The Swamp

Raises the question of why do we give judges lifetime appointments again? In theory, to allow them to be independent of politics but this woman is completely political. The Republicans created her path specifically to be a supreme court justice. Never mind experience. 10 years without reappointments would be plenty independent and wouldnt create an incentive to appoint relatively green justices.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:58 am Raises the question of why do we give judges lifetime appointments again? In theory, to allow them to be independent of politics but this woman is completely political. The Republicans created her path specifically to be a supreme court justice. Never mind experience. 10 years without reappointments would be plenty independent and wouldnt create an incentive to appoint relatively green justices.

Or just stagger 18-year terms so every presidential term gets to nominate two justices.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:22 am

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:51 am Why Liberals Feign Powerlessness

Uh-huh. Someone who says that the Dems have abandoned the New Deal - when the Dems are the only reason Social Security has survived decades of R attempts to weaken it - is not credible.

Is there any journalist who criticizes the Democratic Party from the left that you do find credible? Because you’ve used that line on Greenwald, Grim and now Luke Savage. I’m not as familiar with Savage’s work but Greenwald and Grim have both broken some pretty important stories over the years.

I’m just wondering if there’s anyone whose opinion you’ll even consider on this or if criticism of the Democratic Party is prima facie evidence that someone should not be listened to?

Pretty solid idea.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:09 am Pretty solid idea.

Can't take credit for it, but I agree.

South Bend Pete has actually been the first Dem surrogate on Fox to be effective...ever. He's really good at this.

You have to wonder how many more times they'll have him on.

Over under on +1 would be a good prop bet.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:35 am South Bend Pete has actually been the first Dem surrogate on Fox to be effective...ever. He's really good at this.

Love it! He just kept cutting of Doocy and getting extra jabs in at Trump. "But maybe he doesn't care about other people." I can't believe they continue to have him on. Similarly, why the fuck does CNN keep Santorum on the air? They crap he spews is just ludicrous. It's fun to watch him try to polish the turds Trump puts out there at times, but the majority of the time I want to jump through my TV screen and punch him.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:36 am Was hoping you'd quote this part:

... the Obama era has served to convince many liberals of the need to compromise even further—anything remotely ambitious being doomed to fail on the altars of conservative partisanship and Republican obstruction. (Rampant opposition to Medicare for All from centrist Democrats despite its considerable popularity has been justified on these grounds for years.)

This must explain why Biden is running on the most progressive presidential platform ever, including another massive expansion of healthcare coverage and subsidies financed by taxes on the rich.

Opposition to Medicare for All is "rampant" despite its "considerable popularity" because it's a dumb idea politically and on the merits.

Joe, credibility depends on the writer's history and what he (almost always) is using as evidence to support his argument. If they say obviously wrong and slated stuff (like Savage), or have a history of saying obviously slanted stuff (like Greenwald), or if they put their desire to attack the Democratic Party ahead of any desire to be (dare I say) fair or balanced (like Greenwald and Grim), no, I won't find them credible. Why do you, other than the fact that you like what they are saying?

Any argument that is based on the notion that the Democrats abandoned the New Deal, or have refused to fight for progressive goals (again, even using the privileged definition where "progressive" only involves economics) is not credible.

If someone were to argue that the Dems have shied away from broader tax increases because they are afraid to piss off upper middle class white folks, or did wrong by failing to rein in things like the carried interest loophole, or are stupidly pandering by talking about "middle class tax cuts," or haven't done nearly enough in the past few decades to fight for unions, or should have been fighting more for gay marriage and gay and trans civil rights, I may or may not agree depending on where the argument is going, but those are credible things to say.

"Most progressive platform ever" is saying "the 2020 Giants are the most sabermetrically inclined Giants team ever" and pointing to a 3% decrease in sacrifice bunts. You keep trying to pretend "more progressive" is progressive when the country is far outpacing the party.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:00 am "Most progressive platform ever" is saying "the 2020 Giants are the most sabermetrically inclined Giants team ever" and pointing to a 3% decrease in sacrifice bunts. You keep trying to pretend "more progressive" is progressive when the country is far outpacing the party.

(Applies to both "progressive" and "the country".)

An in-depth survey from the Kaiser Foundation shows that the country is in favor of M4A (and it depends on what you call it, the survey found):

57 favor - 40 opposed. And within those numbers, of that 57: 32 percent strongly favor, while 25 somewhat favor.

So... The idea that the country is hugely in support of M4A is a pretty big overstatement.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/

Not getting my hopes up, but Holy Shit

I know Congress can't get involved with the 25th unless the President decided not to step down and the VP can only be the only to start the process, but maybe just maybe there has been talks with Pence by the Right?

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:11 am An in-depth survey from the Kaiser Foundation shows that the country is in favor of M4A (and it depends on what you call it, the survey found):

57 favor - 40 opposed. And within those numbers, of that 57: 32 percent strongly favor, while 25 somewhat favor.

So... The idea that the country is hugely in support of M4A is a pretty big overstatement.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/

The majority of the entire fucking country is in favor, the "Dem base" is strongly in favor.

In an alternative universe, It would have been interesting to see how a Dem nominee who did endorse MFA would have fared in the debates, given that the Repubs want to savage it as a socialist plot.

I mean, really. South Bend Pete is FANTASTIC at this stuff. This was even better than the other one. Dead silence when he was done.

Pelosi bringing up the 25th is nice. I'm happy she did that.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:25 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:11 am An in-depth survey from the Kaiser Foundation shows that the country is in favor of M4A (and it depends on what you call it, the survey found):

57 favor - 40 opposed. And within those numbers, of that 57: 32 percent strongly favor, while 25 somewhat favor.

So... The idea that the country is hugely in support of M4A is a pretty big overstatement.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/

The majority of the entire fucking country is in favor, the "Dem base" is strongly in favor.

You pretty consistently paint this issue like it's 70 percent or higher. And there are lots of issues where the country is that strongly in favor. (Taking COVID seriously, for example.)

(You weren't talking about the party, and it's important to make that distinction.)

So Biden will have a town hall on the 15th, and the second debate has been moved to the 22nd, and the third to the 29th.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:45 amYou pretty consistently paint this issue like it's 70 percent or higher. And there are lots of issues where the country is that strongly in favor. (Taking COVID seriously, for example.)

(You weren't talking about the party, and it's important to make that distinction.)

What Republicans think of M4A, be it 1% or 99% favorable, should not matter at all to the Democrats. No more than conservatives polling to the right of their own beliefs on masks or shutdowns should alter their thinking.

(I have no idea which quote from me you're referring to.)

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:54 am Joe, credibility depends on the writer's history and what he (almost always) is using as evidence to support his argument. If they say obviously wrong and slated stuff (like Savage), or have a history of saying obviously slanted stuff (like Greenwald), or if they put their desire to attack the Democratic Party ahead of any desire to be (dare I say) fair or balanced (like Greenwald and Grim), no, I won't find them credible. Why do you, other than the fact that you like what they are saying?

Any argument that is based on the notion that the Democrats abandoned the New Deal, or have refused to fight for progressive goals (again, even using the privileged definition where "progressive" only involves economics) is not credible.

If someone were to argue that the Dems have shied away from broader tax increases because they are afraid to piss off upper middle class white folks, or did wrong by failing to rein in things like the carried interest loophole, or are stupidly pandering by talking about "middle class tax cuts," or haven't done nearly enough in the past few decades to fight for unions, or should have been fighting more for gay marriage and gay and trans civil rights, I may or may not agree depending on where the argument is going, but those are credible things to say.

So, are there any actual critics of the Democratic Party that you find credible, or are you only referring to theoretical ones that may or may not meet your standards?

Grim just wrote a thoroughly researched, well reviewed book on the modern history of Democratic Party politics (“We’ve Got People”). Greenwald has broken some of the most important stories of the last 10 years (Snowden, Brazilian political corruption) and always backs his opinions up with citations. The fact that you disagree with their politics and criticisms of the Democratic establishment does not mean that they lack credibility.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:18 pm

First I have heard the Turtle say the words mask and Social distancing.. His he playing voters or getting away from Trump? Maybe this has to do what Pelosi was mentioning?

