As I said. Trash.
Oh, I don't disagree about that. I was talking about the actual institutional issue- not the politics of it (which are pretty gross.)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
Short version of the Bernie not dropping out / Bernie is a terrible human being / etc talk is this: Until Bernie does something that is out of the actual norm of someone in his position in the primary, I'll worry about it. Until then, he's doing what other folks in his position do. When it comes to "public" vs "private" conversations - most of the "public" stuff is reporting on private stuff via Politico / etc, at a level that didn't exist in 2008. Switch the years, same shit would have been reported publicly (the Keepin it '1600 folks have even pointed that out in earlier podcasts).
I think Bernie's not using his leverage correctly - but we do know that conceding early cost Clinton a lot of leverage in 2008, so we factually know that him conceding earlier would have cost him leverage. Not sure if this is going to end much better. Now, if Bernie starts attacking Clinton - then he's an asshat. But as long as he's just spouting his same stump speech and occasionally laying into Trump (though I think the Dem best bet is to let Obama and Clinton do it and more importantly let Trump put his foot in his mouth); w/e.
Aside: I've seen several posts calling for the banning of guns to DV offenders - there is already a federal law for that, and several states go further, adding anyone with a restraining order for domestic violence (but not convicted).
Kudos to the Dems for standing up and filibustering (probably a good idea they didn't kill the filibuster years ago, if I am understanding what is going on currently).
As for Brexit - been out of the loop; but I thought it was primarily the Euro and that the EU still hasn't really figured out what the hell they're actually doing as a cohesive unit? Still thinking the UK leaving is a pretty terrible idea, though. Better to try fix the problems in the EU rather than just peace out.
For those interested in FMLA - 538 Politics has a new podcast out talking about it; was a pretty informative listen fwiw.
I think Bernie's not using his leverage correctly - but we do know that conceding early cost Clinton a lot of leverage in 2008, so we factually know that him conceding earlier would have cost him leverage. Not sure if this is going to end much better. Now, if Bernie starts attacking Clinton - then he's an asshat. But as long as he's just spouting his same stump speech and occasionally laying into Trump (though I think the Dem best bet is to let Obama and Clinton do it and more importantly let Trump put his foot in his mouth); w/e.
Aside: I've seen several posts calling for the banning of guns to DV offenders - there is already a federal law for that, and several states go further, adding anyone with a restraining order for domestic violence (but not convicted).
Kudos to the Dems for standing up and filibustering (probably a good idea they didn't kill the filibuster years ago, if I am understanding what is going on currently).
As for Brexit - been out of the loop; but I thought it was primarily the Euro and that the EU still hasn't really figured out what the hell they're actually doing as a cohesive unit? Still thinking the UK leaving is a pretty terrible idea, though. Better to try fix the problems in the EU rather than just peace out.
For those interested in FMLA - 538 Politics has a new podcast out talking about it; was a pretty informative listen fwiw.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I wonder what this is about!
You can see his leverage trajectory by simply looking at the S4P pageview count over time.
Trump's now dominating the news cycle. No one's paying attention to him.
The big issue is what he's done to part of the party going forward, with the "illegitimacy/stolen election" talk. Trump is easy. What happens when the opposing candidate's not Trump?
Trump's now dominating the news cycle. No one's paying attention to him.
The big issue is what he's done to part of the party going forward, with the "illegitimacy/stolen election" talk. Trump is easy. What happens when the opposing candidate's not Trump?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah, he should've dropped after NY, after he'd squeezed what he could have with his leverage at that time. Right now, after CA voted? He's got nothing. He's basically trying to bluff when both people are all-in; we've already seen his cards, and they're bad.
Nah, if they had killed it they'd have gotten a LOT more done in '08-'10 and passed a better version of Obamacare. The tradeoff's not worth the protest vote it's getting them now.
Clinton's not moving left to meet Sanders. She understands you can no longer "pivot' in the general. She's stuck to her policies during the campaign.
Here's the 538 link- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kitchen-table-politics-the-cost-of-caring-for-kids/ I am very curious if they get into the unintentional side effects of mandated leave they've found in EU countries- companies will straight up avoid hiring young women. (to a greater degree than they already do in countries without those generous leave policies.) Same thing you see w/ men being penalized for taking parental leave in the US.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
*Politician is assassinated by man shouting white nationalist phrase*
British people who post about race realism on other forums: "Hey, look here, both sides are to blame, there is mental illness here, don't politicize this!"
I didn't know you could avoid politicizing a political assassination.
British people who post about race realism on other forums: "Hey, look here, both sides are to blame, there is mental illness here, don't politicize this!"
I didn't know you could avoid politicizing a political assassination.
balladofwindfishes
Member
GOP's favorability at the lowest it's been since 2009
Trump is a disaster for them. They're basically back at end of term Bush numbers.
