Biden Thread

[Pannonian]

Risk-taking team players make the best legislators. Careful operators make mediocre ones. Vain, quirky ones are the worst.

Ha ha ha. I wonder what personality type our PM is. At least you've got Trump out.

[Viking]

Trust what program? It's an appeal to recognize the illusory and knee-jerk nature of the plaintively-stated anxieties.

Essentially, you seem to not recognize that societal and political developments related to 'social justice' present any risks to 'good people'. In actual reality, people generally present a risk to other people in one form or another.

It becomes strongly ironic when a lot of relevant ire is directed at the police, an organisation with a core purpose of supressing antisocial behaviour and facilitating delivery of justice. An organisation that is furthermore funded by the state and not run in accordance with capitalist ideals of maximizing profit.

What would a good person have to fear from an organisation that has such noble goals and that can not make profit? It's not coming for you (plural), is it?

[Montmorency]

<snip>

None of the above makes for a case that Manchin has been externally influenced in his filibuster stance.

On minimum wage, for example, we can expect Manchin, like a typical politician, to be influenable on the question of the minimum wage because: the minimum wage is a single narrow issue that can be amended on a sliding scale rather than as a binary; Manchin has himself proposed or claimed to support modest increases; his arguments against larger increases refer to the financial health of certain low-wage industries and their workers. On the latter, it is a fair hypothesis that a lobbying group, whether with cover letters or with financial sticks and carrots, could reinforce talking points against a minimum wage increase in his mind.

Whereas the discussion around the filibuster is of a procedural change with no direct implications to any interest group outside the US government, a change that is a party consensus by now and is really necessary to have any hope of stopping the Republicans from fucking us all (and not just in terms of petty partisan advantage).

There is only one remaining - backdoor - argument, which is that Manchin actually doesn't want to pass anything that's in Biden's agenda or that his colleagues have advanced, and is covering for himself by pretending to lean on procedural and meta-political objections. But I don't see even this tack as credible because such a Manchin may as well have refused to cooperate on so much as the pandemic recovery legislation, or just defected to the Republican Party outright and reaped immediate rewards from them. At any rate, Dems have only 50 votes on paper, so there's nothing stopping Manchin from conditioning a filibuster-break on legislation being stripped of anything that offends his "corporate masters." That he doesn't take that approach, the one where he gets billions for West Virginia and a 'win' for his party WHILE defending any special interests he might want to defend, should be conclusive against the theory that he is corrupt in this regard.

I continue to rest my case that Manchin is a true believer in the ideology of the bipartisan Senate.



Essentially, you seem to not recognize that societal and political developments related to 'social justice' present any risks to 'good people'. In actual reality, people generally present a risk to other people in one form or another.

It becomes strongly ironic when a lot of relevant ire is directed at the police, an organisation with a core purpose of supressing antisocial behaviour and facilitating delivery of justice. An organisation that is furthermore funded by the state and not run in accordance with capitalist ideals of maximizing profit.

What would a good person have to fear from an organisation that has such noble goals and that can not make profit? It's not coming for you (plural), is it?

Bewildering.

As far as I can reconstruct, you seem to be saying:

1. Social justice movements are a threat (to whom? how?).
2. They are sometimes not perceived as a threat because the goals are noble.
3. This is misguided because police have noble goals and they are perceived as a threat.

(3) is obviously a wrong premise, but it is also irrelevant to any conceivable discussion of contemporary politics, which must revolve around something called "facts of the matter." Saddam Hussein had some potentially-noble goals in invading Iran and Kuwait, if we're being selective.

I will also point out that people who dislike state violence dislike it because it is violence and in a given case unjust violence at that; the source of the violence being the state does not somehow relieve just because the people in question tend to like eusocial state investment and facilitation of healthy relations and environments. Indeed, it would be just the opposite for them, because the state has a higher burden of trust and responsibility to satisfy as a basis of its authority; when it engages in oppressive behavior it is violating that trust and responsibility in a way that norm-bound or legally-bound private individuals, or even organizations, really can't. (This may or may not be constructed in terminology of a social "contract", but that's neither here nor there.)

[ReluctantSamurai]

I continue to rest my case that Manchin is a true believer in the ideology of the bipartisan Senate

:inquisitive:

Here's my case---[from Manchin's op-ed a little over a week ago]:


The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics. Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.

As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.

Lie. Currently, there have been 22 states that have passed restrictive voter legislation, and there are 21 more states with similar legislation that is pending. The list is exclusively Republican...if not a state that went to Trump, then one with a Republican controlled legislature:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-states-where-efforts-to-restrict-voting-are-escalating/

(https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-states-where-efforts-to-restrict-voting-are-escalating/)So therefore Senator, you should be in favor of the For the People bill because it seeks to defend those voting rights you so fervently claim to be in favor of...:shrug:


With that in mind, some Democrats have again proposed eliminating the Senate filibuster rule in order to pass the For the People Act with only Democratic support. They’ve attempted to demonize the filibuster and conveniently ignore how it has been critical to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past.

Lie. In fact, if one took just 5 minutes you'd find that, in the past, the filibuster was used mainly to block civil rights legislation. You'd also find that the filibuster has become more and more frequent, and more and more partisan:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/the-silenced-majority/307230/


By 1975, the Senate was finally prepared for reform. But rather than eliminate the filibuster entirely and return to majority rule, the members merely diluted it, reducing the number of votes required to end debate from 67 to 60.
Since then, filibustering has only grown more frequent. In the 1960s, no Congress had more than seven filibusters. In the early 1990s, the 102nd Congress witnessed 47, more than had occurred throughout the entire 19th century. And that was not an especially filibuster-prone Congress—each subsequent one has seen progressively more. The 110th Congress, which just ended, featured 137.

Manchin knows this so "protecting the rights of Democrats" is nothing but pure bloviation.



Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants? I have always said, “If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.”

Pure BS. Dictating and demanding everything and anything it wants is precisely what the current Republican Party is trying to do. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that. I'm pretty sure the senator has those...:quiet:

But it's the last sentence of the above quote that's the most ironic...“If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.”

Well Joe, let's go to your home state of West Virginia and have a good look around:

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/poll-shows-manchin-wildly-out-of-step-with-west-virginia-voters-on-voting-rights-bill-114456133748

What pieces of legislation EVER gets that kind of voter support? Maybe he IS just that ignorant that he can't go home to his own constituents and explain it, even though those very same constituents support these upcoming pieces of legislation by overwhelming majorities............................OR.......................he's voting the way his donors want him to vote.

Based on the significant reporting of others, I've laid out the connection between his nay vote on $15/hr minimum wage and the National Restaurant Association, I've laid out how his opposition to current proposed legislation will significantly help the bank accounts of major law firms (who rank second on his donation list), and I've shown that he seems to be caving to pressure from the Koch Bros to oppose important portions of Biden's infrastructure bill......because, like many legislators in Washington, he is corrupt and catering to his donors.

:shrug:

[Montmorency]

Based on the significant reporting of others, I've laid out the connection between his nay vote on $15/hr minimum wage and the National Restaurant Association, I've laid out how his opposition to current proposed legislation will significantly help the bank accounts of major law firms (who rank second on his donation list), and I've shown that he seems to be caving to pressure from the Koch Bros to oppose important portions of Biden's infrastructure bill......because, like many legislators in Washington, he is corrupt and catering to his donors.

:shrug:

'Joe Manchin receives campaign donations and PAC support like any politician' is not a non-underpants-gnome explanation for why he purports to believe things about the filibuster that he's claimed to believe for years, that millions of ordinary liberals believe, that life-tenured Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer believes, that were the Democratic consensus until a few years ago ("When they go low, we go high"!!!), and that most of his colleagues have stopped believing (or affirming) despite also receiving campaign donations and PAC support.

I can't help but note that you're not addressing any of my attempts to problematize your theory, such as all the behaviors that a corrupt and self-interested Manchin could be displaying about now, or the lack of differences in his behavior over time (https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-only-senator-to-vote-against-nuclear-option-in-2013-2017-and-today-).

The parsimonious account is that he believes what he says because he and most of the country were taught to believe in the sanctitude and integritation of "the greatest deliberative body in the world", to put stock in the sanctified bipartisan example of Tip 'n' Ronnie, and he's very stubborn, in his pride feeling self-justified for standing up to his party and gratified at all the attention and approval he gets from media.


"You stabbed me!"
"Correct."
"Are you going to stab me again?"
"Yes."
"Well, I have a knife too!"
"..."
"But I am going to put down my knife, in a spirit of cooperation."
"Okay."
"What are you going to do after I put down my knife?"
"I'm going to stab you."

There are truly a lot of people who still believe according to this parody (https://twitter.com/KenTremendous/status/1404500050957324289) of them. Before 2016 - hell, before January - it was the majority of the party and the base. You've never encountered any?

A significant faction of liberal America thinks we're still in a civic game, though the game has long ended and the country exists in a state of conflict. Yet we need everyone on the same page to have any chance. Maybe this is a lot harder to assimilate than resting on the age-old presumption that it's all about the benjamins. How many benjamins do you suppose it would take for Mitch McConnell to advocate socialism?

Let's look again at Manchin's own words from the op-ed (https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/op_ed_commentaries/joe-manchin-why-im-voting-against-the-for-the-people-act/article_c7eb2551-a500-5f77-aa37-2e42d0af870f.html) you linked:


Democrats in Congress have proposed a sweeping election reform bill called the For the People Act. This more than 800-page bill has garnered zero Republican support. Why? Are the very Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump because of actions that led to an attack on our democracy unwilling to support actions to strengthen our democracy? Are these same senators, whom many in my party applauded for their courage, now threats to the very democracy we seek to protect?

The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen.

These are not the words of a bought man. Was Gilrandir a paid shill? :creep:

The Gang of 14 would like a word as well...
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1403133540359979012

[ReluctantSamurai]

We'll just have to agree to disagree...

[Viking]

Bewildering.

As far as I can reconstruct, you seem to be saying:

1. Social justice movements are a threat (to whom? how?).
2. They are sometimes not perceived as a threat because the goals are noble.
3. This is misguided because police have noble goals and they are perceived as a threat.

(3) is obviously a wrong premise, but it is also irrelevant to any conceivable discussion of contemporary politics, which must revolve around something called "facts of the matter." Saddam Hussein had some potentially-noble goals in invading Iran and Kuwait, if we're being selective.

I will also point out that people who dislike state violence dislike it because it is violence and in a given case unjust violence at that; the source of the violence being the state does not somehow relieve just because the people in question tend to like eusocial state investment and facilitation of healthy relations and environments. Indeed, it would be just the opposite for them, because the state has a higher burden of trust and responsibility to satisfy as a basis of its authority; when it engages in oppressive behavior it is violating that trust and responsibility in a way that norm-bound or legally-bound private individuals, or even organizations, really can't. (This may or may not be constructed in terminology of a social "contract", but that's neither here nor there.)

Any movement can present risks. That is basic stuff.

A single and relevant case study is the firing of Google engineer James Damore. His memo might not have been a smart thing to write as an employee of a company, especially not as an employee in a country with weaker protection against 'wrongful termination', but his autism probably contributed to a poor understanding of what he was doing. That said, any Google employee posting something similar on the internet without commenting on Google specifically could probably still be at risk from termination if the leadership became aware of their text.

At any rate, it is merely an example of what it can look like in practice. The more a certain ideology (or religion) takes hold in the public sphere, the more clear-cut and egregious such examples can become.

E.g.: merely voicing scepticism to some types of new company policies linked to politics could be enough to get terminated, or significantly increase the odds of getting terminated. So if you are cunning (unlike Damore), you know that in such a society, you have the choice between safeguarding your income and staying quiet, or speaking your mind and be prepared to face consequences, even when your opinion is completely rational and empirically grounded.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Ooops:quiet:

https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billionaire-donors-no-labels/


Manchin told the assembled donors that he needed help flipping a handful of Republicans from no to yes on the January 6 commission in order to strip the “far left” of their best argument against the filibuster. The filibuster is a critical priority for the donors on the call, as it bottles up progressive legislation that would hit their bottom lines.