He's been talking about masks for a while. I can't ding him there. Now, he didn't call out the president before.

This is from May.

That's for sure the interesting part.

Sure McConnel is evil but he's almost sensible evil not chaotic evil. It's crazy how Trump has handed covid. I mean even if he did nothing his ratings would be in the 50s. But he has to be smarter than the doctors, always has to be right, always has to have the biggest rallies. That Tulsa rally was the beginning of the end.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:33 pm That's for sure the interesting part.

Well, I did mention what is likely the interesting part.

In case any of you were concerned...

GIVE ME ATTENTION BUT ONLY POSITIVE ATTENTION.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:00 am "Most progressive platform ever" is saying "the 2020 Giants are the most sabermetrically inclined Giants team ever" and pointing to a 3% decrease in sacrifice bunts. You keep trying to pretend "more progressive" is progressive when the country is far outpacing the party.

I say this all the time but a truly left-wing President would melt people's brains.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:11 am An in-depth survey from the Kaiser Foundation shows that the country is in favor of M4A (and it depends on what you call it, the survey found):

57 favor - 40 opposed. And within those numbers, of that 57: 32 percent strongly favor, while 25 somewhat favor.

So... The idea that the country is hugely in support of M4A is a pretty big overstatement.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/

When it comes to politics, isn't 57:40 huge? Something like 65% support not executing black people on the streets.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:37 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:00 am "Most progressive platform ever" is saying "the 2020 Giants are the most sabermetrically inclined Giants team ever" and pointing to a 3% decrease in sacrifice bunts. You keep trying to pretend "more progressive" is progressive when the country is far outpacing the party.

I say this all the time but a truly left-wing President would melt people's brains.

But those people would be able to get healthcare for melted brain syndrome!

Trump in front of a green screen: "So, to my favorite people in the world, the seniors: I'm a senior! I know you don't know that. Nobody knows that."

Is he even capable of stringing together three sentences without lying? Everybody knows he's a senior. The president's age isn't a closely-guarded state secret. WTF.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:45 pm Trump in front of a green screen: "So, to my favorite people in the world, the seniors: I'm a senior! I know you don't know that. Nobody knows that."

Is he even capable of stringing together three sentences without lying? Everybody knows he's a senior. The president's age isn't a closely-guarded state secret. WTF.

That shit is literally the only time I like the guy when he lies about absolutely loony stuff that literally everyone knows is true.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:41 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:11 am An in-depth survey from the Kaiser Foundation shows that the country is in favor of M4A (and it depends on what you call it, the survey found):

57 favor - 40 opposed. And within those numbers, of that 57: 32 percent strongly favor, while 25 somewhat favor.

So... The idea that the country is hugely in support of M4A is a pretty big overstatement.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/

When it comes to politics, isn't 57:40 huge? Something like 65% support not executing black people on the streets.

Well, again, almost 40 percent of that 57 is pretty soft (somewhat favor). Those folks are very easily pushed off their stance. Especially when a TON of money and lobbying are sitting on the sidelines waiting to jump in.

You're talking about a fairly radical restructuring of an industry. Doesn't matter what industry it is, billions will be spent to keep it from happening.

We eventually got the ACA because at the end of the day, it wasn't fundamentally fucking with the structure of things.

Speaking of seniors... He's getting his everloving ass handed to him in FL, I've been told.

Gonna go see if I can find a link.

They're, apparently, not too psyched about being pretty directly sentenced to an even earlier death by Trump's antics.

ETA: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... ipiac-poll

Biden +11 with seniors / Quinnipiac

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:54 pm Speaking of seniors... He's getting his everloving ass handed to him in FL, I've been told.

Gonna go see if I can find a link.

They're, apparently, not too psyched about being pretty directly sentenced to an even earlier death by Trump's antics.

ETA: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... ipiac-poll

Biden +11 with seniors / Quinnipiac

If you're looking for one story, reason or narrative why Trump loses this election compared to 2016 (assuming he loses) will be because of the complete reversal in support from seniors. Some of that is absolutely COVID related, but some of it is good old fashioned misogyny as well.

Either Pence is positive or Trump is taking a turn for the worse.