US Politics the Biden's age a nothing burger edition

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I was referring to federal employees themselves having no reason to vote for Trump or Haley. That is a lot of votes.

They mostly live in the wrong places though, and they aren't all going to vote that way anyway. 

[Zorral]

Among her other horrors Haley thinks fetuses should be granted civil rights (the person with the womb in which the fetus is ensconced doesn't need civil rights so much). Ya, that's so moderate isn't it.

Haley’s Plan to Gut the Government Is Even Worse Than Trump

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/12/haleys-plan-to-gut-the-government-is-worse-than-trumps.html

Quote

 

Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell accurately calls this proposal “a good way to destroy the basic machinery of government,” and then gets more specific:

This sounds like a clever idea until you think about it for, oh, two seconds. It means we’d have to purge and replace every single air traffic controller every five years. Also all the nuclear physicists working for the Energy Department and rocket scientists at NASA, whose depth of expertise can’t easily be recreated on a five-year deadline.

Add to this list food-safety inspectors, who assess sanitary conditions at slaughterhouses. Statisticians who tabulate labor-market data. Epidemiologists who track outbreaks. Arabic and Farsi speakers throughout our intelligence service.

And everyone else who has some valuable, specialized expertise, and who, because of a sense of duty and belief in their public mission, is willing to tolerate constant denigration from elected officials and lower pay than they could receive in the private sector.//

Haley hasn’t gotten very specific on exactly what she proposes to do to implement this intensely demagogic “term limit for bureaucrats” notion, or what executive powers or new grants of authority from Congress she would rely on to create all the immense havoc Rampell fears. She may have gotten the idea from Florida senator Rick Scott, whose “11-point Plan to Rescue America” included (in both its original and revised versions) a proposal to impose a 12-year term limit for non-defense federal employees. The term-limit idea didn’t get a lot of attention because commentators (including delighted Democrats and an irritated Mitch McConnell) were too busy addressing such equally dumb ideas as mandatory minimum income taxes for the working poor and a five-year sunset on all federal programs. For all I know, Haley or one of her underlings got to the five-year term limit by mixing up two different Scott howlers.

In any event, as David Corn points out at Mother Jones, Haley’s insistence on a five-year expiration date for jobs in the public sector doesn’t comport well with the six-year stints she enjoyed in the South Carolina legislature and as governor of the Palmetto State. More generally, it’s yet another data point suggesting that the media habit of calling this protégée of Sarah Palin and hireling of Donald Trump a “moderate” really needs to end. Haley’s extremism is truly multifaceted, as Ana Marie Cox observes in the New Republic:

Haley has little else but far-right positions and deeply conservative policies in her portfolio. She has supported granting fetuses civil rights, a pseudoscientific arrangement that once undergirded Ireland’s abortion laws, and that turned out great. She’s anti–gun control and wants metal detectors and law enforcement stationed at every school. She has said that Florida’s “Don’t say gay” bill “doesn’t go far enough,” she has pledged to fight any measure to limit police funding, she believes that critical race theory “is going to hold back generations of young people.” (In a roundabout way—since CRT scaremongering is an excuse to ban books—I suppose she’s right about that.)

And that list doesn’t even include her gubernatorial effort to bar private-sector unions from operating in South Carolina or her recent demands for cutting Social Security benefits (via a retirement-age boost and means-testing), and her ferocious attitude toward Palestinians caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hamas. Perhaps Haley hasn’t quite tried to out-Trump Trump on every issue, as Ron DeSantis has done. But she’s worse than Trump on blowing up the federal government. And the fact that the more respectable remnants of the pre-Trump Republican Party are looking to this deeply reactionary politician for salvation is a sign of just how far the GOP has fallen.

 

 

[Zorral]

This the consensus among blob media seemingly (so far) regarding Cheney's effect running as a third party candidate, whether Forbes, New York Magazine, the WaPo:

No, Liz Cheney. You should not run for president.

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/forum/10-general-chatter/

Quote

 

.... Assuming that both Trump and President Biden are their parties’ nominees, it is impossible to think of a state that Cheney — or any independent candidate — has a reasonable chance of winning. But there are at least half a dozen states where the margins are likely to be close enough that an outsider candidate could play spoiler to Biden’s chances, especially given the country’s sour mood.

That danger already exists, thanks to the efforts of No Labels, the centrist Washington-based organization that is considering putting its own presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the ballot, as well as the ongoing outsider campaigns of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., activist and scholar Cornel West and the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

Cheney, however, would be in a league by herself as a third-party candidate. Theoretically, as one prominent GOP strategist put it to me, she might offer herself as “a way station to Republicans who can’t bring themselves to vote for Joe Biden.”

But in the real world, it is impossible to imagine this appeal would work. Most Republicans, even those who claim they are appalled by Trump’s tone and antics, have already shown they are capable of rationalizing themselves into pretzels to justify their support for him. And in running, Cheney would put herself in a position of having to make a case not only against Trump but also against Biden and his policies.

