by Doctor Science
If you’re going to do horse race journalism, at least do it right.
I’m writing as a long-time member of the Democratic Party base, a rank-and-file voter and regular volunteer. There are certain factors that come up when I and other Democrats talk about 2020, talk that began months ago. Now we’re entering the invisible primary, with more discussion to sort out which candidates we might to support–and which should probably think that they’re in it for the experience.
Spoiler: all these factors point to Bernie Sanders having zero chance of getting the Democratic nomination, while Kamala Harris is the (current) front-runner.
Factors:
1. A white man starts out behind. This factor is going to be *very* hard for journalists to recognize, because they’re so deeply embedded in a system where white men are taken seriously much more than other people. For instance, they almost all work for white men.
I’m not saying that there’s no way a white man could win the Democratic nomination. But he would have to be exceptional, because he starts out with a deficit. Specifically, a white man has to show a strong alliance with and support from some Democratic subgroup that is *not* mostly white men. This is a big reason why Beto O’Roarke’s long-term prospects within the Democratic Party are so good: he respects, works with, and is supported by black women, among others. He’s too inexperienced to be viable in 2020, but he’s got a future.
Discussing our options for the 2016 primary, I said to a (black woman) friend, “I’m sick of being yelled at by white men.” I am *so much more* sick of it now, words cannot express.
2. Candidates lose points with every year before 1950 they were born. Since World War II Democrats have a preference for younger candidates, which has increased as we’ve learned more about Reagan’s health problems in office. We want a candidate whose health can reasonably extend through two terms of one of the most stressful jobs on the planet, and someone who’s going to be over 70 in 2020 is not the best bet.
Elizabeth Warren was born in 1949. Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg were born in 1942. Bernie Sanders was born in 1941. Warren is the only one who has a serious chance IMHO.
3. The candidate will have to release their tax returns. Bernie got away without doing it in 2016, but it will not fly this time around. Even if there are no state laws or Party regulations in place to enforce financial transparency, we in the party base will insist on seeing where the candidate’s money is coming from and going to.
4. The most important demographic in the Democratic Party is black women. The largest race+gender demo in the party is white women (like myself), but black women are the most loyally and consistently Democratic.
I make a point of following a lot of people of color on Twitter–since it’s hard *not* to get white people’s opinions about everything, getting different points of view takes work. I do it on Twitter because it’s a medium well-suited to listening to people talking to each other without my presence influencing their conversation.
What I see is that black voters, women in particular, are small-c conservative in their choices. That is, they don’t tend to fall for trendy or stunt candidates. They want to see a track record of policy and accomplishment, and they *will* have the receipts. Democracy and government aren’t spectator sports for them, their lives and those of their children are frequently and literally on the line. They vote, and they take voting seriously.
So far there’s been one straw poll of influential women of color, and it showed Kamala Harris as the runaway favorite. More important IMHO is that the pollees’ #1 suggestion for “how to inspire and engage” them is “Hire more women of color in leadership positions.” Thus: if a candidate’s early hires do not include any women of color, they are not trying to connect with this crucial demographic–or at least they will not succeed.
So: if you’re looking at journalism or commentary about the 2020 Democratic nomination, anyone who says Kamala Harris is *not* the frontrunner has to explain why. I’ve seen a lot of analysis over the past year or so saying Joe Biden or even Bernie Sanders is the “obvious” frontrunner, or that there’s a place in the Democratic primary for a random billionaire, but that’s laughable. Such people will only be comfortable with a Democratic candidate who has the look and feel of a Republican: old, white, male, moneyed. Nope, not gonna happen.
Adam Silverman’s analysis sees the same factors I do (though he phrases them more coothly), but he points out that Sanders is likely to keep in the race as an Independent after he loses the Democratic nomination early in the process. There is a very real danger that he’ll be a Nader-like spoiler in the general election,
And if he decides he’s going to be a team player and not do so, his trusted agents won’t play ball and you’ll have the same problem regardless. And we can now add Congresswoman Gabbard to the potential spoilers category emanating from Sanders orbit.
Silverman is a deeply experienced military analyst, and he emphasizes
that the US is at war. Putin has made it very clear since 2014 that as far as he was concerned Russia was, at least, in a new cold war with the US and the US was the aggressor.
We need to expect and plan for Russia to continue its program of manipulating US elections in its favor, which currently means in Trump’s favor.
The Russians would be fools not to make a big push to have Sanders run third-party–and they are not fools. The Democratic Party and everyone who opposes Trump needs to start thinking and planning now about how to forestall, combat or defuse such a run. Can Sanders be persuaded to back Warren? Can some Democrat-friendly billionaire (not a terribly common animal) buy him off? Should we insist on seeing his tax returns before the 1st debate, so he leaves in shame and/or a huff?
That’s the only justification for horse-race journalism at this point in the cycle: so that party members like myself have info we need to figure out who to support early and who to discourage.
And so I’m back
From outer space!
Yeah, going to try to get back on the posting horse.
And so I’m back
From outer space!
Yeah, going to try to get back on the posting horse.
Welcome back! You’ve been missed.
Senator Harris is off to a strong start. Now she needs to keep it up. And survive the carping criticism that she’s “not liberal enough” — which is, admittedly, foreordained for any politician who is a former DA.
As for O’Rourke, I’d say that, for the immediate future, he’d make a great senator from Texas.
Welcome back! You’ve been missed.
Senator Harris is off to a strong start. Now she needs to keep it up. And survive the carping criticism that she’s “not liberal enough” — which is, admittedly, foreordained for any politician who is a former DA.
As for O’Rourke, I’d say that, for the immediate future, he’d make a great senator from Texas.
If Sanders runs Independent, he will suddenly be faced with all the oppo that the Dems have on him, but have refrained from using so far. I think he’s intensely vulnerable on that front, and I hope he knows it.
My sense is that he’s going to find this campaign dismaying: the flow of $27 contributions will have dwindled, the rallies will be much smaller, the opportunities to batten on ego-boosting adulation less frequent.
If Sanders runs Independent, he will suddenly be faced with all the oppo that the Dems have on him, but have refrained from using so far. I think he’s intensely vulnerable on that front, and I hope he knows it.
My sense is that he’s going to find this campaign dismaying: the flow of $27 contributions will have dwindled, the rallies will be much smaller, the opportunities to batten on ego-boosting adulation less frequent.
Great timing Doc, and let the posting horse know who’s boss.
An interesting op-ed about Harris
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/kamala-harris-black-women-progressives-support-record
Great timing Doc, and let the posting horse know who’s boss.
An interesting op-ed about Harris
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/kamala-harris-black-women-progressives-support-record
That’s the only justification for horse-race journalism at this point in the cycle: so that party members like myself have info we need to figure out who to support early and who to discourage.
This.
(The ‘only’ would be redundant, if not for those of us who also occasionally bet on political outcomes.)
That’s the only justification for horse-race journalism at this point in the cycle: so that party members like myself have info we need to figure out who to support early and who to discourage.
This.
(The ‘only’ would be redundant, if not for those of us who also occasionally bet on political outcomes.)
Biden is the front runner right now because every poll says he is.
yes, its all leftover smileys from him being Obama’s affable sidekick. but that’s all people have to go on because it’s still too early to be talking about frontrunners in any other way.
Biden is the front runner right now because every poll says he is.
yes, its all leftover smileys from him being Obama’s affable sidekick. but that’s all people have to go on because it’s still too early to be talking about frontrunners in any other way.
Biden
Dead to me since the Anita Hill hearings.
Also he is one of the reasons that student loan debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, a truly evil law.
Biden
Dead to me since the Anita Hill hearings.
Also he is one of the reasons that student loan debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, a truly evil law.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I do worry somewhat about the emphasis on black women voters this cycle, if it crowds out everything else. But that’s because I live in a state and region where blacks are not the largest minority. In my becoming-safely-blue state, Blacks make up 4% of the population, while Latinx are 21%. There are no western states where blacks are the largest minority group, and some where they are not the second largest minority group.
Somewhat to Cleek’s statement about polls, Harris has edged ahead of Biden in the betting odds and is leading the Democratic pack.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I do worry somewhat about the emphasis on black women voters this cycle, if it crowds out everything else. But that’s because I live in a state and region where blacks are not the largest minority. In my becoming-safely-blue state, Blacks make up 4% of the population, while Latinx are 21%. There are no western states where blacks are the largest minority group, and some where they are not the second largest minority group.
Somewhat to Cleek’s statement about polls, Harris has edged ahead of Biden in the betting odds and is leading the Democratic pack.
I don’t think that the black women voters thing will crowd out the Latinx factor because the white supremacist undercurrent on the right is going to keep enough pressure on the political discourse that it will hold together a coalition-of-color. That pressure is already pushing the Vietnamese-American communities into the blue.
And as far as Colorado goes, much as I like him, I don’t see a path to victory for Hickenlooper (even as VP) though it could put up some strong support for Beto. But I think that youth and gender will play against Beto this time as people look at him and figure he’ll have plenty of chances to come.
I don’t think that the black women voters thing will crowd out the Latinx factor because the white supremacist undercurrent on the right is going to keep enough pressure on the political discourse that it will hold together a coalition-of-color. That pressure is already pushing the Vietnamese-American communities into the blue.
And as far as Colorado goes, much as I like him, I don’t see a path to victory for Hickenlooper (even as VP) though it could put up some strong support for Beto. But I think that youth and gender will play against Beto this time as people look at him and figure he’ll have plenty of chances to come.
Biden is the front runner right now because every poll says he is.
Biden is the “front runner” in the polls right now because he’s got name recognition. Which is all that’s being measured. Until there’s actually been enough activity for poll respondents to know more than just (some of!) the participants, it’s silly to read much into them.
Biden is the front runner right now because every poll says he is.
Biden is the “front runner” in the polls right now because he’s got name recognition. Which is all that’s being measured. Until there’s actually been enough activity for poll respondents to know more than just (some of!) the participants, it’s silly to read much into them.
See also this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-2020-presidential-contest-is-wide-open-as-danger-mounts-for-trump-new-washington-post-abc-news-poll-shows/2019/01/28/88a3fd16-227b-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
See also this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-2020-presidential-contest-is-wide-open-as-danger-mounts-for-trump-new-washington-post-abc-news-poll-shows/2019/01/28/88a3fd16-227b-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
…I don’t see a path to victory for Hickenlooper (even as VP)…
Neither do I. This cycle is going to be tough on white male Democratic governors seeking the nomination. It’s crowded just with western governors: Bullock, Hickenlooper, Inslee. Hick and Bullock look like they’re both going to try the “radical moderate” approach. Inslee is running on climate crisis. I am a climate crisis guy, and Inslee is the only one with that priority. I’m on Harris’s campaign mailing list — donate to one Dem regionally and they’re all after you — and got the opening day e-mail minutes after she announced. The only mention of the environment was “everybody should have clean air and clean water.” The West is already f*cking burning down; can’t we have a word about climate change?
…I don’t see a path to victory for Hickenlooper (even as VP)…
Neither do I. This cycle is going to be tough on white male Democratic governors seeking the nomination. It’s crowded just with western governors: Bullock, Hickenlooper, Inslee. Hick and Bullock look like they’re both going to try the “radical moderate” approach. Inslee is running on climate crisis. I am a climate crisis guy, and Inslee is the only one with that priority. I’m on Harris’s campaign mailing list — donate to one Dem regionally and they’re all after you — and got the opening day e-mail minutes after she announced. The only mention of the environment was “everybody should have clean air and clean water.” The West is already f*cking burning down; can’t we have a word about climate change?
It’s striking to me that the pro pundits & journos haven’t noticed the age issue and that, for Dem voters over 40-45, it’s centered on concern that too old a candidate won’t be fit for a 2nd term.
Yet another way that journos favor Rs, who don’t worry about candidates being too old.
@Michael Cain: I, too, am a climate crisis person, but that’s not enough to make me take Inslee seriously: his lack of name recognition (and of contacts in Washington: who would be in his cabinet?), age (he’s 67), and white-guy-ness weigh too heavy in the balance.
I’ll be interested to see whether Harris or Warren sees the climate crisis opening and goes for it.
It’s striking to me that the pro pundits & journos haven’t noticed the age issue and that, for Dem voters over 40-45, it’s centered on concern that too old a candidate won’t be fit for a 2nd term.
Yet another way that journos favor Rs, who don’t worry about candidates being too old.
@Michael Cain: I, too, am a climate crisis person, but that’s not enough to make me take Inslee seriously: his lack of name recognition (and of contacts in Washington: who would be in his cabinet?), age (he’s 67), and white-guy-ness weigh too heavy in the balance.
I’ll be interested to see whether Harris or Warren sees the climate crisis opening and goes for it.
Yes, Kamala Harris should say even more about climate change. She has a 100% positive voting record on environmental issues.
I’ll take it.
Yes, Kamala Harris should say even more about climate change. She has a 100% positive voting record on environmental issues.
I’ll take it.
Some random thoughts, racy and otherwise.
The Democratic nominee could be a loaf of bread who picks a jug of wine for veep, and still get my vote in November 2020.
I am content to leave the choice of Democratic nominee to my fellow Democrats. I would prefer leaving the choice to only those Democrats who share my commitment, above, but I can’t enforce that and it’s a touchy subject anyway.
“Electability” is a unicorn I refuse to chase, when it comes to my personal vote in the Democratic primary. In a nation with an electoral system that is capable of coughing up He, Trump “electability” is bollocks.
My personal preference in the Democratic primary will be determined by a point system. Bash any Republican, you earn one point. Bash any Democrat, you lose two points. A half-point penalty for each utterance of: “the American people” when you mean “sane Americans”; “Washington” when you mean “Republicans in Washington”; or “God bless” if nobody nearby has sneezed.
Since the Constitution specifies two Senators from each state, and you can’t change that without getting Wyoming to agree, I wonder whether we could somehow mandate that “two Senators” shall mean “one man and one woman”. I would not mind, myself, if we changed the Constitution to require all Senators to be women, but I’ll gladly settle for 50-50.
–TP
Some random thoughts, racy and otherwise.
The Democratic nominee could be a loaf of bread who picks a jug of wine for veep, and still get my vote in November 2020.
I am content to leave the choice of Democratic nominee to my fellow Democrats. I would prefer leaving the choice to only those Democrats who share my commitment, above, but I can’t enforce that and it’s a touchy subject anyway.
“Electability” is a unicorn I refuse to chase, when it comes to my personal vote in the Democratic primary. In a nation with an electoral system that is capable of coughing up He, Trump “electability” is bollocks.
My personal preference in the Democratic primary will be determined by a point system. Bash any Republican, you earn one point. Bash any Democrat, you lose two points. A half-point penalty for each utterance of: “the American people” when you mean “sane Americans”; “Washington” when you mean “Republicans in Washington”; or “God bless” if nobody nearby has sneezed.
Since the Constitution specifies two Senators from each state, and you can’t change that without getting Wyoming to agree, I wonder whether we could somehow mandate that “two Senators” shall mean “one man and one woman”. I would not mind, myself, if we changed the Constitution to require all Senators to be women, but I’ll gladly settle for 50-50.
–TP
“Electability” is a unicorn I refuse to chase, when it comes to my personal vote in the Democratic primary. In a nation with an electoral system that is capable of coughing up He, Trump “electability” is bollocks.
I understand the sentiment. But the reality is that lack of “electability” (of Clinton) is what got us Trump. Yes, I know she got more votes (including mine). But her unpopularity with a big chunk of the electorate is what gave Trump a window to ooze thru.
I think experiencing the reality of Trump means that almost any Democrat could beat him. (With a caveat if a third party/independent candidate gets into the mix.) But that is not to say that the Democrats can’t find someone so far out that he could manage to lose, even to Trump. I don’t have anyone specific in mind at this point. Just sayin’, it could be a problem if you insist that “electability” is totally irrelevant.
“Electability” is a unicorn I refuse to chase, when it comes to my personal vote in the Democratic primary. In a nation with an electoral system that is capable of coughing up He, Trump “electability” is bollocks.
I understand the sentiment. But the reality is that lack of “electability” (of Clinton) is what got us Trump. Yes, I know she got more votes (including mine). But her unpopularity with a big chunk of the electorate is what gave Trump a window to ooze thru.
I think experiencing the reality of Trump means that almost any Democrat could beat him. (With a caveat if a third party/independent candidate gets into the mix.) But that is not to say that the Democrats can’t find someone so far out that he could manage to lose, even to Trump. I don’t have anyone specific in mind at this point. Just sayin’, it could be a problem if you insist that “electability” is totally irrelevant.
Harris in Iowa on climate change:
“I support a Green New Deal and I will tell you why: climate change is an existential threat and we have got to deal with the reality of it,” Harris said, before taking aim at Republicans in power. “We have got to deal with the reality of the fact that there are people trying to peddle some ideas that we should deny it. They are peddling science fiction instead of what we should do, which is rely on science fact.”
Having taught a bunch of science fiction and cli-fi in my college classes, I think she should embrace the power of speculative fiction ;). But she’s definitely more than just “clean air and water.”
When you announce your candidacy in a state that is already a leading force in climate change policy it starts to feel like preaching to the choir. I think she’ll get her talking points calibrated to a wider audience pretty quickly.
Harris in Iowa on climate change:
“I support a Green New Deal and I will tell you why: climate change is an existential threat and we have got to deal with the reality of it,” Harris said, before taking aim at Republicans in power. “We have got to deal with the reality of the fact that there are people trying to peddle some ideas that we should deny it. They are peddling science fiction instead of what we should do, which is rely on science fact.”
Having taught a bunch of science fiction and cli-fi in my college classes, I think she should embrace the power of speculative fiction ;). But she’s definitely more than just “clean air and water.”
When you announce your candidacy in a state that is already a leading force in climate change policy it starts to feel like preaching to the choir. I think she’ll get her talking points calibrated to a wider audience pretty quickly.
Yeah, Inslee doesn’t really have a chance. I just wish the other candidates were talking more about climate change. Or maybe I wish that the media would quote them after they’ve said it.
Yeah, Inslee doesn’t really have a chance. I just wish the other candidates were talking more about climate change. Or maybe I wish that the media would quote them after they’ve said it.
wj,
I hope I was clear: “electability” is irrelevant to my personal primary preference. If my fellow Democrats select our nominee based on “electability” in whole or in part, that’s fine by me.
BTW, my suspicion is that UNelectability is what we’re really talking about. It’s also what Russian ratfuckers and their GOP collaborators work at establishing in the minds of voters.
–TP
wj,
I hope I was clear: “electability” is irrelevant to my personal primary preference. If my fellow Democrats select our nominee based on “electability” in whole or in part, that’s fine by me.
BTW, my suspicion is that UNelectability is what we’re really talking about. It’s also what Russian ratfuckers and their GOP collaborators work at establishing in the minds of voters.
–TP
i only hope the Dem field is winnowed quickly. we’re pretty good enough at party infighting already, and i know the GOP and their Russian allies are going to encourage more. so the quicker we’re through the nonsense the better.
i only hope the Dem field is winnowed quickly. we’re pretty good enough at party infighting already, and i know the GOP and their Russian allies are going to encourage more. so the quicker we’re through the nonsense the better.
Climate change is going to be a social media iceberg for younger voters, I think. From what I see on campus, that news will be spread more by activist groups and social media platforms than it will by big media coverage. None of my students read or watch the news. All their info comes through their personal networks.
And big media is still obsessed with performing their fairness to both teams to get behind the sort of structural change that we need to go through to stave off the worst of our climate stupidity and greed.
Climate change is going to be a social media iceberg for younger voters, I think. From what I see on campus, that news will be spread more by activist groups and social media platforms than it will by big media coverage. None of my students read or watch the news. All their info comes through their personal networks.
And big media is still obsessed with performing their fairness to both teams to get behind the sort of structural change that we need to go through to stave off the worst of our climate stupidity and greed.
i only hope the Dem field is winnowed quickly. we’re pretty good enough at party infighting already, and i know the GOP and their Russian allies are going to encourage more. so the quicker we’re through the nonsense the better.
What I’m curious about, assuming we’re talking mostly about the social-media stuff, is how effective the sort of thing that the Russians did in the run-up to the last election will be this time around, now that (sane) people know about it.
Perhaps it’s my bias at work here, but I tend to think that what they’ve been doing is generally more effective on “conservatives” (in quotes for wj, who would call them reactionaries, which is what they are after all) than on moderates and liberals. Even in the last go-around, it appears that more of the misinformation was aimed at those on the right than those on the left (not exclusively at those on the right, just more, but significantly so).
I’ll try to dig up the piece I recall reading, possibly on fivethirtyeight, about the different groups and issues that were targeted on social media and in what relative numbers.
i only hope the Dem field is winnowed quickly. we’re pretty good enough at party infighting already, and i know the GOP and their Russian allies are going to encourage more. so the quicker we’re through the nonsense the better.
What I’m curious about, assuming we’re talking mostly about the social-media stuff, is how effective the sort of thing that the Russians did in the run-up to the last election will be this time around, now that (sane) people know about it.
Perhaps it’s my bias at work here, but I tend to think that what they’ve been doing is generally more effective on “conservatives” (in quotes for wj, who would call them reactionaries, which is what they are after all) than on moderates and liberals. Even in the last go-around, it appears that more of the misinformation was aimed at those on the right than those on the left (not exclusively at those on the right, just more, but significantly so).
I’ll try to dig up the piece I recall reading, possibly on fivethirtyeight, about the different groups and issues that were targeted on social media and in what relative numbers.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/
A quote to cleek’s point about encouraging infighting:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/
A quote to cleek’s point about encouraging infighting:
I’d be willing to bet that there were a few foreign trolls on Democratic Underground spreading rumors around the primary voting snafus in NY and AZ, and the sharp elbows being thrown at the NV state convention to fuel the thumb-on-the-scale impression and outrage and direct it towards Wasserman-Schultz rather than towards local election dysfunction and typical convention shenanigans. Seems like a more effective leftist systempunkt catching the activist disseminators rather than the trailing edge.
I’d be willing to bet that there were a few foreign trolls on Democratic Underground spreading rumors around the primary voting snafus in NY and AZ, and the sharp elbows being thrown at the NV state convention to fuel the thumb-on-the-scale impression and outrage and direct it towards Wasserman-Schultz rather than towards local election dysfunction and typical convention shenanigans. Seems like a more effective leftist systempunkt catching the activist disseminators rather than the trailing edge.
Silverman may be more cooth, but boy is his post grim reading.
Silverman may be more cooth, but boy is his post grim reading.
i suspect that Sanders knows that if he tries running as a spoiler, he will never get any Senate committee assignments from the Dems again.
i suspect that Sanders knows that if he tries running as a spoiler, he will never get any Senate committee assignments from the Dems again.
in quotes for wj, who would call them reactionaries, which is what they are after all
Thank you
in quotes for wj, who would call them reactionaries, which is what they are after all
Thank you
The Democratic nominee could be a loaf of bread who picks a jug of wine for veep, and still get my vote in November 2020.
Throw in a book of verse, and we’re in paradise – so old Omar (or, more likely, Fitzgerald) tells us.
The Democratic nominee could be a loaf of bread who picks a jug of wine for veep, and still get my vote in November 2020.
Throw in a book of verse, and we’re in paradise – so old Omar (or, more likely, Fitzgerald) tells us.
grim reading
Friend, these are grim times, and have been at least since 2000 when the Rs found that they could cheat to win and never be penalized as long as white people feel sufficiently threatened by Others.
The voluble rage of our old friend the Count was well founded in reality, however hyperbolic in expression.
grim reading
Friend, these are grim times, and have been at least since 2000 when the Rs found that they could cheat to win and never be penalized as long as white people feel sufficiently threatened by Others.
The voluble rage of our old friend the Count was well founded in reality, however hyperbolic in expression.
Rats. close tag, please
Rats. close tag, please
Man, I just don’t get the Bernie hate. Megalomaniac, no tax returns, a campaign rife with misogynistic louses… even the Burlington Press hates him. And yet, the D platform has adopted a lot of his positions. And that’s a good thing(?!) The wildly popular and ascendant AOC worked for the campaign. And yet he’s an irrelevant voice, somehow.
I can’t wrap my head around that. Then again, I dunno how Kerry ended up looking less-military than W.
But I agree that the ship has probably sailed. It’s worth noting that he refused to run 3rd party so as to not split the vote in 2016, & there was a fair measure of push there. I can’t imagine he would do so now.
Biden has the recognition, early, but a continuation bet on Obama is as far as he could go. That ship also sailed in 2016.
From my Barcaloungesque fantasy politics league perch,I might take Booker as a late round sleeper. I don’t see what Gillibrand has to offer other than to get her name out there.
But it’s Harris’ race to lose going off. She ticks all the zeitgeist boxes and the DNC regulars are already lining up behind her. Not my ‘pure’ candidate, but I’d vote for her yesterday.
Kasich (which autocorrect insists on changing to ‘masochist’) will surely primary Rump.
Man, I just don’t get the Bernie hate. Megalomaniac, no tax returns, a campaign rife with misogynistic louses… even the Burlington Press hates him. And yet, the D platform has adopted a lot of his positions. And that’s a good thing(?!) The wildly popular and ascendant AOC worked for the campaign. And yet he’s an irrelevant voice, somehow.
I can’t wrap my head around that. Then again, I dunno how Kerry ended up looking less-military than W.
But I agree that the ship has probably sailed. It’s worth noting that he refused to run 3rd party so as to not split the vote in 2016, & there was a fair measure of push there. I can’t imagine he would do so now.
Biden has the recognition, early, but a continuation bet on Obama is as far as he could go. That ship also sailed in 2016.