When it came to Sen. Roy Blunt, a moderate Missouri Republican who voted no on the commission, Manchin offered a creative solution. “Roy Blunt is a great, just a good friend of mine, a great guy,” Manchin said. “Roy is retiring. If some of you all who might be working with Roy in his next life could tell him, that’d be nice and it’d help our country. That would be very good to get him to change his vote. And we’re going to have another vote on this thing. That’ll give me one more shot at it.”

Regarding Blunt, Manchin appears to be suggesting — without, perhaps, quite explicitly saying so — that the wealthy executives on the call could dangle future financial opportunities in front of the outgoing senator while lobbying him to change his vote. Senate ethics rules forbid future job negotiations if they create a conflict of interest or present even the appearance of a conflict of interest (https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9dbac7a9-ffb4-433b-bb30-b8783d72fc15/flyer---employment-negotiations-and-post-employment---oct-2020.pdf#:~:text=Members%2C%20officers%2C%20and%20employees%20seeking,with%20whom%20they%20are%20neg otiating.). Manchin, notably, doesn’t suggest that the donors discuss a job, but rather says that people who Blunt may later be working with would be likely to have significant influence, reflective of the way future job prospects can shape the legislative process even when unspoken.

During the Zoom event, Manchin’s Senate office appeared in the background. It is against campaign finance ethics rules to solicit funds while in a federal building, but Manchin did no solicitation beyond the broad suggestion that donors help out Republicans who switch their votes on the commission. Rather, the group talked openly about how much money it planned to raise, and how — and on whom — it would spend that cash.

The vote against the federal $15/hr wage minimum:


“We’ve been working hard to build a coalition. Most recently, the Chamber of Commerce has agreed to lock arms with us,” said Bursky. “We’re building out the No Labels Team One Thousand,” he said, referencing a group of donors who could be tapped to give anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000 a year in support of No Labels candidates.

Which side of the $15/hr legislation did the CoC stand?:quiet:

With all of this money being thrown at Congressional members, any wonder why the Voting Rights bill has no chance of passing?

[Montmorency]

Amusing photo:

https://i.imgur.com/7lHzyPt.jpg


The latest on the vaccination gap, attitudes around which have also been known since at least the beginning of the year (Happy Midyear!) to overwhelmingly correspond with Trump support, at least as well as partisan affiliation.

https://i.imgur.com/OQuaMNf.png


This guy with all the hits (5-second clip):
https://twitter.com/midnucas/status/1399958857028227072

24939




Any movement can present risks. That is basic stuff.

Such a vacuous statement can be used by anyone to justify anything. If I'm being polite, I'll leave it at "echoes of Robespierre."

Also, just to be clear, whatever one's opinions on any relevant issue from policing to civil rights and on, that argument was - I don't even know what it was. Some kind of fallacy of the undistributed middle maybe? You can believe that black people need a boot on their faces forever and still recognize what you posted as totally invalid reasoning.


A single and relevant case study is the firing of Google engineer James Damore. His memo might not have been a smart thing to write as an employee of a company, especially not as an employee in a country with weaker protection against 'wrongful termination', but his autism probably contributed to a poor understanding of what he was doing. That said, any Google employee posting something similar on the internet without commenting on Google specifically could probably still be at risk from termination if the leadership became aware of their text.

What Damore specifically did - essentially identify a class of his colleagues as inferior in his consideration - could be expected not just to interfere with his work collaboration but - more importantly from an American company's perspective - to open Google to civil liability from employees who may have been discriminated against. Google engineers, after all, as upper-middle class professionals, are relatively well-poised to pursue such redress.

As for the last part, journalists and lecturers in American media and higher education are frequently fired for expressing private left-wing viewpoints. What do you propose be done?


even when your opinion is completely rational and empirically grounded.

Ah, there we go! :horn:



Ooops:quiet:

https://theintercept.com/2021/06/16/joe-manchin-leaked-billionaire-donors-no-labels/

This is just the place to pause and review the Intercept article's reported facts for how they comport with either the account where Manchin is induced by financial support to resist filibuster reform, or the account where Manchin is an American exceptionalist. The determination here is a meaningful one to pursue because it matters as to legislative strategy. When dealing with ideological actors one will never move them with non-ideological inducements.



Manchin told the assembled donors that he needed help flipping a handful of Republicans from no to yes on the January 6 commission in order to strip the “far left” of their best argument against the filibuster. The filibuster is a critical priority for the donors on the call, as it bottles up progressive legislation that would hit their bottom lines.

When it came to Sen. Roy Blunt, a moderate Missouri Republican who voted no on the commission, Manchin offered a creative solution. “Roy Blunt is a great, just a good friend of mine, a great guy,” Manchin said. “Roy is retiring. If some of you all who might be working with Roy in his next life could tell him, that’d be nice and it’d help our country. That would be very good to get him to change his vote. And we’re going to have another vote on this thing. That’ll give me one more shot at it.” Regarding Blunt, Manchin appears to be suggesting — without, perhaps, quite explicitly saying so — that the wealthy executives on the call could dangle future financial opportunities in front of the outgoing senator while lobbying him to change his vote.


Seems kind of pointless to try to convince Republicans and billionaires to change their behavior in order to protect the filibuster if you're consciously working with Republicans and billionaires in the first place. Everyone involved presumably has better things to do than attend an equivocal Zoom meeting on a settled matter.


The commission, Manchin tells No Labels, is important in its own right, necessary to determine how security failed and what former President Donald Trump’s role was in the riot, if any. But it’s also critical to maintaining support for the filibuster. The January 6 commission got 56 votes, four short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster — a thorough embarrassment for those like Manchin who claim bipartisanship is still possible in the divided Senate chamber.

Manchin told the donors he hoped to make another run at it to prove that comity is not lost. He noted that Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who missed the vote, would have voted for it had he been there, meaning only three more votes are needed. “What I’m asking for, I need to go back, I need to find three more Republican, good Republican senators that will vote for the commission. So at least we can tamp down where people say, ‘Well, Republicans won’t even do the simple lift, common sense of basically voting to do a commission that was truly bipartisan.’ It just really emboldens the far left saying, ‘I told you, how’s that bipartisan working for you now, Joe?’”

The Manchin in this leak cares a whole lot about the sanctity of the filibuster and the conceit of bipartisanship. Almost like he's staked his worldview on it, the way we know millions of private citizens have and still do.

(Tangentially, if there were 56 votes for the 1/6 Commission, and the cloture threshold were reduced to 55, does anyone believe that there would still be at least 5 Republican votes for it?)


As an example, Manchin said that he was prepared to specify his objections to S. 1, the For the People Act. In the voting rights and democracy reform bill, he said, he opposed automatic voter registration because some rural voting locations don’t have internet access to check a voter’s eligibility.

What the :daisy:. What a dog:daisy: excuse.


Manchin concurred, saying that the government never built gas filling stations for the rollout of Henry Ford’s Model T automobiles. The shift to electric cars should be no different, Manchin argued. The government, he said, should instead offer low-interest loans and other tax incentives to the private sector to build out infrastructure.

While there a many misgivings to be had about the government keeping its eggs in the personal (electric) vehicle basket - especially if one envisions a radically less automobile America - this is also :daisy: stupid reasoning.


Manchin’s openness for filibuster reform on the call is notable given it flew in the face of many attendees’ hopes. Asked about a proposal to lower the threshold to beat back a filibuster to 55 votes, he said that it was something he was considering, but then quickly referred back to his earlier idea of forcing the minority to show up on the Senate floor in large enough numbers to maintain a filibuster. “That’s that’s one of many good, good suggestions I’ve had,” he said of lowering the cloture total from 60 to 55. Manchin went on to discuss the last time the cloture threshold was lowered, in the 1970s. “I looked back … when it went from 67 votes to 60 votes, and also what was happening, what made them think that it needed to change. So I’m open to looking at it, I’m just not open to getting rid of the filibuster, that’s all,” he said. Manchin acknowledged that publicly he had drawn a line at 60, but said that he was open to other ideas. “Right now, 60 is where I planted my flag, but as long as they know that I’m going to protect this filibuster, we’re looking at good solutions,” he said. “I think, basically, it should be [that] 41 people have to force the issue versus the 60 that we need in the affirmative. So find 41 in the negative. … I think one little change that could be made right now is basically anyone who wants to filibuster ought to be required to go to the floor and basically state your objection and why you’re filibustering and also state what you think needs to change that’d fix it, so you would support it. To me, that’s pretty constructive.”

Depending on how seriously one wants to take this, I think either theory has a hard time interpreting it. Substantively though, I'd just like to reiterate my opinion (contrary to some perspectives previously in the Backroom) that I don't expect a switch to a 41-member blocking echelon requirement to enable Democrats to pass any of their agenda, EVEN stipulating unanimity within the Democratic caucus. Who wants to be known as the Republican that permitted the advent of socialism just because they wanted a break or to visit their state?


Having skimmed this Intercept podcast transcript (https://theintercept.com/2021/06/17/deconstructed-manchin-candid-leaked-audio/) discussing the article, it looks good.


I don't totally buy the following hypothesis (https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1405020930783387651), but it is more plausible than the vulgar corruption one.


A depressing thread:

I think the best explanation of Manchin's behavior -- his waffling, contradictory statements, & nonsensical arguments -- is that he has basically been elected point person (& primary shit-taker) for a reasonably substantial group of conservative D senators.

They don't want to vote for voting reform or a big infrastructure bill. They're not on board with Biden's ambitious agenda.

And most importantly: they are fucking cowards.

They don't want to get rid of the filibuster because they don't want to defend their positions publicly. And so they've basically appointed Manchin to be The Obstructor, because he, more than any of them, benefits from being seen pushing back against Ds. He's saying he won't vote for shit or change the filibuster because *they* won't vote for it. And he's just making up reasons. What this means is, "how can Biden/Schumer pressure Manchin?" is probably the wrong question. He's not expressing idiosyncratic preferences that might change. He's running cover for a group. And because they're too chickenshit to identify themselves, they *can't* be pressured. To be clear: this is not exculpatory for Manchin. He's awful; please continue hating him. But it's probably not worth hating Biden or Schumer for this. They have limited leverage over Manchin personally; they have virtually no leverage over a semi-anonymous cabal of cowards. The distal problem is the manifold dysfunctions of the US system of government. The proximate problem is conservative Democratic senators -- the *exact same problem* that ended up hobbling Obama's presidency. There are fewer conservative Ds now, but the majority is narrower, so. This is, to say the least, a super unsatisfying situation. US democracy is going to slip under the waves, but the senescent invertebrates responsible will do everything possible to slough off responsibility, to hide their knife hands, to leave Biden exposed to all the blame. Anyway, fuck Manchin. But I don't think he's acting alone, which means he probably can't be moved unless as part of much larger movement in the caucus. I have no idea what could produce that, if the evidence so far hasn't.

What a stupid way for a great country to go out.</fin>

Take, for example, Dianne Feinstein. While she has evinced less active devotion to the filibuster (https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=C249B72C-4E97-4D8A-A5F8-1921F8E8C53D) than some, there is no reason to expect that she's responsive (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/despite-threats-feinstein-does-not-see-our-democracy-jeopardy-n1270459) to the urgency of the moment (to the extent that she's still substantially aware of her surroundings (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dianne-feinsteins-missteps-raise-a-painful-age-question-among-senate-democrats) these days).


Finally, as far as vulgar motivations can be discerned, this reflects very poorly on many of the people of West Virginia (not that they had much going for them).
https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/West-Virginia-Filibuster-Poll.pdf

[Viking]

Such a vacuous statement can be used by anyone to justify anything. If I'm being polite, I'll leave it at "echoes of Robespierre."

You are taking it out of context. Do you dispute that a movement for 'social justice' can pose risks to 'innocent'/'good'/'fair' people (or however you want to phrase it), like any other movement (while a movement started in opposition to construction plans is less likely to result in construction of gulags than a movement trying to overthrow the government, one could think)? If no, we can move on.


Also, just to be clear, whatever one's opinions on any relevant issue from policing to civil rights and on, that argument was - I don't even know what it was. Some kind of fallacy of the undistributed middle maybe? You can believe that black people need a boot on their faces forever and still recognize what you posted as totally invalid reasoning.

I did not present an argument involving the police, that was an analogy in response to your, should we say vacuous, instruction to use empathy. Almost anything can be justified with an appeal to empathy. In and of itself, it is a pretty useless instruction.


What Damore specifically did - essentially identify a class of his colleagues as inferior in his consideration

He didn't. I challenge you to quote any part where he did; I suspect that you haven't read his memo (or not particularly carefully).


As for the last part, journalists and lecturers in American media and higher education are frequently fired for expressing private left-wing viewpoints. What do you propose be done?

Requiring that people with the wrong opinion should be fired in other cases might not reduce the odds of what you describe here happening, for starters.

[Montmorency]

You are taking it out of context. Do you dispute that a movement for 'social justice' can pose risks to 'innocent'/'good'/'fair' people (or however you want to phrase it), like any other movement (while a movement started in opposition to construction plans is less likely to result in construction of gulags than a movement trying to overthrow the government, one could think)? If no, we can move on.

The context, or in other words your target, was not in question. The warning of jeopardy is in itself still trivial, unless you have something to put up. Anything is possible.


I did not present an argument involving the police, that was an analogy in response to your, should we say vacuous, instruction to use empathy. Almost anything can be justified with an appeal to empathy. In and of itself, it is a pretty useless instruction.

It was an invalid analogy in terms of what you were trying to convey. The scope of what can be justified with an appeal to empathy is, pedantically, more restrictive than other sorts of appeals (e.g. liberty, security, happiness) just by its nature - or at least compared to the less-bounded denotations and allusions of many other concepts. I do admit that an appeal to empathy isn't instructive if the audience doesn't know or understand what to do with it, but I'm not here to hold hands and I don't perceive that anyone is reaching out for mine. One place to start (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_b_59519811e4b0f078efd98440)...


He didn't. I challenge you to quote any part where he did; I suspect that you haven't read his memo (or not particularly carefully).

If you're going to sealion me, at least offer a more recent or a less well-trod controversy.


Requiring that people with the wrong opinion should be fired in other cases might not reduce the odds of what you describe here happening, for starters.

OK. As it happens, only Republicans are suggesting and passing laws to this exact effect, right now. I really don't care what conservatives have to say on this topic, as they never make a credible offer of neutral principles and why they are worthwhile, they just present a naked assertion of their own entitlement to immunity from criticism, which is something they have always enjoyed in outsize proportion throughout history, and something they have never extended. This is a very polite summary.

[Hooahguy]

Will infrastructure week finally happen? Lets find out!

Biden announces a $579 billion bipartisan infrastructure plan (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/biden-s-push-for-infrastructure-deal-closer-to-senate-goal-line)


President Joe Biden celebrated his tentative deal with a group of Democratic and Republican senators on a $579 billion infrastructure plan, saying it would create millions of jobs while fulfilling a major piece of his economic agenda.

The group of senators, who had been negotiating among themselves and with the White House for weeks, “has come together to forge an agreement that will create millions of American jobs and modernize our American infrastructure,” Biden said at the White House.

He called the investments “long overdue” and said that “this agreement signals to the world that we can function, deliver and do significant things.” He also said it was a “huge day for half of my economic agenda.”

The bipartisan legislation is expected to move through Congress alongside a separate Democrats-only bill that would spend trillions more on what Biden called “human infrastructure” that the GOP opposes. It’s not yet assured that either measure will muster enough support to clear the House and Senate, given the split between the two political parties and differences between progressive and moderate Democrats.

Both Manchin and Sinema seem to be onboard with this plan so we will see how this fares, especially as they would still need another 5 Republicans on board which is not assured. The physical infrastructure part is sorely needed so hopefully that might gain enough support. Mitch seems to be pretty mad about the human infrastructure part of this plan obviously so I could see him try to tank the physical infrastructure part just to stick it to the Dems. If they cant get the 10 GOP senators on board, I wonder if Manchin and Sinema would agree to reduce the filibuster to 55 votes instead of 60. Which honestly makes mores sense to me than an outright removal of the filibuster since it prevents havoc from occurring the next time the GOP has the trifecta, which isn't an if, its a when unfortunately.

July is definitely going to an interesting legislative month... especially since yours truly might be able to have some input on the human infrastructure part... :book2:

[ReluctantSamurai]

President Joe Biden celebrated his tentative deal with a group of Democratic and Republican senators on a $579 billion infrastructure plan, saying it would create millions of jobs while fulfilling a major piece of his economic agenda.

Typical Democratic weak-sauce...start with a moderately high number, then cave to GOP pressure to then consider an figure 1/4 of Biden's original proposal.

Yes, something is better than nothing...but letting Republicans (and conservative Democrats) dictate the terms of a major bill when Democrats have the WH, the Senate, and the House...pathetic.

Here's the original proposal:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html

Now compare that to the current proposal...https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-inquisitive.gif Yes, you can't always get what you want, to quote from a famous Rolling Stones song, but will America get what it needs? That remains to be seen.

Financing even this watered-down version will be interesting:


The cost of the expenditures would be offset by a variety of revenue-raising provisions, including stronger enforcement of tax collections from the wealthy, sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, unspecified “public-private partnerships” and assumptions that the infrastructure investments would lead to greater economic growth.

That's pretty vague, IMHO, and counting on "greater economic growth" is especially risky when that future growth is pretty unpredictable. And what are these unspecified "public-private partnerships", and sales from the SPR means what?

I find this comment by Indiana GOP Senator Mike Braun interesting:


“The main question among the rest of us Republicans would be is how big is the secondary package going to be and how you’re going to pay for that,”

Funny how GOP Congressmen & women have no trouble voting for a tax cut that benefitted mostly the rich (and themselves), and might likely raise the national debt by almost 2 trillion dollars over an 11 year span:

https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/republicans-profit-congress/

If the voting record in Congress plays out the way it has since Biden got elected, I don't see how even this meager attempt passes the Senate, especially since Dr. No has gone on record as opposing anything the Biden Administration tries to do...:shrug:

[Hooahguy]

Typical Democratic weak-sauce...start with a moderately high number, then cave to GOP pressure to then consider an figure 1/4 of Biden's original proposal.


You did see the bit about a much larger part 2 to the bill passed by reconciliation that covers what the bipartisan bit doesn't, right?

[ReluctantSamurai]

I did. And what are the chances for that to pass?

[Hooahguy]

Well its by reconciliation, and with Sinema and Manchin seemingly on board, likely higher than the bipartisan part.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What you label "weak sauce" is, as you are probably well aware, part of the normal give-and-take haggling and deal-making engaged in by legislatures throughout human history. Albeit with some exceptions, the more unilateral the action, politically, the more likely it is to engender a backlash from the minority over time.

[ReluctantSamurai]

with Sinema and Manchin seemingly on board

Neither has committed to the reconciliation package, only that they want to see details. Fair enough. The question is if the current bi-partisan package passes (which is still uncertain), and conservative Dems like Manchin and Sinema get their roads & bridges, will they go on to support the larger reconciliation package?

It will be interesting to see how the financing of both/either shakes out. Republicans are steadfastly against raising corporate taxes (of course).


you are probably well aware, part of the normal give-and-take haggling and deal-making engaged in by legislatures throughout human history

Of course I am. But the weak-sauce comes in because Democrats almost always cave to the GOP so easily without much of a fight, and legislation ends up being much closer to what the Republicans want than what the Democrats want, more often than not...:shrug:

[Viking]

The context, or in other words your target, was not in question. The warning of jeopardy is in itself still trivial, unless you have something to put up. Anything is possible.


If you're going to sealion me, at least offer a more recent or a less well-trod controversy.

So you want something specific, until you get something specific. What should we call that - seaturtling?


It was an invalid analogy in terms of what you were trying to convey. The scope of what can be justified with an appeal to empathy is, pedantically, more restrictive than other sorts of appeals (e.g. liberty, security, happiness) just by its nature - or at least compared to the less-bounded denotations and allusions of many other concepts.

I suspect you are making things much more complicated than they need to be.


I do admit that an appeal to empathy isn't instructive if the audience doesn't know or understand what to do with it, but I'm not here to hold hands and I don't perceive that anyone is reaching out for mine. One place to start (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_b_59519811e4b0f078efd98440)...

A text written by a self-righteous author, seemingly very pleased with her own ethical splendour. The text really is very illustrative of the US political climate and its polarized nature.

As for its content: if you don't extend the mantra of caring about others to people that live abroad (where there are far more people living in far worse conditions than most of the people alluded to in the text), then the manner in which she is limiting the scope of people she cares about is on an abstract level the same as that of the people she criticizes. The scope is seemingly larger, but still very limited.

The line of reasoning that she is using (caring about other people) could lead her to a vast range of different places, and she ends up at, amongst other things, minimum wage, without explaining why. As an intellectual endeavour, the article is feeble and of minor interest, about what one would expect from a self-righteously written text, I suppose.

On another note, if you don't volunteer in your spare time, do you care enough about other people?


OK. As it happens, only Republicans are suggesting and passing laws to this exact effect, right now. I really don't care what conservatives have to say on this topic, as they never make a credible offer of neutral principles and why they are worthwhile, they just present a naked assertion of their own entitlement to immunity from criticism, which is something they have always enjoyed in outsize proportion throughout history, and something they have never extended. This is a very polite summary.

Your continuous rambling, thread after thread, about "the conservative" bogeyman is getting really absurd. "Der ewige Konservativer" comes to mind. Just publish a book on the topic already.

[Montmorency]

On tens of thousands of Americans (not real Americans) being traitors who fixed the election.
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1407925243000365057?s=19





Joe Biden has (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/24/afghanistan-us-evacuate-interpreters-pullout) vowed that Afghans who helped the US military “are not going to be left behind” as his administration stepped up planning to evacuate thousands of Afghan interpreters while their applications for US entry are processed.

Planning has accelerated in recent days to relocate the Afghans and their families to other countries before the US military completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to officials.

The evacuation of the at-risk Afghans will include their family members for a total of as many as 50,000 people, a senior Republican lawmaker said.

[...]

Congressman Mike McCaul, speaking to Reuters after discussing the plan with administration officials, said the evacuees will comprise about 9,000 interpreters who have applied for special immigration visas and their families.

Same time:


Concerns over the (https://news.sky.com/story/afghan-interpreters-who-worked-with-british-military-land-in-uk-today-after-fleeing-taliban-12339240) safety of former staff, most of them interpreters, prompted the MoD and the Home Office in May to expand the eligibility criteria of a relocation scheme for Afghans seeking to flee.

[...]

More than 3,000 Afghans are expected to take advantage of the offer, on top of some 1,300 who have already made the journey under a previous, more restrictive policy. They are expected to be flown to the UK in groups.




I wonder if Manchin and Sinema would agree to reduce the filibuster to 55 votes instead of 60. Which honestly makes mores sense to me than an outright removal of the filibuster since it prevents havoc from occurring the next time the GOP has the trifecta, which isn't an if, its a when unfortunately.

They could just lower it to 50 whenever they wish, upon retaking the Senate. Though keep in mind that gutting mandatory spending like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid only takes 50 votes via reconciliation currently, so they wouldn't even need to mess with the filibuster. And recall the Gang of 14 story I posted earlier, where Bush-era Republicans were about to nuke the judicial filibuster until Dems surrendered (and the main reason they didn't need to amend the legislative filibuster was repeated Dem compliance with major Republican legislative pushes). Maintenance of the filibuster is really all upside for the GOP.

This whole deal is definitely a 'believe it when you see it' affair, since it implies consecutive cooperations between Dems, on top of a prerequisite cooperation from Republicans with game-theoretical awareness of the former. We have to hope the leadership has something to back up their words.


Albeit with some exceptions, the more unilateral the action, politically, the more likely it is to engender a backlash from the [opposition] over time.

True in abstract - as visible in the (limited) liberal awakening to the threat of the Republican Party - but the Republican reaction is and has been to the 1960s, 1930s, and 1860s, on which account they have declared war on their opposition. So from our perspective the only acceptable outcome is their unconditional surrender, followed by Truth and Reconciliation.




Neither has committed to the reconciliation package, only that they want to see details. Fair enough. The question is if the current bi-partisan package passes (which is still uncertain), and conservative Dems like Manchin and Sinema get their roads & bridges, will they go on to support the larger reconciliation package?

It will be interesting to see how the financing of both/either shakes out. Republicans are steadfastly against raising corporate taxes (of course).

