's an asshole who screws over the party in many other ways.

And there are 46 judicial nominees pending for Schumer to jam through before the end of December that will rely on Manchin's vote as well, so there will be no punishment going forward either.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

As much as Manchin sucks in many different ways, he is far more liberal than Collins or Murkowski, who are already outliers in the GOP. And Manchin still fulfills the single most important part of his job without complaint, which is vote in favor of Biden's judicial nominations. Without Manchin, maybe 2 or 3 of Biden's 70 confirmed judges would actually be on the bench (and Jackson would not be on the Supreme Court, so we'd be facing a 7-2 conservative bench soon enough).

Because he does this, and because no other Democrat could win in West Virginia, he remains an invaluable part of the party. Even though he's an asshole who screws over the party in many other ways.

And there are 46 judicial nominees pending for Schumer to jam through before the end of December that will rely on Manchin's vote as well, so there will be no punishment going forward either.

And well, apparently he hasn’t totally written off a deal with tax changes?  He’s still waiting on inflation numbers, not due out until August 8?  I’m not sure why anyone would believe him at this point though.

[LongRider]

No comment from Coward Cruz.  The article shows an activist in front of Cruz's house.

 

[Martell Spy]

Atlanta-area DA tells Georgia GOP chair he could be indicted in election probe

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/15/politics/georgia-gop-chair-election-probe-indictment-da/index.html

Quote

 

(CNN)The Atlanta-area district attorney investigating Donald Trump and his allies' efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia sent a target letter to state Republican party Chair David Shafer, warning him that he may be indicted as part of her investigation, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Shafer, who has faced inquiries from federal investigators, Georgia prosecutors and the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, acted as a pro-Trump elector in Georgia. He also helped organize the fake slate of electors in the Peach State, which Trump lost by nearly 12,000 votes.

 

[LongRider]

On 7/11/2022 at 12:35 AM, Derfel Cadarn said:

Didn’t Trump pardon him over that?

Yes.   His trial for criminal contempt is scheduled for next week.  

Steve Bannon pardon: Trump pardons Steve Bannon as one of his final acts in office - CNNPolitics

[LongRider]

DOJ wants Guy Reffitt sentenced with terrorism enhancement.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Fez said:

As much as Manchin sucks in many different ways, he is far more liberal than Collins or Murkowski, who are already outliers in the GOP. And Manchin still fulfills the single most important part of his job without complaint, which is vote in favor of Biden's judicial nominations. Without Manchin, maybe 2 or 3 of Biden's 70 confirmed judges would actually be on the bench (and Jackson would not be on the Supreme Court, so we'd be facing a 7-2 conservative bench soon enough).

Because he does this, and because no other Democrat could win in West Virginia, he remains an invaluable part of the party. Even though he's an asshole who screws over the party in many other ways.

And there are 46 judicial nominees pending for Schumer to jam through before the end of December that will rely on Manchin's vote as well, so there will be no punishment going forward either.

Until this session ends. After that, who knows? I've always made the same argument as you have that he's the best you'll ever get out of WV, but at a certain point the party might be better off ridding themselves of him and pulling all support. He's done more damage to Biden and the Democratic party than any Republican could do and we may be best to cut ties with him.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Until this session ends.

I mean, the only reason Manchin gets this much attention is because he's the 50th vote.  If it stays that way, then it stays that way.  If not, either way, then people aren't gonna care nearly as much about Joe Manchin.  I don't see any reason to "kick him out of the party" as long as he still wants to caucus with Dems.  Maybe strip him of his committee assignments - namely his top spot on Energy.  

[JGP]

I love her.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, the only reason Manchin gets this much attention is because he's the 50th vote.  If it stays that way, then it stays that way.  If not, either way, then people aren't gonna care nearly as much about Joe Manchin.  I don't see any reason to "kick him out of the party" as long as he still wants to caucus with Dems.  Maybe strip him of his committee assignments - namely his top spot on Energy.  

Yup, he only matters until he doesn't represent the deciding vote. And after that happens he should be striped or demoted. However, that may cause him to quit the party and if not he'll just be that much more toxic in the caucus. Either way once Dems can rid themselves of him they should consider taking that step. To steal a few sports clichés, he's a cancer in the locker room and there could be some addition by subtraction in showing Sen. Kyrie Manchin the door. At this point I have to believe a supermajority of his fellow Dem senators hate his guts and their lives will be improved by simply not having him around anymore, and that goes for the party as a whole. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

However, that may cause him to quit the party

Sure, and if it does so be it, I agree.

[A True Kaniggit]

Pffft. Such base, ignorant posts. 
 

I shan’t even bother to respond to such low discussions.