From my Barcaloungesque fantasy politics league perch,I might take Booker as a late round sleeper. I don’t see what Gillibrand has to offer other than to get her name out there.
But it’s Harris’ race to lose going off. She ticks all the zeitgeist boxes and the DNC regulars are already lining up behind her. Not my ‘pure’ candidate, but I’d vote for her yesterday.
Kasich (which autocorrect insists on changing to ‘masochist’) will surely primary Rump.
I dunno how Kerry ended up looking less-military than W.
Lies and damn lies. Quite simple, really.
Don’t know if it’s relevant, but one of the Swift Boat organizers was . . . Stone’s buddy Jerome Corsi. Hmmm…. Interesting how the same players seem to keep surfacing.
I dunno how Kerry ended up looking less-military than W.
Lies and damn lies. Quite simple, really.
Don’t know if it’s relevant, but one of the Swift Boat organizers was . . . Stone’s buddy Jerome Corsi. Hmmm…. Interesting how the same players seem to keep surfacing.
Autocorrect may be on to something.
Anybody who thinks the Republican primary electorate is anything but a He, Trump fan club deserves all the pain that’s coming to him.
–TP
Autocorrect may be on to something.
Anybody who thinks the Republican primary electorate is anything but a He, Trump fan club deserves all the pain that’s coming to him.
–TP
@TP
Agreed. But Kasich isn’t going to find a better opening. Also, fnck that Starbucks guy and anyone so inclined.
@TP
Agreed. But Kasich isn’t going to find a better opening. Also, fnck that Starbucks guy and anyone so inclined.
From one of Schultz’s minions, quoted in a piece that’s the top headline on nbcnews.com at the moment:
“I’m old enough to remember when people said that President Obama couldn’t win, that President Trump couldn’t win,” Burton said.
So…..you’re nineteen?
These people don’t even know what words are coming out of their mouths. I haven’t yet succeeded in entirely banning the words of pundits from my life, but I’m getting closer. I gave up TV years ago, surely I can give up most of the internet next.
Here’s another gem from earlier today, the very first sentence of another piece on Schultz (I’ve lost track of the link):
“The announcement that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is considering an independent bid for the White House begs the question of in what reality Howard Schultz resides.”
From one of Schultz’s minions, quoted in a piece that’s the top headline on nbcnews.com at the moment:
“I’m old enough to remember when people said that President Obama couldn’t win, that President Trump couldn’t win,” Burton said.
So…..you’re nineteen?
These people don’t even know what words are coming out of their mouths. I haven’t yet succeeded in entirely banning the words of pundits from my life, but I’m getting closer. I gave up TV years ago, surely I can give up most of the internet next.
Here’s another gem from earlier today, the very first sentence of another piece on Schultz (I’ve lost track of the link):
“The announcement that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is considering an independent bid for the White House begs the question of in what reality Howard Schultz resides.”
Link to the second quote.
The author is the son of a famous bow tie-wearing father. Is there a straight line of inherited attitude between bow ties and an abhorrence for ending sentences with prepositions, no matter how much you have to mangle a sentence to accomplish that goal?
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., is buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. His stone is unassuming, but it has a bow tie carved on it. I stumbled across it one day when I was taking a walk in that beautiful tree garden. The bow tie was a nice touch.
Link to the second quote.
The author is the son of a famous bow tie-wearing father. Is there a straight line of inherited attitude between bow ties and an abhorrence for ending sentences with prepositions, no matter how much you have to mangle a sentence to accomplish that goal?
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., is buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. His stone is unassuming, but it has a bow tie carved on it. I stumbled across it one day when I was taking a walk in that beautiful tree garden. The bow tie was a nice touch.
Q: Are there no editors?
A: Yes, there are no editors.
Q: Are there no editors?
A: Yes, there are no editors.
I just don’t get the Bernie hate
Habitually slagging and refusing to help other members of the party you supposedly wish to lead is not a good look.
I just don’t get the Bernie hate
Habitually slagging and refusing to help other members of the party you supposedly wish to lead is not a good look.
It’s also a bit much to say you want to lead a party that you decline to join. Shows a certain lack of seriousness and commitment. (At least as seen from the outside.)
It’s also a bit much to say you want to lead a party that you decline to join. Shows a certain lack of seriousness and commitment. (At least as seen from the outside.)
Habitually slagging and refusing to help other members of the party you supposedly wish to lead is not a good look.
Habitually caucusing with the party. Moving it to the point where his own candidacy has become milquetoast because of his gender and age?
Is there no policy debate that won’t be considered “slagging”? Let’s just go with the DNC choice. They always select a winner.
I concede that his window has likely closed. But if Bernie is a threat to the Democratic party, it’s in more trouble than I thought.
Habitually slagging and refusing to help other members of the party you supposedly wish to lead is not a good look.
Habitually caucusing with the party. Moving it to the point where his own candidacy has become milquetoast because of his gender and age?
Is there no policy debate that won’t be considered “slagging”? Let’s just go with the DNC choice. They always select a winner.
I concede that his window has likely closed. But if Bernie is a threat to the Democratic party, it’s in more trouble than I thought.
It’s also a bit much to say you want to lead a party that you decline to join.
I disagree, although I take the point. I kinda look at it as a “True Scotsman” thing, if you will.
It’s also a bit much to say you want to lead a party that you decline to join.
I disagree, although I take the point. I kinda look at it as a “True Scotsman” thing, if you will.
St Bernard isn’t a Democrat. he’s not all that great. he’s actually kindof a jerk.
we can do better.
Let’s just go with the DNC choice. They always select a winner.
THE DNC DOES NOT SELECT ANYONE. THEY HAVE NO POWER TO DO ANYTHING LIKE SELECTING ANYONE. they’re a cash distribution committee.
St Bernard isn’t a Democrat. he’s not all that great. he’s actually kindof a jerk.
we can do better.
Let’s just go with the DNC choice. They always select a winner.
THE DNC DOES NOT SELECT ANYONE. THEY HAVE NO POWER TO DO ANYTHING LIKE SELECTING ANYONE. they’re a cash distribution committee.
St Bernard isn’t a Democrat. he’s not all that great. he’s actually kindof a jerk.
Why not? Are we party over platform as well?
Where is St. Bernard so off the rails on the Democratic platform? Where do you rate Warren?
And I respectfully disagree about the DNC, superdelegates and whatnots. Howard Dean, for chrissakes, before the VT primary?
I’m not here to argue, and I gotta start stockpiling bandages & fortifying before sapient gets here.
St Bernard isn’t a Democrat. he’s not all that great. he’s actually kindof a jerk.
Why not? Are we party over platform as well?
Where is St. Bernard so off the rails on the Democratic platform? Where do you rate Warren?
And I respectfully disagree about the DNC, superdelegates and whatnots. Howard Dean, for chrissakes, before the VT primary?
I’m not here to argue, and I gotta start stockpiling bandages & fortifying before sapient gets here.
I’m not here to argue, and I gotta start stockpiling bandages & fortifying before sapient gets here.
Haha!
‘Night, y’all.
I’m not here to argue, and I gotta start stockpiling bandages & fortifying before sapient gets here.
Haha!
‘Night, y’all.
Sanders is temperamentally, a self-serving jerk.
platform-wise, there are other choices.
Sanders is temperamentally, a self-serving jerk.
platform-wise, there are other choices.
I’m kind of puzzled as to why Bernie was so reluctant to release his tax history, and why his supporters ignore that issue. Seems like a red flag to me.
For the record (and there is a record, although I’m lousy at searching it), I was very upbeat about both Bernie and Hillary in the early days of the campaign. It was only when Trump’s candidacy seemed to be more and more enabled by “disappointed” lefties [in many cases, Russian bots, as we now know] that my own anger set in. Fingers crossed that it all turns out better this time.
I’m kind of puzzled as to why Bernie was so reluctant to release his tax history, and why his supporters ignore that issue. Seems like a red flag to me.
For the record (and there is a record, although I’m lousy at searching it), I was very upbeat about both Bernie and Hillary in the early days of the campaign. It was only when Trump’s candidacy seemed to be more and more enabled by “disappointed” lefties [in many cases, Russian bots, as we now know] that my own anger set in. Fingers crossed that it all turns out better this time.
I could get with this guy, as Vice President to a female Democratic President, and after 50 lashes for voting for p in 2016.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/richard-ojeda-west-virginia-trump-country-congress/index.html
Like Doc Science, I would advise whomever the female President is to warn Vice President Ojeda not to mansplain the facts of life to her.
Other than that, the prospect of another election already makes me do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc
Aside from that, which list is shorter …. the list of Democrats running or the list of Democrats not running?
I could get with this guy, as Vice President to a female Democratic President, and after 50 lashes for voting for p in 2016.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/richard-ojeda-west-virginia-trump-country-congress/index.html
Like Doc Science, I would advise whomever the female President is to warn Vice President Ojeda not to mansplain the facts of life to her.
Other than that, the prospect of another election already makes me do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc
Aside from that, which list is shorter …. the list of Democrats running or the list of Democrats not running?
Now that I have girded my sensitive bits with towels and duct tape and armed myself with particularly nasty kitchen instruments (and banked a prudent amount of blood), I’m going in to get this off my chest…
Bernie:
Self-serving: Isn’t he one of the poorer members of the Senate? His march to power followed the traditional path – Vermont. IIRC, he refused to weigh in on his son’s political aspirations. Doesn’t strike me as a power-hungry guy. As for the tax returns, that bothered me as well. I dunno if that had anything to do with Jane’s legal issues at the time. But he always struck me as someone who’s more likely to have a 2-more-stamps-for-a-free-sandwich card in his wallet than a guy with a fortune squirreled away in the Caymans.
Tempermental: Sure. Curmudeonly. This is either a feature or a bug, depending on one’s POV. Unsurprisingly, I consider it to be a feature. I like the rumpled old guy who has bigger things on his mind than what his hair looks like or what label is on his suit. I like that when listening to an audio version of one of his speeches, one would be hard pressed to figure if it was 2016 or 1996.
YMMV.
Not a True Democrat™: Like Manchin, or Lieberman, or… Michael Bloomberg. I don’t know how one is supposed to differentiate one’s position without “damaging” or “sabotaging” one’s opponent. Do primary challenges harm or strengthen the eventual nominee? Practice/theory? Can one be on the same page as the Democratic party without wearing a Super-D on one’s chest? This argument seems flimsy to me.
I want to be clear that Hillary has been an advocate for health care reform for some time, but she also made her – perhaps realistic – assessment of single-payer in the 2016 run-up, and it wouldn’t pass the litmus test for 2020 candidates. So who is/was closer to Democratic Party values?
To be clearer furtherer, I don’t think a Sanders campaign catches fire for 2020. White, old, and male (in no particular order), aren’t motivating factors. I think “Our Revolution” can be a very influential force in the Democratic primary, but I expect that it will not coalesce until the field shakes out a bit more.
IMHO, the Democratic primary will have its share of picking nits, but the goal of ridding ourselves of Rump is first and foremost. I don’t see that getting lost in the fog, although a concerted Russian/Chinese/other effort will likely make that fog at least as dense as the guy writing this post.
In other news, I just watched Schultz on “Morning Joe”. This guy is an effin’ nightmare.
OK, I’ll stuff it now and for good on the matter. But be warned: I have a wooden spoon!
Now that I have girded my sensitive bits with towels and duct tape and armed myself with particularly nasty kitchen instruments (and banked a prudent amount of blood), I’m going in to get this off my chest…
Bernie:
Self-serving: Isn’t he one of the poorer members of the Senate? His march to power followed the traditional path – Vermont. IIRC, he refused to weigh in on his son’s political aspirations. Doesn’t strike me as a power-hungry guy. As for the tax returns, that bothered me as well. I dunno if that had anything to do with Jane’s legal issues at the time. But he always struck me as someone who’s more likely to have a 2-more-stamps-for-a-free-sandwich card in his wallet than a guy with a fortune squirreled away in the Caymans.
Tempermental: Sure. Curmudeonly. This is either a feature or a bug, depending on one’s POV. Unsurprisingly, I consider it to be a feature. I like the rumpled old guy who has bigger things on his mind than what his hair looks like or what label is on his suit. I like that when listening to an audio version of one of his speeches, one would be hard pressed to figure if it was 2016 or 1996.
YMMV.
Not a True Democrat™: Like Manchin, or Lieberman, or… Michael Bloomberg. I don’t know how one is supposed to differentiate one’s position without “damaging” or “sabotaging” one’s opponent. Do primary challenges harm or strengthen the eventual nominee? Practice/theory? Can one be on the same page as the Democratic party without wearing a Super-D on one’s chest? This argument seems flimsy to me.
I want to be clear that Hillary has been an advocate for health care reform for some time, but she also made her – perhaps realistic – assessment of single-payer in the 2016 run-up, and it wouldn’t pass the litmus test for 2020 candidates. So who is/was closer to Democratic Party values?
To be clearer furtherer, I don’t think a Sanders campaign catches fire for 2020. White, old, and male (in no particular order), aren’t motivating factors. I think “Our Revolution” can be a very influential force in the Democratic primary, but I expect that it will not coalesce until the field shakes out a bit more.
IMHO, the Democratic primary will have its share of picking nits, but the goal of ridding ourselves of Rump is first and foremost. I don’t see that getting lost in the fog, although a concerted Russian/Chinese/other effort will likely make that fog at least as dense as the guy writing this post.
In other news, I just watched Schultz on “Morning Joe”. This guy is an effin’ nightmare.
OK, I’ll stuff it now and for good on the matter. But be warned: I have a wooden spoon!
Self-serving: Isn’t he one of the poorer members of the Senate?
How would we know?
As for the tax returns, that bothered me as well. I dunno if that had anything to do with Jane’s legal issues at the time.
The time is also now. We can look back!
IMHO, the Democratic primary will have its share of picking nits, but the goal of ridding ourselves of Rump is first and foremost.
Agreed.
Self-serving: Isn’t he one of the poorer members of the Senate?
How would we know?
As for the tax returns, that bothered me as well. I dunno if that had anything to do with Jane’s legal issues at the time.
The time is also now. We can look back!
IMHO, the Democratic primary will have its share of picking nits, but the goal of ridding ourselves of Rump is first and foremost.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I’ll take it. This duct tape is very binding. 🙂
Agreed.
I’ll take it. This duct tape is very binding. 🙂
Not a True Democrat™: Like Manchin, or Lieberman, or… Michael Bloomberg.
I imagine this isn’t a very persuasive framing, at least not here. Not too many people would rank those people very high on their list of “True Democrats” either, even if for different reasons.
Full, official (or however you want to put it) party membership might not be sufficient to qualify as a “True Democrat,”, but it can still be necessary.
Poor combinations of party allegiance and policy positions can come in three flavors: one, the other, or both.
Not a True Democrat™: Like Manchin, or Lieberman, or… Michael Bloomberg.
I imagine this isn’t a very persuasive framing, at least not here. Not too many people would rank those people very high on their list of “True Democrats” either, even if for different reasons.
Full, official (or however you want to put it) party membership might not be sufficient to qualify as a “True Democrat,”, but it can still be necessary.
Poor combinations of party allegiance and policy positions can come in three flavors: one, the other, or both.
re Schultz
NPR had a little segment this AM on the healthcare proposals from three female Senator Dems (Harris, Gillibrand, Warren) differed from the proposals of the two male billionaires (Schultz, Bloomberg).
of course neither of those men have announced, and one has said he’s not even going to be running as a Democrat.
but NPR had to get them in there.
so… i think “billionaire independents” are likely to be the media’s shiny new object to chase around for a while.
Sanders – thanks for your service. you contributed a lot of new ideas and energy. mission accomplished.
re Schultz
NPR had a little segment this AM on the healthcare proposals from three female Senator Dems (Harris, Gillibrand, Warren) differed from the proposals of the two male billionaires (Schultz, Bloomberg).
of course neither of those men have announced, and one has said he’s not even going to be running as a Democrat.
but NPR had to get them in there.
so… i think “billionaire independents” are likely to be the media’s shiny new object to chase around for a while.
Sanders – thanks for your service. you contributed a lot of new ideas and energy. mission accomplished.
IMO, Sanders’ self-centeredness is evident in how he uses the Democratic Party to:
1. clear the field of any Democratic challengers in VT elections. he runs in primaries as a Dem, wins, then runs in the general on the Special Bernie ticket.
2. give him committee assignments while doing nothing to support the Party that gives him those assignments.
3. give him a national platform to run for President, while pissing on the party that gives him that platform.
he’s a parasite.
IMO, Sanders’ self-centeredness is evident in how he uses the Democratic Party to:
1. clear the field of any Democratic challengers in VT elections. he runs in primaries as a Dem, wins, then runs in the general on the Special Bernie ticket.
2. give him committee assignments while doing nothing to support the Party that gives him those assignments.
3. give him a national platform to run for President, while pissing on the party that gives him that platform.
he’s a parasite.
1. clear the field of any Democratic challengers in VT elections. he runs in primaries as a Dem, wins, then runs in the general on the Special Bernie ticket.
I didn’t know he did that; it makes me like him even less. I have this dim notion that it wouldn’t even be allowed in some states, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
Well, there’s Texas, the first Google result that pops up:
Independent Candidates
You may have your name placed on the general election ballot as an independent candidate if you are not affiliated with a political party. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 1.005(9). If you vote in a party’s primary elections or participate in a party’s conventions, you thereby affiliate with the party. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 142.008, 162.003, 162.007.
That doesn’t explicitly say “if you win a party’s primary” — but it’s clearly designed to prevent the kind of the cleek describes. I suspect it’s aimed more at stopping someone from *losing* a primary and then running as an independent; I’m bemused (and appalled) that Bernie does it to win and then not run under the party label. What a jerk.
1. clear the field of any Democratic challengers in VT elections. he runs in primaries as a Dem, wins, then runs in the general on the Special Bernie ticket.
I didn’t know he did that; it makes me like him even less. I have this dim notion that it wouldn’t even be allowed in some states, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
Well, there’s Texas, the first Google result that pops up:
Independent Candidates
You may have your name placed on the general election ballot as an independent candidate if you are not affiliated with a political party. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 1.005(9). If you vote in a party’s primary elections or participate in a party’s conventions, you thereby affiliate with the party. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 142.008, 162.003, 162.007.
That doesn’t explicitly say “if you win a party’s primary” — but it’s clearly designed to prevent the kind of the cleek describes. I suspect it’s aimed more at stopping someone from *losing* a primary and then running as an independent; I’m bemused (and appalled) that Bernie does it to win and then not run under the party label. What a jerk.
I imagine this isn’t a very persuasive framing, at least not here.
Yeah, I was being a bit glib there. But I think it stands to point that a Michael Bloomberg can change his affiliation as it suits his potential pursuits, and he suddenly becomes a full-fledged big-D Democrat($$$). Maybe not to the commentariat here, but perhaps sufficient to a broader public. Why else would it matter?
My point about Sanders – and I’m really not trying to belabor the point – is simply that many of his platform planks have been adopted by Democratic politicians across the board. So the argument that he’s not a member of “The Party” is…?
Medicare for all. Living wage. Is that “Crazy Bernie” or the Democratic Party? Is it just a tin star?
I imagine this isn’t a very persuasive framing, at least not here.
Yeah, I was being a bit glib there. But I think it stands to point that a Michael Bloomberg can change his affiliation as it suits his potential pursuits, and he suddenly becomes a full-fledged big-D Democrat($$$). Maybe not to the commentariat here, but perhaps sufficient to a broader public. Why else would it matter?
My point about Sanders – and I’m really not trying to belabor the point – is simply that many of his platform planks have been adopted by Democratic politicians across the board. So the argument that he’s not a member of “The Party” is…?
Medicare for all. Living wage. Is that “Crazy Bernie” or the Democratic Party? Is it just a tin star?
True Democrat: Someone who, as a Senator, would certainly vote against McConnell for Majority Leader.
Not my personal definition, but then I’m not a Democrat. And it does seem an arguable definition.
True Democrat: Someone who, as a Senator, would certainly vote against McConnell for Majority Leader.
Not my personal definition, but then I’m not a Democrat. And it does seem an arguable definition.
But I think it stands to point that a Michael Bloomberg can change his affiliation as it suits his potential pursuits, and he suddenly becomes a full-fledged big-D Democrat($$$).
Hey, it worked for Trump to become a Republican. After years of being a Democrat. Just imagine an alternate history where he’d been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
But I think it stands to point that a Michael Bloomberg can change his affiliation as it suits his potential pursuits, and he suddenly becomes a full-fledged big-D Democrat($$$).
Hey, it worked for Trump to become a Republican. After years of being a Democrat. Just imagine an alternate history where he’d been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
So the argument that he’s not a member of “The Party” is…?
See cleek.
Medicare for all. Living wage. Is that “Crazy Bernie” or the Democratic Party?
With this, you seem to be disputing an argument no one here is making.
So the argument that he’s not a member of “The Party” is…?
See cleek.
Medicare for all. Living wage. Is that “Crazy Bernie” or the Democratic Party?
With this, you seem to be disputing an argument no one here is making.
so… i think “billionaire independents” are likely to be the media’s shiny new object to chase around for a while.
The talking heads need something to stir up the mix, and Schultz types are lush grazing grounds for the 24/7 round tables. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
IMO, Sanders’ self-centeredness is evident in how he uses the Democratic Party to:
My take is that Sanders thinks he’s where the Democratic Party should be, and he’s not joining until they move into his orbit. I hadn’t really thought of it as self-centeredness, given the difference in mass, but I can see that perspective. Fair play.
I will disagree about pissing on the party, tho. He threw his hat in the ring, within the practicalities of a 2-party system. He wasn’t a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you’re supposed to do it.
so… i think “billionaire independents” are likely to be the media’s shiny new object to chase around for a while.
The talking heads need something to stir up the mix, and Schultz types are lush grazing grounds for the 24/7 round tables. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
IMO, Sanders’ self-centeredness is evident in how he uses the Democratic Party to:
My take is that Sanders thinks he’s where the Democratic Party should be, and he’s not joining until they move into his orbit. I hadn’t really thought of it as self-centeredness, given the difference in mass, but I can see that perspective. Fair play.
I will disagree about pissing on the party, tho. He threw his hat in the ring, within the practicalities of a 2-party system. He wasn’t a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you’re supposed to do it.
Just imagine an alternate history where he’d been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
My alternate 2016 cup overfloweth. 🙂
Just imagine an alternate history where he’d been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
My alternate 2016 cup overfloweth. 🙂
Just imagine an alternate history where he’d been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
that’s followed by a 2017 where i cease to be a Democrat.
Just imagine an alternate history where he’d been the Democratic nominee in 2016.
that’s followed by a 2017 where i cease to be a Democrat.
It’s always chancey to assume that two points determine a trend. But this made interesting reading nonetheless.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/1089935222672707584
(OK, it’s not the Presidential primary. But it is 2020.)
It’s always chancey to assume that two points determine a trend. But this made interesting reading nonetheless.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/1089935222672707584
(OK, it’s not the Presidential primary. But it is 2020.)
With this, you seem to be disputing an argument no one here is making.
I think you’re right, and I’m getting lost in my own Democratic Party/democratic principles (as I see them) confusion.
With this, you seem to be disputing an argument no one here is making.
I think you’re right, and I’m getting lost in my own Democratic Party/democratic principles (as I see them) confusion.
I’m bemused (and appalled) that Bernie does it to win and then not run under the party label. What a jerk.
~91% of the vote.
“He said the party expected Sanders to decline the nomination but would nevertheless “fully and enthusiastically endorse” him at its September state committee meeting.”
Where’s the rub?
I’m bemused (and appalled) that Bernie does it to win and then not run under the party label. What a jerk.
~91% of the vote.
“He said the party expected Sanders to decline the nomination but would nevertheless “fully and enthusiastically endorse” him at its September state committee meeting.”
Where’s the rub?
he uses the Party’s infrastructure, resources and legitimacy for his own purposes when it’s convenient for him. otherwise, he pretends he’s too good for it.
he uses the Party’s infrastructure, resources and legitimacy for his own purposes when it’s convenient for him. otherwise, he pretends he’s too good for it.
My take is that Sanders thinks he’s where the Democratic Party should be, and he’s not joining until they move into his orbit…He wasn’t a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you’re supposed to do it.
Well, one other way to do it would be to do it from within the party. What makes you think change can’t come from within? For that matter, Bernie may have been the visible voluble face of the change, but the party wouldn’t have moved if it wasn’t ready. Elizabeth Warren anyone?
Where’s the rub?
There’s nothing useful to be gained by being petulant about it, so they aren’t. I have more leeway. 😉
My take is that Sanders thinks he’s where the Democratic Party should be, and he’s not joining until they move into his orbit…He wasn’t a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you’re supposed to do it.
Well, one other way to do it would be to do it from within the party. What makes you think change can’t come from within? For that matter, Bernie may have been the visible voluble face of the change, but the party wouldn’t have moved if it wasn’t ready. Elizabeth Warren anyone?
Where’s the rub?
There’s nothing useful to be gained by being petulant about it, so they aren’t. I have more leeway. 😉
I will disagree about pissing on the party, tho. He threw his hat in the ring, within the practicalities of a 2-party system. He wasn’t a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you’re supposed to do it.
The party was at a fairly progressive place before Bernie’s participation. The country, however, is at a much less progressive, and more authoritarian, place now – thanks in part to Bernie’s participation, and his dragging the Democratic party.