Trump is a disaster for them. They're basically back at end of term Bush numbers.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Brandon Davis effectively taking over as DNC head for general election
Really good news. Glad to have someone competent running things, although unfortunately I'd imagine DWS will join Hillary's cabinet next year.
Really good news. Glad to have someone competent running things, although unfortunately I'd imagine DWS will join Hillary's cabinet next year.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I like how every major conservative movement in America gets mirrored in the UK
80's Neoliberalism:
Reagan - Thatcher
00's Neoconservativism:
W. Bush - Tony Blair
and now, Nationalism/Nativism:
Trump - Johnson/Farage
80's Neoliberalism:
Reagan - Thatcher
00's Neoconservativism:
W. Bush - Tony Blair
and now, Nationalism/Nativism:
Trump - Johnson/Farage
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Lol! Ok, dude.
lastflowers
Banned
Haha, you didn't even bother to read the article. Just goes to show why I shouldn't bother reading your posts.
I love how the discussion moved away from the more salient points in the Fukuyama article to shitposting against lefties. Always great to see it happen in real time. Gotta look cool on a forum, I guess.
It's not shitposting. That's my opinion: It's trash. It's like asking me to take Breitbart seriously.
What "salient point"- his entire thesis is built on a bullshit narrative. It's the same garbage you get when someone tries to pin trump on an angry "working class" - when you do this, it makes it clear you're only looking at the white part of the spectrum and that you don't pay any consideration to the non-white working class.
Not sure what this is referring to?
Also known as the "Learn from McCain 2008 and Romney 2012 plan". Though it sort of feels like Clinton is pushing for harder progressive policies than she did in 2008; but I'd have to go dig up her 2008 stump stuff, and it has been 8 years (and priorities have radically changed among the ardent democratic base)
They do talk about it a little - it does seem like any US based solution would need to take that into account - probably by using federal funding (which may not deal with the issue completely) or incentivizing businesses to keep folks who take FMLA. Not sure how to implement it here though. This seems like one of those things where states may need to take the lead.
I think the last data set I saw showed that only 18% of voters are using social media / the internet to discuss politics - so I think what you see online is a misrepresentation of how most Dems feel. I think in 4 years no one will give a crap. Clinton might lose in 2020 because she's the second most unpopular person to run for president in recent memory (only beaten by Trump), and that it would be the third Dem term in a row, and a whole host of non-Sanders related factors. People were freaking out about Michigan and Florida in 2008 and it didn't really matter even by the general election.
Plus, let's be honest, I suspect most people in this country think the political system is already rigged.
That majority included blue dogs and people like Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
Legislation looks much different when you only need 51 votes out of 60. It will conform to the 51st least liberal person, not the 60th.
Ahh, gotcha. But there's sort of a catch to that majority...
Bingo. as much as I hate the compromises made on ACA, I do understand some of the reasoning
1) There were enough blue dogs / moderate democrats that were leery of going full public option that quickly.
2) The infrastructure to handle a full public option / the more liberal aspects would have added years to the implementation time (hospitals and doctors are still finishing up even digitizing all records) - which was a bad thing because...
3) Obama's thought process was that if he could get it rolled out sooner rather than later, Americans basically don't vote away entitlements once they've been integrated into society. The sooner he got ACA out, the more time he had for it to integrate, and the less chance it would be repealed. He can't assume he wins re-election, and he probably assumed that winning in 2016 would be difficult if he got re-elected (due to voter fatigue).
As frustrating as the filibuster is, it's foolish to try to get rid of it in a short-sighted manner and then find yourself (as you will) on the receiving end of the bludgeoning. It also makes the pendulum swings due to elections much more severe - since any time a president came in with a bare majority of the House and Senate, they could try to ramrod their entire policy platform into Congress and get it all passed, and potentially 4 years later, everything gets reversed.
You have to kill it, because the current problem with the system right now is that nothing happens. Political concerns make entitlement growth difficult to roll back, and presidents are doing the unilateral change thing anyway w/ executive orders without any pushback from congress. The executive office keeps growing in power due to the Senate being frozen, which increases the swing of a single election anyway.
The Lamonster
Member
yeah this is pretty standard and has nothing to do with the DWS 'controversy'
Yup.
Now that I'm reminded of it, Kaine's DNC tenure probably indicates they shouldn't go with him for VP.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Caught Tim Kaine's speech during the Dem Filibuster. Def worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrJ8EzR15WQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrJ8EzR15WQ
Ridiculous. This is a standard occurrence before the convention for the presumptive nominee. Coddling a few die-hards, who won't be satisfied short of Bernie being given the nomination, would be a grave mistake. Seriously, ridiculous.
Besides, this means DWS is no longer in charge. That should be cause for celebration for Sanders supporters.
