The Swamp

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:05 amJust a general thought that's been rattling around in my head recently. Politicians stereotypically seem to have some pretty negative qualities such as deceit, cowardice (Pelosi), grifting and corruption, and being totally out of touch with their constituents. It seems like this has been the stereotype completely throughout history (although it seems like the Founding Fathers get a pass somehow). Is it that the job of a politicians brings out these in them, or are people with these traits just naturally drawn to politics?

I think there is a draw to power (and other things that come with it, such as money). As such, those people are willing to do or not do whatever is required (deceit, cowardice) to get the power and its trappings (which often come from grifting/corruption), which leads to them being out of touch with constituents (because power, money, etc. insulates them from their constituents). I mean, a quick internet search turned up sources that listed "civil servant/politician" on separate lists of top ten professions most likely to have psychopaths and sociopaths among them. Lawyer, salesperson (Trump), and CEO are also among the jobs that appear on both lists.

My mom ran for city councilor when I was a sophomore in high school. Between the hours spent on lots of weekends holding signs, knocking on doors, and dealing with "politics" was nauseating. I called it a "campaign in the ass" to deal with.

Why she ran? Honestly, she was an active community organizer and wanted to do something good, but her personality drove people away and she always felt like her ideas were always the best. But also it was out of spite that the incumbent was going to get to 10 years in and would thus see some sort of city pension. She just wanted to take that from him.

I am pretty sure there was drama elsewhere in there because there were gross rumors from that guy about my mom in the years leading up to it. Dude was a womanizer and drug addict on top of it. So, yeah. There are just some personalities that seem predestined to gravitate towards the political scene.

I think it's unfair to paint all politicians with one brush, just like I try to give police the benefit of the doubt (to a point) in terms of their overall goodness and humanity.

The problem is that the "system" in which those two cohorts operate has been honed and twisted over time into directions with inherent problems and traps. You have to be almost super-human, in the way that addicts have to operate working in the restaurant biz... Vice and temptation are baked into the system, and you can't ignore it and have to be mindful and purposeful not to cross a line on almost a daily basis.

And as far as politicians go, the more you go up the ladder, the more money you are required* to attain, which is pretty obviously an increasing chance of getting into some bullshit.

* - You can do what Warren and others are doing and limit your donation sources to decrease the odds of shadiness. Which is REALLY effective. The minute you start taking money from assholes, the more you start to stink like one.**

** - Man, I'm on fire today.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:25 pmAlso, this is a pretty significant bit of reporting that came out today:

I’ve seen rumors for a while that Acosta gave Epstein a pass because Epstein was an agent collecting blackmail material for one or more intelligence agencies. But this is the first time I’ve seen it reported this directly.

Hmm...

Wait...wtf is going on? Dude was some super secret agent and gathered Intel significant enough that it allowed him to fuck children? Wut!?!!

From CNBC:

Accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein is willing to post bail as high as $100 million, his lawyer said Monday, as a prosecutor argued that the case against the wealthy investor is “already significantly stronger and getting stronger every single day.”

Gentlemen, we live in a vile, vile world.

Isn't that a heads up to the judge that "held without bail" is a good idea?

Who can know what the billionaire pedophile with multiple passports and enough money to buy freedom in a foreign country might do when faced with life in prison here? Are you saying you can see the future? See into a man's heart???

At least one House Dem was paying attention to AOC's seminars on how to use Twitter.

This belongs in a time capsule for everything wrong with the Democratic Party in the 21st Century. Apparently abiding by an obscure House procedural rule that says you don’t call people racist is more important than calling out Trump for being a racist.

I had the chance to meet Steny last fall just before the midterms. He'd come to town to campaign on behalf of a friend of a friend who was running as a centrist Dem in a pretty red US House district (she lost). The event was held in a private home and I was very surprised to hear him say that the wrong person got the Dem nomination for Florida Governor. It struck me as a very surprising comment, even if it wasn't really a public event. Andrew Gillum (the wrong Dem nominee, in his eyes) ultimately lost the governor race, and he was (maybe still is) hounded by ethics allegations. He was also a young black man, with a history of community organization, who had defeated Bob Graham's daughter in the primary.

I write all of this to say that I'm not surprised with today's stupidity, and he's another that really needs to go.

They're going to lose an unloseable election.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:08 pm

This belongs in a time capsule for everything wrong with the Democratic Party in the 21st Century. Apparently abiding by an obscure House procedural rule that says you don’t call people racist is more important than calling out Trump for being a racist.

Overruled!

So what's the logic in Hoyer calling Pelosi out then voting to not strike?

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:15 pm So what's the logic...

You can stop there.

But remember, they're risk averse, self-preserving cowards first and foremost. They had to know a party-line vote was coming.

I'm kinda legitimately shocked that four Republicans (so far) have voted "aye".

I just flicked over to the WaPost feed and saw Debbie Wasserman Schultz and immediately got angry.

In addition to Amash (now an Independent), the four Republicans to vote "aye" were Will Hurd (TX), Fred Upton (MI), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) and Susan Brooks (IN).

brian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:51 pm In addition to Amash (now an Independent), the four Republicans to vote "aye" were Will Hurd (TX), Fred Upton (MI), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) and Susan Brooks (IN).

Brooks is my parent's rep and she is not seeking re-election in 2020. She can buck party lines for something like this.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:30 pm They're going to lose an unloseable election.

I expect you have bookmarked this post so you can refer to it at a later date. I say this not because I want it to happen, but because the grease fire likely to make it happen.

I’m pretty sure I think if this current leadership wins with their sort of candidate (Biden), it’s worse for the country mid-long term than Trump getting re-elected.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:36 am I’m pretty sure I think if this current leadership wins with their sort of candidate (Biden), it’s worse for the country mid-long term than Trump getting re-elected.

Strongly disagree. Given the kind of damage Trump has been able to do in only 2.5 years despite being a fucking idiot doesn't portend well for there ever being another truly free election again if he gets four more years. Your kind of comment is the kind of nonsense that idiots will use to justify voting for Trump again or for not voting at all.

ETA: I'm not defending Biden. He sucks. But that's just a bad take up above.

List out three things you think need to be better here by 2035.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:50 am List out three things you think need to be better here by 2035.

It doesn't work that way. It was your take. What do you think is worse in this country than 2019 in 2030 if Biden wins (and presumably some Trump acolyte doesn't come in and win in 2024 or something like that).

Ok ...

1. Combating climate change
2. Universal health care
3. Reversing wealth/wage inequality trends

Republicans actively oppose these things, the left would actively fight for them. Biden would present theoretical opposition without any tangible changes and would justify the party's strategy of governing to appeal to "the middle", which is really like the socially conscious but don't fuck with my life upper ~35(?)%. Like I said, mid-to-long term. Short term of course Trump is awful for everyone, but if Biden is elected he isn't going to dig in and fight to undo the last four years and absolutely destroy McConnell et all.

So the theory goes that the left (as a whole) will essentially get complacent on those issues in the short-ish term (next 10-12 years) if Biden wins which will of course have an impact on resolving those in the long term? (Not putting words in your mouth, just don't want misrepresent your opinion).

That's a fair opinion, but I would argue almost the opposite. If Biden wins the nomination, that's evidence that the left isn't as energized around those issues as we might believe and is willing to sacrifice them for some perceived greater good of defeating Trump as misguided as that might be. I agree with you (presumably) and most others here that it is a fallacy that it requires some moderate, respected voice to defeat Trump and that the underlying issues of income inequality and climate change aren't complete winners for the Democrats.

And when it's all said and done I really think it's gonna be someone from the left who wins the nomination. I'd say Bernie and Warren are the favorites along with Biden now and I don't see how Biden's support doesn't flag as those campaigns really ramp up. Harris is a wildcard and I think while she's more moderate than those two, she's much better than Biden as far as pursuing those policies.

I've seen this myself. I have friends back in Michigan with young kids who have been regular GOP supporters who are legitimately freaked out by climate change finally. They're ready to support a Dem candidate with a coherent vision for how to battle climate change.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:29 am So the theory goes that the left (as a whole) will essentially get complacent on those issues in the short-ish term (next 10-12 years) if Biden wins which will of course have an impact on resolving those in the long term? (Not putting words in your mouth, just don't want misrepresent your opinion).

Not the left would get complacent, the Dems would see this as proof they can ignore the left and still keep their jobs.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:29 amI've seen this myself. I have friends back in Michigan with young kids who have been regular GOP supporters who are legitimately freaked out by climate change finally. They're ready to support a Dem candidate with a coherent vision for how to battle climate change.

Which is almost impossible to do when beholden to corporate interests, which most everyone is right now. It'll take full rejection of that, not reaching back right of Obama who (while obviously a solid step forward) isn't left enough for what's needed present day.

To be clear, I'd vote Biden over Trump in a binary choice because I'm not willing to sacrifice the next decade for what I perceive to be long term losses. But if I thought Sanders had a 3rd party shot, even a less than 50/50 one, I'd back him this time.

I’m not sure where I land on this specific debate. However, I’m convinced that if the Dems win in 2020 there will be huge pressure on the incoming President to treat Trump as a one-off and to work with the GOP on “bipartisan solutions” that preserve the status quo and avoid tackling inequality or climate change. I think Sanders and Warren are by far the best candidates because they are the only two that I trust to resist that pressure. They are both true believers in the issues they’ve built their political careers upon and so I think they’ll keep fighting even if Trump is defeated. I have zero confidence in Biden and very little confidence in Harris or anyone else in this respect.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:40 am

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:36 am I’m pretty sure I think if this current leadership wins with their sort of candidate (Biden), it’s worse for the country mid-long term than Trump getting re-elected.

Strongly disagree. Given the kind of damage Trump has been able to do in only 2.5 years despite being a fucking idiot doesn't portend well for there ever being another truly free election again if he gets four more years. Your kind of comment is the kind of nonsense that idiots will use to justify voting for Trump again or for not voting at all.

ETA: I'm not defending Biden. He sucks. But that's just a bad take up above.

Yeah, Brian is right, D. Any Dem candidate is wayyyy better than Trump.

I've caught a lot of shit over the years on here, talking about pragmatism, or criticizing certain politicians and being told "this is why the Dems lose!"

Saying you'd split off from the Dem candidate in a year where Trump is on the other side is just bonkers. The younger generation and folks like me that have finally come around to the progressive mindset aren't going to just shut up and go away if Biden manages to pull the nomination. There's just too momentum behind it, not to mention anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the numbers on inequality and the data on climate change. That's only going to get worse if nothing is done.

BTW, everyone is (bizarrely) acting like these head-to-head polling numbers are a zero sum gain. It's weird. If you combine Bernie and Warren in most polls, they take out Joe by 5-10 points. Now, you can make the argument that you have to lump Beto or Pete and/or cleave off Harris support for Joe. But acting like a poll where it's Joe - 24, Bernie 18 and Warren 16 is some sign that Biden has this lock on the nomination is very fucking weird. As the field narrows down (again, it's just way to fucking early to be getting so worked up over numbers), we'll see where these folks go.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:01 am I’m not sure where I land on this specific debate. However, I’m convinced that if the Dems win in 2020 there will be huge pressure on the incoming President to treat Trump as a one-off and to work with the GOP on “bipartisan solutions” that preserve the status quo and avoid tackling inequality or climate change. I think Sanders and Warren are by far the best candidates because they are the only two that I trust to resist that pressure. They are both true believers in the issues they’ve built their political careers upon and so I think they’ll keep fighting even if Trump is defeated. I have zero confidence in Biden and very little confidence in Harris or anyone else in this respect.

This is where I'm at.

If you're a Democrat with no backbone to call the bullshit of the prior 4 years bullshit, go and get fucked. Seriously. Take the new position you've been voted into, bend over on camera, and fist it right into your ass. Because that person is nothing more than a puppet of a broken humanity.

Obama did nothing to the bankers that fucked the economy. He did nothing to the war criminals that led us into Iraq. He just let it all dissipate. For the good of the country, I'm sure.

If you, on day 1 of your presidency, do not go after the Trump Crime Family or enable the people who will, just step down. It's absolutely disgusting that Jared has a security clearance. That Kellyanne and her ilk can deny Congressional subpoenas. That cabinet secretaries can avoid charges on ethics violations. That Trump can violate the emoluments clause and use the presidency to enrich himself. That entire cohort needs to be disemboweled in court and thrown in prison for eternity.

And institutionally, if Democrats are able to take back the Senate and don't shoot the filibuster into the sun, same. The first 2 years of Obama's presidency they had a massive Senate advantage and yet everything was filibuster this and filibuster that. Especially after Ted Kennedy's seat went to Scott Brown...Filibuster 2.0: How 41 Senators Control The Country Without Actually Filibustering.

So yeah. Someone with actual fucking backbone needs to be president.

sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:09 pmYeah, Brian is right, D. Any Dem candidate is wayyyy better than Trump.

I pretty clearly didn't say otherwise.

With a straight face, GOP leader says party was ‘respectful’ of Obama

Bitch, what?

YOU LIE.

Emails show Iowa official’s Tupac fixation before his ouster

Here's the official (he's the one on the left):

Thank you for specifying.

My white 30-something first sergeant has Tupac lyrics tattooed on him and will literally debate anyone that he's the greatest rapper ever.

Its a stretch defensible take, but that stretch is predicated on saying that he fell off on Death Row, not that he peaked. Conscientious 2Pac was a strong lyricist, rich gangsta Tupac far less so.