That’s the problem. If you want to see how a progressive Democrat can work within the party, see Nancy Pelosi. She’s been vilified for various incomprehensible reasons (some of us have some theories), but basically, she has used her power to create real change. Of course, it wasn’t single payer health care, so for some it was a bust. The stimulus package that rescued America from the financial crisis wasn’t big enough; so for some it was a bust. Ethical government wasn’t good enough – Obama had to eschew vacations. Clinton’s transparency proved that she was wealthy, and had made some money on the speakers’ circuit, and that her foundation had sought donations from wealthy in order to relieve the AIDS crisis in Africa. So she was a sellout. But Bernie didn’t tell us about his finances, so somehow people thought he walked the walk as a true socialist.
It’s all just rather annoying. Probably not a good idea to get angry all over again. I don’t think he’s going to get the nomination, but I hope his people can refrain from getting in the way of the candidate who prevails.
I will disagree about pissing on the party, tho. He threw his hat in the ring, within the practicalities of a 2-party system. He wasn’t a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you’re supposed to do it.
The party was at a fairly progressive place before Bernie’s participation. The country, however, is at a much less progressive, and more authoritarian, place now – thanks in part to Bernie’s participation, and his dragging the Democratic party.
That’s the problem. If you want to see how a progressive Democrat can work within the party, see Nancy Pelosi. She’s been vilified for various incomprehensible reasons (some of us have some theories), but basically, she has used her power to create real change. Of course, it wasn’t single payer health care, so for some it was a bust. The stimulus package that rescued America from the financial crisis wasn’t big enough; so for some it was a bust. Ethical government wasn’t good enough – Obama had to eschew vacations. Clinton’s transparency proved that she was wealthy, and had made some money on the speakers’ circuit, and that her foundation had sought donations from wealthy in order to relieve the AIDS crisis in Africa. So she was a sellout. But Bernie didn’t tell us about his finances, so somehow people thought he walked the walk as a true socialist.
It’s all just rather annoying. Probably not a good idea to get angry all over again. I don’t think he’s going to get the nomination, but I hope his people can refrain from getting in the way of the candidate who prevails.
I hope his people can refrain from getting in the way of the candidate who prevails.
I’m not optimistic, and if it isn’t them it’ll be Schultz’s minions, or Bloomberg’s, or whoever. Not saying it’s hopeless, just saying it’s a feature of the landscape that has to be dealt with as best we can. (“We” broadly speaking.)
I live in a state that lived through eight years of the clown show put on by the governor who styled himself as “Trump before there was Trump” — elected in part because of one guy with a huge ego running for office, not once but twice, and siphoning votes away from the Ds. We got ranked choice voting as the aftermath of those fiascos, but it still doesn’t apply to in-state offices. At least we got Jared Golden into Congress with RCV.
I hope his people can refrain from getting in the way of the candidate who prevails.
I’m not optimistic, and if it isn’t them it’ll be Schultz’s minions, or Bloomberg’s, or whoever. Not saying it’s hopeless, just saying it’s a feature of the landscape that has to be dealt with as best we can. (“We” broadly speaking.)
I live in a state that lived through eight years of the clown show put on by the governor who styled himself as “Trump before there was Trump” — elected in part because of one guy with a huge ego running for office, not once but twice, and siphoning votes away from the Ds. We got ranked choice voting as the aftermath of those fiascos, but it still doesn’t apply to in-state offices. At least we got Jared Golden into Congress with RCV.
I’m not optimistic, and if it isn’t them it’ll be Schultz’s minions, or Bloomberg’s, or whoever. Not saying it’s hopeless, just saying it’s a feature of the landscape that has to be dealt with as best we can. (“We” broadly speaking.)
I agree. There could be a lot of interesting and spirited conversations about political values and specific policies, but first we have to have a government that isn’t working for a conspiracy of right-wing international mobsters. Baby steps.
I’m not optimistic, and if it isn’t them it’ll be Schultz’s minions, or Bloomberg’s, or whoever. Not saying it’s hopeless, just saying it’s a feature of the landscape that has to be dealt with as best we can. (“We” broadly speaking.)
I agree. There could be a lot of interesting and spirited conversations about political values and specific policies, but first we have to have a government that isn’t working for a conspiracy of right-wing international mobsters. Baby steps.
Here’s a question for the group: Would it be better or worse for the Dem nominee if Trump gets challenged in a GOP primary, considering both the possibility that he wins and the possibility that he loses?
Here’s a question for the group: Would it be better or worse for the Dem nominee if Trump gets challenged in a GOP primary, considering both the possibility that he wins and the possibility that he loses?
Too many variables, hsh. How many non-D, non-R candidates are there? Which ones and how formidable are they? Who’s the R nominee if not Clickbait? How much cheating is there? (Hacking of voting machines; voter suppression; Russian interference again, or Chinese, for that matter.)
The earth will still be spinning tomorrow. That’s about all I’m willing to predict.
What’s *your* answer to your own question?
Too many variables, hsh. How many non-D, non-R candidates are there? Which ones and how formidable are they? Who’s the R nominee if not Clickbait? How much cheating is there? (Hacking of voting machines; voter suppression; Russian interference again, or Chinese, for that matter.)
The earth will still be spinning tomorrow. That’s about all I’m willing to predict.
What’s *your* answer to your own question?
Bernie Sanders should challenge p in the Republican primary.
Bernie Sanders should challenge p in the Republican primary.
Would it be better or worse for the Dem nominee if Trump gets challenged in a GOP primary, considering both the possibility that he wins and the possibility that he loses?
On balance, better. Because the Trump cultists are so fanatical that they will refuse to support anyone who challenges him and wins. And even if the challenger loses, there are going to be a lot of bad feelings dividing the GOP.
As a Republican myself, I really really hope someone challenges him and wins. Not because I expect that someone else would win the general election, but because it would be a first step in my party purging itself of the toxins that currently infest it.
Would it be better or worse for the Dem nominee if Trump gets challenged in a GOP primary, considering both the possibility that he wins and the possibility that he loses?
On balance, better. Because the Trump cultists are so fanatical that they will refuse to support anyone who challenges him and wins. And even if the challenger loses, there are going to be a lot of bad feelings dividing the GOP.
As a Republican myself, I really really hope someone challenges him and wins. Not because I expect that someone else would win the general election, but because it would be a first step in my party purging itself of the toxins that currently infest it.
What’s *your* answer to your own question?
I don’t have one, so I’m blegging. (So far, wj has the best answer.) ;^)
What’s *your* answer to your own question?
I don’t have one, so I’m blegging. (So far, wj has the best answer.) ;^)
I’m going in to get this off my chest…
Not going to engage.
I have taken a holy vow to NOT RELITIGATE THE 2016 PRIMARY in the runup to 2018.
Such arguments divide us, over a past that cannot be changed, about which we will never agree, at a time when the fate of our nation depends on us all standing together.
I’m going in to get this off my chest…
Not going to engage.
I have taken a holy vow to NOT RELITIGATE THE 2016 PRIMARY in the runup to 2018.
Such arguments divide us, over a past that cannot be changed, about which we will never agree, at a time when the fate of our nation depends on us all standing together.
Oh, please. Stop already. Tulsi has it wrapped up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, please. Stop already. Tulsi has it wrapped up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Too many variables, hsh. How many non-D, non-R candidates are there?
well, Schultz says he isn’t a Democrat and that the Democratic Party has moved “so far left” , and he is very worried about ‘socialism’.
so… i guess… one?
Too many variables, hsh. How many non-D, non-R candidates are there?
well, Schultz says he isn’t a Democrat and that the Democratic Party has moved “so far left” , and he is very worried about ‘socialism’.
so… i guess… one?
at a time when the fate of our nation depends on us all standing together.
That’s been the case for awhile. No coddling the traitors this time.
at a time when the fate of our nation depends on us all standing together.
That’s been the case for awhile. No coddling the traitors this time.
Schultz says he isn’t a Democrat and that the Democratic Party has moved “so far left” , and he is very worried about ‘socialism’.
Clearly billionaires live in a different universe than the rest of us.
Has the Democratic Party moved left? Yes — especially compared to the 1990s.
Does it show any significant prospect of “socialism”? No. Even those Democrats who claim to be something like socialists are, almost universally, merely demonstrating that they don’t know what the word means.
I could see us moving to something as far left as say Sweden. Last I looked, companies like Volvo and Ericsson were in the global 500 largest. Not bad for what is, objectively, a small country. And I expect most of us have heard of Electrolux, IKEA, Spotify.
In short, it doesn’t seem like much of an abandonment of capitalism. An abandonment (except that it’s more of a never-was) of libertarianism? Yeah, that.
Schultz says he isn’t a Democrat and that the Democratic Party has moved “so far left” , and he is very worried about ‘socialism’.
Clearly billionaires live in a different universe than the rest of us.
Has the Democratic Party moved left? Yes — especially compared to the 1990s.
Does it show any significant prospect of “socialism”? No. Even those Democrats who claim to be something like socialists are, almost universally, merely demonstrating that they don’t know what the word means.
I could see us moving to something as far left as say Sweden. Last I looked, companies like Volvo and Ericsson were in the global 500 largest. Not bad for what is, objectively, a small country. And I expect most of us have heard of Electrolux, IKEA, Spotify.
In short, it doesn’t seem like much of an abandonment of capitalism. An abandonment (except that it’s more of a never-was) of libertarianism? Yeah, that.
wj, the point isn’t whether we’re likely to go anywhere near real “socialism” — the point is what you can get people to believe about those evil Democrats and their evil wish list of not having people end up as student debt slaves for their entire lives, people not losing their homes when they get sick, and on and on. Heaven and billionaires forbid.
I read that Schultz is flabbergasted that people (read: Elizabeth Warren) don’t think becoming a billionaire is “the American dream.” If that’s the American dream, you can have it. Because it leaves totally out of account what it costs the rest of us, and our society, to have the wealth gap that we currently have. It’s certainly not *my* dream for America.
wj, the point isn’t whether we’re likely to go anywhere near real “socialism” — the point is what you can get people to believe about those evil Democrats and their evil wish list of not having people end up as student debt slaves for their entire lives, people not losing their homes when they get sick, and on and on. Heaven and billionaires forbid.
I read that Schultz is flabbergasted that people (read: Elizabeth Warren) don’t think becoming a billionaire is “the American dream.” If that’s the American dream, you can have it. Because it leaves totally out of account what it costs the rest of us, and our society, to have the wealth gap that we currently have. It’s certainly not *my* dream for America.
The American electorate has a habit of re-electing incumbent presidents. Habits are hard to break. Let’s keep that in mind while handicapping 2020.
Dumping He, Trump will take serious effort. The conventional wisdom, which I hear from Democratic politicians as well as the punditocracy, is that Democrats need to “stand for something” or “offer a positive vision” and not just oppose Putin’s Little Bitch. That worries me.
Don’t get me wrong. Of course I want to see Democrats championing good policy proposals. Good policy proposals are good in and of themselves; under favorable circumstances they can even lead to good policy. But opinions vary on what “good” means. Ask Marty next time he drops by.
What “bad” means may be easier to agree on. Treason, corruption, viciousness, incompetence, petulance — most people would agree those are bad things. Not-good “branding”. Pointing out that He, Trump wallows in all of them is a job we Democrats will have to do alone and unaided by a Broderist media.
“I want to make your life better” is a fine message. “You’re getting ripped off and I want to put a stop to it” may be less noble, less idealistic, less polite — but (I claim) more likely to resonate with the wishy-washy swing-voting part of the electorate. It’s also not remotely incompatible with good policy proposals.
To break a habit, you have to get disgusted with it first.
–TP
The American electorate has a habit of re-electing incumbent presidents. Habits are hard to break. Let’s keep that in mind while handicapping 2020.
Dumping He, Trump will take serious effort. The conventional wisdom, which I hear from Democratic politicians as well as the punditocracy, is that Democrats need to “stand for something” or “offer a positive vision” and not just oppose Putin’s Little Bitch. That worries me.
Don’t get me wrong. Of course I want to see Democrats championing good policy proposals. Good policy proposals are good in and of themselves; under favorable circumstances they can even lead to good policy. But opinions vary on what “good” means. Ask Marty next time he drops by.
What “bad” means may be easier to agree on. Treason, corruption, viciousness, incompetence, petulance — most people would agree those are bad things. Not-good “branding”. Pointing out that He, Trump wallows in all of them is a job we Democrats will have to do alone and unaided by a Broderist media.
“I want to make your life better” is a fine message. “You’re getting ripped off and I want to put a stop to it” may be less noble, less idealistic, less polite — but (I claim) more likely to resonate with the wishy-washy swing-voting part of the electorate. It’s also not remotely incompatible with good policy proposals.
To break a habit, you have to get disgusted with it first.
–TP
I’m starting to get a sense of what Marty must feel like. So I’m gonna take joel’s advice.
In other news, Steve Schmidt, whose Trump take-downs I occasionally find humorous, was just on MSNBC sounding a lot like he’s getting behind a Schultz run. Just when I thought he was brighter than that whole Palin fiasco.
Shultz. Schmidt.
I might have to abandon my German surname.
I’m starting to get a sense of what Marty must feel like. So I’m gonna take joel’s advice.
In other news, Steve Schmidt, whose Trump take-downs I occasionally find humorous, was just on MSNBC sounding a lot like he’s getting behind a Schultz run. Just when I thought he was brighter than that whole Palin fiasco.
Shultz. Schmidt.
I might have to abandon my German surname.
2 observations
1. One could do a D&D version of the Doc’s post. However, not me, cause…
2. One of the reasons I’m not going to argue about Bernie (though I will say that my opinion is close to what cleek and others have said) is that the whole process of arguing has one adopting a D&D like system that seems to unconsciously select precisely those qualities that tilt the playing field towards men. If I suggested that Harris gets ‘Comeliness’ points, I’d get pilloried, but a lot of the things that seem to be identified as Bernie’s good points (He’s grumpy, he’s angry, he’s not polished, he doesn’t take any shit) are qualities that would be flagged as minus points for any female candidate. That really gives me pause for taking up any argument for Bernie cause I am not confident that I’m actually expressing an important point or simply responding to unconscious biases.
2 observations
1. One could do a D&D version of the Doc’s post. However, not me, cause…
2. One of the reasons I’m not going to argue about Bernie (though I will say that my opinion is close to what cleek and others have said) is that the whole process of arguing has one adopting a D&D like system that seems to unconsciously select precisely those qualities that tilt the playing field towards men. If I suggested that Harris gets ‘Comeliness’ points, I’d get pilloried, but a lot of the things that seem to be identified as Bernie’s good points (He’s grumpy, he’s angry, he’s not polished, he doesn’t take any shit) are qualities that would be flagged as minus points for any female candidate. That really gives me pause for taking up any argument for Bernie cause I am not confident that I’m actually expressing an important point or simply responding to unconscious biases.
I read that Schultz is flabbergasted that people (read: Elizabeth Warren) don’t think becoming a billionaire is “the American dream.”
Clearly Schultz has never encountered (or, at least, never absorbed) the concept of “enough.”™
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2018/05/enough.html
I read that Schultz is flabbergasted that people (read: Elizabeth Warren) don’t think becoming a billionaire is “the American dream.”
Clearly Schultz has never encountered (or, at least, never absorbed) the concept of “enough.”™
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2018/05/enough.html
In other news, Steve Schmidt, whose Trump take-downs I occasionally find humorous, was just on MSNBC sounding a lot like he’s getting behind a Schultz run.
Actually, Schultz put him on the payroll.
In other news, Steve Schmidt, whose Trump take-downs I occasionally find humorous, was just on MSNBC sounding a lot like he’s getting behind a Schultz run.
Actually, Schultz put him on the payroll.
wj, the point isn’t whether we’re likely to go anywhere near real “socialism”
Tsk. Tsk. On my very isolated planet, that is precisely the point.
wj, the point isn’t whether we’re likely to go anywhere near real “socialism”
Tsk. Tsk. On my very isolated planet, that is precisely the point.
That really gives me pause for taking up any argument for Bernie cause I am not confident that I’m actually expressing an important point or simply responding to unconscious biases.
Crikey, talk about woke. Impressive (albeit in the case of lj not unprecedented) level of sensitivity and fine analytical discrimination.
That really gives me pause for taking up any argument for Bernie cause I am not confident that I’m actually expressing an important point or simply responding to unconscious biases.
Crikey, talk about woke. Impressive (albeit in the case of lj not unprecedented) level of sensitivity and fine analytical discrimination.
Me: wj, the point isn’t whether we’re likely to go anywhere near real “socialism”
bobbyp: Tsk. Tsk. On my very isolated planet, that is precisely the point.
I was talking about “the point” of Schultz’s verbiage, which is to convince people that the merest baby steps in the vague direction of socialism would create a hell on earth, precisely to ensure that we never get anywhere near the real thing. Point your Tsks at Schultz, not me.
Me: wj, the point isn’t whether we’re likely to go anywhere near real “socialism”
bobbyp: Tsk. Tsk. On my very isolated planet, that is precisely the point.
I was talking about “the point” of Schultz’s verbiage, which is to convince people that the merest baby steps in the vague direction of socialism would create a hell on earth, precisely to ensure that we never get anywhere near the real thing. Point your Tsks at Schultz, not me.
Point your Tsks at Schultz, not me.
LOL…that’s where they were pointed.
Point your Tsks at Schultz, not me.
LOL…that’s where they were pointed.
See this
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-is-howard-schultz-getting-so-much-2020-attention/
for some arguments on why/how a Schultz candidacy might actually hurt Trump more than the Democrats.
No idea how likely the various possibilities are. (And from what I’ve seen so far, Schultz doesn’t sound like my kind of guy.) But it might not be necessary to go into total meltdown despair if Schultz does get on the ballot.
See this
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-is-howard-schultz-getting-so-much-2020-attention/
for some arguments on why/how a Schultz candidacy might actually hurt Trump more than the Democrats.
No idea how likely the various possibilities are. (And from what I’ve seen so far, Schultz doesn’t sound like my kind of guy.) But it might not be necessary to go into total meltdown despair if Schultz does get on the ballot.
“The Russians would be fools not to make a big push to have Sanders run third-party–and they are not fools.”
So give Sanders something big that he wants. Give him a splashy place in the platform committee if he is way behind. Give him a big speech and a big commitment to something he wants.
“The Russians would be fools not to make a big push to have Sanders run third-party–and they are not fools.”
So give Sanders something big that he wants. Give him a splashy place in the platform committee if he is way behind. Give him a big speech and a big commitment to something he wants.
I’ve never gotten a good fix on what Sanders ‘wants’. Any one with any insight on that?
I’ve never gotten a good fix on what Sanders ‘wants’. Any one with any insight on that?
Power ?
Power ?
“Sicario” was a pretty entertaining movie:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-inquiry-finds-no-evidence-for-trumps-duct-tape-and-prayer-rug-claims
As was the “Left Behind” series.
The mash-up one wherein Sheriff Liberty Valance jailed Jimmy Stewart, shot John Wayne in the back of the head, and named John Galt Secretary of The Treasury charged with filling Dagny Taggert’s bank accounts held in joint name with the mysterious Stanley G. Putin in the Barbados and St. Petersburg.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/divine-intervention-sanders-says-god-wanted-trump-president
I miss movies like “Fail Safe” and “Dr. Strangelove” with their frissons of conservative nutcake reality. I’m beginning to sense a cinematic surge in my precious bodily fluids.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-and-us-fail-to-break-deadlock-in-last-ditch-nuclear-treaty-talks
What makes us think there will be a 2020 Presidential election?
Why is p’s schedule cleared? For what eventuality?
https://twitter.com/Cirincione/status/1090595190421835781?
The Republican subhuman Congress has given the green light for p to declare a national emergency.
I can’t wait to read the small print in Cyrillic.
This will the first of many such declarations over the next 22 months.
Like Juan Guaido of Venezuela, I name myself de facto President of the United States.
Marty will sense very deep changes occurring across the governance and administration of this country.
The conservative bowel movement will not be pleased that a declaration of national emergency will carry over in my administration, the movie sequel if you will, until the cleaning is done and only 36 states remain in the Union, with Hazmat suits required for mop up crews to gain entry thru the walls to the other 14 still-smoking territories.
The NRA and hanging judge Brett Kavanaugh will unwittingly help and we should say thank you to them:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-s-extreme-beliefs-gun-control-ignore-concerns-most-ncna906296
A suit filed with the Supreme Court on the day rapey boy was confirmed:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/04/will-the-supreme-court-use-a-new-york-city-regulation-to-strike-down-gun-laws
New York City, particularly the Mayor and Madame Ocasio Cortez should (unless they choose to ignore the Supreme Court, which is my first choice; fuck any law made up by conservative jurisprudence; force the federal gummint to send in troops) embrace this new regime of conservative terror and begin a city-funded program of arming every individual and family north of 120th Street and East of Morningside Park in North Manhatten with unlimited free military grade weaponry and ammo in case the forces of gentrification fuck with them for one more inch.
I’m fully in accord with text, history, and tradition. So are the female genital mutilators, polluters, and conservative reivers of every sort.
Fuck public safety, yours, not mine, of course.
Also appoint the newly armed with collecting taxes among everyone below 120th Avenue.
Should this new “law” become precedent across the Nation, further destroying states’ rights, at least Christine Blasey Ford will now have the legal means to carry and publicly transport her military-grade weaponry on the streets to deal with Brett Kavanaugh if she spots him doing some Trayvon Martin loitering in her neighborhood.
Are those Skittles, Brett, or are you just happy to see me?
Roll ’em. ACTION!
“Sicario” was a pretty entertaining movie:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-inquiry-finds-no-evidence-for-trumps-duct-tape-and-prayer-rug-claims
As was the “Left Behind” series.
The mash-up one wherein Sheriff Liberty Valance jailed Jimmy Stewart, shot John Wayne in the back of the head, and named John Galt Secretary of The Treasury charged with filling Dagny Taggert’s bank accounts held in joint name with the mysterious Stanley G. Putin in the Barbados and St. Petersburg.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/divine-intervention-sanders-says-god-wanted-trump-president
I miss movies like “Fail Safe” and “Dr. Strangelove” with their frissons of conservative nutcake reality. I’m beginning to sense a cinematic surge in my precious bodily fluids.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-and-us-fail-to-break-deadlock-in-last-ditch-nuclear-treaty-talks
What makes us think there will be a 2020 Presidential election?
Why is p’s schedule cleared? For what eventuality?
https://twitter.com/Cirincione/status/1090595190421835781?
The Republican subhuman Congress has given the green light for p to declare a national emergency.
I can’t wait to read the small print in Cyrillic.
This will the first of many such declarations over the next 22 months.
Like Juan Guaido of Venezuela, I name myself de facto President of the United States.
Marty will sense very deep changes occurring across the governance and administration of this country.
The conservative bowel movement will not be pleased that a declaration of national emergency will carry over in my administration, the movie sequel if you will, until the cleaning is done and only 36 states remain in the Union, with Hazmat suits required for mop up crews to gain entry thru the walls to the other 14 still-smoking territories.
The NRA and hanging judge Brett Kavanaugh will unwittingly help and we should say thank you to them:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-s-extreme-beliefs-gun-control-ignore-concerns-most-ncna906296
A suit filed with the Supreme Court on the day rapey boy was confirmed:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/04/will-the-supreme-court-use-a-new-york-city-regulation-to-strike-down-gun-laws
New York City, particularly the Mayor and Madame Ocasio Cortez should (unless they choose to ignore the Supreme Court, which is my first choice; fuck any law made up by conservative jurisprudence; force the federal gummint to send in troops) embrace this new regime of conservative terror and begin a city-funded program of arming every individual and family north of 120th Street and East of Morningside Park in North Manhatten with unlimited free military grade weaponry and ammo in case the forces of gentrification fuck with them for one more inch.
I’m fully in accord with text, history, and tradition. So are the female genital mutilators, polluters, and conservative reivers of every sort.
Fuck public safety, yours, not mine, of course.
Also appoint the newly armed with collecting taxes among everyone below 120th Avenue.
Should this new “law” become precedent across the Nation, further destroying states’ rights, at least Christine Blasey Ford will now have the legal means to carry and publicly transport her military-grade weaponry on the streets to deal with Brett Kavanaugh if she spots him doing some Trayvon Martin loitering in her neighborhood.
Are those Skittles, Brett, or are you just happy to see me?
Roll ’em. ACTION!
what Sanders ‘wants’
As nearly as I can tell, it’s adulation.
He and his most fervent followers are co-dependent: they need someone notionally unstained to worship, and he enjoys the object of that worship.
what Sanders ‘wants’
As nearly as I can tell, it’s adulation.
He and his most fervent followers are co-dependent: they need someone notionally unstained to worship, and he enjoys the object of that worship.
As nearly as I can tell, it’s adulation.
IF true, that would appear to give Sanders the identical motivation as Trump. I’m not sure it is true, mind. But if….
As nearly as I can tell, it’s adulation.
IF true, that would appear to give Sanders the identical motivation as Trump. I’m not sure it is true, mind. But if….
IF true, that would appear to give Sanders the identical motivation as Trump.
Funny. I thought of Trump when reading lj’s description of Sanders:
(He’s grumpy, he’s angry, he’s not polished, he doesn’t take any shit)
IF true, that would appear to give Sanders the identical motivation as Trump.
Funny. I thought of Trump when reading lj’s description of Sanders:
(He’s grumpy, he’s angry, he’s not polished, he doesn’t take any shit)
I don’t like Sanders, and I’m worried about whatever damage he or his hard-code fans might do next, but I don’t think he’s anything like the equivalent of Clickbait. (Of course, no one did say quite exactly that.)