Instead of dragging this process out for weeks, someone has to rip the goddamned bandaid off, and it's apparently not going to be the Senator.
whyamihere
Banned
I'm going to repost my thoughts on VP:
Here's how I would break it down:
The Excite The Base Crowd:
Elizabeth Warren
Tom Perez
Sherrod Brown
The Do No Harm Crowd:
Tim Kaine
Xavier Becerra
Tim Ryan
The Rising Star Crowd:
Cory Booker
Eric Garcetti
Julian Castro
Something to note about each group is that you can see that there is a Latino in each one. Also important to note that there is only one woman on the list, which speaks to the idea that maybe Warren can transcend the negatives that would come with a two woman ticket.
I don't see Hillary picking Garcetti (as much as I love him) or Castro at this point. I think there's an idea that Castro is the Emperor With No Clothes while Xavier is more of the real deal (albeit a lot older than Castro).
I think the most likely options are Warren, Booker, Perez, Kaine, and Becerra, and I would imagine that's what the list will most likely shrink to.
Here's how I would break it down:
The Excite The Base Crowd:
Elizabeth Warren
Tom Perez
Sherrod Brown
The Do No Harm Crowd:
Tim Kaine
Xavier Becerra
Tim Ryan
The Rising Star Crowd:
Cory Booker
Eric Garcetti
Julian Castro
Something to note about each group is that you can see that there is a Latino in each one. Also important to note that there is only one woman on the list, which speaks to the idea that maybe Warren can transcend the negatives that would come with a two woman ticket.
I don't see Hillary picking Garcetti (as much as I love him) or Castro at this point. I think there's an idea that Castro is the Emperor With No Clothes while Xavier is more of the real deal (albeit a lot older than Castro).
I think the most likely options are Warren, Booker, Perez, Kaine, and Becerra, and I would imagine that's what the list will most likely shrink to.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Chris Murphy looking to make a name for himself. Presidential candidate in '24?
If you got rid of the filibuster, I don't think anything happens between 2010 and now anyway. On a selfish note; since I expect the GOP to hold the House and have the Senate in 2020, I do worry about a GOP president without a filibuster just destroying 20 years of progress in a heartbeat.
It's one of the reasons the increased emphasis on SCOTUS scares me; with Congress' impotence and Obama being blocked by said Congress, SCOTUS is heading down that path into an "old wise council that runs shit" unless we unfuck Congress.
Correct.
But you have way more changes implemented in the '09-'10 cycle that you get to maintain.
All the power is moving to the SC/Executive explicitly due to the logjam. That's a problem.
Infinite Stars
Member
I'm of the thought that Perez is probably the first pick on the list, as Warren is probably better in the Senate and Booker has Wall Street experience. Perez is able to get the Bernie voters hopefully fired up, while also being a better pick then Castro.
He's also going to be able to go full in on Trump/whoever Trump's VP is, which will be great.
He's also going to be able to go full in on Trump/whoever Trump's VP is, which will be great.
He's playing the first 5 hours of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
BlastProcessing
Member
Not a concession. I expect it will be a slightly modified stump speech. Not for his candidacy, but a pitch for his platform to be adopted by the DNC. The thing I will be looking for is if he signals that he is willing to compromise on some of his issues. That would be a good step.
But first he is going to talk about Pokemon for an hour.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Probably a concession without actually dropping out.
whyamihere
Banned
So PPP has Grassley up by only 7 over Patty Judge. That's pretty huge. That's not supposed to be a close race.
Also her slogan is savage.
Also her slogan is savage.
Box of Kittens
Banned
My problem with the filibuster is that it's just too painless. There's basically no consequence to using it. Ideally I'd like some kind of mechanism for a significant, determined minority to be able to halt action but in a way that felt more visible and consequential.
According to what I read he's not ending his campaign, they're still figuring out how best to do that. This will be a larger discussion on how they will push his issues going forward.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
I remember when Jacobin wrote an article about the left being silenced because a Vox editor encouraging people to assault random Trump supporters got suspended for one week.
Anyway, it seems Brexit is a good bit about stupidity as well I guess?
This makes me feel good because it's nice to know that blatant, self-destructive idiocy isn't monopolized by us yanks.
Seriously though, geez.
Rip the bandaid off.
Man deserves no respect. He's spineless and can't even stand against Trump for his own dignity.
Total trash.
Donald is going to make grammar great again. He's changing everything
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Has Trump ever used Breit as a source before because someone told me he just did on twitter.
BRO!
BRO!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump as president with no filibuster would pass some pretty horrific bills.
America hates people of color so much that there needs to be checks against when white nationalists take power. Social Security and Medicare are never getting rolled back regardless, sure, but anti-Muslim bills would fly through without a filibuster.
America hates people of color so much that there needs to be checks against when white nationalists take power. Social Security and Medicare are never getting rolled back regardless, sure, but anti-Muslim bills would fly through without a filibuster.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
What's he doing in Nevada? I guess it's a "swing state" sure, but surely there are more important places to be hitting.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Like New York, California, and Maryland.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked