The Swamp

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:16 pm Those are fair points, but it’s interesting that I have yet to see similar arguments made about criticisms of Sanders. He’s been polling 1st or 2nd in every recent national poll, so I’m curious if you similarly feel that it would be irresponsible for Biden, Harris, O’Rourke, et al. to attack Sanders.

I don't know. Have they? Are they attacking the Democratic party also?

Edit. I didn't really need to go where I was going.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:27 am

teeteebee wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:35 am

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:06 pm

teeteebee wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:45 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:36 am Who the fuck cellars an IPA?

I have an almost full case of 120 minute in my cellar currently. Bottled in 2017, coming up on two years soon.

Can’t get worse so good luck.

Thinking 3-5 years though I’m sure that’s batch by batch.

Probably drink one qtrly beginning in early ‘20.

Ive read that the 120s are the only IPAs you should even consider aging.

Agree 100%. Was just messing with Delaware. Most are enjoy as fresh as possible especially the wet hopped variety.

teeteebee wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:35 am

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:06 pm

teeteebee wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:45 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:36 am Who the fuck cellars an IPA?

I have an almost full case of 120 minute in my cellar currently. Bottled in 2017, coming up on two years soon.

Can’t get worse so good luck.

Thinking 3-5 years though I’m sure that’s batch by batch.

Probably drink one qtrly beginning in early ‘20.

I don't think they improve with age. The booze may fade a bit, but it's just a big malt bomb, it's not like there are wood flavors or anything new that come in.

Finally, a candidate who is addressing the issues that are important to me.

Listening to the Pad Save guys and they finally got into what I was unable to dig up on Obama. They essentially said that Obama attended an SEIU luncheon that included Clinton and Edwards, and the topic of health care reform rolled around and he felt totally out-classed because he hadn't drafted his own plan, and he was thin on details. He said he would pass hc reform, but had no exact plan on how to do it. Afterwards, he was super pissed and spent the next 2 months over-compensating on the campaign trail in Iowa, laying out a bunch of detailed policy plans in painful 60 minute speeches all over the state.

This all went down in the summer/fall (2007), prior to the primary season really kicking off (Iowa caucus is in Feb.) He really didn't even have a solid handle on his vision and compelling reason he was running until that fall (2007)

I say that just to remind everyone that wants all of these people to have detailed policy prescriptions that it is WAY early for candidates to need to have fully fleshed out platforms. Obama really did campaign a lot like how Beto is currently... A lot of talk about not voting for the Iraq War (well, opposing our involvement, he wasn't in the Senate when the voting took place) and not being part of the Establishment, and trying to unite the country.

But it took him time to get there. He needed to get realistic and that took some bumps and bruises.

Did he not have a detailed plan or did he not have a personal position?

The Pod Save America guys are obviously huge Obama loyalists but to me that’s not exactly a reassuring anecdote. The ACA was essentially drafted by insurance industry lobbyists, and Obama spent a lot of time and political capital in a futile attempt to “unite the country” and get GOP support for his bill. He didn’t even try to include a public option in the bill. So perhaps it would’ve been better if he had a clearer vision for healthcare reform at the time he started running for President.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:47 pm The Pod Save America guys are obviously huge Obama loyalists but to me that’s not exactly a reassuring anecdote. The ACA was essentially drafted by insurance industry lobbyists, and Obama spent a lot of time and political capital in a futile attempt to “unite the country” and get GOP support for his bill. He didn’t even try to include a public option in the bill. So perhaps it would’ve been better if he had a clearer vision for healthcare reform at the time he started running for President.

To be fair, I think Obama would have preferred a far more progressive healthcare plan, possibly even Medicare for All, but he needed to heavily compromise in order to get something passed. The Pod Save guys have talked about that in the past, and Obama felt it was more important to pass a partial reform than go for everything and get nothing.

On the plus side, Trump campaigned on such detailed plans as "a big beautiful health plan, it'll be so amazing, tremendous, nobody will believe how tremendous it will be, and it cost less money." Fortunately, 2 years in, Trump still has no plan for replacing the ACA, no plan for building his wall, no plan for, well, anything.

Yeah, that's a HEAVILY skewed revision of history Joe. He absolutely came in wanting a more progressive change to the system. There WAS a public option in the bill, but Joe Lieberman led the effort to kill it. And as Syb said, it's not like he had carte blanche in Congress... He had to compromise to get something done.

He and Clinton (really their staff and surrogates) spent months nitpicking the shit out of each other's detailed plans. I was, in fact, secretly on one of the infamous conference calls where policy wonks were shit talking Obama's approach in extremely granular fashion to reporters "on background." (One of the wonks was at the think tank I was working for, and he got a lot of shit for being on that call because we were supposed to be non-partisan.) That was in the heat of the primary season... Plans were out there for months at that point.