Sanders’s faults are pretty garden-variety. Clickbait is so far off the charts that I don’t think you can even talk about him in terms of “faults.” It’s hard to even think of a historical parallel to his fatal combination of qualities (if not to his effect on the world). (“Faults” isn’t even the right word. That makes it seem like they’re qualities intermixed with some good stuff.)
The very first thing that came to my mind when the Clickbait/Sanders comparison was mentioned above was that Clickbait is immeasurably, viciously cruel. I think he takes great pleasure in the pain of others, especially if he thinks he brought it about. I don’t get that vibe from Sanders at all.
Similarly — Clickbait wants to break the country. (Or maybe I’m getting him confused with Turtle.) I don’t think Sanders wants to do that. Clickbait actually wants to make the lives of ordinary people worse, especially if they’re brown, and I don’t think Sanders wants to do that, either. (To the contrary.)
The list could go on. But even where they have some faults in common, Clickbait is the blown-up extreme of all of them, and Sanders is … just the usual shit.
I don’t like Sanders, and I’m worried about whatever damage he or his hard-code fans might do next, but I don’t think he’s anything like the equivalent of Clickbait. (Of course, no one did say quite exactly that.)
Sanders’s faults are pretty garden-variety. Clickbait is so far off the charts that I don’t think you can even talk about him in terms of “faults.” It’s hard to even think of a historical parallel to his fatal combination of qualities (if not to his effect on the world). (“Faults” isn’t even the right word. That makes it seem like they’re qualities intermixed with some good stuff.)
The very first thing that came to my mind when the Clickbait/Sanders comparison was mentioned above was that Clickbait is immeasurably, viciously cruel. I think he takes great pleasure in the pain of others, especially if he thinks he brought it about. I don’t get that vibe from Sanders at all.
Similarly — Clickbait wants to break the country. (Or maybe I’m getting him confused with Turtle.) I don’t think Sanders wants to do that. Clickbait actually wants to make the lives of ordinary people worse, especially if they’re brown, and I don’t think Sanders wants to do that, either. (To the contrary.)
The list could go on. But even where they have some faults in common, Clickbait is the blown-up extreme of all of them, and Sanders is … just the usual shit.
Clickbait wants to break the country.
I think it’s more complicated than that. Because of his really astonishing narcissism, he thinks “the country” and he himself are the same thing. So he wants “the country” to change in ways that will benefit him, of course, and can’t encompass (by the use of imagination, or intellect, or, you know, knowledge) that that will damage anybody else. And to the extent that anybody might point out that it will (and I’m sure nobody is doing this anymore, if they ever were), he doesn’t give a shit, as opposed to it causing him actual pleasure. I think it does give him actual pleasure to cause suffering to people he perceives as enemies. As for whether he is actually capable of imagining anybody else having feelings, in the same way he has feelings, I have my doubts. And that might be where the psychopathy/sociopathy comes in.
Clickbait wants to break the country.
I think it’s more complicated than that. Because of his really astonishing narcissism, he thinks “the country” and he himself are the same thing. So he wants “the country” to change in ways that will benefit him, of course, and can’t encompass (by the use of imagination, or intellect, or, you know, knowledge) that that will damage anybody else. And to the extent that anybody might point out that it will (and I’m sure nobody is doing this anymore, if they ever were), he doesn’t give a shit, as opposed to it causing him actual pleasure. I think it does give him actual pleasure to cause suffering to people he perceives as enemies. As for whether he is actually capable of imagining anybody else having feelings, in the same way he has feelings, I have my doubts. And that might be where the psychopathy/sociopathy comes in.
Trump’s worshippers aren’t looking for unstained: clearly they delight in his low character and lack of morals.
I slipped, damnit. New rule: I am making no more statements about the junior Senator from Vermont, at all — until I slip again, of course. I am not Gautama.
Trump’s worshippers aren’t looking for unstained: clearly they delight in his low character and lack of morals.
I slipped, damnit. New rule: I am making no more statements about the junior Senator from Vermont, at all — until I slip again, of course. I am not Gautama.
In January of 2016 I wished for a Sanders vs Trump general election on the grounds that it would force the American electorate to pick a side for once.
With both parties running grumpy, angry, unpolished, no-shit-taking old white guys, the voters might have paid attention to policies instead of personalities, I thought. Foolish me.
I voted for Bernie in the MA primary, but it was a close call. Had the Bernie Bros bashed Hillary just a little more, I’d have switched my vote. But whether Bernie is motivated by ego or insecurity or even greed, a la He, Trump makes no difference to me. Egotistical, insecure, greedy old white guys can still champion sane policies — or, as we well know, not.
Bernie bashing is not my thing. TRUCK FUMP is my thing.
–TP
In January of 2016 I wished for a Sanders vs Trump general election on the grounds that it would force the American electorate to pick a side for once.
With both parties running grumpy, angry, unpolished, no-shit-taking old white guys, the voters might have paid attention to policies instead of personalities, I thought. Foolish me.
I voted for Bernie in the MA primary, but it was a close call. Had the Bernie Bros bashed Hillary just a little more, I’d have switched my vote. But whether Bernie is motivated by ego or insecurity or even greed, a la He, Trump makes no difference to me. Egotistical, insecure, greedy old white guys can still champion sane policies — or, as we well know, not.
Bernie bashing is not my thing. TRUCK FUMP is my thing.
–TP
TRUCK FUMP is my thing
And those he rode in on. Do not forget his cynical, nihilist, cheating, smirking enablers.
TRUCK FUMP is my thing
And those he rode in on. Do not forget his cynical, nihilist, cheating, smirking enablers.
Clickbait wants to break the country. (Or maybe I’m getting him confused with Turtle.)
Slightly different perspective from GftNC, I don’t think that “he thinks ‘the country’ and he himself are the same thing.”
I think that, with Trump, it isn’t that he wants to break the country as that he is supremely indifferent to whether he does so or not. If it were to occur to him to care, it would only because it might reduce the adulation from his fans. Which is what really matters to him.
Clickbait wants to break the country. (Or maybe I’m getting him confused with Turtle.)
Slightly different perspective from GftNC, I don’t think that “he thinks ‘the country’ and he himself are the same thing.”
I think that, with Trump, it isn’t that he wants to break the country as that he is supremely indifferent to whether he does so or not. If it were to occur to him to care, it would only because it might reduce the adulation from his fans. Which is what really matters to him.
Clickbait is so far off the charts that I don’t think you can even talk about him in terms of “faults.”
I tend to think of him as being a fundamentally incomplete person. He’s missing basic components of the human psyche. As one example, I sometimes don’t even know that I can consider him a racist in the same way that I would consider other people racists. I don’t think he’s capable of not being racist, so he’s not racist like others. He just is (by which I mean “is … period”).
It’s like trying to play baseball according to the usual rules, but without first base. It doesn’t work.
Clickbait is so far off the charts that I don’t think you can even talk about him in terms of “faults.”
I tend to think of him as being a fundamentally incomplete person. He’s missing basic components of the human psyche. As one example, I sometimes don’t even know that I can consider him a racist in the same way that I would consider other people racists. I don’t think he’s capable of not being racist, so he’s not racist like others. He just is (by which I mean “is … period”).
It’s like trying to play baseball according to the usual rules, but without first base. It doesn’t work.
Political theology 101:
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”
“…a sovereign dictator, acting in the interstices between two periods of positive constitutional order, must homogenize the community by appeal to a clear friend-enemy distinction, as well as through the suppression, elimination, or expulsion of internal enemies who do not endorse that distinction (CP 46–8). In so doing, the sovereign dictator expresses the community’s understanding of what is normal or exceptional and of who belongs, and he creates the homogeneous medium that Schmitt considers to be a precondition of the legitimate applicability of law. ”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
Trump isn’t, in the minds of his elect, destroying the country so much as he is expelling all of the enemies from the people. If you are harmed by him, then you are, de facto, the enemy.
Political theology 101:
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”
“…a sovereign dictator, acting in the interstices between two periods of positive constitutional order, must homogenize the community by appeal to a clear friend-enemy distinction, as well as through the suppression, elimination, or expulsion of internal enemies who do not endorse that distinction (CP 46–8). In so doing, the sovereign dictator expresses the community’s understanding of what is normal or exceptional and of who belongs, and he creates the homogeneous medium that Schmitt considers to be a precondition of the legitimate applicability of law. ”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
Trump isn’t, in the minds of his elect, destroying the country so much as he is expelling all of the enemies from the people. If you are harmed by him, then you are, de facto, the enemy.
He just is…
Sounds like what Goldberry’s says when the hobbits ask her who Tom Bombadil is.
Only, not.
He just is…
Sounds like what Goldberry’s says when the hobbits ask her who Tom Bombadil is.
Only, not.
Don Bombbast-ill
Don Bombbast-ill
“He and his most fervent followers are co-dependent: they need someone notionally unstained to worship, and he enjoys the object of that worship.”
You could with equal justice ( or lack thereof) say the same about AOC, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and it appears Kamala Harris is being groomed by some to be the next messiah figure. Personally I like AOC and Sanders ( they are virtually identical in their stances) , but have been exasperated with both at times and so have others who otherwise like them, for reasons I won’t go into. They all have in common cults of personality which developed or are developing around them because some people make their politics into a particularly idiotic kind of religious practice. Harrisolatry is in its early stages.
Of course for every god or goddess there are also blasphemers and heretics, with the acolytes of one being the blasphemers of some rival cult.
As for why Sanders is running, obviously the motivation is power. Usually people who run for President and think they have a chance ( rightly or wrongly), have some interest in acquiring power, as rumor has it that the position does involve having power in some way— a few thousand megatons worth, in fact. You have to be a megalomaniac to want that job.
“He and his most fervent followers are co-dependent: they need someone notionally unstained to worship, and he enjoys the object of that worship.”
You could with equal justice ( or lack thereof) say the same about AOC, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and it appears Kamala Harris is being groomed by some to be the next messiah figure. Personally I like AOC and Sanders ( they are virtually identical in their stances) , but have been exasperated with both at times and so have others who otherwise like them, for reasons I won’t go into. They all have in common cults of personality which developed or are developing around them because some people make their politics into a particularly idiotic kind of religious practice. Harrisolatry is in its early stages.
Of course for every god or goddess there are also blasphemers and heretics, with the acolytes of one being the blasphemers of some rival cult.
As for why Sanders is running, obviously the motivation is power. Usually people who run for President and think they have a chance ( rightly or wrongly), have some interest in acquiring power, as rumor has it that the position does involve having power in some way— a few thousand megatons worth, in fact. You have to be a megalomaniac to want that job.
I suspect that power is like money. Some people want lots of it just to have it. It somehow affirms their self-worth for them or something.
On the other hand, some people want power (or money) because they want to use it for something, to accomplish something. You can argue about the merits of what they want to use it for, but at least they have enough of a grip on reality to realize that money and/or power are tools — and of no intrinsic worth in and of themselves.
I suspect that power is like money. Some people want lots of it just to have it. It somehow affirms their self-worth for them or something.
On the other hand, some people want power (or money) because they want to use it for something, to accomplish something. You can argue about the merits of what they want to use it for, but at least they have enough of a grip on reality to realize that money and/or power are tools — and of no intrinsic worth in and of themselves.
Where are you seeing signs of Harrismania? I’ve seen people lining up behind Warren, O’Rourke, and Sanders as vicarious leaders. I’ve even seen a few midwesterners go for Klobuchar as their unicorn pick. Stacey Abrams gets a bit of that messianic zeal as well. But I’ve never heard anyone going for Harris with any particular missionary fervor. Mostly I just hear people thinking she has the right mix of qualities to stay in the race whatever direction things go while worrying about whether her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her. She seems like everyone’s consensus second pick so far.
Where are you seeing signs of Harrismania? I’ve seen people lining up behind Warren, O’Rourke, and Sanders as vicarious leaders. I’ve even seen a few midwesterners go for Klobuchar as their unicorn pick. Stacey Abrams gets a bit of that messianic zeal as well. But I’ve never heard anyone going for Harris with any particular missionary fervor. Mostly I just hear people thinking she has the right mix of qualities to stay in the race whatever direction things go while worrying about whether her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her. She seems like everyone’s consensus second pick so far.
Mostly I just hear people thinking she has the right mix of qualities to stay in the race whatever direction things go while worrying about whether her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her. She seems like everyone’s consensus second pick so far.
In other words, she’s “flawed.” Just the kind of candidate I supported last time around!
Mostly I just hear people thinking she has the right mix of qualities to stay in the race whatever direction things go while worrying about whether her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her. She seems like everyone’s consensus second pick so far.
In other words, she’s “flawed.” Just the kind of candidate I supported last time around!
But I’ve never heard anyone going for Harris with any particular missionary fervor.
With the California primary moved up, it might take missionary fervor to stop her.
But I’ve never heard anyone going for Harris with any particular missionary fervor.
With the California primary moved up, it might take missionary fervor to stop her.
Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mb3CoWwNyY
Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mb3CoWwNyY
The public image of politicians can change over time….
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-as-a-freshman-pelosi-was-a-political-insider/
While Pelosi had entree into the most selective backrooms of Democratic politics, her bid to become the head of the Democratic National Committee in 1985 was marked by a distinct whiff of sexism. The political director of the AFL-CIO called Pelosi an “airhead.” Pelosi eventually withdrew from the race, telling the committee, “It was clear to me many of you did not think the right message would go out if a woman was elected chairman of this party.”
Whatever people’s views of Pelosi, ‘airhead’ is not a characterisation heard these days.
Probably a bit late for Bernie to undergo any radical revision, though.
The public image of politicians can change over time….
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-as-a-freshman-pelosi-was-a-political-insider/
While Pelosi had entree into the most selective backrooms of Democratic politics, her bid to become the head of the Democratic National Committee in 1985 was marked by a distinct whiff of sexism. The political director of the AFL-CIO called Pelosi an “airhead.” Pelosi eventually withdrew from the race, telling the committee, “It was clear to me many of you did not think the right message would go out if a woman was elected chairman of this party.”
Whatever people’s views of Pelosi, ‘airhead’ is not a characterisation heard these days.
Probably a bit late for Bernie to undergo any radical revision, though.
“everyone’s consensus second pick” is arguably the ideal candidate to take on a president as divisive as Trump.
“everyone’s consensus second pick” is arguably the ideal candidate to take on a president as divisive as Trump.
worrying about whether her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her.
the Jacobin crowd will find a way to hate anyone that the majority approves of.
worrying about whether her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her.
the Jacobin crowd will find a way to hate anyone that the majority approves of.
Though 538 suggests that Booker might well be almost “everyone’s consensus second pick”:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-cory-booker-could-win-the-2020-democratic-nomination/
Though 538 suggests that Booker might well be almost “everyone’s consensus second pick”:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-cory-booker-could-win-the-2020-democratic-nomination/
strange that 538 wouldn’t know that CA has moved its primary to early March.
strange that 538 wouldn’t know that CA has moved its primary to early March.
With the California primary moved up, it might take missionary fervor to stop her.
And California voting will largely be by mail-in ballot, and will start in February. Votes are not delegates exactly, but it is likely that there will be far more primary votes cast in California in February than in the February Four combined. I’ve seen estimates that it will cost at least $5M to be competitive in California. Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia (combined population 47.6M) all also vote on March 3. Political candidates are not noted for being realistic, but anyone who doesn’t have money pouring in by mid-2019 is just not going to survive that stretch.
With the California primary moved up, it might take missionary fervor to stop her.
And California voting will largely be by mail-in ballot, and will start in February. Votes are not delegates exactly, but it is likely that there will be far more primary votes cast in California in February than in the February Four combined. I’ve seen estimates that it will cost at least $5M to be competitive in California. Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia (combined population 47.6M) all also vote on March 3. Political candidates are not noted for being realistic, but anyone who doesn’t have money pouring in by mid-2019 is just not going to survive that stretch.
“Where are you seeing signs of Harrismania?”
The original post here is one. I am going blank on where else, but I have seen Harris talked up recently as a dream candidate. Beto was getting praise for a bit— some lefties attacked him on his record, which seems to induce a wagon circling effect (also with Harris) , but then I saw non far lefty people saying he had supported a Republican in an election campaign someplace, so his star seemed to dim a bit.
I will vote for whichever cynical opport.., er, whoever gets the Democratic nomination as literally anyone would be better than any Republican. I strongly disagreed with Dr. Science’s post and many of the preceding comments, but am going through this phase ( hopefully a permanent one) where I don’t get into angry useless online arguments. If the nominee can be pulled left on various issues, good. Not holding my breath.
“Where are you seeing signs of Harrismania?”
The original post here is one. I am going blank on where else, but I have seen Harris talked up recently as a dream candidate. Beto was getting praise for a bit— some lefties attacked him on his record, which seems to induce a wagon circling effect (also with Harris) , but then I saw non far lefty people saying he had supported a Republican in an election campaign someplace, so his star seemed to dim a bit.
I will vote for whichever cynical opport.., er, whoever gets the Democratic nomination as literally anyone would be better than any Republican. I strongly disagreed with Dr. Science’s post and many of the preceding comments, but am going through this phase ( hopefully a permanent one) where I don’t get into angry useless online arguments. If the nominee can be pulled left on various issues, good. Not holding my breath.
Thanks for the response, Donald.
I didn’t/don’t see this post as pro-Harris in stance so much as it is acknowledging that Harris has the least obstructed and clearest lane of all the Democratic core in the run-up to 2020.
I haven’t seen the same levels of personal attachment and *squee* surrounding her candidacy as I have some others. I just don’t think that her lane requires a lot of squee to carry her through.
Maybe that’s why so many of the anti-establishment progressives seem to be going after her hard from the outset. She seems to be the most frequent target for the Sanders supporters on ideological grounds. It had been Beto for a while, but I think most rightly sense that Beto may be a cycle or two out from his moment.
Thanks for the response, Donald.
I didn’t/don’t see this post as pro-Harris in stance so much as it is acknowledging that Harris has the least obstructed and clearest lane of all the Democratic core in the run-up to 2020.
I haven’t seen the same levels of personal attachment and *squee* surrounding her candidacy as I have some others. I just don’t think that her lane requires a lot of squee to carry her through.
Maybe that’s why so many of the anti-establishment progressives seem to be going after her hard from the outset. She seems to be the most frequent target for the Sanders supporters on ideological grounds. It had been Beto for a while, but I think most rightly sense that Beto may be a cycle or two out from his moment.
A very good Politico article (I know…) on Cory Booker:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/01/cory-booker-president-2020-profile-newark-projects-224539
I’m not sure about his chances – I think he has a shot, albeit at pretty long odds – but I like him.
A very good Politico article (I know…) on Cory Booker:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/01/cory-booker-president-2020-profile-newark-projects-224539
I’m not sure about his chances – I think he has a shot, albeit at pretty long odds – but I like him.
Well, after reading Nigel’s Politico piece, I like Booker too. But then, I’d be happy (ecstatic) with Warren as well, and probably Harris too (although I don’t know all that much about her, but liked what I saw in various Senate hearings). Like Donald says (and very good to see you Donald), literally anyone would be better than a Republican at this stage of the game, and AOC, Beto O’Rourke waiting in the wings are all promising too. Unfortunately, it would probably take 4 Democratic administrations in a row to start undoing the damage Trump has done and this senate has enabled, and that may be too much to hope for.
Well, after reading Nigel’s Politico piece, I like Booker too. But then, I’d be happy (ecstatic) with Warren as well, and probably Harris too (although I don’t know all that much about her, but liked what I saw in various Senate hearings). Like Donald says (and very good to see you Donald), literally anyone would be better than a Republican at this stage of the game, and AOC, Beto O’Rourke waiting in the wings are all promising too. Unfortunately, it would probably take 4 Democratic administrations in a row to start undoing the damage Trump has done and this senate has enabled, and that may be too much to hope for.
This is not about any candidate, but a memory that comes up about the challenge for progressives to govern.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2011/10/26/jean-quans-big-mistake
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/us/Oakland-Protests-Test-Mayor-Jean-Quan-Activist-Background.html
This is not about any candidate, but a memory that comes up about the challenge for progressives to govern.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2011/10/26/jean-quans-big-mistake
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/us/Oakland-Protests-Test-Mayor-Jean-Quan-Activist-Background.html
Another view, from a mix of politican perspectives (definitely not just from the base!) on the Democrats in 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/01/introducing-post-pundit-power-ranking-round/
Another view, from a mix of politican perspectives (definitely not just from the base!) on the Democrats in 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/01/introducing-post-pundit-power-ranking-round/
I saw Booker speak at UPenn’s commencement in May 2017. He was powerful and moving. People were wiping tears from their eyes. I would love to see him face off with Rump (not that that’s a particularly substantive endorsement).
I saw Booker speak at UPenn’s commencement in May 2017. He was powerful and moving. People were wiping tears from their eyes. I would love to see him face off with Rump (not that that’s a particularly substantive endorsement).
A bit late here, but via lgm
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/02/im-glad-booker-running-anyway
which makes me think that rather than look at the candidates as a collection of deficits, we should look at the candidates as making up a mosaic that represents the party. Booker is crappy with bit Pharma and Wall Street, but, as Lemieux points out, it’s good that he open up questions on issues of criminal justice issues.
A bit late here, but via lgm
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/02/im-glad-booker-running-anyway
which makes me think that rather than look at the candidates as a collection of deficits, we should look at the candidates as making up a mosaic that represents the party. Booker is crappy with bit Pharma and Wall Street, but, as Lemieux points out, it’s good that he open up questions on issues of criminal justice issues.
her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her
Despite being no Jacobin I am more than a little sour on Harris because of some of her dubious actions as AG.
When you are in the sights of a prosecutor there is no one who has more direct power over you than that prosecutor. Those who use that power injudiciously, to advance their ambitions, without regard for the severe damage they do, need to be viewed with extreme skepticism when seeking more.
her AG stances will sour the Jacobin crowd on her
Despite being no Jacobin I am more than a little sour on Harris because of some of her dubious actions as AG.
When you are in the sights of a prosecutor there is no one who has more direct power over you than that prosecutor. Those who use that power injudiciously, to advance their ambitions, without regard for the severe damage they do, need to be viewed with extreme skepticism when seeking more.
I am more than a little sour on Harris because of some of her dubious actions as AG.
I respect your opinion a lot byomtov, so you should list and explain what you’re talking about with some specificity.
I am more than a little sour on Harris because of some of her dubious actions as AG.
I respect your opinion a lot byomtov, so you should list and explain what you’re talking about with some specificity.
Thank you, sapient.
Here is a starting point.
Among other things, fighting to block DNA testing in a case where there is good reason to believe it might establish innocence is odious.
Thank you, sapient.
Here is a starting point.
Among other things, fighting to block DNA testing in a case where there is good reason to believe it might establish innocence is odious.
Thanks, byomtov. I’ll have to read more, but that was not a good picture. (Obviously, we’re talking about the primary – she’s my person if she’s running in 2020 against an R.)
Thanks, byomtov. I’ll have to read more, but that was not a good picture. (Obviously, we’re talking about the primary – she’s my person if she’s running in 2020 against an R.)
I remember decades ago the argument being made that, with women in positions of power and influence, it would be a kinder and gentler world. Time has proven that the girls, at least many of them, can be just as sociopathic as the boys when it comes to clawing their way into those positions of power and influence.
I remember decades ago the argument being made that, with women in positions of power and influence, it would be a kinder and gentler world. Time has proven that the girls, at least many of them, can be just as sociopathic as the boys when it comes to clawing their way into those positions of power and influence.
I remember decades ago the argument being made that, with women in positions of power and influence, it would be a kinder and gentler world.
That was sexist bullshit. What it will be is a world that represents the other half of humanity that’s been silenced. My guess is that the regime will be a lot better for women who have had no representation, even if it isn’t some kind of mommy land.
I remember decades ago the argument being made that, with women in positions of power and influence, it would be a kinder and gentler world.
That was sexist bullshit. What it will be is a world that represents the other half of humanity that’s been silenced. My guess is that the regime will be a lot better for women who have had no representation, even if it isn’t some kind of mommy land.
“Decades ago” Phyllis Schlafly was in a position of “power and influence” about like Ann Coulter today. A “kinder and gentler world” will not be possible until specimens like those are recognized as harpies first, women second.
–TP
“Decades ago” Phyllis Schlafly was in a position of “power and influence” about like Ann Coulter today. A “kinder and gentler world” will not be possible until specimens like those are recognized as harpies first, women second.
–TP
“harpies”
Tony P., you actually need to up your game a bit. No offense.
“harpies”
Tony P., you actually need to up your game a bit. No offense.
sapient,
That was the politest word I could think of on the spot. I would accept your suggestion for a more appropriate one. Not kidding.
–TP
sapient,
That was the politest word I could think of on the spot. I would accept your suggestion for a more appropriate one. Not kidding.
–TP
Everyone has an asshole. A gender neutral word.
Thanks!
Everyone has an asshole. A gender neutral word.
Thanks!
sapient,
“Assholes” is fine by me. I had thought about calling Schlafly and Coulter “pricks” but that seemed wrong, somehow 🙂
–TP
sapient,
“Assholes” is fine by me. I had thought about calling Schlafly and Coulter “pricks” but that seemed wrong, somehow 🙂
–TP
Schlafly was a mother who traveled around the country telling mothers that they should stay home.
Schlafly was a mother who traveled around the country telling mothers that they should stay home.
The article was interesting. On the other hand, I have a problem with the argument that holding parents responsible for getting their kids to school is somehow reprehensible because “it disproportionately impacts people of color.”