Let us hope that, by raising the possibility of running for president, Cheney is just trying to sell some books.

 

It's great that she came to her senses about what her father and she herself fomented and let loose.  She should try and rescue us from the monster they did so much to nurture, now that the Lovecraftian slime has reached its inevitable full maturity.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Zorral

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

This may strike you as so, however it is not so.

You seem to have not noticed that Haley is antithetical to choice.  At her very best she's for a no prohibition to forced birth until SIX WEEKS when a woman generally can't even know she's pregnant.  At you by chance male? And very young?

Moreover you seem to have not noticed what an evile kind of folk is Pence.  Because he was more afraid of the US Army and Justice Dept. than he was even of traitor doesn't change any of that. Don't confuse boundless ambition (recall Pence wanted to campaign for POTUS himself) and boundless self-regard with courage.  Particularly when there's been no action on her part to say otherwise.

Perhaps Lynn Cheney ... who is evil too, possesses boundless ambition and self-regard ... however, does have courage, or at least the capacity to ACT on her convictions against the fascists.

You're reading way too much into that previous comment. I didn't say I thought Haley was a good person. I said she likes to think of herself as good. The bar of decency or goodness I was talking about was basically rock bottom, i.e., not wanting to dismantle the government and the rule of law.

And my point is that Pence and Haley don't quite meet that low standard. They can only do so when that's the status quo, and now that it's not, they cannot be relied upon to meet rock bottom decency. Maybe it happens in one or two key decisions, like Pence's decision to fear jail more than Trump on Jan 6, but they are not at all reliable moral actors. They just like to think they are, and in the before times, could act all serious and responsible, because there was no cost to it.

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Liking to think of yourself as a good person and actually being one are two vastly different things. Haley has shown time and again in recent years that she stands for nothing besides advancing her own political career and will hurt just about anyone to do it. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Liking to think of yourself as a good person and actually being one are two vastly different things. Haley has shown time and again in recent years that she stands for nothing besides advancing her own political career and will hurt just about anyone to do it. 

I agree. I do think that, in the crappy choice of an opportunist who likes to think of themself as good and an opportunist who thinks that goodness is for plebs, I'll grudgingly take the former. But they're still shitty and untrustworthy.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Liking to think of yourself as a good person and actually being one are two vastly different things. Haley has shown time and again in recent years that she stands for nothing besides advancing her own political career and will hurt just about anyone to do it. 

Sure looks that way - at least for me, from the outside. What I can't figure out at this point is whether she would accept to run as Trump's VP. She was mildly critical of him a few times in those debates, but at the same time she raised her hand to the question, "if elected would you pardon Trump?".

So looks like it could go either way, and that's IF he tries to get her on-board. 

Since my view of her is the same as yours, right now I'd say she'd accept it and then pray day and night for all those big macs to do their job double quick.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

It's Liz, right?

I think the Lynn Cheney name could be a joke--I know people who watch the Majority Report tend to say it this way a lot because Sam Seder (the host) couldn't get her name right. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I think the Lynn Cheney name could be a joke--I know people who watch the Majority Report tend to say it this way a lot because Sam Seder (the host) couldn't get her name right. 

Gotcha.  And good to see you 'round here!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I agree. I do think that, in the crappy choice of an opportunist who likes to think of themself as good and an opportunist who thinks that goodness is for plebs, I'll grudgingly take the former. But they're still shitty and untrustworthy.

Problem is with the former that line of thinking can lead them to rationalize every bad behavior they choose. 

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sure looks that way - at least for me, from the outside. What I can't figure out at this point is whether she would accept to run as Trump's VP. She was mildly critical of him a few times in those debates, but at the same time she raised her hand to the question, "if elected would you pardon Trump?".

So looks like it could go either way, and that's IF he tries to get her on-board. 

Since my view of her is the same as yours, right now I'd say she'd accept it and then pray day and night for all those big macs to do their job double quick.

Pretty much, I only think she'd want the gig if she thinks he's going to choke on a drumstick. I don't get why people think Trump will pick her for VP though. She's got the best chance to be the last of the others left standing in the primaries and she well halve to hit him hard if she has any hope of beating him. That will probably lead Trump to pick someone more loyal. MTG probably has a better path to becoming VP than Haley. Or Gaetz. And the scary thing is they might want the VP spot for the same reason too.  

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Problem is with the former that line of thinking can lead them to rationalize every bad behavior they choose. 

Pretty much, I only think she'd want the gig if she thinks he's going to choke on a drumstick. I don't get why people think Trump will pick her for VP though. She's got the best chance to be the last of the others left standing in the primaries and she well halve to hit him hard if she has any hope of beating him. That will probably lead Trump to pick someone more loyal. MTG probably has a better path to becoming VP than Haley. Or Gaetz. And the scary thing is they might want the VP spot for the same reason too.  

Yeah, I don't think he'd pick her or at least not as his first choice. 

