« We are all John Boltons now... | Main | Jeepers Jiminy Cricket on a Dad Gum Popsicle Stick! »

February 04, 2020

Comments

I don't believe anybody did think that, but why the frog march out the front door...

kayfabe.

Trump is pretending to suplex his enemies, for the benefit of his idiot base.

cheer, rubes! cheer! MAGA! dipshits!

This is not important but it is such a bizarre photo of Trump I thought I’d share.

https://twitter.com/photowhitehouse/status/1225909811851780096

The question, when this White House puts out something like this, is always: Was this someone on the inside committing a little sabotage? Or was it just this administration's usual massive incompetence? It says something that both explanations are entirely possible.

America doesn't care for ham.

America would rather eat a shit sandwich.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/james-carville-reads-dems-the-riot-act/

Good Carville piece, JDT. He's not wrong.

I know.

I feel like that Trump photo should replace Washington’s face o the dollar bill, if only they can get the subtleties of the tone and color just right.

On Carville, the problem is that there is no unified set of beliefs amongst those who want Trump out and what Carville says might drive away others. And of course Rod Dreher, who loves Carville’s comment, has been spending the past year talking himself into voting for Trump while hating him because of the priest killings in the Spanish Civil War and because liberal soft totalitarianism will destroy religious liberty and stuff like that.

The main reason for reading TAC is and continues to be Daniel Larison, who consistently writes as though issues actually matter. He has been extremely critical of Trump and his latest post is complimentary towards Sanders and Warren. Well, you can also read TAC for occasional other decent articles, but also just to see how that subset of the political spectrum thinks.

Other Carville: "All this bullying would stop if people would just hand over their lunch money."

Nobody has been talking about Trump cutting Medicare or cutting taxes for the wealthy???

In the age of for-profit prisons, mandatory sentencing, and whatever the hell defines an "enemy combatant", being able to cast a vote from a prison cell is a bridge too far?

Maybe it is for some, but AFAIC, Carville can join Chris Matthews in the unhinged-old-man-yells-at-cloud corner.

I'm going to vote my preference in the primary. Whoever wins the nomination is, by definition, the Democratic Party. And whatever broken-glass-crawling, nose-holding, or other gymnastics it may require, I'm gonna vote for that person in November.

“ And of course Rod Dreher, who loves Carville’s comment, has been spending the past year talking himself into voting for Trump while hating him because of the priest killings in the Spanish Civil War and because liberal soft totalitarianism will destroy religious liberty and stuff like that.”

That was unclear. Most of that was intentional, meant as a reflection of Dreher, who annoys me sometimes, but it sounded like Dreher was blaming Trump for leftist atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. That would be absurd. No, Rod thinks that the priest killings are a warning of what could happen here, not because it would happen that way, but, you know, bathrooms and wedding cakes and drag queen story hours and whatnot.

There actually are religious liberty issues to be discussed when it comes to what businesses and private colleges should or should not be allowed to do, which he could discuss calmly but Rod has a giant sense of melodrama so you get posts about Spanish history and life under communism and so forth.

What Pete said.

Pete's right too.

As is Donald regarding Larison and Dreher.

Let me handle Dreher. I share his giant sense of melodrama fortified with egregious historical examples (as Basil Fawlty would say: "This is EXACTLY how Nazi Germany got started!", over a complaint about a dinner order.), which is the only way to take on conservatives ... in their very own self-regarding bullshit patois and cadences.

My comments half the time don't make it thru moderation on his threads, unless they in some way compliment his ravings.

Very Trump-like.

If Trump's face goes on the currency, this is the only type of transaction that will be legal in America:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9udNrOh5DyA

It IS already in the stock market.

"Buy Tesla", screams the analyst as he pounds the table.

"What's your price target?"

"$685 per share!"

"The stock is trading at $935 per share as we speak."

"Then you are already up $250 on the trade."

"I didn't buy it yet!"

"Well then, you are an unAmerican loser and are probably on Medicare, you socialist pansy!"

If you told Dreher the Spanish priests during the Civil War were murdered because they suffered the little Spanish children to cum onto them, he might go along with the killings.

Dreher is working up a poisonous bolus of unjustified victimized hate against the LGBT "community", and as with all religious conservatives for the past 235 years who turn their hate politically against minority groups who have in turn been kept in their place and discriminated against forever by religious conservatives, I kinda want to fulfill their wishes to finally be goddamned victims.

He's not wrong.

No, he's not, but the fact that he is not points to the continuing inability of Americans to be candid about basically anything.

Everybody wants to nurture their own personal sense of victimhood. Which means we're all prey to whoever tells us that yes, in fact, we are actually getting screwed.

To take one example from the article, Warren's language was all good for one listener until she talked about "the race stuff". That's a loser, because nobody wants to hear about "the race stuff".