There are plenty of cases where the law is disproportionately enforced against people of color based on race. Or written with the objective of being applied to members of some races.
Objecting to something that is otherwise reasonable, is just the kind of overreach that gives justice reform a bad name. (Which, in general, it doesn’t deserve at all at all. As so often, your supposed friends can be your worst enemies.) It’s ideology run free of reality. (Trump and his fans would be so jealous.)
What I would say is that the disproportionate impact reflects a disproportionate problem. One which has repercussions on the ability of those groups to compete in a modern economy. Not for lack of ability, but for lack of education. Making more educational opportunities available is great. But refusing to care if they are not taken up? Not so much.
The article was interesting. On the other hand, I have a problem with the argument that holding parents responsible for getting their kids to school is somehow reprehensible because “it disproportionately impacts people of color.”
There are plenty of cases where the law is disproportionately enforced against people of color based on race. Or written with the objective of being applied to members of some races.
Objecting to something that is otherwise reasonable, is just the kind of overreach that gives justice reform a bad name. (Which, in general, it doesn’t deserve at all at all. As so often, your supposed friends can be your worst enemies.) It’s ideology run free of reality. (Trump and his fans would be so jealous.)
What I would say is that the disproportionate impact reflects a disproportionate problem. One which has repercussions on the ability of those groups to compete in a modern economy. Not for lack of ability, but for lack of education. Making more educational opportunities available is great. But refusing to care if they are not taken up? Not so much.
rather than look at the candidates as a collection of deficits, we should look at the candidates as making up a mosaic that represents the party
This.
Not one of the Democratic runners is perfect. Any would be preferable to any Republican alternative on offer in 2020 (I’m far from convinced Trump will be the nominee).
And all will be constrained by the policy wishes of the party as a whole.
rather than look at the candidates as a collection of deficits, we should look at the candidates as making up a mosaic that represents the party
This.
Not one of the Democratic runners is perfect. Any would be preferable to any Republican alternative on offer in 2020 (I’m far from convinced Trump will be the nominee).
And all will be constrained by the policy wishes of the party as a whole.
No love for Sherrod Brown? Too old-school Midwest white guy?
No love for Sherrod Brown? Too old-school Midwest white guy?
If Biden doesn’t run, he might have a moment.
If Biden doesn’t run, he might have a moment.
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
We spend lots of time talking about genericizing any reference, is there any point that there is a, generically, difference that can or should be recognized?
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
We spend lots of time talking about genericizing any reference, is there any point that there is a, generically, difference that can or should be recognized?
You go first.
You go first.
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
I would say that there are differences due to socialization. That is, most women are brought up (within American culture) with different behavioral expectations than most men. The actual expectations are changing, in some cases dramatically. And, in general, they are changing in the direction of being more similar. But they aren’t there yet . . . and may well never be the same.
HOWEVER, inherent (i.e. essentially genetic) differences? Not so much.
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
I would say that there are differences due to socialization. That is, most women are brought up (within American culture) with different behavioral expectations than most men. The actual expectations are changing, in some cases dramatically. And, in general, they are changing in the direction of being more similar. But they aren’t there yet . . . and may well never be the same.
HOWEVER, inherent (i.e. essentially genetic) differences? Not so much.
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
No.
At the group level, there is perhaps (probably ?) an overall difference between men and women. But the two groups overlap substantially.
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
No.
At the group level, there is perhaps (probably ?) an overall difference between men and women. But the two groups overlap substantially.
“Everyone has an asshole.”
Yeats, in so many words.
Also Lennon, goo-goo-ga-joob.
“Schlafly was a mother who traveled around the country telling mothers that they should stay home.”
Then, who was the woman inside the bunny suit greeting her husband at the front door with a martini when he arrived home after a rough day at the office?
Not that HE was asking, having learned never to look a gift bunny in the mouth.
“Everyone has an asshole.”
Yeats, in so many words.
Also Lennon, goo-goo-ga-joob.
“Schlafly was a mother who traveled around the country telling mothers that they should stay home.”
Then, who was the woman inside the bunny suit greeting her husband at the front door with a martini when he arrived home after a rough day at the office?
Not that HE was asking, having learned never to look a gift bunny in the mouth.
re socialization, this BBC video is enlightening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu44AqF0iI
re socialization, this BBC video is enlightening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu44AqF0iI
Apt video, lj.
Also, what Nigel said @08.43.
One feels “instinctively” that there is a difference, but how much of it is socialisation is very hard to know. Speaking personally (as I always, probably regrettably, seem to do) I know I am always interested in how things work mechanically, and wish I had been given Meccano as a child. My parents (who only had daughters) did not seem to have biases about girls’ raw intellectual capacities, but I think they went for lots of stereotyping in other ways.
Apt video, lj.
Also, what Nigel said @08.43.
One feels “instinctively” that there is a difference, but how much of it is socialisation is very hard to know. Speaking personally (as I always, probably regrettably, seem to do) I know I am always interested in how things work mechanically, and wish I had been given Meccano as a child. My parents (who only had daughters) did not seem to have biases about girls’ raw intellectual capacities, but I think they went for lots of stereotyping in other ways.
Whether it’s nature, nurture or both, men and women tend to make different choices in their lives. The more choices available, the more divergent the choices tend to be.
Whether it’s nature, nurture or both, men and women tend to make different choices in their lives. The more choices available, the more divergent the choices tend to be.
Men are certainly more murderous.
Men are certainly more murderous.
If the behavioral differences between men and women are all due to the differences in socialization, it follows that men could be socialized to not be murderous.
But if you’re trying to socialize against an innate characteristic, the results will be limited with likely undesirable side effects.
If the behavioral differences between men and women are all due to the differences in socialization, it follows that men could be socialized to not be murderous.
But if you’re trying to socialize against an innate characteristic, the results will be limited with likely undesirable side effects.
Good luck disentangling socialization and inherent characteristics – a chicken-and-egg feedback loop. But you can probably socialize men to be less murderous, even if they can’t be equal to women as a group in that regard. Then again, maybe we’re just animals that can’t be tamed.
Good luck disentangling socialization and inherent characteristics – a chicken-and-egg feedback loop. But you can probably socialize men to be less murderous, even if they can’t be equal to women as a group in that regard. Then again, maybe we’re just animals that can’t be tamed.
A minor riff on the “murder gap” between men and women:
The gap shall be closed one way or another.
One (or maybe two) wonders if nurturing/”denaturing” women to kill under the auspices of military combat as women are more fully integrated into the U.S. military will lead to a corresponding rise in civilian murder rates perpetrated by women.
One, perhaps a different one than the first one, might speculate on the other hand whether what conservatives call the “feminisation of boys” in our child-rearing and educational practices might lead to a reduction of the murder rates perpetrated by men.
The push back on this practice by conservatives at large, most obvious among the Proud Boys (I have a young acquaintance who I just learned the other day is or was a tattoo-carrying member of the group), for example, might hinder the closing of the gap, for after all, men, if we follow the example of Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector, and Paris, with a little help admittedly from various female gods, murder for love, but blame women … Helen in this example …. for making them do it.
A variation on this blame game is witnessed in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, wherein our protagonist, Norman Bates, contrives to blame his mother for his murder spree, while also contriving to place the motive for the crimes, perhaps a mother’s jealousy over the seductive female victims, who, natch, share the blame (showering while naked, the little minxes) in his mother’s mouth.
Our wondering one might also speculate whether, after say several generations of the disparate and respective murder rates by men and women converging, male business leaders might take notice of this heightened bloodthirstiness among women and begin doing away with the glass ceiling altogether, citing increased “animal spirits’ and enhanced “red in tooth and claw” behavior among the formerly “fair” (as in the FOX news meaning of “fair” when they talk about women’s attitudes, as opposed to their capacity for blushing) sex.
“Yes, Fenster, get me more women into the executive suites, pronto, because these ladies no longer take prisoners. Fair, schmlair, by God!”
One could imagine a 92-year old President p in 2039 demanding that his 211th Chief of Staff start beating the bushes for some of these “killer” women he’s been hearing about to beef up the ballsy chops of his Cabinet.
“What’s Lynddie England up to these a days?”, he’d muse to what’s his name standing by the potted plant in the Oval Office.
“Nancy Pelosi absolutely kills me,” he’d flatulate over the rattling of a nearly empty three-pound bag of Doritos sailing across the room.
“Get me 50 more like her, on MY side, AND that Ocasio-Cortez manslaughterer, and we’d be up to our ears in walls.”
Personally, I look forward to the kind of full gender equality that let’s me, without censure, punch Ann Coulter full in the mouth just like I plan to shatter the large bones in Lindsay Graham’s baby-faced visage when I get the chance.
Assholes, the two of them, in full equality.
As to the respective murderousness of men versus women, I’m pretty sure if some of the denizens of The American Conservative, for example, hung here at OBWI, we’d get an earful about who has won that Stalin/Mao versus Hitler sweepstakes, and we would Roe the day.
I didn’t watch the STFU SOTU, but I saw the clip of p turning to receive that brilliant eff you clap from Speaker Pelosi and it, and the Wall, reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaDjSiuKO-o
p and the Republican Party need to collect their things and get out … of the country.
A minor riff on the “murder gap” between men and women:
The gap shall be closed one way or another.
One (or maybe two) wonders if nurturing/”denaturing” women to kill under the auspices of military combat as women are more fully integrated into the U.S. military will lead to a corresponding rise in civilian murder rates perpetrated by women.
One, perhaps a different one than the first one, might speculate on the other hand whether what conservatives call the “feminisation of boys” in our child-rearing and educational practices might lead to a reduction of the murder rates perpetrated by men.
The push back on this practice by conservatives at large, most obvious among the Proud Boys (I have a young acquaintance who I just learned the other day is or was a tattoo-carrying member of the group), for example, might hinder the closing of the gap, for after all, men, if we follow the example of Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector, and Paris, with a little help admittedly from various female gods, murder for love, but blame women … Helen in this example …. for making them do it.
A variation on this blame game is witnessed in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, wherein our protagonist, Norman Bates, contrives to blame his mother for his murder spree, while also contriving to place the motive for the crimes, perhaps a mother’s jealousy over the seductive female victims, who, natch, share the blame (showering while naked, the little minxes) in his mother’s mouth.
Our wondering one might also speculate whether, after say several generations of the disparate and respective murder rates by men and women converging, male business leaders might take notice of this heightened bloodthirstiness among women and begin doing away with the glass ceiling altogether, citing increased “animal spirits’ and enhanced “red in tooth and claw” behavior among the formerly “fair” (as in the FOX news meaning of “fair” when they talk about women’s attitudes, as opposed to their capacity for blushing) sex.
“Yes, Fenster, get me more women into the executive suites, pronto, because these ladies no longer take prisoners. Fair, schmlair, by God!”
One could imagine a 92-year old President p in 2039 demanding that his 211th Chief of Staff start beating the bushes for some of these “killer” women he’s been hearing about to beef up the ballsy chops of his Cabinet.
“What’s Lynddie England up to these a days?”, he’d muse to what’s his name standing by the potted plant in the Oval Office.
“Nancy Pelosi absolutely kills me,” he’d flatulate over the rattling of a nearly empty three-pound bag of Doritos sailing across the room.
“Get me 50 more like her, on MY side, AND that Ocasio-Cortez manslaughterer, and we’d be up to our ears in walls.”
Personally, I look forward to the kind of full gender equality that let’s me, without censure, punch Ann Coulter full in the mouth just like I plan to shatter the large bones in Lindsay Graham’s baby-faced visage when I get the chance.
Assholes, the two of them, in full equality.
As to the respective murderousness of men versus women, I’m pretty sure if some of the denizens of The American Conservative, for example, hung here at OBWI, we’d get an earful about who has won that Stalin/Mao versus Hitler sweepstakes, and we would Roe the day.
I didn’t watch the STFU SOTU, but I saw the clip of p turning to receive that brilliant eff you clap from Speaker Pelosi and it, and the Wall, reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaDjSiuKO-o
p and the Republican Party need to collect their things and get out … of the country.
Mitch Mulvaney, a man who seeks out violence against himself, was bribed to do this by his corrupt brethren:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/financial-watchdog-proposes-rollback-payday-174451913.html
The victims of these usurious crimes would bribe Elizabeth Warren to re-institute the regs, but the former are already in hock up to their non-existent credit ratings because they don’t get paid enough in the first place to even service the interest on the loans, which reveals the reason why bribesters on the Right, and the corporate Left, always capture gummint.
They’ve got the bucks.
In crafting personal and corporate tax policy, I would first levy a 100% tax and 30 Moe-slaps on every campaign contri …. I mean … bribe … paid to any and all republican politicians by every and any individual or corporate entity.
Then I would craft local and state ordinances to permit the open carry of semi-automatic weaponry into payday lending venues (add those to the list of joints in which conservatives would like to introduce prospective gunfire; why should they be exempt?) by patrons of the establishments, which would at least put them in an even footing, arms-wise, with the owners of the facilities.
I believe it would be revelatory to witness the negotiations deciding between levying a 39% compound interest rate or a more reasonable, say 11% interest rate on a loan to a person who doesn’t have a pot to pee in but did possess the foresight to save up for one of them 100-round barrel clips.
Under those terms, which interest rate would sufficiently recompense the payday lenders risk exposure?
Mitch Mulvaney, a man who seeks out violence against himself, was bribed to do this by his corrupt brethren:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/financial-watchdog-proposes-rollback-payday-174451913.html
The victims of these usurious crimes would bribe Elizabeth Warren to re-institute the regs, but the former are already in hock up to their non-existent credit ratings because they don’t get paid enough in the first place to even service the interest on the loans, which reveals the reason why bribesters on the Right, and the corporate Left, always capture gummint.
They’ve got the bucks.
In crafting personal and corporate tax policy, I would first levy a 100% tax and 30 Moe-slaps on every campaign contri …. I mean … bribe … paid to any and all republican politicians by every and any individual or corporate entity.
Then I would craft local and state ordinances to permit the open carry of semi-automatic weaponry into payday lending venues (add those to the list of joints in which conservatives would like to introduce prospective gunfire; why should they be exempt?) by patrons of the establishments, which would at least put them in an even footing, arms-wise, with the owners of the facilities.
I believe it would be revelatory to witness the negotiations deciding between levying a 39% compound interest rate or a more reasonable, say 11% interest rate on a loan to a person who doesn’t have a pot to pee in but did possess the foresight to save up for one of them 100-round barrel clips.
Under those terms, which interest rate would sufficiently recompense the payday lenders risk exposure?
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
As a very broad generalization, no.
More to the point, the degree to which the difference in how people act, think, or react that can be ascribed to their gender as opposed to other factors seems pretty minor. To me at least.
Everybody’s different.
I’m genuinely curious if people here believe men and women always act/think/react the same, as a generalization.
As a very broad generalization, no.
More to the point, the degree to which the difference in how people act, think, or react that can be ascribed to their gender as opposed to other factors seems pretty minor. To me at least.
Everybody’s different.
Well. AOC being pretty impressive, I’d say:
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1093601038622281728/video/1
Well. AOC being pretty impressive, I’d say:
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1093601038622281728/video/1
I was driving to work yesterday and heard a brief conversation with Ocasio-Cortez on NPR. She was discussing the Green New Deal thing.
She was fine on the big picture stuff, but she was often kind of shaky on the details. If she had to go up against somebody with serious policy chops, or a firm command of the numbers – all of which will no doubt happen – she will stumble. Has stumbled, actually. She seems like kind of a raw talent, very charismatic, apparently fearless, but raw. I don’t know how far the whole “AOC” thing will go. Maybe very far, maybe not so far. It’s hard to say.
All of that said, toward the end of the interview, they got onto the topic of The Wall. Her comment on that was, basically, this is the world that Donald Trump lives in, this is the limit of his imagination. Walls, to keep scary people out.
This is the limit of his imagination.
And there, I thought. There it is. She doesn’t have all of her policy number ducks in a row. But by god she understands WTF is going on, what makes Trump and his supporters tick, and without hating on it or harshly judging it, she calls out the weakness and deficiency of it, in a phrase.
This is the limit of his imagination. We can imagine better things.
Ocasio-Cortez is a bright spark, a hot match. I don’t know how long she’ll burn, but she’s gonna light a few things up along the way.
More power to her.
I was driving to work yesterday and heard a brief conversation with Ocasio-Cortez on NPR. She was discussing the Green New Deal thing.
She was fine on the big picture stuff, but she was often kind of shaky on the details. If she had to go up against somebody with serious policy chops, or a firm command of the numbers – all of which will no doubt happen – she will stumble. Has stumbled, actually. She seems like kind of a raw talent, very charismatic, apparently fearless, but raw. I don’t know how far the whole “AOC” thing will go. Maybe very far, maybe not so far. It’s hard to say.
All of that said, toward the end of the interview, they got onto the topic of The Wall. Her comment on that was, basically, this is the world that Donald Trump lives in, this is the limit of his imagination. Walls, to keep scary people out.
This is the limit of his imagination.
And there, I thought. There it is. She doesn’t have all of her policy number ducks in a row. But by god she understands WTF is going on, what makes Trump and his supporters tick, and without hating on it or harshly judging it, she calls out the weakness and deficiency of it, in a phrase.
This is the limit of his imagination. We can imagine better things.
Ocasio-Cortez is a bright spark, a hot match. I don’t know how long she’ll burn, but she’s gonna light a few things up along the way.
More power to her.
If she had to go up against somebody with serious policy chops, or a firm command of the numbers – all of which will no doubt happen – she will stumble.
Depends on where her political ambitions take her. She can probably be in Congress for a long time, even without getting more proficient. My guess is that she’ll learn, and by the time she wants to go farther, she will. Whether she’ll be as charismatic by then is the question. (She can’t be President until she’s 35, so there’s that.)
If she had to go up against somebody with serious policy chops, or a firm command of the numbers – all of which will no doubt happen – she will stumble.
Depends on where her political ambitions take her. She can probably be in Congress for a long time, even without getting more proficient. My guess is that she’ll learn, and by the time she wants to go farther, she will. Whether she’ll be as charismatic by then is the question. (She can’t be President until she’s 35, so there’s that.)
If she had to go up against somebody with serious policy chops, or a firm command of the numbers – all of which will no doubt happen – she will stumble.
All those guys with “serious policy chops” were once long on enthusiasm and short on experience. No reason she can’t acquire them herself over time. She may or may not; I’ve seen enthusiasts go both ways. But no reason she couldn’t.
If she had to go up against somebody with serious policy chops, or a firm command of the numbers – all of which will no doubt happen – she will stumble.
All those guys with “serious policy chops” were once long on enthusiasm and short on experience. No reason she can’t acquire them herself over time. She may or may not; I’ve seen enthusiasts go both ways. But no reason she couldn’t.
Sapient and wj, agreed.
She’s been on the job for a month and she’s already kicking @ss and taking names. I have no doubt that she has the ability to acquire a depeer understanding of policy detail over time. In the meantime, she’s putting good stuff on the table.
Overton window.
More power to her.
Sapient and wj, agreed.
She’s been on the job for a month and she’s already kicking @ss and taking names. I have no doubt that she has the ability to acquire a depeer understanding of policy detail over time. In the meantime, she’s putting good stuff on the table.
Overton window.
More power to her.
Interestingly, about the same age as Dingell when first elected.
Interestingly, about the same age as Dingell when first elected.
I don’t know which is the appropriate thread to put Brexit stuff anymore, but I just wanted to put this out there for your viewing pleasure.
I have no idea how big a hit, or even how known in the US Pulp’s Common People was, but it’s a great song and can easily be found on Youtube by anybody unfamiliar with it. But I do know that the Count recently posted Marina Hyde’s description of the unbelievable Jacob Rees-Mogg (the honourable member for the 18th Century), so I am assuming that the following will give people a kick:
https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/digital/2019/02/rees-mogg-and-%E2%80%98common-people%E2%80%99-closer-look-comedy-video-put-politician-pulp
I don’t know which is the appropriate thread to put Brexit stuff anymore, but I just wanted to put this out there for your viewing pleasure.
I have no idea how big a hit, or even how known in the US Pulp’s Common People was, but it’s a great song and can easily be found on Youtube by anybody unfamiliar with it. But I do know that the Count recently posted Marina Hyde’s description of the unbelievable Jacob Rees-Mogg (the honourable member for the 18th Century), so I am assuming that the following will give people a kick:
https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/digital/2019/02/rees-mogg-and-%E2%80%98common-people%E2%80%99-closer-look-comedy-video-put-politician-pulp
GftNC, that’s fun! Although I suspect you may be libeling the people of the 18th century by comparing them to Rees-Mogg.
GftNC, that’s fun! Although I suspect you may be libeling the people of the 18th century by comparing them to Rees-Mogg.
GFTNC’s video sent me to the original Pulp version, which sent me a lot of places – X to the Sex Pistols to the Drive By Truckers to the Clash to Woodie Guthrie – and I landed here.
There are a lot of loud versions of this, many of them outstanding, but this one might be my favorite.
That song’s 30 years old now. The Pulp tune is almost 25. I don’t know if we’re just shaking through, or teetering on the edge, or if we’ve already gone over and are just waiting to hit bottom.
Dow looks good and we got a tax cut.
GFTNC’s video sent me to the original Pulp version, which sent me a lot of places – X to the Sex Pistols to the Drive By Truckers to the Clash to Woodie Guthrie – and I landed here.
There are a lot of loud versions of this, many of them outstanding, but this one might be my favorite.
That song’s 30 years old now. The Pulp tune is almost 25. I don’t know if we’re just shaking through, or teetering on the edge, or if we’ve already gone over and are just waiting to hit bottom.
Dow looks good and we got a tax cut.
Dow looks good and we got a tax cut.
Life is short. What more could you ask for? (/sarcasm)
Dow looks good and we got a tax cut.
Life is short. What more could you ask for? (/sarcasm)
Dow looks good and we got a tax cut.
Yup, the Dow just broke 25,000 — Trump tweeted about it. For the second January in a row. Put another way, net gain for 2018: zero.
“We” got a meaningful tax cut only if someone here is a closet multimillionaire. Normal people mostly got an invisibly small increase in their pay check. Which will combine with a roughly 10% small tax refund . . . which they will notice. Gonna be some seriously unhappy taxpayers by the time this tax season is over.
Dow looks good and we got a tax cut.
Yup, the Dow just broke 25,000 — Trump tweeted about it. For the second January in a row. Put another way, net gain for 2018: zero.
“We” got a meaningful tax cut only if someone here is a closet multimillionaire. Normal people mostly got an invisibly small increase in their pay check. Which will combine with a roughly 10% small tax refund . . . which they will notice. Gonna be some seriously unhappy taxpayers by the time this tax season is over.
So most everyone is too stupid to figure out they paid less taxes last year? They may be just a touch smarter than you think.
And, for most of those people, the amount that you call invisibly small isnt.
So most everyone is too stupid to figure out they paid less taxes last year? They may be just a touch smarter than you think.
And, for most of those people, the amount that you call invisibly small isnt.
Much of the individual cuts were temporary
Much of the individual cuts were temporary
My understanding of the tax thing is that, at Trump’s urging, the IRS withheld less per pay period. So that folks would see more on payday.
That being so, refunds are smaller. And, some folks are not happy about that, even though the total tax hit for the year is less.
Smart, not smart, whatever. Those folks, if such there are, perhaps have unrealistic expectations.
The tax revenue we gave up to give everyone their tax break was intended to pay for stuff. Unclear how that stuff gets paid for now, or what happens if it just goes away due to lack of funds.
Can’t have everything. Money dont grow on trees, nor do goods and services. Those are the choices we made, or at least which were made for us, now we get to live with them.
I don’t single out folks who seem to have difficulty with the basic math of the situation as stupid, because deep, obstinate, head in the sand stupidity seems quite widespread. No point in picking on them.
My understanding of the tax thing is that, at Trump’s urging, the IRS withheld less per pay period. So that folks would see more on payday.
That being so, refunds are smaller. And, some folks are not happy about that, even though the total tax hit for the year is less.
Smart, not smart, whatever. Those folks, if such there are, perhaps have unrealistic expectations.
The tax revenue we gave up to give everyone their tax break was intended to pay for stuff. Unclear how that stuff gets paid for now, or what happens if it just goes away due to lack of funds.
Can’t have everything. Money dont grow on trees, nor do goods and services. Those are the choices we made, or at least which were made for us, now we get to live with them.
I don’t single out folks who seem to have difficulty with the basic math of the situation as stupid, because deep, obstinate, head in the sand stupidity seems quite widespread. No point in picking on them.
Unclear how that stuff gets paid for now, or what happens if it just goes away due to lack of funds.
Oh, it’s pretty clear. In addition to stuff just going away (the extreme libertarian, “all government is bad” preference), we have just two choices:
We’ve seen both at various times in the past.
The first just foists the payment off on future generations. It can make some sense for things like investment in infrastructure or on research. But not for meeting on-going operating expenses.
The second rewards people for borrowing, rather than saving — because repayment will be in less valuable dollars. Again, borrowing makes some sense for buying stuff that gets used over time comparable to the life of the loan (houses, cars), but not for on-going living expenses. And borrowing with no realistic plans for repayment plus future savings leaves payment to support the spenders later on their kids. (Or other people’s kids.)
Bottom line: cutting revenue without cutting expenses is massively irresponsible. And the preference for those politicians (And ideologues) who figure to be gone before the bill comes due.
Unclear how that stuff gets paid for now, or what happens if it just goes away due to lack of funds.
Oh, it’s pretty clear. In addition to stuff just going away (the extreme libertarian, “all government is bad” preference), we have just two choices:
We’ve seen both at various times in the past.
The first just foists the payment off on future generations. It can make some sense for things like investment in infrastructure or on research. But not for meeting on-going operating expenses.
The second rewards people for borrowing, rather than saving — because repayment will be in less valuable dollars. Again, borrowing makes some sense for buying stuff that gets used over time comparable to the life of the loan (houses, cars), but not for on-going living expenses. And borrowing with no realistic plans for repayment plus future savings leaves payment to support the spenders later on their kids. (Or other people’s kids.)
Bottom line: cutting revenue without cutting expenses is massively irresponsible. And the preference for those politicians (And ideologues) who figure to be gone before the bill comes due.
Money dont grow on trees, …
The federal government and the Fed seems to think so.
Getting a tax refund means you made an interest free loan to the government.
Money dont grow on trees, …
The federal government and the Fed seems to think so.
Getting a tax refund means you made an interest free loan to the government.
Getting a tax refund means you made an interest free loan to the government.
Quite. But for a lot of people, especially low income people, it’s the only approach to savings that they seem able to manage.
Getting a tax refund means you made an interest free loan to the government.
Quite. But for a lot of people, especially low income people, it’s the only approach to savings that they seem able to manage.
The federal government and the Fed seems to think so.
They’re not the only ones.
Getting a tax refund means you made an interest free loan to the government.
Which was paid back, in less than a year. Big picture, it just doesn’t bother me.
You can always tweak your withholding to avoid a lot if not all of it, if it bugs you.
The federal government and the Fed seems to think so.
They’re not the only ones.
Getting a tax refund means you made an interest free loan to the government.
Which was paid back, in less than a year. Big picture, it just doesn’t bother me.
You can always tweak your withholding to avoid a lot if not all of it, if it bugs you.
Compare getting 0.2% return from your local bank vs. getting 0.0% return from overwithheld taxes.
Unless you’re expecting a $1M refund, it’s just “meh”.
Compare getting 0.2% return from your local bank vs. getting 0.0% return from overwithheld taxes.
Unless you’re expecting a $1M refund, it’s just “meh”.
Regardless of whether you think people should be upset by smaller refunds, it appears that, in reality, a significant number are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/02/10/millions-americans-could-be-stunned-their-tax-refunds-shrink/
Regardless of whether you think people should be upset by smaller refunds, it appears that, in reality, a significant number are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/02/10/millions-americans-could-be-stunned-their-tax-refunds-shrink/
The title of that article is millions of Americans could be stunne…or maybe not.how many millions?
Post, hyoe.
The title of that article is millions of Americans could be stunne…or maybe not.how many millions?
Post, hyoe.
Apologies for not finding a Breitbart reference for you.
Apologies for not finding a Breitbart reference for you.
From today’s Observer, the excellent Marina Hyde again, this time on Bezos (and for a bonus she refers to herself as a possible prick, which I seem to remember somebody here recently ruled out when used by a woman):
She certainly has a way with words.
The link to the full article is here
From today’s Observer, the excellent Marina Hyde again, this time on Bezos (and for a bonus she refers to herself as a possible prick, which I seem to remember somebody here recently ruled out when used by a woman):
She certainly has a way with words.
The link to the full article is here
Whatever anyone might think about whether a woman can call herself or anyone else, male or female, a prick, I doubt its usage was accidental in an article that includes the word “penis” eleven times. 🙂
Whatever anyone might think about whether a woman can call herself or anyone else, male or female, a prick, I doubt its usage was accidental in an article that includes the word “penis” eleven times. 🙂
And sincerely, I don’t want to be a prick here, because in this one particular fight, Jeff is arguably the less unpleasant of the parties involved, who are – in no particular order – Donald Trump, the swamp-rat publisher of the National Enquirer and the actual Saudis. But we can’t really have a Bezos-related conversation about “dignity” without mentioning that low-waged people who work for him sleep in tents and piss in bottles out of fear of being fired for taking a bathroom break.
She does have a way with words.
But let’s unpack this a bit:
Bezos, who owns the best newspaper in the United States at the moment (a newspaper whose quality has improved dramatically since he took ownership), has been the brunt of numerous attacks by Donald Trump, most recently because his newspaper (with his support) has relentlessly investigated and refused to abandon their columnist Khashoggi, who was murdered and hacked apart by these more “unpleasant” people.
And what does it say about UK labor laws that employees are sleeping in tents and pissing in bottles? Not to say that all of Amazon’s corporate practices are defensible, but Amazon is a public company, not a sole proprietorship, and its labor practices are regulated by countries where it does business.
In the matter of Khashoggi, and here, Bezos has been courageous. Yes, he’s a billionaire, and as he conceded, this is why he can stand up. He’s had an affair, and is getting a divorce. That’s been true of many people and, although The National Inquirer thinks it’s news, it’s none of my business.
And sincerely, I don’t want to be a prick here, because in this one particular fight, Jeff is arguably the less unpleasant of the parties involved, who are – in no particular order – Donald Trump, the swamp-rat publisher of the National Enquirer and the actual Saudis. But we can’t really have a Bezos-related conversation about “dignity” without mentioning that low-waged people who work for him sleep in tents and piss in bottles out of fear of being fired for taking a bathroom break.
She does have a way with words.
But let’s unpack this a bit:
Bezos, who owns the best newspaper in the United States at the moment (a newspaper whose quality has improved dramatically since he took ownership), has been the brunt of numerous attacks by Donald Trump, most recently because his newspaper (with his support) has relentlessly investigated and refused to abandon their columnist Khashoggi, who was murdered and hacked apart by these more “unpleasant” people.
And what does it say about UK labor laws that employees are sleeping in tents and pissing in bottles? Not to say that all of Amazon’s corporate practices are defensible, but Amazon is a public company, not a sole proprietorship, and its labor practices are regulated by countries where it does business.
In the matter of Khashoggi, and here, Bezos has been courageous. Yes, he’s a billionaire, and as he conceded, this is why he can stand up. He’s had an affair, and is getting a divorce. That’s been true of many people and, although The National Inquirer thinks it’s news, it’s none of my business.
I give major kudos to Bezos for his absolutely staunch refusal to interfere with the WaPo, as confirmed entertainingly by a senior WaPo editor on C4 News yesterday who was clearly unafraid to be almost insulting about him. And this non-interference is even more praiseworthy in the era of e.g. Murdoch. And his reaction over this Enquirer stuff is also good. But I’m interested in your comment about Amazon’s employment practices – is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane? Are such things governed at the state or at the federal level?
I give major kudos to Bezos for his absolutely staunch refusal to interfere with the WaPo, as confirmed entertainingly by a senior WaPo editor on C4 News yesterday who was clearly unafraid to be almost insulting about him. And this non-interference is even more praiseworthy in the era of e.g. Murdoch. And his reaction over this Enquirer stuff is also good. But I’m interested in your comment about Amazon’s employment practices – is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane? Are such things governed at the state or at the federal level?
Since we are talking about tax cuts, this Mother Jones article (via LGM) is serendiptious.
Just weeks later, the GOP effort to repeal Obamacare collapsed. Tax reform, which one Republican senator said would make repealing Obamacare look like a piece of cake, ominously loomed as the next item on the GOP agenda, and time was running out. Panic set in. By November, as Congress struggled to push a massive tax cut bill forward, Rep. Chris Collins from New York summed up the stakes: “My donors are basically saying: ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’”
Lawmakers got it done. Just days before the holiday break, relieved Republicans delivered those wealthy donors what they wanted: one of the biggest tax cuts in history, one that would almost exclusively benefit the wealthy.
From the looks of it, GOP politicians got what they wanted, too. From the time the tax bill was first introduced on Nov. 2, 2017, until the end of the year, a 60-day period, dozens of billionaires and millionaires dramatically boosted their political contributions unlike they had in past years, giving a total of $31.1 million in that two months, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics found.
The Center’s analysis found that 144 wealthy donors, some household names and some behind-the-scenes, contributed at least $50,000 to Republicans and conservative groups in that time frame. For 87 of those, three out of five, the surge of giving at year’s end reflected a marked change in their giving behavior. These well-heeled donors increased the share of their annual giving in the last two months of 2017 compared with previous off-year elections going back to 2009.
Most telling, say campaign finance experts, is that 25 wealthy donors gave all their 2017 money in the final two months of the year, the first time they did so during the previous four off-election years—2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, according to the Center’s analysis of data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. The contributions the Center analyzed do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars given to dark money groups, which are not required to identify donors.
The evidence shows that big donors, collectively, acted to leverage their clout to help push through the tax cut law that would enrich the kinds of corporations, limited partnerships, real estate holdings and huge investments that many of them own, campaign finance experts say.
That’s the same pul grafs as the LGM post, but the 2 illustrations in the Mother Jones article are quite enlightening.
Since we are talking about tax cuts, this Mother Jones article (via LGM) is serendiptious.
Just weeks later, the GOP effort to repeal Obamacare collapsed. Tax reform, which one Republican senator said would make repealing Obamacare look like a piece of cake, ominously loomed as the next item on the GOP agenda, and time was running out. Panic set in. By November, as Congress struggled to push a massive tax cut bill forward, Rep. Chris Collins from New York summed up the stakes: “My donors are basically saying: ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’”
Lawmakers got it done. Just days before the holiday break, relieved Republicans delivered those wealthy donors what they wanted: one of the biggest tax cuts in history, one that would almost exclusively benefit the wealthy.
From the looks of it, GOP politicians got what they wanted, too. From the time the tax bill was first introduced on Nov. 2, 2017, until the end of the year, a 60-day period, dozens of billionaires and millionaires dramatically boosted their political contributions unlike they had in past years, giving a total of $31.1 million in that two months, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics found.
The Center’s analysis found that 144 wealthy donors, some household names and some behind-the-scenes, contributed at least $50,000 to Republicans and conservative groups in that time frame. For 87 of those, three out of five, the surge of giving at year’s end reflected a marked change in their giving behavior. These well-heeled donors increased the share of their annual giving in the last two months of 2017 compared with previous off-year elections going back to 2009.
Most telling, say campaign finance experts, is that 25 wealthy donors gave all their 2017 money in the final two months of the year, the first time they did so during the previous four off-election years—2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, according to the Center’s analysis of data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. The contributions the Center analyzed do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars given to dark money groups, which are not required to identify donors.
The evidence shows that big donors, collectively, acted to leverage their clout to help push through the tax cut law that would enrich the kinds of corporations, limited partnerships, real estate holdings and huge investments that many of them own, campaign finance experts say.
That’s the same pul grafs as the LGM post, but the 2 illustrations in the Mother Jones article are quite enlightening.
And his reaction over this Enquirer stuff is also good.
It’s a profile in courage, considering who he’s up against. And that includes consideration of his billions.
But I’m interested in your comment about Amazon’s employment practices – is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane? Are such things governed at the state or at the federal level?
There are federal employment standards, but state laws provide for varying degrees of union participation. I’m not sure how Amazon compares to other companies overall, but it pays a minimum wage is $15 per hour, much more than the legal minimum in most of the US, and rates pretty well overall in employee satisfaction, if this can be believed.
People hate Amazon for a variety of reasons, including its monopolization of retail. That too should be addressed by laws.
I don’t know Bezos, and he’s probably far from a perfect human. But he’s being a genuine hero here, and I wonder about the judgment of a writer who uses this opportunity to level generic and crude criticisms in this way.
And his reaction over this Enquirer stuff is also good.
It’s a profile in courage, considering who he’s up against. And that includes consideration of his billions.
But I’m interested in your comment about Amazon’s employment practices – is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane? Are such things governed at the state or at the federal level?
There are federal employment standards, but state laws provide for varying degrees of union participation. I’m not sure how Amazon compares to other companies overall, but it pays a minimum wage is $15 per hour, much more than the legal minimum in most of the US, and rates pretty well overall in employee satisfaction, if this can be believed.
People hate Amazon for a variety of reasons, including its monopolization of retail. That too should be addressed by laws.
I don’t know Bezos, and he’s probably far from a perfect human. But he’s being a genuine hero here, and I wonder about the judgment of a writer who uses this opportunity to level generic and crude criticisms in this way.
LJ
All those Benjamins fleeing their birthplace at the Federal Reserve to express, in a full throated way, their God given right of free speech. It tears me up.
LJ
All those Benjamins fleeing their birthplace at the Federal Reserve to express, in a full throated way, their God given right of free speech. It tears me up.
The average tax refund last year was $2035. The average this year, $1865.
That is a difference of $170.
Maybe we should ask ourselves what folks’ lives are like if a $170 difference in a once-a-year windfall is something they even notice.
is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane?
(B)
The average tax refund last year was $2035. The average this year, $1865.
That is a difference of $170.
Maybe we should ask ourselves what folks’ lives are like if a $170 difference in a once-a-year windfall is something they even notice.
is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane?
(B)
I watched Amy Kolchubar’s speech with glee. I don’t know why, but the snowfall on her head struck me as hilarious. Then I got on twitter and had fun reading the reactions from the bemused “They have snow on their heads.” to the carping “How can she be President if she can’t find a place in doors for the event?” to all the Fargo and Game of Thrones references. I think I got a kick out of it all because I grew up in Iowa with snow on my head.
I think it was a pretty smart way to kick things off.
I watched Amy Kolchubar’s speech with glee. I don’t know why, but the snowfall on her head struck me as hilarious. Then I got on twitter and had fun reading the reactions from the bemused “They have snow on their heads.” to the carping “How can she be President if she can’t find a place in doors for the event?” to all the Fargo and Game of Thrones references. I think I got a kick out of it all because I grew up in Iowa with snow on my head.
I think it was a pretty smart way to kick things off.
is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane?
(B)
Not sure that your observations are evidence-based, considering this.
What else you got?
is it not a byword for inhumanity in the US in the way it is here? Or perhaps US employment practices in general are more inhumane?
(B)
Not sure that your observations are evidence-based, considering this.
What else you got?
laura–I thought the snow was a nice touch too.
It reminded me of my only trip to Alaska, which was in February ’85. It was at the time of the fur rendezvous, a survival from the days when there would be a huge gathering of trappers and buyers of furs coming together in Anchorage to do business. A little of that still goes on (went on? I don’t know about 34 years later), but otherwise it was like any old fair or festival I had experienced growing up in Ohio — rides, concession stands, crowds — except, outdoors, and in February.
If you live in a place like Alaska (or Maine, for that matter, and of course Minnesota as well), you gotta figure out a way to be comfortable outside in very cold weather or stay inside for months on end. People figure it out.
laura–I thought the snow was a nice touch too.
It reminded me of my only trip to Alaska, which was in February ’85. It was at the time of the fur rendezvous, a survival from the days when there would be a huge gathering of trappers and buyers of furs coming together in Anchorage to do business. A little of that still goes on (went on? I don’t know about 34 years later), but otherwise it was like any old fair or festival I had experienced growing up in Ohio — rides, concession stands, crowds — except, outdoors, and in February.
If you live in a place like Alaska (or Maine, for that matter, and of course Minnesota as well), you gotta figure out a way to be comfortable outside in very cold weather or stay inside for months on end. People figure it out.
GftNC: … (and for a bonus she refers to herself as a possible prick, which I seem to remember somebody here recently ruled out when used by a woman)
No, no GftNC. The “somebody here” was a man, who wrote “it felt wrong, somehow” to use the word about a woman.
Any woman is entitled to call herself a “prick” as far as I am concerned. The cultural appropriation may hurt our tender male egos, but Man was not put on this Earth for pleasure alone 🙂
–TP
GftNC: … (and for a bonus she refers to herself as a possible prick, which I seem to remember somebody here recently ruled out when used by a woman)
No, no GftNC. The “somebody here” was a man, who wrote “it felt wrong, somehow” to use the word about a woman.
Any woman is entitled to call herself a “prick” as far as I am concerned. The cultural appropriation may hurt our tender male egos, but Man was not put on this Earth for pleasure alone 🙂
–TP
Speaking of uncomfortable workplaces, Amy Klobuchar is in the news.
Weird confluence of bad boss conversations.
Speaking of uncomfortable workplaces, Amy Klobuchar is in the news.
Weird confluence of bad boss conversations.
I like Marina Hyde, and enjoy her writing, though the Guardian in particular and UK press in general have sharper elbows than their American counterpart. However, to defend her, I think she is looking at the entire landscape, and US lack of housing benefits, unemployment, NHS make the protections in OSHA actually less than they look on paper. At least that is what I think she’s ‘got’. Of course, pumping Bezos up (note the best image, I suppose) because he’s fighting Pecker, the Saudis and Trump may be important, and it’s great that he’s fighting, but given his status as richest man in the world, I don’t want to go overboard. It’s not like me not being happy with a lot of what he does will actually make a difference in his life.
I like Marina Hyde, and enjoy her writing, though the Guardian in particular and UK press in general have sharper elbows than their American counterpart. However, to defend her, I think she is looking at the entire landscape, and US lack of housing benefits, unemployment, NHS make the protections in OSHA actually less than they look on paper. At least that is what I think she’s ‘got’. Of course, pumping Bezos up (note the best image, I suppose) because he’s fighting Pecker, the Saudis and Trump may be important, and it’s great that he’s fighting, but given his status as richest man in the world, I don’t want to go overboard. It’s not like me not being happy with a lot of what he does will actually make a difference in his life.
Tony P: quite right! 🙂
lj: I stopped reading the weekend papers after my husband died, which is why my regular bulletins here about Carole Cadwalladr’s Cambridge Analytica revelations mainly stopped, and I only saw articles linked online here and elsewhere. But I’ve started getting the Saturday Guardian and the Sunday Observer delivered again now, because I much prefer reading a newspaper on paper – the only online newspaper I read is the NYT. So I’ve only recently become aware of Marina Hyde, and am enjoying her acid descriptions.
As for Bezos, I’ve always made it clear that I don’t hate the rich just because they are rich, and unlike lots of people I know I don’t boycott Amazon and AbeBooks. But Amazon’s reputation as an employer (and taxpayer) here is dirt, and for good reason. So I can applaud much of his behaviour, without accepting wholesale that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. And by the way, I think sapient’s “What else you got?” was directed at russell for his admirably laconic (B).
Tony P: quite right! 🙂
lj: I stopped reading the weekend papers after my husband died, which is why my regular bulletins here about Carole Cadwalladr’s Cambridge Analytica revelations mainly stopped, and I only saw articles linked online here and elsewhere. But I’ve started getting the Saturday Guardian and the Sunday Observer delivered again now, because I much prefer reading a newspaper on paper – the only online newspaper I read is the NYT. So I’ve only recently become aware of Marina Hyde, and am enjoying her acid descriptions.
As for Bezos, I’ve always made it clear that I don’t hate the rich just because they are rich, and unlike lots of people I know I don’t boycott Amazon and AbeBooks. But Amazon’s reputation as an employer (and taxpayer) here is dirt, and for good reason. So I can applaud much of his behaviour, without accepting wholesale that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. And by the way, I think sapient’s “What else you got?” was directed at russell for his admirably laconic (B).
But Amazon’s reputation as an employer (and taxpayer) here is dirt, and for good reason.
I guess I’m questioning whether the reputation is truly deserved. The tax situation is explained here. It’s another example of laws that are perhaps at fault. Another article is here, which mentions that Amazon ranks seventh in one survey as a sought-after place to work in the UK.
Although lj is right that It’s probably not going to make a difference to Bezos whether he’s loved or not by people commenting here, it seems important to praise people who are standing up to fascist murderers. It seems an odd time to be exaggerating Bezos’s flaws, and calling him “arguably the less unpleasant.”
Unless Bezos is evading the law (which seems not to be the case), the government should tighten workplace protections, and close tax loopholes. In the meantime, the unemployment rate in the UK is low – maybe there are better opportunities for Amazon’s workers.
But Amazon’s reputation as an employer (and taxpayer) here is dirt, and for good reason.
I guess I’m questioning whether the reputation is truly deserved. The tax situation is explained here. It’s another example of laws that are perhaps at fault. Another article is here, which mentions that Amazon ranks seventh in one survey as a sought-after place to work in the UK.
Although lj is right that It’s probably not going to make a difference to Bezos whether he’s loved or not by people commenting here, it seems important to praise people who are standing up to fascist murderers. It seems an odd time to be exaggerating Bezos’s flaws, and calling him “arguably the less unpleasant.”
Unless Bezos is evading the law (which seems not to be the case), the government should tighten workplace protections, and close tax loopholes. In the meantime, the unemployment rate in the UK is low – maybe there are better opportunities for Amazon’s workers.
Speaking of tax cuts: government can always (so long as it can borrow the money) make people better off in the short term by increasing the deficit, whether through tax cuts or increased government spending.
Keynes worked out that increased deficit spending is a good idea in a recession, and a bad idea otherwise. (He wasn’t the first to think so.)
However, it’s tempting for politicians of whatever hue to seek to attract votes with deficit spending when economic conditions don’t justify it. Responsible politicians resist the temptation.
Marty’s notion that Republicans should be praised for their economic vandalism is spectacularly ill-considered.
Speaking of tax cuts: government can always (so long as it can borrow the money) make people better off in the short term by increasing the deficit, whether through tax cuts or increased government spending.
Keynes worked out that increased deficit spending is a good idea in a recession, and a bad idea otherwise. (He wasn’t the first to think so.)
However, it’s tempting for politicians of whatever hue to seek to attract votes with deficit spending when economic conditions don’t justify it. Responsible politicians resist the temptation.
Marty’s notion that Republicans should be praised for their economic vandalism is spectacularly ill-considered.
The title of that article is millions of Americans could be stunne…or maybe not.how many millions?
my wife and i were pretty stunned by our surprise four-figure tax bill.
killing those state and local deduction, capping the mortgage interest deduction, etc, etc.. bit us hard.
but hey, at least some Captain Of Industry gets to buy another penthouse apartment somewhere.
The title of that article is millions of Americans could be stunne…or maybe not.how many millions?
my wife and i were pretty stunned by our surprise four-figure tax bill.
killing those state and local deduction, capping the mortgage interest deduction, etc, etc.. bit us hard.
but hey, at least some Captain Of Industry gets to buy another penthouse apartment somewhere.
What else you got?
Relative to similar nations, US labor laws are not especially labor-friendly. If we’re comparing to Pakistan (to pick a name out of a hat), we look great. If we’re comparing to similarly wealthy OECD nations, not so much.
Amazon fulfillment centers is a hard job. Most warehouse gigs are a hard job, Amazon’s not the worst, but they’re also not the best. It’s physical labor in long shifts in a fairly dehumanizing environment.
I don’t really have strong feelings about Bezos one way or the other. We’ve allowed him to assemble what amounts to a virtual monopoly on retail fulfillment logistics, and a near-monopoly on IT infrastructure as a service. That’s not his fault, it’s on us. He’s just seizing the opportunity that was available to him.
What else you got?
Relative to similar nations, US labor laws are not especially labor-friendly. If we’re comparing to Pakistan (to pick a name out of a hat), we look great. If we’re comparing to similarly wealthy OECD nations, not so much.
Amazon fulfillment centers is a hard job. Most warehouse gigs are a hard job, Amazon’s not the worst, but they’re also not the best. It’s physical labor in long shifts in a fairly dehumanizing environment.
I don’t really have strong feelings about Bezos one way or the other. We’ve allowed him to assemble what amounts to a virtual monopoly on retail fulfillment logistics, and a near-monopoly on IT infrastructure as a service. That’s not his fault, it’s on us. He’s just seizing the opportunity that was available to him.
my wife and i were pretty stunned by our surprise four-figure tax bill.
My tax bill is lower for now, but with no personal exemption and my kids beginning to age out of the child tax credit, starting in 2020, all other things being equal, my tax bill will go up $2k every other year for 3 such increases. Five years after the last of those, another $2k increase, assuming everything else remains as is.
I’m guessing there will be other things coming into play that will at least partially offset the loss of the child tax credit, such as whatever treatment college expenses get, but I’m also guessing our captains of industry don’t have to anticipate the potential for similarly large tax increases.
my wife and i were pretty stunned by our surprise four-figure tax bill.
My tax bill is lower for now, but with no personal exemption and my kids beginning to age out of the child tax credit, starting in 2020, all other things being equal, my tax bill will go up $2k every other year for 3 such increases. Five years after the last of those, another $2k increase, assuming everything else remains as is.
I’m guessing there will be other things coming into play that will at least partially offset the loss of the child tax credit, such as whatever treatment college expenses get, but I’m also guessing our captains of industry don’t have to anticipate the potential for similarly large tax increases.
Most warehouse gigs are a hard job, Amazon’s not the worst, but they’re also not the best. It’s physical labor in long shifts in a fairly dehumanizing environment.
Having done some warehouse time (briefly!) back in the day, I can attest to that. Although I have to say that, at least in the warehouse I was in, it could have been a lot easier with a little rearranging of the workflow. But that’s probably just the performance analyst in me talking.
Most warehouse gigs are a hard job, Amazon’s not the worst, but they’re also not the best. It’s physical labor in long shifts in a fairly dehumanizing environment.
Having done some warehouse time (briefly!) back in the day, I can attest to that. Although I have to say that, at least in the warehouse I was in, it could have been a lot easier with a little rearranging of the workflow. But that’s probably just the performance analyst in me talking.
We’ve allowed him to assemble what amounts to a virtual monopoly on retail fulfillment logistics, and a near-monopoly on IT infrastructure as a service. That’s not his fault, it’s on us. He’s just seizing the opportunity that was available to him.
This seems like a correct assessment.
We’ve allowed him to assemble what amounts to a virtual monopoly on retail fulfillment logistics, and a near-monopoly on IT infrastructure as a service. That’s not his fault, it’s on us. He’s just seizing the opportunity that was available to him.
This seems like a correct assessment.
I wonder what the breakdown of Amazon job reviews looks like, corporate v operations, frex.
American Media Inc went Chapter 11 in 2010 with a billion in debt. Bezos bought WaPo for ~$250 million. He lost ~$22 big-B Billion in one month this past fall. I assume he’s made it back.
So… hooray for the underdog?
Meanwhile, I’m trying to figure why a hard expiration on ‘catch and kill’ contracts is a wholly awful idea.
I wonder what the breakdown of Amazon job reviews looks like, corporate v operations, frex.
American Media Inc went Chapter 11 in 2010 with a billion in debt. Bezos bought WaPo for ~$250 million. He lost ~$22 big-B Billion in one month this past fall. I assume he’s made it back.
So… hooray for the underdog?
Meanwhile, I’m trying to figure why a hard expiration on ‘catch and kill’ contracts is a wholly awful idea.
He’s just seizing the opportunity that was available to him.
There were lots of people solving the problems of large-scale redundant computing networks for other purposes (eg, Akamai for distributed content delivery). In hindsight it seems surprising that Bezos was the first to realize that distributed storage and processing could be bundled up and sold to other people to run their own software for doing their own thing.
He’s just seizing the opportunity that was available to him.
There were lots of people solving the problems of large-scale redundant computing networks for other purposes (eg, Akamai for distributed content delivery). In hindsight it seems surprising that Bezos was the first to realize that distributed storage and processing could be bundled up and sold to other people to run their own software for doing their own thing.
Bezos kept trying to buy it, couldnt, so he built it, then decided to sell it.
Apropos of nothing, this made me think of hsh:
https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRidXJuZXIuY29tL1JldmlzaW9uaXN0SGlzdG9yeQ&episode=OTczMDU3MmMtMDI1OS0xMWU5LTk0MmMtYWYyNTM4ZWRmMWZh
Bezos kept trying to buy it, couldnt, so he built it, then decided to sell it.
Apropos of nothing, this made me think of hsh:
https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRidXJuZXIuY29tL1JldmlzaW9uaXN0SGlzdG9yeQ&episode=OTczMDU3MmMtMDI1OS0xMWU5LTk0MmMtYWYyNTM4ZWRmMWZh
It appears that the Utah GOP wants to give Democrats a chance there. For the first time in ages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utah-lawmakers-scale-back-voter-approved-medicaid-expansion/2019/02/11/fecaf742-2bcc-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html
I suppose there are dumber political moves. But gutting an initiative that the voters just passed is right up there. At least in the West, where the whole initiative thing is practically a theological deal.
It appears that the Utah GOP wants to give Democrats a chance there. For the first time in ages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utah-lawmakers-scale-back-voter-approved-medicaid-expansion/2019/02/11/fecaf742-2bcc-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html
I suppose there are dumber political moves. But gutting an initiative that the voters just passed is right up there. At least in the West, where the whole initiative thing is practically a theological deal.
I suppose there are dumber political moves. But gutting an initiative that the voters just passed is right up there. At least in the West, where the whole initiative thing is practically a theological deal.
The Montana legislature gutted the medical marijuana initiative. It took four years for Montana voters to react, and they did it by restoring the initiative, rather than voting out the Republicans. Also Utah/Wyoming/Idaho are somewhat hard to predict because of the LDS influence.
I suppose there are dumber political moves. But gutting an initiative that the voters just passed is right up there. At least in the West, where the whole initiative thing is practically a theological deal.
The Montana legislature gutted the medical marijuana initiative. It took four years for Montana voters to react, and they did it by restoring the initiative, rather than voting out the Republicans. Also Utah/Wyoming/Idaho are somewhat hard to predict because of the LDS influence.
Yeah. But the LDS seems to be in favor of the Medicaid expansion. Which makes this kind of sabotage even more problematic. Especially in Utah.
And it doesn’t have to result in voting in Democrats. (Although that seems less unlikely that you appear to see it.) If it just resulted in less reactionary Republicans, that would still make it a political error for the existing GOP there. Personally, I would love to see exactly that.
Yeah. But the LDS seems to be in favor of the Medicaid expansion. Which makes this kind of sabotage even more problematic. Especially in Utah.
And it doesn’t have to result in voting in Democrats. (Although that seems less unlikely that you appear to see it.) If it just resulted in less reactionary Republicans, that would still make it a political error for the existing GOP there. Personally, I would love to see exactly that.
I think we’d all love to see less reactionary (R)s.
And I have to confess that my first reaction to that idea was that it’s gonna take a long time for people like me to trust the new improved (R) cohort. Should they emerge.
Damage has been done.
I think we’d all love to see less reactionary (R)s.
And I have to confess that my first reaction to that idea was that it’s gonna take a long time for people like me to trust the new improved (R) cohort. Should they emerge.
Damage has been done.
Yeah. But the LDS seems to be in favor of the Medicaid expansion. Which makes this kind of sabotage even more problematic. Especially in Utah.
The initiative implements the full expansion. The LDS favors seeking a waiver for a more limited expansion. IIRC, the legislature is modifying the initiative-passed law to conform to the LDS preference.
Yeah. But the LDS seems to be in favor of the Medicaid expansion. Which makes this kind of sabotage even more problematic. Especially in Utah.
The initiative implements the full expansion. The LDS favors seeking a waiver for a more limited expansion. IIRC, the legislature is modifying the initiative-passed law to conform to the LDS preference.
Apropos of nothing, this made me think of hsh:
\m/
Apropos of nothing, this made me think of hsh:
\m/
I have to confess that my first reaction to that idea was that it’s gonna take a long time for people like me to trust the new improved (R) cohort. Should they emerge.
I quite understand. Indeed, I would say that serious damage has been done.
Just for comparison, how long did it take, after the Southern Strategy drew the bigots in the South to the GOP, for blacks to trust the Democrats? After all, Southern Democrats had been a huge power among Congressional Democrats for a century.
Although it might make a difference whether the radicals moved to the other party or just got ejected from both….
I have to confess that my first reaction to that idea was that it’s gonna take a long time for people like me to trust the new improved (R) cohort. Should they emerge.
I quite understand. Indeed, I would say that serious damage has been done.
Just for comparison, how long did it take, after the Southern Strategy drew the bigots in the South to the GOP, for blacks to trust the Democrats? After all, Southern Democrats had been a huge power among Congressional Democrats for a century.
Although it might make a difference whether the radicals moved to the other party or just got ejected from both….
The initiative implements the full expansion. The LDS favors seeking a waiver for a more limited expansion.
From the article:
Which I take to be endorsement of the initiative’s “full expansion.” Although it’s possible that the bishop referenced was deviating from LDS policy.
The initiative implements the full expansion. The LDS favors seeking a waiver for a more limited expansion.
From the article:
Which I take to be endorsement of the initiative’s “full expansion.” Although it’s possible that the bishop referenced was deviating from LDS policy.
Taking political correctness to new depths.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/kamala-harris-prosecutor-breakfast-club/
Apparently there are some who haven’t gotten the word that mixed race couples long since ceased to be an anomaly in this country. To the point that they even include reactionaries like Mitch McConnell and Clarence Thomas.
Taking political correctness to new depths.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/kamala-harris-prosecutor-breakfast-club/
Apparently there are some who haven’t gotten the word that mixed race couples long since ceased to be an anomaly in this country. To the point that they even include reactionaries like Mitch McConnell and Clarence Thomas.
they want, so bad, to make Harris’ race an issue.
our press sucks.
they want, so bad, to make Harris’ race an issue.
our press sucks.
they want, so bad, to make Harris’ race an issue.
But what’s interesting is that this particular take on her race seems to be objecting that she is not black enough, on not “authentically” black. Rather the opposite of what we have heard in the past when it comes to black Presidential candidates.
they want, so bad, to make Harris’ race an issue.
But what’s interesting is that this particular take on her race seems to be objecting that she is not black enough, on not “authentically” black. Rather the opposite of what we have heard in the past when it comes to black Presidential candidates.
\m/
I thought you would like that.
\m/
I thought you would like that.
IIRC Obama got some of that ‘not black enough’, too.
ex. https://archives.cjr.org/politics/is_obama_black_enough.php
the press just wants to stir up a controversy so they can avoid having to dig up actual news.
IIRC Obama got some of that ‘not black enough’, too.
ex. https://archives.cjr.org/politics/is_obama_black_enough.php
the press just wants to stir up a controversy so they can avoid having to dig up actual news.
Is Harris Tamil enough? Almost no one seems to care, at least judging by major media coverage. Perhaps some entrepreneurial journalist can turn that into a big issue.
Is Harris Tamil enough? Almost no one seems to care, at least judging by major media coverage. Perhaps some entrepreneurial journalist can turn that into a big issue.
…on not “authentically” black.
I guess I’m grumpy today… For East Coast political writers/pundits, nothing from California is “authentic”. Nothing from any of the western states is. I’m waiting for the day that they actually realize that come March 4, 2020, the leader in the Dem primary race will be whoever did well in California and Texas. And that given when California’s early voting starts, the candidates can’t wait until Iowa and New Hampshire are over to start campaigning there.
…on not “authentically” black.
I guess I’m grumpy today… For East Coast political writers/pundits, nothing from California is “authentic”. Nothing from any of the western states is. I’m waiting for the day that they actually realize that come March 4, 2020, the leader in the Dem primary race will be whoever did well in California and Texas. And that given when California’s early voting starts, the candidates can’t wait until Iowa and New Hampshire are over to start campaigning there.
Just for comparison, how long did it take, after the Southern Strategy drew the bigots in the South to the GOP, for blacks to trust the Democrats?
They trusted them enough to pretty much abandon the GOP in the 1930’s, and have voted Dem ever since. As for “how much they trust Democrats” I’d say, “Some”, but I really would not know.
Just for comparison, how long did it take, after the Southern Strategy drew the bigots in the South to the GOP, for blacks to trust the Democrats?
They trusted them enough to pretty much abandon the GOP in the 1930’s, and have voted Dem ever since. As for “how much they trust Democrats” I’d say, “Some”, but I really would not know.
They trusted them enough to pretty much abandon the GOP in the 1930’s, and have voted Dem ever since.
Well, a lot did. On the other hand, in 1960 a third of blacks were still Republicans. As opposed to under 10% today. Not 2/3 ain’t nothing. But it’s a long way from 90%.
They trusted them enough to pretty much abandon the GOP in the 1930’s, and have voted Dem ever since.
Well, a lot did. On the other hand, in 1960 a third of blacks were still Republicans. As opposed to under 10% today. Not 2/3 ain’t nothing. But it’s a long way from 90%.
the press just wants to stir up a controversy so they can avoid having to dig up actual news
There is such a thing as actual news? Who coulda’ known?
the press just wants to stir up a controversy so they can avoid having to dig up actual news
There is such a thing as actual news? Who coulda’ known?
I guess I’m grumpy today… For East Coast political writers/pundits, nothing from California is “authentic”….
Has there ever been a Democratic president from west of the Rockies ?
I guess I’m grumpy today… For East Coast political writers/pundits, nothing from California is “authentic”….
Has there ever been a Democratic president from west of the Rockies ?
Mainland…
Mainland…
Nixon. Reagan was born in Illinois, but I’d mark him as California.
That echoes a point made somewhere about the shitstorm in Virginia, all the recent previous governors had come from out of state and settled in Virginia, Northam was the first in recent history to have been born and raised in the state.
Nixon. Reagan was born in Illinois, but I’d mark him as California.
That echoes a point made somewhere about the shitstorm in Virginia, all the recent previous governors had come from out of state and settled in Virginia, Northam was the first in recent history to have been born and raised in the state.
Has there ever been a Democratic president from west of the Rockies?
If by “from” you mean “where he was born”, then no. The three from furthest west (excluding Obama from Hawaii) would be Lyndon Johnson from Texas, followed by Harry Truman from Missouri and Bill Clinton from Arkansas. All well east of the Rockies.
But the more usual bliss, when nominating someone for President is “from” meaning “where he spent his career” (with the caveat that living in Washington DC while in Congress counts as the state you are representing. Which shifts Obama to Illinois and leaves LBJ as the most western.
FYI among Republicans only Nixon (born in California) was from west of the Rockies. Reagan and Hoover, from California as adults, were born in Illinois and Iowa respectively.
For more see
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_home_state.html
Has there ever been a Democratic president from west of the Rockies?
If by “from” you mean “where he was born”, then no. The three from furthest west (excluding Obama from Hawaii) would be Lyndon Johnson from Texas, followed by Harry Truman from Missouri and Bill Clinton from Arkansas. All well east of the Rockies.
But the more usual bliss, when nominating someone for President is “from” meaning “where he spent his career” (with the caveat that living in Washington DC while in Congress counts as the state you are representing. Which shifts Obama to Illinois and leaves LBJ as the most western.
FYI among Republicans only Nixon (born in California) was from west of the Rockies. Reagan and Hoover, from California as adults, were born in Illinois and Iowa respectively.
For more see
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_home_state.html
“gliss” not “bliss”!
“gliss” not “bliss”!
Has there ever been a Democratic president from west of the Rockies?
There has never been a Democrat elected President whose state of affiliation — for meeting the Constitutional condition that the President and VP can’t both be from the same state — is a western state. This is not particularly surprising. Until the last 35 years, the West has been quite conservative. Over the last 35 years, the West has “blued” at about the same rate that the Midwest has “redded”. In 2016, Clinton got 104 EC votes from the 12-state NE urban corridor, 98 from the 13-state West, and 30 from the rest of the country (two states of 25).
I’m waiting for the national party to begin recognizing that a huge shift has occurred.
Has there ever been a Democratic president from west of the Rockies?
There has never been a Democrat elected President whose state of affiliation — for meeting the Constitutional condition that the President and VP can’t both be from the same state — is a western state. This is not particularly surprising. Until the last 35 years, the West has been quite conservative. Over the last 35 years, the West has “blued” at about the same rate that the Midwest has “redded”. In 2016, Clinton got 104 EC votes from the 12-state NE urban corridor, 98 from the 13-state West, and 30 from the rest of the country (two states of 25).
I’m waiting for the national party to begin recognizing that a huge shift has occurred.
I’m waiting for the national party to begin recognizing that a huge shift has occurred.
Inertia is powerful. It’s not unlike the fact that, if you want to sit on the Supreme Court, you still have to have done law school at Harvard or Yale. Not because there aren’t other good law schools around the country. But just because “our leaders” haven’t accepted the fact that things have changed since the early 1800s.
I’m waiting for the national party to begin recognizing that a huge shift has occurred.
Inertia is powerful. It’s not unlike the fact that, if you want to sit on the Supreme Court, you still have to have done law school at Harvard or Yale. Not because there aren’t other good law schools around the country. But just because “our leaders” haven’t accepted the fact that things have changed since the early 1800s.
I’m waiting for the day that they actually realize that come March 4, 2020, the leader in the Dem primary race will be whoever did well in California and Texas.
I think the (D)’s have already figured out the CA part. And it is worth noting that the westernmost (D) POTUS was from TX.
All of that said, part of the reason that the western states have historically gotten short shrift is that not a lot of people live there. By far, the majority of the US population is either east of the 100th, or on the Pacific coast.
That may be changing, but at least as of the 2010 census it was still true. I’m sure if the population shifts, other things will shift as well.
I’m waiting for the day that they actually realize that come March 4, 2020, the leader in the Dem primary race will be whoever did well in California and Texas.
I think the (D)’s have already figured out the CA part. And it is worth noting that the westernmost (D) POTUS was from TX.
All of that said, part of the reason that the western states have historically gotten short shrift is that not a lot of people live there. By far, the majority of the US population is either east of the 100th, or on the Pacific coast.
That may be changing, but at least as of the 2010 census it was still true. I’m sure if the population shifts, other things will shift as well.
@russell Mostly I’m just fussing. Nobody does empty on the scale of the Great Plains and Mountain West. Still, by the Census Bureau’s latest projection, Arizona, Colorado and Montana will all pick up a House seat.
@russell Mostly I’m just fussing. Nobody does empty on the scale of the Great Plains and Mountain West. Still, by the Census Bureau’s latest projection, Arizona, Colorado and Montana will all pick up a House seat.
indeed.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/population-boom-could-remake-2020-map-1070784
indeed.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/population-boom-could-remake-2020-map-1070784
The U.S. center of population crossed the Mississippi in the 1980 census. And continues moving southwest. Currently in Missouri and heading for Oklahoma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population
Fun fact: at this point, it’s not all that far east of the geographic center (for the lower 48, of course).
The U.S. center of population crossed the Mississippi in the 1980 census. And continues moving southwest. Currently in Missouri and heading for Oklahoma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population
Fun fact: at this point, it’s not all that far east of the geographic center (for the lower 48, of course).
In 2000, Colorado and Nevada each gained one seat, Arizona gained two. In 2010, Arizona, Nevada and Utah each gained a seat. While some of the in-migration for those states came from farther east, there’s also been a California Diaspora going on for the last 30 years (yes, it’s an actual thing). It is largely confined to the West.
Colorado was one of the early destinations. A historian at the University of Colorado that has studied it describes Colorado culturally this way: the eastern third is Kansas, the western third is Utah, and the middle third — where the large majority of the people live — is California.
In 2000, Colorado and Nevada each gained one seat, Arizona gained two. In 2010, Arizona, Nevada and Utah each gained a seat. While some of the in-migration for those states came from farther east, there’s also been a California Diaspora going on for the last 30 years (yes, it’s an actual thing). It is largely confined to the West.
Colorado was one of the early destinations. A historian at the University of Colorado that has studied it describes Colorado culturally this way: the eastern third is Kansas, the western third is Utah, and the middle third — where the large majority of the people live — is California.
The U.S. center of population crossed the Mississippi in the 1980 census.
That’s the mean center, which includes how far from the center people are. The median center, which is probably more in keeping with russell’s point, is still back in Indiana.
The U.S. center of population crossed the Mississippi in the 1980 census.
That’s the mean center, which includes how far from the center people are. The median center, which is probably more in keeping with russell’s point, is still back in Indiana.
US population geographic distribution, courtesy of the 2010 census.
Also, the Mississippi is only about 1/3 of the way from east to west. I make the 100th to be more like the geographic midpoint.
I’m not making any claims about regional superiority here, I’m just saying that western states’ influence will probably grow as the population grows relative to the rest of the nation.
Because, all other things being equal, people == votes.
US population geographic distribution, courtesy of the 2010 census.
Also, the Mississippi is only about 1/3 of the way from east to west. I make the 100th to be more like the geographic midpoint.
I’m not making any claims about regional superiority here, I’m just saying that western states’ influence will probably grow as the population grows relative to the rest of the nation.
Because, all other things being equal, people == votes.
Although if Puerto Rico gets to be a state, the population center of gravity will shift back eastward for a bit.
Although if Puerto Rico gets to be a state, the population center of gravity will shift back eastward for a bit.
Because, all other things being equal, people == votes.
One would think. But the electoral college and Senate reflect a different story.
But sure, the House.
Because, all other things being equal, people == votes.
One would think. But the electoral college and Senate reflect a different story.
But sure, the House.
Ilhan Omar questioning Elliot Abrams. Probably she needs to work on her delivery a bit, but give it a few years and maybe she could run for President.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mutu-P7_NA
Ilhan Omar questioning Elliot Abrams. Probably she needs to work on her delivery a bit, but give it a few years and maybe she could run for President.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mutu-P7_NA
Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia. Not eligible to be President unless the Constitution is changed.
She needs to work on some things, but she’s getting some very good guidance from Nancy Pelosi.
Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia. Not eligible to be President unless the Constitution is changed.
She needs to work on some things, but she’s getting some very good guidance from Nancy Pelosi.
By the way, I like her and the next youtube was great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5gtpWg5-Ns
By the way, I like her and the next youtube was great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5gtpWg5-Ns
Oh yeah, forgot about the foreign birth thing there despite years of hearing all the Kenyan idiocy.
I wasn’t completely serious, of course. But we do need more politicians willing to call out convicts and war criminals.
Oh yeah, forgot about the foreign birth thing there despite years of hearing all the Kenyan idiocy.
I wasn’t completely serious, of course. But we do need more politicians willing to call out convicts and war criminals.
Totally agree, Donald. Elliot Abrams? Why is he anything but dead?
Oh, it’s because Hillary Clinton lost.
Totally agree, Donald. Elliot Abrams? Why is he anything but dead?
Oh, it’s because Hillary Clinton lost.
There was actually a bit of an explosion on twitter today of people in the foreign policy “ community” defending Abrams from Omar and people commenting on same. He may have been an apologist for death squads and genocidal killers, but he was a nice guy to have as a mentor.
I should have paid more attention to social dynamics in high school. I didn’t realize countries are run along similar lines.
There was actually a bit of an explosion on twitter today of people in the foreign policy “ community” defending Abrams from Omar and people commenting on same. He may have been an apologist for death squads and genocidal killers, but he was a nice guy to have as a mentor.
I should have paid more attention to social dynamics in high school. I didn’t realize countries are run along similar lines.
Is that the Hillary Clinton who is best pals with Kissinger and relied on his council as Secretary of State?
Is that the Hillary Clinton who is best pals with Kissinger and relied on his council as Secretary of State?
Current Wikipedia edit…
Elliott Abrams (born January 24, 1948) is an American prostitute, lawyer and political “scientist” who has “served” in foreign policy positions for Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump….
Current Wikipedia edit…
Elliott Abrams (born January 24, 1948) is an American prostitute, lawyer and political “scientist” who has “served” in foreign policy positions for Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump….
I should have paid more attention to social dynamics in high school. I didn’t realize countries are run along similar lines.
Because of a relative, and I partly, I suppose, because Maine is so small, I’ve been able to watch state government from a much closer vantage point than I would have otherwise. It was dismaying, long ago, to realize that the thing it reminded me of the most was middle school.
…is an American prostitute, lawyer and political “scientist” who has “served”…
For anyone who ever read Mary Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow,” the word “served” has a special resonance there.
I should have paid more attention to social dynamics in high school. I didn’t realize countries are run along similar lines.
Because of a relative, and I partly, I suppose, because Maine is so small, I’ve been able to watch state government from a much closer vantage point than I would have otherwise. It was dismaying, long ago, to realize that the thing it reminded me of the most was middle school.
…is an American prostitute, lawyer and political “scientist” who has “served”…
For anyone who ever read Mary Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow,” the word “served” has a special resonance there.
It was dismaying, long ago, to realize that the thing it reminded me of the most was middle school.
I spent three years on the Colorado legislature’s permanent non-partisan budget staff. It was a highly educational three years :^)
It was dismaying, long ago, to realize that the thing it reminded me of the most was middle school.
I spent three years on the Colorado legislature’s permanent non-partisan budget staff. It was a highly educational three years :^)
Interesting article about Kissinger. It’s old, so maybe it’s already been discussed.
Interesting article about Kissinger. It’s old, so maybe it’s already been discussed.
Its kind of depressing to find out that your neighbors are fascists. One of my FB friends who was our real estate agent and is very sweet posted a meme about the need for armed people to defend the nation and another friend posted a comment about it being a time for patriots to step up. These are upper middle class retired people who see themselgves as respctabel and responsible and they are talking about armed defense fhte US because Pres. Pussygrabber didn’t get his fucking wall.
Its kind of depressing to find out that your neighbors are fascists. One of my FB friends who was our real estate agent and is very sweet posted a meme about the need for armed people to defend the nation and another friend posted a comment about it being a time for patriots to step up. These are upper middle class retired people who see themselgves as respctabel and responsible and they are talking about armed defense fhte US because Pres. Pussygrabber didn’t get his fucking wall.
Who do they think they’re gonna shoot?
Who do they think they’re gonna shoot?
They’re waiting to be told ?
They’re waiting to be told ?
so weird that TrumpCo didn’t bother acting on the emergency during the two years of GOP congressional control. so weird.
so weird that TrumpCo didn’t bother acting on the emergency during the two years of GOP congressional control. so weird.
It’s a very slow emergency, cleek – not something you would immediately notice, sort of like the motion of the hour hand on an analog clock. Trump just happens to be ahead of the rest of us in noticing because he is keenly perceptive. Just wait. You’ll see it in another 6 months to a year.
It’s a very slow emergency, cleek – not something you would immediately notice, sort of like the motion of the hour hand on an analog clock. Trump just happens to be ahead of the rest of us in noticing because he is keenly perceptive. Just wait. You’ll see it in another 6 months to a year.
Fitting … the Granddaddy of crypto-American political horseshit, now fully embraced, internalized, and weaponized by the conservative “movement”, is what he should have been a long time ago … Dead:
https://www.wired.com/story/before-there-was-internet-paranoia-there-was-lyndon-larouche/
Somehow, today’s “Who we gonna shoot?” malignancies forgot to shoot one of the deserving all these decades.
Now he is legion.
Fitting … the Granddaddy of crypto-American political horseshit, now fully embraced, internalized, and weaponized by the conservative “movement”, is what he should have been a long time ago … Dead:
https://www.wired.com/story/before-there-was-internet-paranoia-there-was-lyndon-larouche/
Somehow, today’s “Who we gonna shoot?” malignancies forgot to shoot one of the deserving all these decades.
Now he is legion.
Did William Barr have his fingers crossed behind his back during his confirmation hearing ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/14/matt-schlapp-mueller-investigation-barr-1170731
Did William Barr have his fingers crossed behind his back during his confirmation hearing ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/14/matt-schlapp-mueller-investigation-barr-1170731
– Trump declares a “national emergency”
– Rs in congress refuse to vote against it
– SCOTUS votes 5-4 to defer to Trump’s judgement
– Trump declares victory
– The Pentagon declines to let Trump steal tens of billions from its budget to build his stupid wall
– Trump’s attention drifts on to something else
– A Democrat is elected president
– The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
– Not even this Supreme Court can reverse itself so quickly
– The planet rejoices
– Trump declares a “national emergency”
– Rs in congress refuse to vote against it
– SCOTUS votes 5-4 to defer to Trump’s judgement
– Trump declares victory
– The Pentagon declines to let Trump steal tens of billions from its budget to build his stupid wall
– Trump’s attention drifts on to something else
– A Democrat is elected president
– The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
– Not even this Supreme Court can reverse itself so quickly
– The planet rejoices
The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
exactly.
for this reason, i hope Trump builds his stupid fucking wall, and gets away with it. sure, it will be the beginning of the end of the Republic, but, fuck it. go out swinging.
The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
exactly.
for this reason, i hope Trump builds his stupid fucking wall, and gets away with it. sure, it will be the beginning of the end of the Republic, but, fuck it. go out swinging.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/national-emergency-for-wall-creates-zero-precedent-mulvaney-says-2019-02-15?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Oh, yes it does.
Once the Democratic Party regains control of the three branches of government, on day numero uno a National Emergency will be declared, before any other issue .. Global Warming, Taxation, Medicare, Immigration Reform, Voting Rights, hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and 12 more SC nominees …. to begin wiping the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and Mulvaney and company off the face of the Earth.
We’ll convene a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and immediately defund and dismantle its reconciliation mandate, since man dating is so anathema to the Republican base.
Of course, Barr was lying. As Kavanaugh was lying, especially to all three of Susan Collins’ faces, especially her political contribution begging face.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/national-emergency-for-wall-creates-zero-precedent-mulvaney-says-2019-02-15?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Oh, yes it does.
Once the Democratic Party regains control of the three branches of government, on day numero uno a National Emergency will be declared, before any other issue .. Global Warming, Taxation, Medicare, Immigration Reform, Voting Rights, hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and 12 more SC nominees …. to begin wiping the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and Mulvaney and company off the face of the Earth.
We’ll convene a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and immediately defund and dismantle its reconciliation mandate, since man dating is so anathema to the Republican base.
Of course, Barr was lying. As Kavanaugh was lying, especially to all three of Susan Collins’ faces, especially her political contribution begging face.
– The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
To what end? Declaring an emergency does nothing, she/he has to then invoke some of the powers from the limited list to do something. Seize partial control of the internet? Freeze the assets of named individuals because they are sponsors of terrorists using an existing legal definition? Take (a relatively paltry amount of) money from the Army Corps of Engineers construction budget and use it to build something that helps the military respond to the declared emergency?
IANAL, only a lowly analyst, but I can build an at least semi-plausible legal argument for Trump building a wall with the Corps’s money. He has to do it in certain ways, and I really doubt that Stephen Miller has thought through what all those steps are, but there’s a chance.
– The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
To what end? Declaring an emergency does nothing, she/he has to then invoke some of the powers from the limited list to do something. Seize partial control of the internet? Freeze the assets of named individuals because they are sponsors of terrorists using an existing legal definition? Take (a relatively paltry amount of) money from the Army Corps of Engineers construction budget and use it to build something that helps the military respond to the declared emergency?
IANAL, only a lowly analyst, but I can build an at least semi-plausible legal argument for Trump building a wall with the Corps’s money. He has to do it in certain ways, and I really doubt that Stephen Miller has thought through what all those steps are, but there’s a chance.
Another first: A walking, talking shit sandwich eats a shit sandwich:
https://politicaldog101.com/2019/02/senate-leader-gop-mcconnell-eating-manure-sandwich-for-trumps-national-emergency/
Isn’t that cannibalism?
Another first: A walking, talking shit sandwich eats a shit sandwich:
https://politicaldog101.com/2019/02/senate-leader-gop-mcconnell-eating-manure-sandwich-for-trumps-national-emergency/
Isn’t that cannibalism?
Declaring an emergency does nothing, she/he has to then invoke some of the powers from the limited list to do something.
the list can be grown by simple legislation.
Declaring an emergency does nothing, she/he has to then invoke some of the powers from the limited list to do something.
the list can be grown by simple legislation.
Not even this Supreme Court can reverse itself so quickly
Maybe not with Roberts being the deciding vote but one more R-confirmed entity on SCOTUS will be enough to go on an unprecedenting spree and lead to a national shortage of pretztels logicwise.
Not even this Supreme Court can reverse itself so quickly
Maybe not with Roberts being the deciding vote but one more R-confirmed entity on SCOTUS will be enough to go on an unprecedenting spree and lead to a national shortage of pretztels logicwise.
the list can be grown by simple legislation
So can direct responses to AGW. Why should Congress choose to do it by giving up even more of their power to the executive branch? Granted, all of my time in government has been on the legislative side of things, so I generally oppose giving any extra power to the executive.
the list can be grown by simple legislation
So can direct responses to AGW. Why should Congress choose to do it by giving up even more of their power to the executive branch? Granted, all of my time in government has been on the legislative side of things, so I generally oppose giving any extra power to the executive.
Why should Congress choose to do it by giving up even more of their power to the executive branch?
have you seen Congress lately?
Why should Congress choose to do it by giving up even more of their power to the executive branch?
have you seen Congress lately?
have you seen Congress lately?
And the executive branch is better how?
have you seen Congress lately?
And the executive branch is better how?
i said nothing about ‘better’
i said nothing about ‘better’
The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
Which is one (perhaps the greatest, or even the only) reason why Republicans in Congress might vote FOR a resolution to reject the declaration of a National Emergency. Not only do they know the wall itself is unpopular. And that the declaration is even more unpopular. They can also see that it’s a precedent that could, likely will, come back to bite them.
See, for comparison, what Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations has done these past couple of years. An example that might well be on the minds of GOP Senators. It is, after all, why they haven’t gotten rid of it for other things as well.
The new president declares that AGW is a national emergency
Which is one (perhaps the greatest, or even the only) reason why Republicans in Congress might vote FOR a resolution to reject the declaration of a National Emergency. Not only do they know the wall itself is unpopular. And that the declaration is even more unpopular. They can also see that it’s a precedent that could, likely will, come back to bite them.
See, for comparison, what Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations has done these past couple of years. An example that might well be on the minds of GOP Senators. It is, after all, why they haven’t gotten rid of it for other things as well.
she/he has to then invoke some of the powers from the limited list to do something.
No more cars, everybody rides the bus. If there are no buses where you live, you can have a car, but Priuses are mandatory. Solar panels on every roof and a geo-thermal ground loop in every back yard.
We will employ the grandchildren of coal miners to round up all the coal they can find and put it back in the ground. Then cover the holes with topsoil and plant community gardens. Organic biodynamic community gardens, complete with planting seeds by the light of the new moon.
And everyone has to eat kale. Free-range kale. Every day.
she/he has to then invoke some of the powers from the limited list to do something.
No more cars, everybody rides the bus. If there are no buses where you live, you can have a car, but Priuses are mandatory. Solar panels on every roof and a geo-thermal ground loop in every back yard.
We will employ the grandchildren of coal miners to round up all the coal they can find and put it back in the ground. Then cover the holes with topsoil and plant community gardens. Organic biodynamic community gardens, complete with planting seeds by the light of the new moon.
And everyone has to eat kale. Free-range kale. Every day.
Allow me to say that having to eat kale would cross one of MY “red lines”. Gods, what awful tasting stuff!
Allow me to say that having to eat kale would cross one of MY “red lines”. Gods, what awful tasting stuff!
My new motto, for the benefit of those who are so worried about socialism:
EMINENT DOMAIN = SOCIALISM
Maybe some bumper stickers are in order.
My new motto, for the benefit of those who are so worried about socialism:
EMINENT DOMAIN = SOCIALISM
Maybe some bumper stickers are in order.
hsh,
You lose points for a bumper sticker which is actually TRUE. Just sayin’
hsh,
You lose points for a bumper sticker which is actually TRUE. Just sayin’
wj: Which is one (perhaps the greatest, or even the only) reason why Republicans in Congress might vote FOR a resolution to reject the declaration of a National Emergency…They can also see that it’s a precedent that could, likely will, come back to bite them.
You’re forgetting the prime rule, wj: IOKIYAR. Nothing like this need give them pause, because the rules are different when they’re in charge.
Silverman at BJ quoting Kristol quoting VP Sanctimonious Smarmypants: The president usurping power and end-running Congress is “a profound mistake.”
Which president do you think he’s talking about? Yeah, that one.
wj: Which is one (perhaps the greatest, or even the only) reason why Republicans in Congress might vote FOR a resolution to reject the declaration of a National Emergency…They can also see that it’s a precedent that could, likely will, come back to bite them.
You’re forgetting the prime rule, wj: IOKIYAR. Nothing like this need give them pause, because the rules are different when they’re in charge.
Silverman at BJ quoting Kristol quoting VP Sanctimonious Smarmypants: The president usurping power and end-running Congress is “a profound mistake.”
Which president do you think he’s talking about? Yeah, that one.
Lest I propagate confusion by saying the VP said that thing about usurping power, let me make it crystal clear that at the time when he said it, he was the governor of Indiana and the Kenyan Usurper was president.
Lest I propagate confusion by saying the VP said that thing about usurping power, let me make it crystal clear that at the time when he said it, he was the governor of Indiana and the Kenyan Usurper was president.
Janie, you will note I said “might”. No doubt some would continue to go down with the ship. But there might be enough with some sense of self-preservation to seize on this as a justification.
Janie, you will note I said “might”. No doubt some would continue to go down with the ship. But there might be enough with some sense of self-preservation to seize on this as a justification.
A Republican political consultant on Trump’s declaration:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/15/when-next-democratic-president-grabs-emergency-powers-blame-trump/
Of course, being self-evidently correct won’t necessarily get even an insider listened to.
A Republican political consultant on Trump’s declaration:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/15/when-next-democratic-president-grabs-emergency-powers-blame-trump/
Of course, being self-evidently correct won’t necessarily get even an insider listened to.
Yes Pence said that, Obama did it. As he was doing it I was consistently saying it was bad and other people wouldnt like it(read Democrats) when a Republican President followed the precedent being set.
And the erosion of the power of the legislature didnt begin with Obama.
No precedent being set by Trump, perhaps a step too far.
Yes Pence said that, Obama did it. As he was doing it I was consistently saying it was bad and other people wouldnt like it(read Democrats) when a Republican President followed the precedent being set.
And the erosion of the power of the legislature didnt begin with Obama.
No precedent being set by Trump, perhaps a step too far.
No precedent being set by Trump
except:
a) the emergency claimed does not exist
b) the proposed solution to the imaginary emergency will not actually fix the problem claimed to be an emergency
c) the urgency around the non-fix for the non-emergency is entirely based on Trump’s very real political problems and not on anything related to the non-emergency.
d) Congress just said they don’t want any money spent on this particular non-fix.
just like all the other emergency declarations?
No precedent being set by Trump
except:
a) the emergency claimed does not exist
b) the proposed solution to the imaginary emergency will not actually fix the problem claimed to be an emergency
c) the urgency around the non-fix for the non-emergency is entirely based on Trump’s very real political problems and not on anything related to the non-emergency.
d) Congress just said they don’t want any money spent on this particular non-fix.
just like all the other emergency declarations?
Actually, the difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was Obama and Trump is Trump.
Party affiliation correlates with that, but the fundamental difference between the two men has nothing to do with their party affiliation.
The situations are not comparable, because the individuals are not comparable.
Actually, the difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was Obama and Trump is Trump.
Party affiliation correlates with that, but the fundamental difference between the two men has nothing to do with their party affiliation.
The situations are not comparable, because the individuals are not comparable.
just like all the other emergency declarations?
Almost all of the active declarations, made by presidents of both parties, were made to allow the government to freeze the US assets of specific foreigners who have been deemed a terrorist or drug trafficker before the assets can be removed from the country. There’s almost always a fairly solid criminal case been made, but the people themselves are out of reach.
just like all the other emergency declarations?
Almost all of the active declarations, made by presidents of both parties, were made to allow the government to freeze the US assets of specific foreigners who have been deemed a terrorist or drug trafficker before the assets can be removed from the country. There’s almost always a fairly solid criminal case been made, but the people themselves are out of reach.
Obama didn’t declare a “national emergency” to get his way on immigration. He did take executive action to protect immigrants, as Eisenhower, Reagan and GHW Bush had done before him.
Trump’s view of it back in 2014 was:
“Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.”
Obama didn’t declare a “national emergency” to get his way on immigration. He did take executive action to protect immigrants, as Eisenhower, Reagan and GHW Bush had done before him.
Trump’s view of it back in 2014 was:
“Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.”
Also, too, how many billions of dollars were improperly appropriated for DACA? (A corollary to cleek’s d.)
Also, too, how many billions of dollars were improperly appropriated for DACA? (A corollary to cleek’s d.)
Marty: No precedent being set by Trump, perhaps a step too far.
No precedent being set by Marty, either. Marty has consistently piped up in support of He, Trump’s “(Republican) policies”, so why would any sane person expect Marty to do anything different this time?
A propos of nothing, I bet Marty is willing to support He, Trump’s claim to be 6ft3in tall because any so-called president who puts forth good “(Republican) policies” can’t possibly be lying about anything more important than his height.
TRUCK FUMP. Also everybody from Marty to Mitch McConnell who keeps pretending that He, Trump is not a senile toddler.
–TP
Marty: No precedent being set by Trump, perhaps a step too far.
No precedent being set by Marty, either. Marty has consistently piped up in support of He, Trump’s “(Republican) policies”, so why would any sane person expect Marty to do anything different this time?
A propos of nothing, I bet Marty is willing to support He, Trump’s claim to be 6ft3in tall because any so-called president who puts forth good “(Republican) policies” can’t possibly be lying about anything more important than his height.
TRUCK FUMP. Also everybody from Marty to Mitch McConnell who keeps pretending that He, Trump is not a senile toddler.
–TP
IDK,Trump gets to say he built the wall, or did everything he could to build it, GOP Senators say they reached across the aisle in spite of him, Barr gets confirmed, Senate committee reports no evidence of collusion. AOC has to retract bogus claims in her FAQ’s, Dems bailing already on Green New Deal, Medicare for All loses 6 points in the polls,
Kamala Harris gets called by WaPo for not understanding how taxes work.
I’m curious what the Dems won this week, everyone seems so pumped.
IDK,Trump gets to say he built the wall, or did everything he could to build it, GOP Senators say they reached across the aisle in spite of him, Barr gets confirmed, Senate committee reports no evidence of collusion. AOC has to retract bogus claims in her FAQ’s, Dems bailing already on Green New Deal, Medicare for All loses 6 points in the polls,
Kamala Harris gets called by WaPo for not understanding how taxes work.
I’m curious what the Dems won this week, everyone seems so pumped.
Shit’s getting serious… I agree with Ann Coulter.
Ann Coulter fired back at President Trump on Friday, stating that “the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot” in a radio interview on Friday afternoon….
Shit’s getting serious… I agree with Ann Coulter.
Ann Coulter fired back at President Trump on Friday, stating that “the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot” in a radio interview on Friday afternoon….
I’m curious what the Dems won this week
Read your own post:
GOP Senators say they reached across the aisle in spite of him
And this:
Senate committee reports no evidence of collusion
Is not exactly what the Senate committed reported.
I’m curious what the Dems won this week
Read your own post:
GOP Senators say they reached across the aisle in spite of him
And this:
Senate committee reports no evidence of collusion
Is not exactly what the Senate committed reported.
I’m curious what the Dems won this week
Every time I read that Manafort will likely get serious jail time, I feel somewhat dizzy with glee. Obviously, hoping for a lot more where that came from.
I’m curious what the Dems won this week
Every time I read that Manafort will likely get serious jail time, I feel somewhat dizzy with glee. Obviously, hoping for a lot more where that came from.
I’m curious about Marty’s sources of information.
Assertions of fact from He, Trump are bullshit 87% of the time. His perennial defenders (sorry, defenders of His “(Republican) policies”) may, possibly, have their facts straight more often — but it pays to check.
–TP
I’m curious about Marty’s sources of information.
Assertions of fact from He, Trump are bullshit 87% of the time. His perennial defenders (sorry, defenders of His “(Republican) policies”) may, possibly, have their facts straight more often — but it pays to check.
–TP
This is an interesting wrinkle, of which I wasn’t aware. Congress left Trump a possible loophole which they could have closed:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/nancy-pelosi-trump-emergency-wall-fail.html
If the House had added a single sentence to the government spending bill—saying, in effect, that “no additional funds authorized or appropriated under any other law may be redirected to the building of a border wall”—then the legal landscape would now look quite different. It is entirely within Congress’ power to take away any funds that the president might access under the Military Construction Codification Act, or any other statute, for his border barrier….
This is an interesting wrinkle, of which I wasn’t aware. Congress left Trump a possible loophole which they could have closed:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/nancy-pelosi-trump-emergency-wall-fail.html
If the House had added a single sentence to the government spending bill—saying, in effect, that “no additional funds authorized or appropriated under any other law may be redirected to the building of a border wall”—then the legal landscape would now look quite different. It is entirely within Congress’ power to take away any funds that the president might access under the Military Construction Codification Act, or any other statute, for his border barrier….
Irrespective of how the Supreme Court might rule, this is yet another incremental violation of constitutional norms:
But there’s no case to be made that Congress hasn’t had a chance to act. Trump has been asking lawmakers to fund his wall since he took office, in January 2017. He failed to persuade even a unified Republican Congress to give him the money. (On Friday morning, Trump repeatedly criticized those in the last Congress who didn’t push hard enough to fund the wall, a clear reference to former House Speaker Paul Ryan.) Since December, two Congresses—one with unified GOP control, and then another with a Democratic House and Republican Senate—have been extensively considering border funding, and they have decided, clearly, not to give Trump the money. The Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate, and it has decided at length what it wants—a fact Mulvaney acknowledged.
“They’re simply incapable of providing the amount of money necessary in the president’s eyes to address the present situation at the border,” he said. But it’s impossible to believe that Congress passed the National Emergencies Act for the purpose of the president sidestepping the Constitution simply because Congress decided it disagreed with him.
Irrespective of how the Supreme Court might rule, this is yet another incremental violation of constitutional norms:
But there’s no case to be made that Congress hasn’t had a chance to act. Trump has been asking lawmakers to fund his wall since he took office, in January 2017. He failed to persuade even a unified Republican Congress to give him the money. (On Friday morning, Trump repeatedly criticized those in the last Congress who didn’t push hard enough to fund the wall, a clear reference to former House Speaker Paul Ryan.) Since December, two Congresses—one with unified GOP control, and then another with a Democratic House and Republican Senate—have been extensively considering border funding, and they have decided, clearly, not to give Trump the money. The Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate, and it has decided at length what it wants—a fact Mulvaney acknowledged.
“They’re simply incapable of providing the amount of money necessary in the president’s eyes to address the present situation at the border,” he said. But it’s impossible to believe that Congress passed the National Emergencies Act for the purpose of the president sidestepping the Constitution simply because Congress decided it disagreed with him.
From Nigel’s Slate article by Daniel Hemel: “To be sure, the Senate might not have passed such a bill, and even if it did, Trump might have vetoed it.”
It goes on: “So why did the House pass the spending bill Thursday night with full knowledge of the president’s next move? Perhaps Democratic leaders feared blowback from voters for allowing another shutdown. Perhaps they decided that—as terrible as the border wall and usurpation of their appropriations authority might be—it’s not a sufficiently significant issue to justify a partial halt to government operations again. Perhaps they thought that the courts would do what the House Democrats declined to do themselves: confront the president’s bald assertion of executive authority head-on.”
So Daniel Hemel blames Democrats. The usual.
The earlier government shutdown cost billions of dollars, and the immediate pain of the shutdown was borne by federal workers and contractors who were not given back pay. Shutdowns are a national security issue, for real. National parks were vandalized; there were halts to small businesses who are regulated by federal agencies; federal research initiatives were interrupted. Preventing a shutdown wasn’t just about voters (although many voters would undoubtably have been angry); it was about doing what is best for the country. The continuing Trump horror saga is not the fault of Nancy Pelosi. While Hempel makes an interesting point about choices that were made, his scolding tone is tiresome.
From Nigel’s Slate article by Daniel Hemel: “To be sure, the Senate might not have passed such a bill, and even if it did, Trump might have vetoed it.”
It goes on: “So why did the House pass the spending bill Thursday night with full knowledge of the president’s next move? Perhaps Democratic leaders feared blowback from voters for allowing another shutdown. Perhaps they decided that—as terrible as the border wall and usurpation of their appropriations authority might be—it’s not a sufficiently significant issue to justify a partial halt to government operations again. Perhaps they thought that the courts would do what the House Democrats declined to do themselves: confront the president’s bald assertion of executive authority head-on.”
So Daniel Hemel blames Democrats. The usual.
The earlier government shutdown cost billions of dollars, and the immediate pain of the shutdown was borne by federal workers and contractors who were not given back pay. Shutdowns are a national security issue, for real. National parks were vandalized; there were halts to small businesses who are regulated by federal agencies; federal research initiatives were interrupted. Preventing a shutdown wasn’t just about voters (although many voters would undoubtably have been angry); it was about doing what is best for the country. The continuing Trump horror saga is not the fault of Nancy Pelosi. While Hempel makes an interesting point about choices that were made, his scolding tone is tiresome.
What sapient said.
Hempel’s piece begins:
If he ultimately gets the wall he wants, it will only be because Democrats who control the House of Representatives let him have it.
Wrong.
It is not the job of the (D) party to curb every impulse and obsession of the vain larcenous windbag who currently occupies the Oval Office.
If Trump builds his asinine wall, the responsibility will lie with Trump and the fools who voted him into office.
What sapient said.
Hempel’s piece begins:
If he ultimately gets the wall he wants, it will only be because Democrats who control the House of Representatives let him have it.
Wrong.
It is not the job of the (D) party to curb every impulse and obsession of the vain larcenous windbag who currently occupies the Oval Office.
If Trump builds his asinine wall, the responsibility will lie with Trump and the fools who voted him into office.
Dems bailing already on Green New Deal
it’s cute how the GOP is sure the Dems have hitched their horse to AOC and are going to follow her come hell or high water.
they really do believe their own bullshit.
Dems bailing already on Green New Deal
it’s cute how the GOP is sure the Dems have hitched their horse to AOC and are going to follow her come hell or high water.
they really do believe their own bullshit.
So Daniel Hemel blames Democrats. The usual.
That wasn’t really the point of the article for me.
Rather that it’s possible the SC will find a way to approve Trump’s action – but he and they will pay a political price.
Ignoring the rhetorical blaming of the Democrats, the analysis is quite interesting.
So Daniel Hemel blames Democrats. The usual.
That wasn’t really the point of the article for me.
Rather that it’s possible the SC will find a way to approve Trump’s action – but he and they will pay a political price.
Ignoring the rhetorical blaming of the Democrats, the analysis is quite interesting.
Ignoring the rhetorical blaming of the Democrats, the analysis is quite interesting.
It was interesting. He’s a legal wonk, and fun to read for that reason, but the unnecessary “blame Pelosi” refrain was frustrating here.
Ignoring the rhetorical blaming of the Democrats, the analysis is quite interesting.
It was interesting. He’s a legal wonk, and fun to read for that reason, but the unnecessary “blame Pelosi” refrain was frustrating here.
“I could do the wall over a longer period of time, I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster”
Trump, flatly admitting there is no emergency here – just like Obama did, i’m sure!
“I could do the wall over a longer period of time, I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster”
Trump, flatly admitting there is no emergency here – just like Obama did, i’m sure!
Trump, flatly admitting there is no emergency here – just like Obama did, i’m sure!
Of course not. Few things are a better predictor of what Trump will do than assuming that, if Obama did something, Trump will try to do the opposite. Frankly, it’s a bit of a surprise that he could bring himself to nominate cabinet members….
Trump, flatly admitting there is no emergency here – just like Obama did, i’m sure!
Of course not. Few things are a better predictor of what Trump will do than assuming that, if Obama did something, Trump will try to do the opposite. Frankly, it’s a bit of a surprise that he could bring himself to nominate cabinet members….
Ignoring the rhetorical blaming of the Democrats
Other than that, Mrs lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
The actions of Donald Trump are the responsibility of Donald Trump. The fact that such a completely unsuitable person holds that office is the responsibility of the folks who voted for him.
End of story.
Ignoring the rhetorical blaming of the Democrats
Other than that, Mrs lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
The actions of Donald Trump are the responsibility of Donald Trump. The fact that such a completely unsuitable person holds that office is the responsibility of the folks who voted for him.
End of story.
wrs, as usual. But for crying out loud, if you’ve got to blame a political party for Donald Trump, how about you start with his prostrate gleeful enablers on the R side. JHC.
wrs, as usual. But for crying out loud, if you’ve got to blame a political party for Donald Trump, how about you start with his prostrate gleeful enablers on the R side. JHC.
Frankly, it’s a bit of a surprise that he could bring himself to nominate cabinet members….
And he’s even on record saying he likes “Acting” cabinet members to boot. so you’re not far off!!
Frankly, it’s a bit of a surprise that he could bring himself to nominate cabinet members….
And he’s even on record saying he likes “Acting” cabinet members to boot. so you’re not far off!!