Of course I am. But the weak-sauce comes in because Democrats almost always cave to the GOP so easily without much of a fight, and legislation ends up being much closer to what the Republicans want than what the Democrats want, more often than not...:shrug:

Hooah has a point in that if Biden and Pelosi are both claiming a deal has been reached, and drawing a line in the sand over its fulfillment, then if they're wrong and Manchin/Sinema are betraying them, they will have made career-defining political miscalculations (much worse than just losing Republican votes they were counting on).

So while I too am skeptical that the filibuster-lovers have been persuaded to, it's tempered by the public commitments made by Biden and Pelosi that rest on having secured unanimity among the caucus.

To put it simply, if they're jumping the gun it's more likely on Republican support than on Democratic.


And you're going to love this one, but I would just activate the proceed-with-caution alert on such a prior-flattering story. Though I do bemoan every day the Democrats have lost in (not) comprehensively escalating their messaging on Republicans to red alert.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/27/can-democrats-avoid-pitfalls-2020-new-analysis-offers-striking-answers/


As Democrats face a 2022 midterm landscape that could cost them the House, they are grappling with hard strategic challenges. Democrats in tough districts with many Republican voters in them feel twin pressures: one is to emphasize their bipartisan outreach. The other is to refrain from prosecuting the case against GOP radicalization too forcefully.

A new analysis of House Democratic losses in 2020 done by a progressive donor and strategy group — which is circulating among Democratic strategists — suggests some counterintuitive answers for Democrats navigating these pressures.

The analysis — which was done by the group Way to Win and was provided to me — suggests large TV-ad expenditures on emphasizing bipartisan outreach do not appear to have paid dividends for House Democrats in the 2020 elections.

The analysis also finds that Republicans spent a lot more money on casting Democrats as extremists than Democrats did in making the case against Republican extremism.

Democrats, of course, lost a net dozen House seats, underperforming victorious Joe Biden all over the place. The findings suggest Democrats need a rethink of their approach to those conundrums, the analysts conclude.

This is also more pressing now that Republicans are radicalizing in a way that poses a threat to future democratic stability, raising questions about how Democrats can highlight this to the public.

The study by Way to Win — a group distinguished by its big expenditures on turning out the Democratic base — attempts a comprehensive look at all the TV ads that ran in House races in the 2020 cycle. Some findings:

Democrats spent three times more than Republicans on ads that touted bipartisan outreach. Democrats spent $21.8 million on ads about “bipartisanship” or “working across the aisle,” while Republicans spent $6.2 million on them.
Democrats spent six times as much on positive ads than Republicans did. Democrats spent $18.6 million on positive ads that also happened to mention Republicans (say, by touting the ability to work with them), while Republicans spent $2.9 million on positive ads mentioning Democrats.
Republicans spent more than 10 times more on ads with the words “extremist” and “radical” than Democrats did. Republicans spent $51 million on such ads, while Democrats spent $3.4 million.
Overall, Republicans spent more than $87 million on ads with one or more of the following words in it: “AOC,” “Ocasio,” “Pelosi,” “socialism,” “socialist,” “defund,” “radical,” “extremist,” “extreme.”
GOP ads were more likely to use words with “emotional punch,” such as “taxes,” “radical” and “jobs,” while Democratic ads featured words like “insurance,” “voted” and “work.”

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the vice president of Way to Win, said that, in sum, Democrats in 2020 sent mixed messages: They touted their willingness to work with Republicans, even as Republicans called them socialists and extremists.

“By far their biggest spend,” Ancona told me, speaking of Republicans, was “on vilifying us as extreme in all kinds of ways."

Meanwhile, Ancona said, by constantly touting bipartisanship, Democrats were “effectively normalizing their attacks,” because Democratic messaging essentially said: “We want to work across the aisle with people who are painting us as extreme villains.”

“We should be painting them as the extreme outlier that they are,” Ancona told me.

All this comes as Democrats seem to be edging toward a more forthright condemnation of GOP radicalization. They have run ads highlighting the GOP dalliance with QAnon, but as Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg argues, there’s much more to do in getting the language right on the GOP’s descent and making it central to the 2022 conversation.

To cite one example, Ron Brownstein demonstrates that senior Democrats seem oddly blasé about the extraordinary GOP campaign underway to restrict voting and take control over voting machinery in the states. You don’t often hear Democrats calling out Republicans as a threat to fundamental democratic stability.




So you want something specific, until you get something specific. What should we call that - seaturtling?

You gave me something specific that undermines your own case, unless your case is that conservatives must enjoy exorbitant privilege over all they survey. Which I would naturally decline.

Rather:


After banning public (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/24/florida-intellectual-freedom-law-mandates-viewpoint-surveys/) schools from teaching “critical race theory” two weeks ago, Florida is reshaping civics lessons and addressing what its governor says parents worry about when they send their children to college — indoctrination.

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says he is concerned about the free flow of ideas on campus and whether higher education stifles free speech from conservatives. Under a law he signed Tuesday, which will take effect July 1, public universities must assess “viewpoint diversity” on campus each year through a survey developed by the State Board of Education, a requirement that a free-speech expert predicted as a model for other conservative-led states.

Although the Florida law does not address penalties for schools where the survey finds low levels of “intellectual freedom” and “viewpoint diversity,” DeSantis has hinted at the potential for budget cuts at universities that do not pass muster.


Gebru, a researcher (https://www.wired.com/story/google-timnit-gebru-ai-what-really-happened/) at Google, had just clicked out of a last-minute video meeting with an executive named Megan Kacholia, who had issued a jarring command. Gebru was the coleader of a group at the company that studies the social and ethical ramifications of artificial intelligence, and Kacholia had ordered Gebru to retract her latest research paper—or else remove her name from its list of authors, along with those of several other members of her team.

The paper in question was, in Gebru’s mind, pretty unobjectionable. It surveyed the known pitfalls of so-called large language models, a type of AI software—most famously exemplified by a system called GPT-3—that was stoking excitement in the tech industry. Google’s own version of the technology was now helping to power the company’s search engine. Jeff Dean, Google’s revered head of research, had encouraged Gebru to think about the approach’s possible downsides. The paper had sailed through the company’s internal review process and had been submitted to a prominent conference. But Kacholia now said that a group of product leaders and others inside the company had deemed the work unacceptable, Gebru recalls. Kacholia was vague about their objections but gave Gebru a week to act. Her firm deadline was the day after Thanksgiving.

Gebru’s distress turned to anger as that date drew closer and the situation turned weirder. Kacholia gave Gebru’s manager, Samy Bengio, a document listing the paper’s supposed flaws, but told him not to send it to Gebru, only to read it to her. On Thanksgiving Day, Gebru skipped some festivities with her family to hear Bengio’s recital. According to Gebru’s recollection and contemporaneous notes, the document didn’t offer specific edits but complained that the paper handled topics “casually” and painted too bleak a picture of the new technology. It also claimed that all of Google’s uses of large language models were “engineered to avoid” the pitfalls that the paper described.

Gebru spent Thanksgiving writing a six-page response, explaining her perspective on the paper and asking for guidance on how it might be revised instead of quashed. She titled her reply “Addressing Feedback from the Ether at Google,” because she still didn’t know who had set her Kafkaesque ordeal in motion, and sent it to Kacholia the next day.

On Saturday, Gebru set out on a preplanned cross-country road trip. She had reached New Mexico by Monday, when Kacholia emailed to ask for confirmation that the paper would either be withdrawn or cleansed of its Google affiliations. Gebru tweeted a cryptic reproach of “censorship and intimidation” against AI ethics researchers. Then, on Tuesday, she fired off two emails: one that sought to end the dispute, and another that escalated it beyond her wildest imaginings.

The first was addressed to Kacholia and offered her a deal: Gebru would remove herself from the paper if Google provided an account of who had reviewed the work and how, and established a more transparent review process for future research. If those conditions weren’t met, Gebru wrote, she would leave Google once she’d had time to make sure her team wouldn’t be too destabilized. The second email showed less corporate diplomacy. Addressed to a listserv for women who worked in Google Brain, the company’s most prominent AI lab and home to Gebru’s Ethical AI team, it accused the company of “silencing marginalized voices” and dismissed Google’s internal diversity programs as a waste of time.

Relaxing in an Airbnb in Austin, Texas, the following night, Gebru received a message with a �� from one of her direct reports: “You resigned??” In her personal inbox she then found an email from Kacholia, rejecting Gebru’s offer and casting her out of Google. “We cannot agree as you are requesting,” Kacholia wrote. “The end of your employment should happen faster than your email reflects.” Parts of Gebru’s email to the listserv, she went on, had shown “behavior inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager.” Gebru tweeted that she had been fired. Google maintained—and still does—that she resigned.


What more do you think we need to hear about your ox?


A text written by a self-righteous author, seemingly very pleased with her own ethical splendour. The text really is very illustrative of the US political climate and its polarized nature.

As for its content: if you don't extend the mantra of caring about others to people that live abroad (where there are far more people living in far worse conditions than most of the people alluded to in the text), then the manner in which she is limiting the scope of people she cares about is on an abstract level the same as that of the people she criticizes. The scope is seemingly larger, but still very limited.

I'm glad you're on board with fewer international restrictions on freedom of movement, as well as wealth transfer from the rich world to the poor. Otherwise the above could be dismissed as a hostile red herring of no diminution to the principles affirmed in the article.


The line of reasoning that she is using (caring about other people) could lead her to a vast range of different places, and she ends up at, amongst other things, minimum wage, without explaining why. As an intellectual endeavour, the article is feeble and of minor interest, about what one would expect from a self-righteously written text, I suppose.

If you need a detailed explanation of the concept of the minimum wage any time it is invoked, then you aren't interested in intellectual endeavor (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_kenneth_galbraith_107301).


On another note, if you don't volunteer in your spare time, do you care enough about other people?

I don't in fact, guess I'll become a fascist now. Or do you mean that you'll gay marry a Somalian refugee if I help shelve some books at my local library on weekends?

Like, how bloody tedious for someone who advocates quasi-radical redistributive and democratic policies to be mocked with an ancient canard about volunteer work by someone who holds this ideology:

[video=youtube;JPbExwBJiwY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbExwBJiwY


Your continuous rambling, thread after thread, about "the conservative" bogeyman is getting really absurd. "Der ewige Konservativer" comes to mind. Just publish a book on the topic already.

You get exactly one chance to specify your substantive disagreement.

Here's the newest book (https://www.amazon.com/Cruelty-Point-Present-Future-America/dp/0593230809) on Der ewige Konservativer meanwhile.

[ReluctantSamurai]

This is also more pressing now that Republicans are radicalizing in a way that poses a threat to future democratic stability, raising questions about how Democrats can highlight this to the public.

Democrats should take a page from Chris Wallace (Fox News, for gods sake!!!): (start at about 1:44)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpKSe_fZLw0

When presented with facts, Congressman Banks lies and then blames progressives...:rolleyes:

Here's the truth about how much Republicans give a shit about police:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/police-officer-assaulted-during-capitol-riot-says-gop-congressman-refused-n1271130


“He just stared at me. I asked him if he was going to shake my hand, and he told me that he didn't know who I was,” Fanone said. “So I introduced myself, I said that I was Officer Michael Fanone, that I was a D.C. Metropolitan police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol and as a result, I suffered a traumatic brain injury as well as a heart attack after having been tased numerous times at the base of my skull as well as being severely beaten.”

Fanone said that Clyde then turned away from him and the congressman pulled out his cell phone and appeared to try to pull up an audio recording app on his phone.

“As the elevator doors opened, he ran as quickly as he could, like a coward,” Fanone told CNN about the interaction. “I took that particular interaction like very personally but I also took it as a representation of Andrew Clyde giving the middle finger to myself and every other member of the Metropolitan Police Department and U.S. Capitol Police that responded that day.”

Does the phrase "suckers and losers" come to mind?

And then there's these 12 blow-hards that voted against honoring the Capital Police who defended them against rioters:

https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-rejected-giving-medals-to-capitol-police-at-riots-2021-3

The same kind of messaging should've been used when, after the COVID relief bill was passed, Republicans went home to their constituents, and took credit for all of the ways it benefited said constituents when not a single GOP lawmaker, Senate or House, voted for the bill. Dems should've taken to every media platform available to point out that hypocrisy..........nope...........barely a whisper from Dems....:quiet:

That's WEAK SAUCE.

And here's the President showing a similar form of weakness:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-up-pressure-lawmakers-infrastructure-talks-enter-next-stage-2021-06-26/


U.S. President Joe Biden on Saturday withdrew his threat to veto a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill unless a separate Democratic spending plan also passes Congress, saying that was never his intent.

A handful of GOP lawmakers whine, and Biden caves in. Dr. No has made it quite clear that he opposes Part II of the Infrastructure Bill because he refuses to fund it by walking back a portion of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which mostly benefited the rich. Sleepy Joe doesn't care to lead from the front, but hides behind the likes of Joe Manchin and other conservative Democrats, because at the heart, he is a corporate politician himself...:inquisitive:

If the additional package isn't tied to the first, it has a minuscule or no chance of passing. If only Part I gets passed, here's what's missing in the bi-partisan bill:

https://www.vox.com/22549410/infrastructure-deal-biden-climate-senate-bipartisan-jobs


The bipartisan infrastructure package comes nowhere close to meeting Biden’s goal of cutting US climate pollution 50 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. In some sectors, the funding is a small fraction of what Biden proposed in his American Jobs Plan, and an even smaller fraction of what experts have modeled to transform the economy. But in most cases, there’s no funding at all for cleaning up the power sector and building pollution and addressing racial injustices.

Now there's no way of knowing what will be contained in a reconciliation bill, as it hasn't been penned as of yet, so some of these omissions might be included. But since that Vox article was written, Biden has already walked back his commitment to vetoing the bipartisan bill if it isn't accompanied by the reconciliation bill.

The next three months makes or breaks Biden's administration. If only the bi-partisan version makes it into law, Biden will have fractured the Democratic Party even more than it is, by completely alienating progressives, who supported him on his promise to do at least some of the things progressives wanted. If neither proposal makes it into law, then good luck trying to get people to vote Democratic when you can't make good on your campaign promises (remember the whole "Build Back Better" spiel?)....:shrug:

[Viking]

You gave me something specific that undermines your own case, unless your case is that conservatives must enjoy exorbitant privilege over all they survey. Which I would naturally decline.

Ok, let's cut things down to the core: it turns out that you can't be bothered to quote as much as a single sentence to back up a non-trivial assertion that you've made (about Damore's memo). That indicates little interest in engaging in any meaningful debate (as does labelling a normal post as 'sounding hysterical', but hey).

[Montmorency]

What a precious little Nazi punk.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1409686555359289344 [VIDEO]

Roberts on the Supreme Court, 2013: Killing the Voting Rights Act federal oversight of state election laws is good because racism is over, and anyway Section 2 prohibiting discriminatory rules is still operative.
Roberts on the Supreme Court, 2021: Section 2 is over. What Congress wrote doesn't matter. We offer instead a new set of standards: the status quo ante.



Now there's no way of knowing what will be contained in a reconciliation bill, as it hasn't been penned as of yet, so some of these omissions might be included. But since that Vox article was written, Biden has already walked back his commitment to vetoing the bipartisan bill if it isn't accompanied by the reconciliation bill.

The next three months makes or breaks Biden's administration. If only the bi-partisan version makes it into law, Biden will have fractured the Democratic Party even more than it is, by completely alienating progressives, who supported him on his promise to do at least some of the things progressives wanted. If neither proposal makes it into law, then good luck trying to get people to vote Democratic when you can't make good on your campaign promises (remember the whole "Build Back Better" spiel?)....:shrug:

If only the bipartisan bill passes, then that would really be a shame, as to gain even theoretical support from some Republicans it comes loaded with corporate giveaways and privatizations.
https://prospect.org/politics/on-infrastructure-a-bad-deal-is-worse-than-no-deal/

I don't know who these guys (https://patrioticmillionaires.org/press-release/patriotic-millionaires-bi-partisan-infrastructure-deal-is-a-bad-deal-for-working-americans/) are, but their statement (found while googling for the Prospect article) is basically correct.


“This bipartisan proposal is a bad deal for working-class Americans. It seems like the Senators who put this deal together are more interested in having less Infrastructure investment in order to justify keeping in place a rigged tax code that favors corporations and the rich rather than actually coming up with a plan that solves the enormous challenges that our country faces. The proposals instead would raise money to pay for infrastructure by implementing an electric vehicle tax, selling off large portions of our infrastructure to private companies, and using unspent COVID-19 relief funds to pay for revamping transportation, broadband and water infrastructure.

If the choice is between a good deal and a bipartisan deal, Democratic Senators must choose the good deal. They must prioritize doing what the American people are asking for, which is to raise taxes on the rich and corporations. Two-thirds of voters support raising taxes on corporations to pay for President Biden’s infrastructure investment.

The American people are not asking their elected representatives to pay for critical investment in our country by passing the bill down to working class families or redistributing COVID funds. They want the wealthy and corporations to finally pay their fair share like normal Americans have for decades. We strongly urge Democratic Senators to deliver on their promise to the American people and raise taxes on corporations and the rich to pay for any infrastructure deal.”


Ok, let's cut things down to the core: it turns out that you can't be bothered to quote as much as a single sentence to back up a non-trivial assertion that you've made (about Damore's memo). That indicates little interest in engaging in any meaningful debate (as does labelling a normal post as 'sounding hysterical', but hey).

I am absolutely not interested in debating a well-settled issue like the Damore memo, as you evidently don't care to present any reason to dislike "social justice" or elaborate on what effects you see it having.

For me, the core is then, if you feel ineffably uneasy about people talking about racism or sexism, yet deride the articulation of extreme infractions against civilized society - to put it mildly - by the far-right, then you're not encouraging me to have a reaction to your vague concerns other than 'Good. Be afraid.'

[Viking]

I am absolutely not interested in debating a well-settled issue like the Damore memo, as you evidently don't care to present any reason to dislike "social justice" or elaborate on what effects you see it having.

I presented a relevant example on potential effects that you refuse to discuss. The ball is firmly in your court.

And what is "settled" supposed to mean, do you have references to peer-reviewed papers "settling" this matter? I would not expect much less from that formulation.

For me, the topic of Damore's memo is also very much settled, which is why I brought it up as an example in the first place, since it was ready for use.


For me, the core is then, if you feel ineffably uneasy about people talking about racism or sexism

An example of a much more natural starting point for debate than talking is how historical statues are tore down not after political decisions (an important topic in and of itself, obviously), but by mob rule.


yet deride the articulation of extreme infractions against civilized society [...] by the far-right

What is this in reference to? Is opposition to minimum wage an example of an "extreme infraction against civilized society"? (not exactly an inherently nationalist position, at any rate; capitalist is more like it)

[Montmorency]

I presented a relevant example on potential effects that you refuse to discuss. The ball is firmly in your court.

The ball has been in the court of the supremacists for hundreds of years, and they have fumbled every time. At great cost.


An example of a much more natural starting point for debate than talking is how historical statues are tore down not after political decisions (an important topic in and of itself, obviously), but by mob rule.

What is this in reference to? Is opposition to minimum wage an example of an "extreme infraction against civilized society"? (not exactly an inherently nationalist position, at any rate; capitalist is more like it)

I don't care about your fear of hooligans knocking over statues - let it be the most beloved and beautiful statue of the greatest person who ever lived, if there is such a thing - if you're, minimally, dismissive of widespread political suppression and aristocratic tyranny. Anything that would put the two together is bound to be unworthy of attention. It's bad enough, for example, when the Allied war crimes are invoked to diminish Axis war crimes, as opposed to a restricted discussion on the facts of the former, but in the contemporary context there isn't even a remote correspondence of such flaws between sides. In that light it's up to you to defend your priorities.

[Viking]

The ball has been in the court of the supremacists for hundreds of years, and they have fumbled every time. At great cost.

So vaguely formulated that is says practically nothing at all.


]I don't care about your fear of hooligans knocking over statues - let it be the most beloved and beautiful statue of the greatest person who ever lived, if there is such a thing - if you're, minimally, dismissive of widespread political suppression and aristocratic tyranny. Anything that would put the two together is bound to be unworthy of attention. It's bad enough, for example, when the Allied war crimes are invoked to diminish Axis war crimes, as opposed to a restricted discussion on the facts of the former, but in the contemporary context there isn't even a remote correspondence of such flaws between sides. In that light it's up to you to defend your priorities.

Weird comment. Many dictatorships have their roots in hooliganism, or by extension: militias. Such as those of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.

You have one or more radical rag-tag forces taking the fight to the streets. At some point, such a force gains adequate political power to install a dictatorship and ends the instability of the preceding years.

[Montmorency]

GOP lawmakers caught on video telling activists to thank Manchin and Sinema for not blowing up the filibuster: 'Without that, we would be dead meat' (https://www.businessinsider.com/video-gop-lawmakers-tell-activists-thank-manchin-sinema-filibuster-2021-7)


Several Republican lawmakers were secretly filmed imploring conservative activists to flood a pair of centrist Democrats with messages of gratitude for holding firm on the filibuster, a 60-vote threshold that most bills need to clear the Senate.

The Democratic activist Lauren Windsor posted the video on Friday, two days after posting another one showing a GOP congressman calling for "18 more months of chaos" to jam Democrats. Both sets of remarks were made on June 29 at a Patriot Voices event attended by a large group of conservatives in Washington, DC.

In the newest video, Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona could be heard saying Democrats were "pushing as far as they can" to enact President Joe Biden's agenda.

"Fortunately for us, the filibuster's still in effect in the Senate. Without that, we would be dead meat, and this thing would be done," he said. "Then we'd be having a little bit more frantic discussion than we're having today."

"But thank goodness for Sinema and Joe Manchin," he said, referring to Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both of whom have resisted a mounting chorus of Democratic calls to abolish the filibuster.

[...]

Rick Santorum, a former Republican senator and 2016 GOP primary candidate who attended the event, acknowledged the difficulty Republicans face in rolling back social programs once they're in place — possibly a reference to their failed attempt to scrap the Affordable Care Act in 2017 and to others proposing cuts to safety-net programs like Medicare and Social Security.

"It's a lot easier to pass giveaways than it is to take them away. And everybody thinks, 'Oh, well, you know, we'll just take them away,'" he said in the video. "No, we won't! No, we won't."

:wall:
ReluctantSamurai



Weird comment. Many dictatorships have their roots in hooliganism, or by extension: militias. Such as those of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.

You have one or more radical rag-tag forces taking the fight to the streets. At some point, such a force gains adequate political power to install a dictatorship and ends the instability of the preceding years.

Again you speak in abstractions. If you imagine that typically-anarchists vandalizing statues is a portent of left-wing dictatorship, leave aside that your historical consciousness is rusty; your knowledge of contemporary politics in any country under common discussion is in urgent need of remediation.

Here's your democratic process (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/charlottesville-confederate-monuments-lee.html) nevertheless:


Four years after a woman was killed and dozens were injured when white nationalists protested the planned removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Va., workers removed the statue on Saturday, along with a nearby monument to Stonewall Jackson, another Confederate general.

The larger-than-life-sized statue of Lee was hoisted off its granite base shortly after 8 a.m. as a crowd of about 200 looked on. As the flatbed truck carrying the bronze statue rumbled down East Jefferson Street, a toot of the truck’s horn prompted cheers and applause. Jackson was removed about two hours later.

[...]

The decision by the city on Friday to finally take down the statue of Lee came more than four years after the City Council initially put forth a plan to remove it from what was then known as Lee Park, prompting scores of white nationalists to descend on Charlottesville in August 2017 in a “Unite the Right” rally to protest the removal.

Really now, it would have been just the worst authoritarianism for someone to have pulled it down clandestinely a couple years ago. Just about the end of the American Experiment.

24961


Honestly you strike me as consistently too biased over the substance of various social developments to register any credible objections over process.

Here's what I care about.
https://twitter.com/hannnahmmarie/status/1413525903716593665
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1413955463939600390 [VIDEO]

Are you prepared now to propose any legal protections on behalf of the Gebrus (in case you've forgotten (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/154341-Biden-Thread?p=2053825245&viewfull=1#post2053825245))? If not, what are you moaning about?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Several Republican lawmakers were secretly filmed imploring conservative activists to flood a pair of centrist Democrats with messages of gratitude for holding firm on the filibuster, a 60-vote threshold that most bills need to clear the Senate.

My question has always been is the "flooding" been simply messages of gratitude, or something more....:deal2:

Perhaps like this:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push


McCoy was tricked by the activists who said they were job recruiters. He talked about working with "shadow groups," supporting a carbon tax that he believes will never happen and influencing senators to weaken climate elements of President Biden's infrastructure plan.

"Joe Manchin, I talk to his office every week," McCoy bragged to the interviewer. He called the Democratic senator from West Virginia a "kingmaker" and discussed how "on the Democrat side we look for the moderates on these issues" in their efforts to stop policies that could hurt the company's business.

:kiss:

[Viking]

Again you speak in abstractions. If you imagine that typically-anarchists vandalizing statues is a portent of left-wing dictatorship, leave aside that your historical consciousness is rusty; your knowledge of contemporary politics in any country under common discussion is in urgent need of remediation.

The people in question that tear down statues operate in a space where some degree of organization and ideology exist; the statues are not just local issues, but form a big part of a larger national issue. That is why these acts are interesting.

You implicitly labelled acts of 'hooliganism' as of little interest, while the fact is that troubled streets were an important step on the path of several totalitarian regimes. Which is to say that this type of 'hooliganism', given the context, is of great interest. Both because it is of significance in and of itself through the level of escalation that it represents, but also because of its potential to evolve and help bring the country into an extreme situation, both in terms of violence and volatility. Lasting extreme situations more readily facilitate an authoritarian takeover of whichever radical group comes out on top. Describing these acts as a portent of dictatorship is a straw man.

The reason why this year's storming of the US Congress is as interesting as it is, is of course also due to its context. Any mob storming a parliamentary building will create waves, but the severity of the event is of an extra order of magnitude when it is part of something bigger. Any sufficiently large obscure cult could have caused the same scenes; but it would have been a very different event in terms of its implications for the future of a country's democracy.


Honestly you strike me as consistently too biased over the substance of various social developments to register any credible objections over process.

In democracy's case, it is for the most part really about following a formal process.

Ignoring the democratic process in an established democracy in order to achieve specific goals will necessarily undermine the democracy in question.

This stands in contrast to civil disobedience in its strictest, non-violent sense, where the outcome of a democratic process is protested through illegal means, but where ultimately only the democratic process can decide the final outcome.


Are you prepared now to propose any legal protections on behalf of the Gebrus (in case you've forgotten (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/154341-Biden-Thread?p=2053825245&viewfull=1#post2053825245))? If not, what are you moaning about?

I brought up Damore's case as a sample of the status quo, not because I thought he needed legal protection (or sympathy, for that matter; a subjective evaluation). The concept of wrongful dismissal is a separate topic that I am in no hurry to debate.

[Montmorency]

The people in question that tear down statues operate in a space where some degree of organization and ideology exist; the statues are not just local issues, but form a big part of a larger national issue. That is why these acts are interesting.

You implicitly labelled acts of 'hooliganism' as of little interest, while the fact is that troubled streets were an important step on the path of several totalitarian regimes. Which is to say that this type of 'hooliganism', given the context, is of great interest. Both because it is of significance in and of itself through the level of escalation that it represents, but also because of its potential to evolve and help bring the country into an extreme situation, both in terms of violence and volatility. Lasting extreme situations more readily facilitate an authoritarian takeover of whichever radical group comes out on top. Describing these acts as a portent of dictatorship is a straw man.

The reason why this year's storming of the US Congress is as interesting as it is, is of course also due to its context. Any mob storming a parliamentary building will create waves, but the severity of the event is of an extra order of magnitude when it is part of something bigger. Any sufficiently large obscure cult could have caused the same scenes; but it would have been a very different event in terms of its implications for the future of a country's democracy.

Again, the problem is that you speak abstractly without specifying the context. Cracking apart a statue as protest itself reflects no particular constituency toward politically-dangerous "escalation" - and historically never really has - especially when considering that leftists gaining much more power would ipso facto promote a peaceful and orderly removal of objectionable statues, by the sort of formal means you might notionally approve. By the way, even in the ultimate case of pure iconoclasm leading to the proscription of ALL memorializations of real persons in public spaces - which very few people of any political persuasion would support to be clear - this would be but an aesthetic disappointment to those in disagreement, because no one's core political project or identity depends on the existence of statues.

The entire mainstream liberal movement condemns such tactics, on the other hand, and the factions that advocate them have approximately zero representation in politics, which one would think would cheer you depending on how one perceives your interests.

Meanwhile, the riot at the Congress was significant far less for being at the Congress - comparatively this sort of thing happens all the time around the world - but because:

1. It was aimed at overthrowing the elected government of the country.
2. The then-President and his allies fomented and organized the uprising.
3. The then-President took steps to mitigate a security response to the threat, a response that would have readily stopped or prevented it in most other circumstances.
4. The entire political party of the then-President agrees with the substantive goals of the insurrection, agrees with the former guy that it should have succeeded, and is increasingly-prepared to make 1/6 a metaphorical Beer Hall Putsch.

Had Trump been telling the whole truth about the election, such a reality would have licensed even more drastic measures than he and his supporters have undertaken and carry on in the event. And depending on what the truth is about various historical personages, then liberal politics dictate examining the worth of monuments on those personages.

If Trump and his supporters (i.e. the entirety of the American RIght) are vile fascists bent on domination, then it would be an ethical failure on the part of the entire left-to-center spectrum to not be profoundly escalating the repercussions they face for their crimes and transgressions.

So the analysis still seems to be that your priority is feebly deflecting from real problems to undermine the very, and ultimately only, groups and people who do or can confront them.


In democracy's case, it is for the most part really about following a formal process.

Ignoring the democratic process in an established democracy in order to achieve specific goals will necessarily undermine the democracy in question.

Again taking such a statement gnomically and detached from context (as to put it in context leads your stance into self-contradiction), it is telling that you would focus on veritably the most marginal circumvention of formal processes today, in terms of both character and breadth,

Remember, it is not just that you are pounding this while ignoring a government breaking its laws in the interest of state actors or business stakeholders or sheer sadism, failing in its legal and constitutional obligations, subjecting people to cruelty or force without recourse or due process, waging unaccountable military and foreign policy with real detriment to millions of people, but that you ignore the latter and more while striving to underscore the former as a threat to democracy by way of intended discredit to the cultural Left as a political force.

Your stance that iconoclasm is a constitutional threat to a country, alongside openly dismissing documentation of "Der Ewige Konservatismus," remains totally irredeemable and contemptible, really in almost any conceivable set of circumstances too. But in these circumstances the members, across all levels of political and socioeconomic hierarchy, of one political side here formally and explicitly promote and pursue beliefs and behaviors that are known comparatively to lead to societal breakdown, state failure, and totalitarianism, whereas this is not remotely the case with the other. All before even designating evil as such.

Your position would actually be more reasonable and defensible if you were arguing that instead of going after inanimate objects, militant leftists should be seeking to harm political and religious leaders on the Right. It's that fucked up.


I brought up Damore's case as a sample of the status quo, not because I thought he needed legal protection (or sympathy, for that matter; a subjective evaluation). The concept of wrongful dismissal is a separate topic that I am in no hurry to debate.

The status quo is that labor is expendable to management (in a New Gilded Age trajectory). That there is an extent to which decent cultural values have spread such that capitalists perceive even a little liability to the manifestation exposure of formerly-unassailable bigotries is, like, a silver lining here. I'm not interested in mourning for people who fear that, rather those who do should be making an argument for why my values aren't consistent with being glad for their fear.

[Montmorency]

Tennessee just fired a top public health official in part for pointing out that teenagers are legally-emancipated to pursue vaccination regardless of parental wishes. Also:


Tennessee abandons vaccine outreach to minors — not just for COVID-19 (https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/07/13/tennessee-halts-all-vaccine-outreach-minors-not-just-covid-19/7928701002/)

The Tennessee Department of Health will halt all adolescent vaccine outreach – not just for coronavirus, but all diseases – amid pressure from Republican state lawmakers, according to an internal report and agency emails obtained by the Tennessean. If the health department must issue any information about vaccines, staff are instructed to strip the agency logo off the documents.
[...]
After the health department's internal COVID-19 report was circulated on Friday, the rollback of vaccine outreach was further detailed in a Monday email from agency Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tim Jones. Jones told staff they should conduct "no proactive outreach regarding routine vaccines" and "no outreach whatsoever regarding the HPV vaccine." Staff were also told not to do any "pre-planning" for flu shots events at schools. Any information released about back-to-school vaccinations should come from the Tennessee Department of Education, not the Tennessee Department of Health, Jones wrote.
[...]
Decisions to ratchet back outreach comes amid pressure from conservative lawmakers, who have embraced misinformation about the coronavirus vaccine, said Dr. Michelle Fiscus, Tennessee's former top vaccine official.
[...]
The Tennessee Department of Health began backing off vaccination outreach in the wake of a contentious legislative hearing in mid-June where several conservative lawmakers chastised Piercey for efforts to vaccinate teenagers. Lawmakers accused the agency of attempting to circumvent parents and peer pressure minors to be vaccinated, then discussed dissolving the entire health department to stop its vaccine advertisements.

This is in the context of most Republican states attempting to legislate unvaccinated status into a protected class, in some cases for all vaccines.


I don't know if this is the first time notorious neoconservative David Frum (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/theres-word-what-trumpism-becoming/619418) has admitted that Trump is a fascist, but I'm willing to extend that not "once a whore, always a whore" if he can logically follow to labeling "the Republican Party and its adherents" thus.


“I became worse.” That’s how double impeachment changed him, Donald Trump told a conservative audience in Dallas last weekend, without a trace of a smile. This was not Trump the insult comic talking. This was the deepest Trump self. And this one time, he told the truth... Outright endorsement of lethal extremism? That was too much for Trump in 2017. But now look where we are. In the first days after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, Trump supporters distanced themselves from its excesses. The attack had nothing to do with Trump, they argued. He had urged only a peaceful demonstration. If anybody did any harm, that person was a concealed agent of antifa. But in the months since, the mood has shifted. Once repudiated, the attacks are now accepted, condoned, and even endorsed.

The answer arrived on Sunday morning, when Trump phoned into Maria Bartiromo’s Fox News show to deliver his most full-throated endorsement yet of the January 6 attack on Congress. The ex-president praised Ashli Babbitt, the woman slain as she attempted to crash through the door that protected members of Congress from the mob that had invaded the Capitol: “innocent, wonderful, incredible woman.” He praised the insurrectionist throng: “great people.” He denounced their arrest and jailing as unjust. And he implied that Babbitt had been shot by the personal-security detail of a leading member of Congress. “I’ve heard also that it was the head of security for a certain high official. A Democrat. It’s gonna come out.”

The relentless messaging by Trump and his supporters has inflicted a measurable wound on American democracy. Before the 2020 election, about 60 percent of Democrats and Republicans expected the election to be fair. Since Trump began circulating his ever more radical complaints, Republican confidence in the election has tumbled by half, to barely more than 30 percent, according to polling supported by the Democracy Fund.

The Trump movement was always authoritarian and illiberal. It indulged periodically in the rhetoric of violence. Trump himself chafed against the restraints of law. But what the United States did not have before 2020 was a large national movement willing to justify mob violence to claim political power. Now it does.

Is there a precedent? Not in recent years. Since the era of RedemptionPresidential-era Trumpism operated through at least the forms of law. Presidential-era Trumpism glorified military power, not mob attacks on government institutions. Post-presidentially, those past inhibitions are fast dissolving. The conversion of Ashli Babbitt into a martyr, a sort of American Horst Wessel, expresses the transformation. Through 2020, Trump had endorsed deadly force against lawbreakers: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” he tweeted on May 29, 2020. Babbitt broke the law too, but not to steal a TV. She was killed as she tried to disrupt the constitutional order, to prevent the formalization of the results of a democratic election. after Reconstruction, anti-government violence in the United States has been the work of marginal sects and individual extremists. American Islamic State supporters were never going to seize the state, and neither were the Weather Underground, the Ku Klux Klan killers of the 1950s and ’60s, Puerto Rican nationalists, the German American Bund, nor the Communist Party USA.

But the post-election Trump movement is not tiny. It’s not anything like a national majority, but it’s a majority in some states—a plurality in more—and everywhere a significant minority, empowered by the inability of pro-legality Republicans to stand up to them. Once it might have been hoped that young Republicans with a future would somehow distance themselves from the violent lawlessness of the post-presidential Trump movement. But one by one, they are betting the other way. You might understand why those tainted by the January 6 attacks, such as Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, would find excuses for them. They have butts to cover. But Hawley is being outdone by other young politicians who weren’t in office and seemed to have every opportunity to build post-Trump identities—including even former Trump critics like the Ohio Senate aspirant J. D. Vance. Why do people sign up with the putschists after the putsch has failed? They’re betting that the failed putsch is not the past—it’s the future.

What shall we call this future? Through the Trump years, it seemed sensible to eschew comparisons to the worst passages of history. I repeated over and over again a warning against too-easy use of the F-word, fascism: “There are a lot of stops on the train line to bad before you get to Hitler Station.”


Two traits have historically marked off European-style fascism from more homegrown American traditions of illiberalism: contempt for legality and the cult of violence.

Sadly, this is absolutely untrue and reveals insufficient attention to, principally, the history of 19th century America, the history of the American South, and the history of the FBI and CIA. And of course the entirety of the Bush era, of which we should always remember Frum was lionized as a leading intellectual proponent. Back in the day.


Presidential-era Trumpism operated through at least the forms of law. Presidential-era Trumpism glorified military power, not mob attacks on government institutions. Post-presidentially, those past inhibitions are fast dissolving. The conversion of Ashli Babbitt into a martyr, a sort of American Horst Wessel, expresses the transformation. Through 2020, Trump had endorsed deadly force against lawbreakers: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” he tweeted on May 29, 2020. Babbitt broke the law too, but not to steal a TV. She was killed as she tried to disrupt the constitutional order, to prevent the formalization of the results of a democratic election.

If a big-enough movement agrees with Trump that Babbitt was “wonderful”—if they repeat that the crowd of would-be Nancy Pelosi kidnappers and Mike Pence lynchers was “great”—then we are leaving behind the American system of democratic political competition for a new landscape in which power is determined by the gun.

That’s a landscape for which a lot of pro-Trump writers and thinkers seem to yearn.


You are living in territory controlled by enemy tribes. You, and all like you, must assume the innocence of anyone remotely like yourself who is charged in any confrontation with those tribes and with their authorities—until proven otherwise beyond a shadow of your doubt. Take his side. In other words, you must shield others like yourself by practicing and urging “jury nullification.”

Those words are not taken from The Turner Diaries or some other Aryan Nation tract. They were published by a leading pro-Trump site, the same site where Trump’s former in-house intellectual Michael Anton publishes. They were written by Angelo Codevilla, who wrote the books and articles that defined so much of the Trump creed in 2016. (Codevilla’s 2016 book, The Ruling Class, was introduced by Rush Limbaugh and heavily promoted on Limbaugh’s radio program.)

We are so accustomed to using the word fascist as an epithet that it feels awkward to adjust it for political analysis. We understand that there were and are many varieties of socialism. We forget that there were varieties of fascism as well, and not just those defeated in World War II. Peronism, in Argentina, offers a lot of insights into post-presidential Trumpism.

In the United States, the forces of legality still mobilize more strength than their Trumpist adversaries. But those who uphold the American constitutional order need to understand what they are facing. Trump incited his followers to try to thwart an election result, and to kill or threaten Trump’s own vice president if he would not or could not deliver on Trump’s crazy scheme to keep power. We’re past the point of pretending it was antifa that did January 6, past the point of pretending that Trump didn’t want what he fomented and what he got. In his interview on July 11—as in the ever more explicit talk of his followers—the new line about the attack on the Capitol is guilty but justified. The election of 2020 was a fraud, and so those who lost it are entitled to overturn it.


I do not consider myself guilty. I admit all the factual aspects of the charge. But I cannot plead that I am guilty of high treason; for there can be no high treason against that treason committed in 1918.

Maybe you recognize those words. They come from Adolf Hitler’s plea of self-defense at his trial for his 1923 Munich putsch. He argued: You are not entitled to the power you hold, so I committed no crime when I tried to grab it back. You blame me for what I did; I blame you for who you are.


Every day is a Flight 93 (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/) moment.

[Montmorency]

For emphasis:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/donald-trump-election-coup-new-book-excerpt/index.html


The top US military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, was so shaken that then-President Donald Trump and his allies might attempt a coup or take other dangerous or illegal measures after the November election that Milley and other top officials informally planned for different ways to stop Trump, according to excerpts of an upcoming book obtained by CNN. The book, from Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, describes how Milley and the other Joint Chiefs discussed a plan to resign, one-by-one, rather than carry out orders from Trump that they considered to be illegal, dangerous or ill-advised.
[...]
Milley spoke to friends, lawmakers and colleagues about the threat of a coup, and the Joint Chiefs chairman felt he had to be "on guard" for what might come.
"They may try, but they're not going to f**king succeed," Milley told his deputies, according to the authors. "You can't do this without the military. You can't do this without the CIA and the FBI. We're the guys with the guns."
In the days leading up to January 6, Leonnig and Rucker write, Milley was worried about Trump's call to action. "Milley told his staff that he believed Trump was stoking unrest, possibly in hopes of an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military."
Milley viewed Trump as "the classic authoritarian leader with nothing to lose," the authors write, and he saw parallels between Adolf Hitler's rhetoric as a victim and savior and Trump's false claims of election fraud.
"This is a Reichstag moment," Milley told aides, according to the book. "The gospel of the Führer."

[ReluctantSamurai]

The Tennessee Department of Health will halt all adolescent vaccine outreach – not just for coronavirus, but all diseases

I had a conversation not too long ago with someone about my age that held the same ignorant views that most anti-vaxxers have. I asked this person to roll up their sleeve. [Quizzical look] Roll up your sleeve, I repeated. I pointed to the familiar dimple on his upper arm signifying that he had gotten his polio vaccine, the MMR vaccine (mumps, measles, rubella), and likely several others. I stated that I've had both of my COVID shots, and that I'm pretty sure that tableware won't stick to my forehead, although if he happened to be carrying a fork, we could test that out...:rolleyes: My final statement as I walked away was that chances are very good that he wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for vaccines.

God these people are effing stupid...:wall:
Here's an idea....~:idea: Instead of making vaccines mandatory, let's pass legislation that bans anti-vaxxers from having access to them, and ship all those excess jabs overseas. I'm sure the ensuing hizzy fits about constitutional rights will provide enough material for several news cycles.....~D

[ReluctantSamurai]

@ Monty

It just gets dirtier and dirtier:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exxon-mobil-video-senators_n_60ec4dcee4b09f0145f5075f


New analysis of campaign disclosures found the six Democratic senators ― Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Chris Coons (Del.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) ― received a combined total of nearly $333,000 from lobbyists, political action committees and lobbying firms affiliated with Exxon over the past decade.

“This is a story about how lobbyists curry favor, and specifically about how Exxon’s current lobbyists have spent decades currying the favor of these six Democrats to position themselves to do things like safeguard fossil fuel subsidies and pare down infrastructure packages,” Rees said. “Exxon has hired these firms and lobbyists because they’ve contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to these Democrats, both before and after they were hired by Exxon.”

“On the Democrat side, we look for the moderates,” McCoy said. “So it’s the Manchins. It’s the Sinemas. It’s the Testers.”

Seems like petty cash, right? But:


But a 2017 Ohio State University study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2017.1366291?journalCode=fenp20) indicates the donations have a measurable effect, particularly as they enter the five-figure range. For every $10,000 a lawmaker received from a major industrial polluter like Exxon Mobil, their probability of voting for pro-environmental legislation decreased by 2%, according to the study of donations between 1990 and 2010 published in the journal Environmental Politics. For Democrats, the effect of the donations was even stronger, reducing likelihood of a pro-environmental vote by 3%.


Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at the watchdog Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said corporate lobbyists “expect something in return” when they make political donations.

“As a result, when Exxon’s lobbyists, PACs and lobbying firms make donations to particular senators, we have to ask ourselves what do they expect and what did they get in return,” said Canter, a former ethics counsel for the Obama and Clinton administrations.

An expansion of the earlier NPR link:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-manchin-exxonmobil-lobbying-environmental-groups_n_60dcc8e3e4b001b8d59bbbd8

And the hits just keep on comin'...:guitarist:

[Viking]

So the analysis still seems to be that your priority is feebly deflecting from real problems to undermine the very, and ultimately only, groups and people who do or can confront them.


Again taking such a statement gnomically and detached from context (as to put it in context leads your stance into self-contradiction), it is telling that you would focus on veritably the most marginal circumvention of formal processes today, in terms of both character and breadth,

Remember, it is not just that you are pounding this while ignoring a government breaking its laws in the interest of state actors or business stakeholders or sheer sadism, failing in its legal and constitutional obligations, subjecting people to cruelty or force without recourse or due process, waging unaccountable military and foreign policy with real detriment to millions of people, but that you ignore the latter and more while striving to underscore the former as a threat to democracy by way of intended discredit to the cultural Left as a political force.

I discuss and bring up topics that either interest me or seem to warrant greater attention than they currently receive.

You may wish to discuss the topics that grab the headlines of mainstream media and how they are usually presented there, but those perspectives are, evidently, already well-exposed and on peoples' radar; and debating them is often more akin to kicking up an open door. Unless you are actually facing any of the (typically wacky and probably not very intelligent) radicalized individuals that these articles concern. Interests aside, focusing on these individuals is also simply inadequate to understand a society and predict where it is headed.

There are other dubious individuals and movements to follow and debate, and this is where a lot of my focus is here and now.

Obviously, sloppy intellectual work will be exposed for what it is.


Again, the problem is that you speak abstractly without specifying the context. Cracking apart a statue as protest itself reflects no particular constituency toward politically-dangerous "escalation" - and historically never really has - especially when considering that leftists gaining much more power would ipso facto promote a peaceful and orderly removal of objectionable statues, by the sort of formal means you might notionally approve. By the way, even in the ultimate case of pure iconoclasm leading to the proscription of ALL memorializations of real persons in public spaces - which very few people of any political persuasion would support to be clear - this would be but an aesthetic disappointment to those in disagreement, because no one's core political project or identity depends on the existence of statues.

Abstractions help sever links between a subject and clichés, and entrenched views associated with it. If something seems off, the problem is not the abstraction


The entire mainstream liberal movement condemns such tactics, on the other hand, and the factions that advocate them have approximately zero representation in politics, which one would think would cheer you depending on how one perceives your interests.

Maybe it lacks political representation now, maybe it doesn't; but such changes might not require more than an election or two to change drastically, so that is no guarantee going forward.

This a quote from an actual Democrat in an article (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/new-york-mayor-race-progressive-warning/619184/) linked in another thread:


“As a survivor myself, who’s got a femme-led team, many of whom are also survivors, we’ve all been triggered.”

At some time during the last 5-20 years, some of the terminology used here might not have been used by any democrat of much significance, but fringe views can make their way to the mainstream; and they have here, in some sense (the candidate's team seemed even more fringe-inspired). I do not register that the relevant fringe groups where such terminology originated faces that much opposition from the 'progressive' side; frequently, it seems that the opposite is the case.

Currently, the path of the Democratic party seems to be one of transformation, not steady state; and some fringes seem to be heading for the mainstream.


Meanwhile, the riot at the Congress was significant far less for being at the Congress - comparatively this sort of thing happens all the time around the world - but because:

1. It was aimed at overthrowing the elected government of the country.
2. The then-President and his allies fomented and organized the uprising.
3. The then-President took steps to mitigate a security response to the threat, a response that would have readily stopped or prevented it in most other circumstances.
4. The entire political party of the then-President agrees with the substantive goals of the insurrection, agrees with the former guy that it should have succeeded, and is increasingly-prepared to make 1/6 a metaphorical Beer Hall Putsch.

Had Trump been telling the whole truth about the election, such a reality would have licensed even more drastic measures than he and his supporters have undertaken and carry on in the event. And depending on what the truth is about various historical personages, then liberal politics dictate examining the worth of monuments on those personages.