This is the United Freaking States of America. There is no aspect of our history or ground reality that is not soaking in "the race stuff". We can't talk about that, without alienating our precious swing voters?

If you were to ask me which (D) is most likely to actually do a good job of it once in office, I'd probably say Klobuchar. Tough but fair, just like the Piranha brothers. Righteous goals, but pragmatic means. Solid record as an effective legislator, which means she knows how to actually get shit done.

She will not be the nominee.

Biden is popular because a lot of people want somebody who is freaking normal.

Warren and Sanders are popular because a lot of people are getting royally screwed, and they want to stop getting royally screwed.

Butigieg is popular because Warren and Sanders scare the hell out of a lot of people.

It's hard to say what qualities any one person would have to bring to the table in order to be appealing to all of the various constituencies that make up Everybody Who Fucking Hates POTUS Trump. Which actually is a majority of the country.

Trump has figured out what makes his base happy. They want to make money and they want to be told that their sense of themselves as put-upon, disrespected regular people is completely legitimate.

Those themes are not a great basis for effective national governance, but he's not that interested in effective national governance.

I don't know that there are any such universal themes for everyone else.

If Carville doesn't have something constructive to say about the (D) candidates, then I'll thank him to STFU. He had his day, and that was 25 or 30 years ago now. Clinton-style "triangulation" is probably not gonna get it done anymore.

Pete says:

I'm going to vote my preference in the primary. Whoever wins the nomination is, by definition, the Democratic Party. And whatever broken-glass-crawling, nose-holding, or other gymnastics it may require, I'm gonna vote for that person in November.

Right on.

Rod has a giant sense of melodrama so you get posts about Spanish history and life under communism and so forth.

I have a good friend who I know from my days as a religious fundamentalist. We've both moved on from that, I ended up as a Unitarian Universalist, she's a kind of Opus Dei-lite Catholic.

She is, of course, a Trumpie.

Her take on the whole "Nancy ripped up the speech!" thing is that Nancy might be under some kind of demonic influence.

Crazy times.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/02/its-not-ok-to-be-a-republican

Opus Dei. William Barr. Heavy, not lite.

He will be executed. As will all deep state conservative filth:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/02/the-governments-official-promotion-of-fascist-histories

Back on the WRS train for his 12:22.

By the way, it was Carville not Dreher I was saying was not wrong. Maybe he should STFU, but I still think he's not wrong, and I wish there was somebody as evil, machiavellian and strategic in the current D camp.

there are a few evil, machiavellian and strategic people in the D camp. problem is, right now, they're working for one campaign or the other and have their guns turned at their primary opponents.

hopefully, we'll get this stuff sorted out sooner rather than later and those at-least-he's-my-asshole people can turn their guns outward again.

(i'm kidding about hope. i know many of them won't)

problem is, right now, they're working for one campaign or the other and have their guns turned at their primary opponents.

Which is, after all, the way the primary system has always worked. What seems to me to be different now is how much we see sore losers. That is, people who believe (or at least act like they believe) that fellow party members, with whom their disagreements are relatively few and minor, are greater enemies than opposition party candidates, with whom they disagree about almost everything.

A devotion to ideological purity above all else is what killed the Republican Party in this state. And (from, admittedly, a distance) it looks like what a lot of Sanders supporters want for the Democratic Party. Mind, I'm not saying they shouldn't advocate for what they believe. But once the primaries are over, don't repeat the mistake of 2016 and sit home and pout.

she's a kind of Opus Dei-lite Catholic.

Would the Eastern Orthodox version of this be a Turkish Dei-...


i'll show myself out.

"I'm here all week, try the veal..."

Dee Lite's opus, Groove Is In The Heart was a refreshingly catholic blend of styles, for the time.

there are a few evil, machiavellian and strategic people in the D camp. problem is, right now, they're working for one campaign or the other and have their guns turned at their primary opponents.

hopefully, we'll get this stuff sorted out sooner rather than later and those at-least-he's-my-asshole people can turn their guns outward again.

cleek, and not for the first time, FYLTGE.

Dee Lite's opus, Groove Is In The Heart.

with Bootsy cameo!! and possibly the first public display of the man-bun...

still puts a smile on my face, 30 years later.

still puts a smile on my face, 30 years later.

oh yeah.

and four little baby Q-Tips rappin in the corners.

“ . And (from, admittedly, a distance) it looks like what a lot of Sanders supporters want for the Democratic Party. Mind, I'm not saying they shouldn't advocate for what they believe. But once the primaries are over, don't repeat the mistake of 2016 and sit home and pout.”

The differences aren’t minor, but I agree with Pete. Lesser evil logic applies on Election Day.

And as for 2016, most Sanders voters voted for Clinton. From what I have read there was a bigger percentage of pouting Clintonites in 2008. Also, I saw a short documentary the other day about black voters in Wisconsin, I think, who voted for Obama but didn’t come out for Hillary. There can be a bunch of different reasons why people don’t adopt lesser evil voting philosophy even if I think they should.

Things might be worse this year. There was a worrisome poll about that with Sanders people. But I also wouldn’t let the centrists off the hook if Sanders wins. People either see Trump as unacceptable or they don’t.

From my POV, I am torn. I will definitely vote Sanders in the primary and for whatever Democrat in November, but Sanders is trying to do two things at once. He and his movement are trying to take over the Democratic Party. It is simply idiotic to brush this off as a personality cult. That is backwards. Yes, people like Sanders but it is because there are a lot of lefties who finally see the chance of a lifetime to swing the Democrats to what passes for far left in an American context and Sanders is the way to do it. We also dislike and distrust the centrist liberal press for all the reasons people like Chomsky laid out decades ago. Millions of lefties including me have internalized that critique. We don’t like the press and they don’t like us. And go ahead and say this sounds like Trump. I was reading books in media criticism over thirty years ago. Hell, I have a book on the conquest of the Philippines where much of what it talks about is how the press covered that war. It is amazingly modern. Nothing has changed.

All that said, Sanders then has to unify the Democrats and go after Trump. I am not sure he can do it. The Democratic Party is used to a situation where a centrist liberal wins and far lefties are told to suck it up and vote. If Sanders wins, all the people in the party who hate his guts and who are in turn hated by Sanders movement types are supposed to unify and this after a primary where many have said Sanders is too far left to win. It would be a dynamic we haven’t seen since, um, 1972.

It doesn’t make me optimistic no matter who wins. But I will shut up from July to November, not that I think it matters much what I say.

And as for 2016, most Sanders voters voted for Clinton.

And about 13% of them voted for Trump. Trump and Sanders are different sides of the populist coin. They are perceived as outsiders though Sanders is the ultimate inside outsider haveing been in politics most of his adult life.

And about 13% of them voted for Trump.

Which was enough. Better, I admit, had they stayed home and pouted.

just who are these voters anyway?

people like Sanders but it is because there are a lot of lefties who finally see the chance of a lifetime to swing the Democrats to what passes for far left in an American context and Sanders is the way to do it.

I mostly agree with this, except I don't see it as a swing to the "far left". I see it as a restoration of a set of norms that served this country more than well for fifty years, and which have been abandoned for the last forty.

Sanders' supporters aren't hanging out reading Marcuse. They're trying to stay afloat in a nation and a economy that gives no evidence of caring if they make it or not.

My impression is that the days of the DNC-style center-left-ish Clinton era triangulation are over. Because that didn't address the structural issues that cause people to be left behind.

Things are shifting, and I have no idea where the lines are going to be when that all settles out. To follow on Carville's comments, it still kind of is "the economy, stupid", but promises of economic blessings from free trade and fluid capital are not really that persuasive at this point. We have that, and have had it for a while, and a lot of people still would be hard pressed to find $500 cash to fix their car if they had to.

We need a new plan. Not Trump's idiotic MAGA nostalgia, not Bill Clinton's smartest-kid-in-class New Democracy. But something that makes some kind of basic security - economic, social, whatever - available to everyone. Even if they don't work in tech or finance.

Sanders is a grouchy old dude from Brooklyn who points and yells and has crazy hair. His appeal is not a cult of personality. It's based in people's lived experience.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/8/1917728/-Trump-s-targeting-of-truth-tellers-is-turning-the-intelligence-community-into-a-crowd-of-cowards

https://digbysblog.net/2020/02/what-happens-if-trump-classifies-evidence-of-his-cheating/

You already know what is going to happen.

Anything resembling America is gone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-china-live-updates/2020/02/07/0a31cae6-4933-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html

Those governments and individuals who gag, persecute, prosecute, fire, and kill whistle blowers in both China and America will be slaughtered and butchered with savage violence.

Even if they don't work in tech or finance.

Fixed that for you. If we are going to discuss what Sanders has on offer let's describe it honestly. That is not what we had 50 years ago. It isnt a return to the past any more than what Trump has on offer.

we know

We need a new plan. Not Trump's idiotic MAGA nostalgia, not Bill Clinton's smartest-kid-in-class New Democracy. But something that makes some kind of basic security - economic, social, whatever - available to everyone. Even if they don't work in tech or finance.

In short (contra Marty) it IS a return to the late 1940s and 1950s -- in the sense of the balance in the economy between those who manage (specifically at the top of corporations) and those who do the work. While retaining the massive improvements that we have achieved on social issues.

As opposed to the Trump vision of going back to the middle of the last century on social issues while retaining the economic structure we have now. (Trump's support being divided between those who primarily care about the former and those who care about the latter.)

There was a worrisome poll about that with Sanders people

I've seen this one referenced recently that shows only 53% of Sanders supporters committed to voting for the eventual nominee. I hope that number is more indicative of stridency than stubbornness and, anecdotally, I don't know anyone who isn't committed.

I should probably rephrase that last bit.

Anyway, at 2 weeks old that poll is getting a bit long in the tooth. Still, that is a very unsettling number.

I can almost understand the sentiment in 2016. Now that the danger of Trump is fully qualified, to not be on Team Ham Sandwich is mind-boggling. The primary is choice, the general is imperative.

“Which was enough. Better, I admit, had they stayed home and pouted.“

Even better if politicians tried campaigning in key states. I don’t want to go back and rehash 2016, but I don’t think this tendency to moralize about people’s voting choices gets people very far. I would much rather moralize about the voting choices of certain famous politicians in certain crucial issues rather than bash some group of people whose lives I know nothing about. But politician bashing is a different rant. It would be more useful to determine all the various reasons people don’t vote for Democrats and see if there is some way to change their minds without having to compromise on basic moral principles, which was the point of bobbyp’s link, I think.

Telling people they have a moral duty to vote the right way doesn’t always work. It doesn’t work on my pet issues—people need their own concerns met first and maybe not having their children sent off to fight stupid wars will meet them where they are. And if you want them to vote against a Trump or for a Democrat, one has to figure out what might reach them. Not that I know.

But, for example, I do remember reading that Trump did better in places where there were more people who had lost family members in one of our stupid wars. Trump sometimes ran (incoherently and hypocritically) as antiwar. I even sometimes a see a handful of TAC commenters who claim they supported him for that reason, but some regret it now. So depending on the reason, one might be able to persuade former Trump voters to vote Democratic or at least not to vote for Trump.

Fixed that for you

I don't need you to fix anything for me.

If you have a point, make your point, and I'll make mine, no assistance needed.

A likely future outcome for Lt Alexander Vindman.

Glad to hear it.

Thomas Geoghegan is a sharp observer. I believe he is on to something here.

Read his books, too. Good stuff.

Is anybody else having trouble getting to cleek's place? I've tried off and on for a few hours, and the message consistently says "This site can't be reached."

Cleek is down here too, GftNC.

Thanks, JDT.

works for me!

host status logs says the server was down about 6 hours ago. but should be ok now.

Yup, all good now.

"to not be on Team Ham Sandwich is mind-boggling."

well, aside from the flame-wars about "yellow mustard" vs. "grey poupon" vs. mayo.

I believe he is on to something here.

so i'm reading along, and i get to this:

If we knew any of them personally, we might shut up. Who in the GOP would go to a NASCAR rally and talk about there being no hope for anyone without a four-year degree?


and i think - who in the GOP would go to a NASCAR rally at all?

the top stars of the elected GOP and the Fox News/talk-radio chatterers are all coastal (mostly NYC and LA) elites - born and raised. the GOP is chock full of rich, private-schooled, yacht-owning elites who transparently pretend to be of-the-people. Trump literally shits in a gold toilet; and the working class that the left supposedly abandoned worships him.

I don't know who that guy hangs out with. Personally, I have a lot of friends who either never went to college, or didn't finish. I myself almost didn't finish, it took me 10 years, off and on, to get my BA.

So, WTF. The myth of the entitled snotty liberal elitist lives on.

FWIW, and not to be all Bernie-bro about it because I'm not a Bernie-bro, Sanders' "College for All" includes support for technical and vocational training. You can find that out by.... going to his campaign website and looking at it.

A heavy lift for our thoughtful cultural observer, no doubt.

I generally agree that the focus on "go to college, if you don't go to college you're gonna be a loser" is not a constructive emphasis or message. Mostly because it's false, and also because it's alienating to people who don't really want or need to go to college to do what they want to do in life.

So yes, the (D)'s could wise up about that.

Their biggest mistake, IMO, was abandoning Howard Dean's 50-state strategy in favor of doubling down on what have traditionally been (D) strongholds, via top-down strategy and funding from the DNC.

That hasn't worked so well. They should go back to Dean's plan, it was better. If anybody here has anyone from the DNC on their Rolodex, pass that long for me.

The problem I see with the Geoghegan piece is that it seems to ignore how many Democrats spent large parts of their lives around those other people before going to college and getting a leg up.

I live in campus subsidized housing surrounded by people who have graduate degrees and mostly vote blue. But I spent thirty years living in blue collar neighborhoods and small towns and rubbing elbows with others who had not earned a college degree before I managed to pay off my debts and earn my degree - and grad school happened almost accidentally).

And every time I go to visit family I am stuck back in that working class world again.

Know who has no idea about the way the other side lives? My family and old friends. The don't have the first clue about how university research works, and they think that a bachelor's degree represents some sort of expertise in the subject matter for the major, rather than being a basic introduction to the field roughly equivalent to an apprenticeship.

It's no wonder that they believe all the conspiracy theories about the Deep State, because they don't know anyone actually doing that work and they have no idea what that work entails.

So, yeah, Geoghegan is on to something with that cultural divide, but that divide needs to be permeable in both directions because we can't work if only one side is required to have compassion and understanding while the other side gets to stoke its resentment.

that divide needs to be permeable in both directions because we can't work if only one side is required to have compassion and understanding while the other side gets to stoke its resentment.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
this, right here.

tell me what you need and we can try to figure out a way to make it happen.

tell me to f*** my feelings and I'm gonna find it hard to hear anything else you have to say.

Their biggest mistake, IMO, was abandoning Howard Dean's 50-state strategy in favor of doubling down on what have traditionally been (D) strongholds, via top-down strategy and funding from the DNC.

I wouldn't disagree that this was a major mistake when it comes to Presidential politics.

But I think the greatest mistake that the Democrats have made is in focusing on national office and elections, and frequently neglecting the state level. One result of which, among others, has been a decade of gerrymandered Congressional districts. Certainly this year getting rid of Trump is critical to the nation. But if the Democrats become so focused on this that they fail to regain control of the state legislatures, we are in for another decade of unfortunate Congressional decisions.

But I think the greatest mistake that the Democrats have made is in focusing on national office and elections, and frequently neglecting the state level.

absolutely agree.

run somebody for every race, everywhere.

To Geoghan's argument, Klobuchar on professional education. I like her more and more.

I’m not suggesting it’s intentional, but most of the BernieBro talking points are straight out of the playbook of the GRU.

So heavy with conspiracy theories, the need for a revolution, and the depravity of the Democrats–seldom a real policy mention except for insisting that there’s only one way to get to government run medical care in this country.

To Geoghan's argument, Klobuchar on professional education. I like her more and more.

I like her too. I fear that she's a death sentence with the BernieBros though (and thank you doretta for your comment). Her "mean" reputation has taken hold. I'm still torn between her and Warren for my primary vote.

i'll take a 'mean' but competent boss over a corrupt, lying, idiotic sexual predator boss.

YMMV

I'd vote for Klobuchar. Surely a death sentence for her chances.

I like her too. and the Bernie idiots are seriously pissing me off

Yeah, if we actually are looking for a (D) candidate who doesn't freak out conservatives, Klobuchar is a good choice.

Practical no-nonsense mid-westerners have their virtues. I'm married to one, I know this more than well.

I am probably most closely aligned with Warren policy-wise, I have no real problem with Bernie although some of his supporters annoy the living hell out of me.

And I'd be 100% fine with POTUS Klobuchar.

I was going to say something snarky about the GRU McCarthyite crap upthread— I had something cute ready to go, but decided to post a link to something genuinely important that I just saw on one of my regular Bernie Bro twitter feeds. ( This one is a Bro— several other passionate Sanders supporters are not).

https://mobile.twitter.com/JWMason1/status/1226683737372581889

So that is Adam Johnson, one of those crazed Bros, linking to Mason linking to a deranged borderline fascist tweet from a police benevolent association.


The SBA writer appears to be a Trump fan.

So what should Democrats say about policemen who think the way this guy does?

From a UK perspective, at least our nutters with badges don’t have guns.

This slightly stumped me...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/10/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-2020-campaign-profile-112173
I asked her what she was going to do on Tuesday.

“I think,” Caron said, “I’m going to vote in the primary for Bernie.”

And in November?

No question. Trump.

“I don’t see him,” she said of Sanders, “swinging me away.”

"So what should Democrats say about policemen who think the way this guy does?:

Let me think of something, but I"d be repeating myself.

Why the woman that Nigel quotes supports Trump:

We hired him to protect us from people that want to take away our freedoms and people who want to kill babies.

What are people talking about when they talk about somebody "taking away their freedoms"? Is this the gun thing again, or the baking-cakes-for-gay-weddings thing, or ... what?

Does anyone here know?

This election is not going to be about issues. Maybe none of them are, in the end, but this one is surely not going to be. It's going to be about boogiemen. About the modern version of communists under the bed, whatever that is.

About the modern version of communists under the bed, whatever that is.

socialists are this year's communists.

Tangentially, I'm very happy to see that the guy who posted that police link is "Assistant professor of economics at John Jay College CUNY"

So Marty would vote for Klobuchar. I must pay her more attention. Marty, are there any other D candidates you would vote for against Trump?

CPAC issues violent death threat against Mitt Romney.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cpac-chair-says-hed-be-afraid-for-romneys-physical-safety-at-conservative-conference

"About the modern version of communists under the bed, whatever that is."

The American conservative movement sleeps in a bed infested with bedbugs, underneath which, for each demagogic election cycle, they keep a lynched nigger, a liberal kike, a lesbian, a fag, a transgender fag, a wetback, a commie, a socialist, a politically correct white female PTA chairman, a teacher, an elitist, a scientist, a pointy-headed professor, a drunk redskin, Barbara Streisand, a RINO, Mitt Romney, a chink with the sniffles, a Jap, an unelected bureaucrat, the Deep State, a child with AIDS, an unemployed person, a single mother who they dream of raping,, a food stamp recipient, an American with fatal pre-existing conditions on Obamacare, a Medicaid recipient, military heroes who kill all the right people, a guy in a fez, a Muslim, a Sikh (for when an Arab ain't available for a savage beating), and Amy Klobuchar, all of whom they want to murder.

Set the Republican bed on fire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQTyKr6VNoY

Wipe the Republican Party off the face of the Earth.

Does anyone here know?

"Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired."?

I watched "American Factory" (Best Documentary 2020) last night, which is worthwhile for its observations on cultural divide alone. For those unfamiliar, a closed GM plant in Ohio was reopened by a Chinese company that makes auto glass. One woman was making $29/hr at GM, rehired at $13/hr at the new plant. Statistically, she's still employed.

Who wants change when the economy is booming?

What are people talking about when they talk about somebody "taking away their freedoms"? Is this the gun thing again, or the baking-cakes-for-gay-weddings thing, or ... what?

Based on my last visit to rural Kansas, add the freedom to ignore the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act whenever those are inconvenient.

My nephew there is a skilled diesel engine mechanic. The "maintenance" job he is asked to do most often is to bypass the factory emission controls in large farm implements/trucks to get an extra 30-50 horsepower. He doesn't do that, but there is a modest underground economy in decoding the factory ROMs, working out the necessary changes, and producing replacement parts.

Interestingly, he and I agree completely that manufacturers of everything from combines to refrigerators should be required to put the circuit board designs and code in escrow, to be released whenever they stop production of either the vehicle or the boards.

Our corporate attorneys request one minor edit:

"re-leased"

we wouldn’t have to listen to the gaslighting centrists who oppose Sanders on policy pretending like it is all about electability concerns.

Former McGovern voter here who is one of those very concerned about electability, not to mention health. I certainly don't hate Sanders, and agree with some of his ideas.

But I fear a Sanders-Trump contest could be a bloodbath. And that would be a catastrophe I don't want to risk.

And here's the thing about Sanders' agenda. If you can't get the legislative parts through Congress what difference does it make who is in the White House? And how much of what can be done directly by the President will not get done by any of the other Democrats?

IOW, what is the marginal gain for progressive priorities from having Sanders rather than Klobuchar, say, as President? I'd say not a lot. And that possible gain is, IMO, not worth the risk.

GftNC,

I might vote for Biden just because he won't have any coattails and the Senate would probably be safe.

Bernie is the only one that I thunk could swing some Trump voters on the fringes. His base will want him to run third party if he doesn't win.

I would rather Klobuchar run third party. She might get a coalition of R and D voters that would throw it to the House. Then who knows.

Yes, this is just a fantasy. I have had much stranger ones.

we wouldn’t have to listen to the gaslighting centrists who oppose Sanders on policy pretending like it is all about electability concerns.

it can be both things. it can both of them and more, even.

Where did the "gaslighting centrists" quote come from?

I have had much stranger ones.

Don't even get me started.

Never mind. I found it on the previous page. No offense to Donald, but he was my first guess.

"I have had much stranger ones."

Noted.

I plan to get off work tonight and go home to a couple glasses of wine and respond to russell and nous above.

byomtov: "And here's the thing about Sanders' agenda. If you can't get the legislative parts through Congress what difference does it make who is in the White House?"

And here's the thing: None of Biden's, or Klobuchar's, or Mayor Pete's agenda (much less Elizabeth Warren's) would pass a GOP controlled Senate either. So where does that leave us?

Saw this in the Politoco article Nogel linked to.

“It’s just so simple that we tend to ignore it: If the voter turnout is big enough, the left will win,” said Dean Corren, a former state legislator in Vermont and former Sanders staffer.
I take this to be the left's version of "real Americans" on the right. In fact, it all depends on who turns out and who stays home. Because if we had 100% turnout, neither the left nor the right would do well.

We can argue about whether the center-right or center-left would have the edge in any given election. But the mode for the population as a whole is somewhere between Obama and Romney. Or, if you want current candidates, between Klobuchar/Buttigieg and Weld.

And here's the thing: None of Biden's, or Klobuchar's, or Mayor Pete's agenda (much less Elizabeth Warren's) would pass a GOP controlled Senate either.

Ah, but that's making a bit of an assumption, isn't it?