But the possibilities for total insanity on the ticket as vp abound, but the craziest and most dangerous may be Lake? I may be and possibly am wrong, but she strikes me as crazier and more dangerous than most.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Problem is with the former that line of thinking can lead them to rationalize every bad behavior they choose. 

40 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Agreed, but in this world we seem to have to deal with constantly plummeting standards of conduct for Republicans.

People who think a Haley presidency would definitely not cater to the fascist impulses of the MAGA movement are smoking something, but I'd certainly take that scenario over Trump or someone else with zero shame. At least Haley could be cowed and pressured to do the right thing in certain contexts. Problem is, she would be cowed and pressured to go the other way more often than not, so it's still not desirable, just the lesser of two evils.

[LongRider]

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But the possibilities for total insanity on the ticket as vp abound, but the craziest and most dangerous may be Lake? I may be and possibly am wrong, but she strikes me as crazier and more dangerous than most.

I agree with this assessment.  She seems crazy as fuck and a true believing Magat nut case.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, I don't think he'd pick her or at least not as his first choice. 

But the possibilities for total insanity on the ticket as vp abound, but the craziest and most dangerous may be Lake? I may be and possibly am wrong, but she strikes me as crazier and more dangerous than most.

Lake is horrifying, but I doubt she gets picked because she's a loser, and I still don't buy Trump would pick a woman unless it was Ivanka. 

31 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Agreed, but in this world we seem to have to deal with constantly plummeting standards of conduct for Republicans.

People who think a Haley presidency would definitely not cater to the fascist impulses of the MAGA movement are smoking something, but I'd certainly take that scenario over Trump or someone else with zero shame. At least Haley could be cowed and pressured to do the right thing in certain contexts. Problem is, she would be cowed and pressured to go the other way more often than not, so it's still not desirable, just the lesser of two evils.

You're describing pre-Trump Haley. She could easily race down the road to fascism and the end of democracy and do so better than Trump. The only thing that would probably stop her are corporate elites (which in a sense is funny since Republicans want to run against the elites). I guess if you're looking for the silver lining that's what makes her slightly less bad than DeSantis. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

You're describing pre-Trump Haley. She could easily race down the road to fascism and the end of democracy and do so better than Trump. The only thing that would probably stop her are corporate elites (which in a sense is funny since Republicans want to run against the elites). I guess if you're looking for the silver lining that's what makes her slightly less bad than DeSantis. 

It sounds like we agree, or close enough to make no difference. I didn't say she was in any way good.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Liking to think of yourself as a good person and actually being one are two vastly different things. Haley has shown time and again in recent years that she stands for nothing besides advancing her own political career and will hurt just about anyone to do it. 

As a South Carolinian… I agree entirely with your assessment.

[Zorral]

From the David Frum article in that theme issue of the Atlantic about what a second trump term would be like:

Quote

>Even in the turmoil of the 1960s, even during the Great Depression, the country had a functional government with the president as its head. But the government cannot function with an indicted or convicted criminal as its head. The president would be an outlaw, or on his way to becoming an outlaw. For his own survival, he would have to destroy the rule of law.

 

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

People who think a Haley presidency would definitely not cater to the fascist impulses of the MAGA movement are smoking something, but I'd certainly take that scenario over Trump or someone else with zero shame. At least Haley could be cowed and pressured to do the right thing in certain contexts. Problem is, she would be cowed and pressured to go the other way more often than not, so it's still not desirable, just the lesser of two evils.

Agreed. I think Haley would try to do a good job--by her standards--and at the very least would see herself as a public servant. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't give a shit about presidenting, and has no sense of civic duty; to him, the Oval Office is merely a way to buff his ego and fill his pockets.

So, given a choice between a bad public servant and a void of avarice and ego, I'll go with the bad public servant, every time.

Edited December 6, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Agreed. I think Haley would try to do a good job, and at the very least would see herself as a public servant. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't give a shit about presidenting, and has no sense of civic duty; to him, the Oval Office is merely a way to buff his ego and fill his pockets.

So, given a choice between a bad public servant and an void of avarice and ego, I'll go with the bad public servant, every time.

But can you have a sense of civic duty if you knowingly enable someone who clearly doesn't? 

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

"This sounds like a clever idea until you think about it for, oh, two seconds."

That's bullshit. It doesn't sound like a good idea for even 2 microseconds, at least not to anyone that has two functioning brain cells.

Then again, I have no idea how the US govt works.

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I agree. I do think that, in the crappy choice of an opportunist who likes to think of themself as good and an opportunist who thinks that goodness is for plebs, I'll grudgingly take the former. But they're still shitty and untrustworthy.

I'm not sure about that. God save us from nasty people who believe they are the pillars of moral rectitude. No one wants to be THAT person to put Godwin's law in motions, but the Nazis thought they were the morally upstanding ones and that everyone else was wrong. In the choice between bad and bad that thinks it's good, one could argue that it's less harmful to go with plain old bad.