And D, he had a personal position and a pledge to pass universal hc coverage in his first term. You can get away with that type of vagueness on the campaign trail, but when he got into a quasi-debate policy luncheon, that 30 second soundbyte made him feel paper thin on the issue. So he went to staff and said "I'm running for President, I need to have details!"

Obama was the former in my example, contrasted against Beto's seeming latter.

Obama didn't even introduce a specific bill - he left that to Congress.

The House's bill, which Obama supported, and which was the first one passed, included a public option. (Even though, apparently, the ACA was written by insurance lobbyists.) The Senate bill did not. But the Senate bill had to go through because Scott Brown took over the Massachusetts senate seat and the Dems lost their filibuster-proof majority.

Boy do (did?) I hate Scott Brown

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:33 pm Boy do (did?) I hate Scott Brown

And the fucking voters of Massachusetts, yes.

And why did he win? Oh, that's right. The Democrats put forth an out of touch entitled person in Martha Coakley.

From Wiki:

Coakley committed a number of gaffes during the campaign. When criticized for leaving the state for a Washington fundraiser instead of campaigning, Coakley responded by saying "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?"[40] Barack Obama, in reflecting on his Presidency, cited this comment as an instigating factor for Coakley's election loss, as well as a hurdle for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[41] Coakley also referred to Red Sox star pitcher and Brown supporter Curt Schilling as "another Yankee fan," making her a target of derision.

Yeah, heaven forbid she make fun of noted not-crazy person Curt Schilling.

Maybe you should read the first half of that again. Ya know, the part Obama commented on.

Thanks in advance.

She absolutely thought it was show-up-and-win and didn't count on the middle saying "he's hot / his daughter is hot" and going the other way.

Biden is a total creep and you can bet there are tons more women who have experienced something like this. A few months back I saw a video cut someone posted on Twitter of Biden repeatedly smelling women’s (and in some cases, girls’) hair during ceremonial events.

You know who doesn't have this problem? Mayor Pete.

(And he's on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, btw.)

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:20 pm You know who doesn't have this problem? Mayor Pete.

(And he's on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, btw.)

And how great would it be to watch Evangelicals flip their shit over a GAY President? OTOH, we'd have to listen to feminists complain about how we have a gay President, had a black President, and still not a female President. Mayor Pete seems like a great guy so far, let's see how he handles the scrutiny.

In 2008, I didn't think we had come far enough as a nation to elect a black man as president. I was wrong. I hope I am wrong again, because I don't feel we have come far enough as a nation now to elect a gay man as president.

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:49 pm In 2008, I didn't think we had come far enough as a nation to elect a black man as president. I was wrong. I hope I am wrong again, because I don't feel we have come far enough as a nation now to elect a gay man as president.

I think anyone who would refuse to vote for a candidate solely because they are gay, isn't going to vote for any Democrat no matter what.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:56 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:49 pm In 2008, I didn't think we had come far enough as a nation to elect a black man as president. I was wrong. I hope I am wrong again, because I don't feel we have come far enough as a nation now to elect a gay man as president.

I think anyone who would refuse to vote for a candidate solely because they are gay, isn't going to vote for any Democrat no matter what.

Can't agree with that. Many ethnic communities are as homophobic as evangelicals.

ETA: Or at least have large, traditional elements within them that are that way.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:56 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:49 pm In 2008, I didn't think we had come far enough as a nation to elect a black man as president. I was wrong. I hope I am wrong again, because I don't feel we have come far enough as a nation now to elect a gay man as president.

I think anyone who would refuse to vote for a candidate solely because they are gay, isn't going to vote for any Democrat no matter what.

Maybe, but an issue like that could galvanize conservative voters. Hey, remember when GWB and John Kerry ran for President?

New York Times wrote:Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates including President Bush in Ohio and Senator Jim Bunning in Kentucky...
the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters -- who historically have leaned heavily Republican -- may have tipped the balance.

In Ohio, for instance, political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush...

He's got a legit shot at Veep, which would be FUCKINGAWESOME in terms of the optics/comparison to Pence.

It's almost too good.

Such an embarrassing party.

Very long read on Mayor Pete.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

Not would you'd call a glowing endorsement.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:48 am Very long read on Mayor Pete.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

Not would you'd call a glowing endorsement.

I read that piece a few days ago. Nathan Robinson can write a methodical take-down like no one else. My main takeaways were that: (1) Pete’s “regular Midwestern guy” shtick is a bit disingenuous considering that he was raised by Notre Dame academics and has an ultra-Elite educational background; and (2) Pete seems oblivious to poverty and its effect on his communities. The first point doesn’t really bother me as virtually all politicians finesse their backgrounds to score points. The second point is an issue, which unfortunately is prevalent among virtually all Democratic politicians. Reagan was so effective in stigmatizing and dehumanizing the poor that you almost never hear Democrats even mention the word “poverty.” Instead, they always talk about helping the “middle class,” while ignoring that there are tens of millions of Americans who can only dream of being middle class.

Speaking of the Dems and their failure to properly value core voters ...

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:04 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:48 am Very long read on Mayor Pete.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

Not would you'd call a glowing endorsement.

I read that piece a few days ago. Nathan Robinson can write a methodical take-down like no one else. My main takeaways were that: (1) Pete’s “regular Midwestern guy” shtick is a bit disingenuous considering that he was raised by Notre Dame academics and has an ultra-Elite educational background; and (2) Pete seems oblivious to poverty and its effect on his communities. The first point doesn’t really bother me as virtually all politicians finesse their backgrounds to score points. The second point is an issue, which unfortunately is prevalent among virtually all Democratic politicians. Reagan was so effective in stigmatizing and dehumanizing the poor that you almost never hear Democrats even mention the word “poverty.” Instead, they always talk about helping the “middle class,” while ignoring that there are tens of millions of Americans who can only dream of being middle class.

Talking to my son this weekend and it's "funny"... I have now fully turned the corner and if my New Democrat friends on Facebook like a candidate, I'm immediately skeptical. Beto, Pete and Klobuchar are in my feed an awful lot these days.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:15 am Speaking of the Dems and their failure to properly value core voters ...

That's crazy. Why don't they hire a Spanish speaking person to re-do the entire website.

Not having one on staff to prevent this is a pretty huge tell, huh?

Some firm run by a white guy probably got a nice payday out of that!

As someone that deals with the need to communicate to lots of different groups this is a) not surprising and b) ridiculously poor form for a national political campaign.

This isn't hard and you don't even need someone on staff, there are tons of companies that do this translation for pretty marginal amounts of money.

Now, I will say this, having not gone and looked closely at how they graded each site... I have someone on staff that hired specifically because he's fluent in Spanish. We also have a freelance videographer from Colombia who is fluent. They "argue" about translations all the time. I'm not saying that's an issue with that article, but it's something to consider. I'm assuming whoever compiled those grades isn't just using whatever percentage of the translation came from Google, as opposed to being fluent in the language and grading them accordingly.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:04 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:48 amVery long read on Mayor Pete.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

Not would you'd call a glowing endorsement.

I read that piece a few days ago. Nathan Robinson can write a methodical take-down like no one else. My main takeaways were that: (1) Pete’s “regular Midwestern guy” shtick is a bit disingenuous considering that he was raised by Notre Dame academics and has an ultra-Elite educational background; and (2) Pete seems oblivious to poverty and its effect on his communities. The first point doesn’t really bother me as virtually all politicians finesse their backgrounds to score points. The second point is an issue, which unfortunately is prevalent among virtually all Democratic politicians. Reagan was so effective in stigmatizing and dehumanizing the poor that you almost never hear Democrats even mention the word “poverty.” Instead, they always talk about helping the “middle class,” while ignoring that there are tens of millions of Americans who can only dream of being middle class.

That profile makes him seem like an empty vessel, save for the platitudes... which would make him empty. It also feels like his party alignment is based solely on what his profile stereotypes as (sexual orientation, education).

Yeah, the stuff in his memoir about being an Indiana kid amazed by “big city Cambridge” when he got to Harvard is pretty ridiculous. He grew up in South Bend in a Notre Dame family, not in the middle of a cornfield.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:31 am Yeah, the stuff in his memoir about being an Indiana kid amazed by “big city Cambridge” when he got to Harvard is pretty ridiculous. He grew up in South Bend in a Notre Dame family, not in the middle of a cornfield.

Whatever his politics aside, I don't think it's crazy for someone from South Bend to be awed by a city the size of Boston.

South Bend is the size of Manchester NH and probably has less colleges. I think it checks out and leave Mayor Pete alone, assholes.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:50 amWhatever his politics aside, I don't think it's crazy for someone from South Bend to be awed by a city the size of Boston.

Boston sure, Cambridge no.

I'm choosing to assume he wasn't awed by the x square miles of Cambridge proper and was basically using the trope of the kid from a smallish city who is impressed by the big city once he finally gets to live there, which is the basis for pretty much every memoir ever, but hardly something you can fucking kill a guy for.