Marty, above, suggests that Biden would "have no coattails." But my guess is that that's more likely to be true of Sanders. The Republicans might contrive to hold the Senate this year. But I wouldn't give odds.

"And here's the thing: None of Biden's, or Klobuchar's, or Mayor Pete's agenda (much less Elizabeth Warren's) would pass a GOP controlled Senate either. So where does that leave us?"

They will refuse any and everything by anyone who is to the left of Donald Trump, while opening impeachment proceedings against whomever besides trump is elected despite massive election corruption and vote-theft by the fascist right wing.

We're already there.

Democracy and the Republic are on the slab, lifeless, murdered.

The autopsy can wait.

Trump will default on the national debt.

Defaulting on his debts and ours IS his single expertise, and ultimately the goal the Republican Party lied, cheated, hated, and stole for to hire him.

Where does that leave us?

Only savagely violent resistance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r13kXZKe4IA

Thanks, Marty.

odds are good that if a Dem gets the WH, Dems get the Senate, too.

there are enough vulnerable Senate GOoPs to make it work.

They will refuse any and everything by anyone who is to the left of Donald Trump, while opening impeachment proceedings against whomever besides trump is elected....

Um... impeachment proceedings have to start in the House. Can you see a scenario where the Democrat wins the Presidency, but Republicans take back the House? Because I sure can't.

None of Biden's, or Klobuchar's, or Mayor Pete's agenda (much less Elizabeth Warren's) would pass a GOP controlled Senate either. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us looking for a candidate who can win and turn the Senate.

But I fear a Sanders-Trump contest could be a bloodbath.

Me, too.

But I don't know what "electable" looks like. I know what "un-fucking-believably-unelectable" looks like, and that clown is in the Oval Office. Time for a new algorithm?

I'm no good at 4D chess and I don't have a clue as to the winning formula for "electability". And there may be a completely different formula for "getting stuff done". I hope the primary process figures out the first one and ideally the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't know what Congress is going to look like. I guess that should be part of the calculus too, but I'll be damned if I know how it factors in.

Will Warren or Sanders put another Ajit Pai at the head of the FCC or a Raytheon lobbyist at Sec. Def? No. Biden? Doubtful. Bloomberg? I don't know.

That's the stuff the eventual nominee can definitely control if elected. So that's pretty much what I'm going on.

This is far from unique, but still really sad.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/10/our-kids-are-losing-one-their-best-teachers-because-hes-dreamer/

But the author gets one thing wrong, it seem to me. He says "It’s not as though the United States has an overabundance of highly skilled, highly dedicated educators. We need all the great teachers we can get." But that assumes you believe in the value of education. While, on the evidence, Trump and his base hold exactly the opposite opinion.

But that assumes you believe in the value of education. While, on the evidence, Trump and his base hold exactly the opposite opinion.

Kansas has been an interesting experiment. Brownback's tax cuts were deep enough that K-12 spending cuts were required. Not taking the Medicaid expansion meant cuts for Kansas's extensive network of rural hospitals. That got a Democrat elected governor, and a substantial turnover in Republican legislators. Enough change to get some of the tax cuts repealed, and the Medicaid expansion done. Depending on the specific candidates, Kansas may elect a Democrat for the open US Senate seat. Not real likely, but possible, especially if Kobach is the Republican. I think Trump gets the EC votes easily.

Ah, but that's making a bit of an assumption, isn't it?

What Pete said.

Look, all we are doing here is making assumptions. I should think that the GOP retaining the US Senate is not an outlandish one given what seats may or may not be in play, and how many the Dems need to pick up. If the GOP retains control, they will block just about any policy agenda put forward by any Dem president. THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS!!!!!!!!!!! Hell's bells, they might even block any further judicial appointments, you know, because the next election is "only" 3 or 4 years off. The only thing they would pass would be some kind of compromise budgets, maybe rename a post office or two.

So we have to take the Senate. Then we also have to blow up the filibuster once and for all. Because the filibuster is still in play for stuff like health care reforms. And further, this assumes that folks like Joe Manchin will go for such reforms as well.

If you believe that to be no big deal, then please do not bring up the matter of "assumptions" with me....like ever.

Thanks.

If I had to pick between (D) POTUS and (R) majority Senate vs the other way around, I'd go for (D) majority Senate and live with (R) POTUS. Even though that would be Trump.

But let's shoot for both.

"States with a powerful death penalty on drug dealers don't have a drug problem. I don't know if our country is ready for that. ... Countries with a powerful death penalty, with a fair but quick trial, they have very little if any drug problem. That includes China."

letting his authoritarian flag fly.

thanks GOP. you're the best.

"Countries with a powerful death penalty, with a fair but quick trial,..." <- oxymoran -> "That includes China."

Well maybe quick. After all, time is money when you have organ sales to make.

my days as a religious fundamentalist.

Wow, I would have never guessed - if it's not too personal I would be interested in what happened, thanks.

Sanders' supporters aren't hanging out reading Marcuse.

Lol, I'm looking forward to the day Marcuse re-enters public discourse in the US (or anywhere really).

As it happens, I just started Grand Hotel Abyss - The Lives of the Frankfurt School - they have been a bit of an intellectual blind spot for me (except for tiny doses of Habermas and Honneth) but I can't bring myself to read the originals. Quite entertaining so far.

I should think that the GOP retaining the US Senate is not an outlandish one given what seats may or may not be in play, and how many the Dems need to pick up.

No argument at all. Just saying that it's not a slam dunk for them either.

And it looks rather like the GOP is trying hard to put as many Senate (and other) seats as possible in play. See the suit to overturn Obamacare, the proposed cuts to MedicAid, etc., etc., etc. It's by no means a sure thing, but we could be looking at the Kansas experience on a grand scale.

we can only hope, wj.

Can you see a scenario where the Democrat wins the Presidency, but Republicans take back the House?

It’s called the midterms.

And WRS, 3.23.

“ No offense to Donald, but he was my first guess.”

None taken. I wish to ridicule the Bernie Bro bashing in this thread and elsewhere. It is rather obviously the sort of thing where people notice rudeness and harsh arguments and worse aimed at their own side while thinking every piece of crap their side throws is a bouquet of roses. I stopped reading Balloon Juice years ago because of the bouquets. Waste of time. I still look at LGM sometimes because there are some good articles and even some funny people in the comments, so it is not a waste of time, but that place is a Two Minute Hate that never stops. Does this matter? No. It’s the internet. Boohoo, people on the Internet are being harshly critical of the views I hold and the people I like. Someone make it stop or at least give me some pearls to clutch. Actually, I find it fascinating to figure out exactly how the LGM people think. Just how far can you go in criticizing a Democrat? What are the rules? When do you fall in line and when can you cut loose? For me it is like trying to decipher a dead foreign language.

Do Sanders supporters think the mainstream Democratic Party is too corporate friendly, too easily influenced by big money donors and in a word, corrupt? Hell yes. Better than Trump, but iI’d go beyond Russell and say I’d vote for a piece of dog poop smeared on the ballot over Trump. I’d even vote for Bloomberg if he buys the Party. It is important enough I will shut up for a few months after the nomination if some sandwich or dog poop is the Democratic standard bearer.

I could also talk about columnists. But nevermind. Want to keep it short( er). But the mainstream liberal press despises the far left. The feeling is mutual.

Also, the Berniebro meme is BS. Anyone who follows pro Bernie twitter will immediately see women who are as passionate about Bernie and as hostile to the Democratic mainstream as any Chapo guy. The Bro thing is an attempt to make it about sexism. So ask female Berniebros online about their experiences. You might be surprised to discover that woman holding all sorts of views can be targeted by misogynist creeps. Sometimes racist ones too.

And then look at the politicians and public figures who do support Sanders. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Tlaib. Clinton attacked Sanders and Tlaib led a booing session. I don’t think either of them should have done what they did, but that was a Bro- ish thing to do on both sides. Except both were women.

Related to this is the idea that Sanders only attracts the white Chapo type male. Except he is very popular with the millenials of all types.
Sanders is apparently very popular with Muslims. Ask me about Klobucher and Palestine. Just kidding— don’t really want to do more ranting for awhile after I finish this.

If you follow Sanders twitter you will see references to people dying or unable to afford health care. So some of them see Medicare for all as life or death. I just saw another tweet like that. Are they right? I don’t know, but don’t tell me they are just random Bros angry about nothing.

And speaking of nothing, Yemen is now entirely a mainstream issue in the Democratic Party. A few Republicans opposed it before many Democrats did, but the US support for that war is now a Trump owned policy. But Sanders was there earlier than most. That is the sort of issue where you generally find the Berniebro types of various genders there before it becomes mainstream. And when did it become mainstream and why? Well, Khashoggi was murdered and he was part of the DC social scene. And after a decent interval it was Trump’s war. Which it totally is at this point.

the mainstream liberal press despises the far left. The feeling is mutual.

From the outside (i.e. as someone who is neither far left nor a mainstream liberal), I get the sense that the mainstream liberals dislike the far left for, as they see it, persistently making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Yes, there are also various policy differences. But the real driver of the intense dislike is the times that the far left acted like they would rather let the far right win than "compromise their ideals" and support a moderate liberal. (It's not a phenomena peculiar to the left, of course.)

But let's shoot for both.

Amen, amen, thrice amen.

And if you can't shoot, being the pinko liberals you are, it might be time once again for the holy hand grenade of Antioch (you'll have to consult the Book of Armaments...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

It never occurred to me that the term Bernie-bros applied only to men.

The comments to this entry are closed.