This is context, like mentioned.


Your stance that iconoclasm is a constitutional threat to a country

Nope.


alongside openly dismissing documentation of "Der Ewige Konservatismus," remains totally irredeemable and contemptible, really in almost any conceivable set of circumstances too. But in these circumstances the members, across all levels of political and socioeconomic hierarchy, of one political side here formally and explicitly promote and pursue beliefs and behaviors that are known comparatively to lead to societal breakdown, state failure, and totalitarianism, whereas this is not remotely the case with the other. All before even designating evil as such.

To tar such a heterogeneous group of people, which is not well-defined anyway, and whose definition likely varies from country to country and over time, makes no sense, and is a breach of debate etiquette.


Your position would actually be more reasonable and defensible if you were arguing that instead of going after inanimate objects, militant leftists should be seeking to harm political and religious leaders on the Right. It's that fucked up.

If you are going to use physical force, you better be stronger in terms of arms and manpower. The radical 'left' in the US is not in this position currently, so it would likely end poorly. But this state does not have to last forever, particularly in a country that is going through rapid ethnically demographic changes as well as changing politically landscape, and changing political attitudes.

These groups are not there today, but one day they might be strong enough and radicalized enough that they could want to take on the radical 'right' in the streets. Statues are one interesting point to watch then, since it represents low-level radicalization: no one have to get hurt, but it is still a case of might makes right.

One observation that might not seem very important, but that ultimately is telling something, is that in many (most?) cases, they really did have the might to tear down the statues. If anyone did come out to defend the statues in these cases, they weren't strong enough. So the radical 'left' has space to operate successfully in the public space through means of force. An important question is if such groups will seek to expand this space, and risk more open confrontation with the radical 'right', who might not adequately care about protecting statues to prevent many of them being toppled, but who presumably will mobilize more strongly for other things. I make no predictions here.


The status quo is that labor is expendable to management (in a New Gilded Age trajectory). That there is an extent to which decent cultural values have spread such that capitalists perceive even a little liability to the manifestation exposure of formerly-unassailable bigotries is, like, a silver lining here. I'm not interested in mourning for people who fear that, rather those who do should be making an argument for why my values aren't consistent with being glad for their fear.

What happened with Damore was an example of where 'liberals', many of whom traditionally might have been happy to use science as a weapon against conservative religious individuals, turn down science when it contradicts notions of equality. Ironically, because the kind of equality that e.g. human rights would imply is inherent to the person and not dependent on its nature. So if science is supportive of differences in the distributions of personality traits between men and women, and someone is fired for incorporating such science into their own hypotheses, this is cheered on.

Considering that men women are based on lineages where the two groups have had very distinct physiologies for anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of years depending on the perspective, differences would be expected. In other words, suddenly "Team Science" is batting for "Team Intelligent Design".

I say traditionally above, as there appears to have been a bit of a turn towards a more pro-religious stance among 'progressives' (or that such views are more commonly expressed now). Particularly in defence of Islam, but more liberal versions of Christianity would presumably also pass without too much issue.

[Montmorency]

Some of the edgier Internet Right speculate that, because the advance child tax credit is so popular among conservative voters, the Republican Party elite will finally embrace Strasserite redistribution and win permanent majorities.

Let's see how that one comes through.



@ Monty

It just gets dirtier and dirtier:

There isn't any news there in terms of the filibuster. We still can't conflate the bare fact that donors influence the decisions of politicians, and vice versa, with resistance to overcoming the filibuster; all national Democratic politicians benefit from large donors, yet the vast majority support filibuster reform.

Because the equation fundamentally remains that the most bought-and-paid-for Democratic senator can contract out their liberum veto to their "handlers" in order to pass legislation redounding to their party's and their own political benefit, while also watering it down to protect - even lard it to reward - whatever donors or constituencies they might need to. Whereas if no law, then no nothing.

E.g. the lobbyist-written U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/senate-passes-bipartisan-tech-and-manufacturing-bill-aimed-at-china.html) enacted a month ago.

Thus Sen. Tester supports filibuster reform, Coons has gone from one of its most active defenders to quiet dissatisfaction, Hassan has voiced support for AFAIK everything but abolition, and all first-termers - including Kelly - are reformist on the question. In my opinion individual, non-fungible, characteristics are most relevant in the case of Sinema and Manchin.


Seems like petty cash, right? But:

Not every politician can go big league (https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2021/01/sheldon-silvers-many-prison-sentences/175791/), but state and local pols are probably the likeliest to sell out on federal felonies over a few grand (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/ex-calif-state-sen-leeland-yee-gun-control-champion-heading-to-prison-for-weapons-trafficking/).





Abstractions help sever links between a subject and clichés, and entrenched views associated with it. If something seems off, the problem is not the abstraction

Maybe it lacks political representation now, maybe it doesn't; but such changes might not require more than an election or two to change drastically, so that is no guarantee going forward.

See, disregarding the logical flaws in your polemic by escaping to the level of meta-abstraction - defending the mere availability of abstraction - does not increase the credibility of your initial attempt here, which was to insinuate jeopardy in the public discourse on subjects like race and gender.

Notwithstanding one's opinion of the Vietnam War, someone urging that American forces ought to be recalled to the mainland in order to stave off Native American genocide of the White majority, in connection with the emergence of the American Indian Movement, could be dismissed without further thought.

You should expect to do a lot of heavy lifting to explain why unsubstantiated potentials from an unsubstantiated harm (that is more often part of an affirmative good) have some kind of precedence over an ongoing national crisis.


At some time during the last 5-20 years, some of the terminology used here might not have been used by any democrat of much significance, but fringe views can make their way to the mainstream; and they have here, in some sense (the candidate's team seemed even more fringe-inspired). I do not register that the relevant fringe groups where such terminology originated faces that much opposition from the 'progressive' side; frequently, it seems that the opposite is the case.

Currently, the path of the Democratic party seems to be one of transformation, not steady state; and some fringes seem to be heading for the mainstream.

Is your point that this terminology or the concepts they denote are bad and dangerous, that it is as bad as you think toppling a statue is, that the two are somehow related, or that they represent a path of objectionable extremism for the Democratic Party? You will, as before, have a very hard time actually supporting any of the above with more than appeal to infinite possible worlds.

But as a matter of fact "trigger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger)" and "survivor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Assault_Survivors%27_Rights_Act)" have been mainstream terminology since the Obama era. Hope that doesn't undo you.

For my part, I'll explain why I think fascism is bad. Fascism is bad because it is a violent and wasteful system of governance that is proven to be unstable and destructive to human (and nonhuman) life and potential; the belief and practice that a class of humans are entitled to subjugate and parasitize others has some of the worst outcomes in human history.

Now your turn on why talking about sex crime and nonstandard genders and orientations manifests danger from the left.


To tar such a heterogeneous group of people, which is not well-defined anyway, and whose definition likely varies from country to country and over time, makes no sense, and is a breach of debate etiquette.

Here's the problem again. You're wounded when I recount the specific actions of what is certainly a well-defined group of people, primarily in the context of modern American politics no less, yet you see no breach of etiquette in implicitly condemning the broad left on the basis of almost literally nothing but vague discomfort.

I'm going to demand a higher performance of etiquette from you.


One observation that might not seem very important, but that ultimately is telling something, is that in many (most?) cases, they really did have the might to tear down the statues. If anyone did come out to defend the statues in these cases, they weren't strong enough. So the radical 'left' has space to operate successfully in the public space through means of force. An important question is if such groups will seek to expand this space, and risk more open confrontation with the radical 'right', who might not adequately care about protecting statues to prevent many of them being toppled, but who presumably will mobilize more strongly for other things. I make no predictions here.

In principle those statues can easily be stood back up unless damaged, in which case it's a matter of bureaucratic will to pay to re-accession them; you'll note a few dozen black-clad rioters lack the force to prevent the government from accomplishing that. As it happens, local governments in 2020 tended to be unwilling to generate confrontations over statues in the context of national protests and generally-similar statues being removed bureaucratically in the low-hundreds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_removed_during_the_George_Floyd_protests#United_States). Vigilante iconoclasm is nothing new or escalatory in the living memory of America, but the massive protest movement directed willing bodies to the act while also affording them political cover they would not normally have had, and which they no longer have. This make good sense when you further include the international context of 'it always works that way!'

The real space of confrontation you probably ponder would most naturally expand in the circumstance of a Republican seizure of the national state in the near-future. You would expect to see organized, including formal political, resistance to federal authority in blue states, as well as pogroms in red states. This is at least a realistic scenario. Take care to note that such a scenario does not hold out some endogenous change of behavior over time, where politically-moderate insurance lawyers wake up one morning determined to lob Molotovs in the name of Wokeness, but a mass direct response to near-unprecedented escalation of civil conflict by those in power.

Notably, if one opposes the left taking "more open confrontation" under such circumstances, one would be explicitly pro-fascist.


If you are going to use physical force, you better be stronger in terms of arms and manpower. The radical 'left' in the US is not in this position currently, so it would likely end poorly. But this state does not have to last forever, particularly in a country that is going through rapid ethnically demographic changes as well as changing politically landscape, and changing political attitudes.

These groups are not there today, but one day they might be strong enough and radicalized enough that they could want to take on the radical 'right' in the streets. Statues are one interesting point to watch then, since it represents low-level radicalization: no one have to get hurt, but it is still a case of might makes right.

It sure as hell shouldn't last forever. Pretty wild to tut at someone twitching their fist when they have a gun in their face. But as it turns out (see last year's threads) we even have real-world case of extremism on both sides that signals the mismatch in perspective: last year's Trump-enabled public execution of killer anti-fascist Michael Reinoehl (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/michael-reinoehl-killing-investigation.html) by a federal death squad, a downright intensification of the Horst Wessel archetype. But whatever, to channel the relevant rhetoric: maybe the Gay Agenda will drive another self-hating cuck to pick up a gun sometime soon.

But, again being realistic, militant far-left organizations would only proliferate in the event of the ongoing collapse of the US as a polity and the total failure of the institutional Democratic Party to offer meaningful guidance and organizing; otherwise the grassroots energy gets directed through elite-managed channels. In this scenario these fearsome lefties are quickly overwhelmed by Republican-aligned militias and police, and the prospects for resistance fall back onto the electorate (such as through a general strike).

Designating left-wing radicalization a point of anticipation is dubious when we've had generations of right-wing radicalization outpacing it by an order of magnitude. We already know what's going on here.

So in summary, statue violence has an unclear connection to cultural leftism in general or the development of the Democratic Party, the indicia of radicalization are responsive to conditions outside the activities of the Left, and it is uninformative to analyze current events without actually setting them in current events.


What happened with Damore was an example of where 'liberals', many of whom traditionally might have been happy to use science as a weapon against conservative religious individuals, turn down science when it contradicts notions of equality.

That is of course not what happened.

"If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions.”


Considering that men women are based on lineages where the two groups have had very distinct physiologies for anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of years depending on the perspective, differences would be expected. In other words, suddenly "Team Science" is batting for "Team Intelligent Design".

I am not always going to be present to call you out when you engage in this dishonest tactic of motte-and-bailey abstractions. The issue at hand in the Damore controversy was never whether there are non-zero differences between men and women as groups.


I say traditionally above, as there appears to have been a bit of a turn towards a more pro-religious stance among 'progressives' (or that such views are more commonly expressed now). Particularly in defence of Islam, but more liberal versions of Christianity would presumably also pass without too much issue.

Liberals and leftists the world over continue to get less religious by the year, but freedom of religion has always been a liberal plank. For example, most Evangelical Christians are scum, but that's not an excuse to discriminate on a group level. Evangelical Christianity was originally the birthplace of progressivism in the United States, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, but those days are very long gone.


You may wish to discuss the topics that grab the headlines of mainstream media and how they are usually presented there, but those perspectives are, evidently, already well-exposed and on peoples' radar; and debating them is often more akin to kicking up an open door. Unless you are actually facing any of the (typically wacky and probably not very intelligent) radicalized individuals that these articles concern. Interests aside, focusing on these individuals is also simply inadequate to understand a society and predict where it is headed.

So just say what you mean, and make sure it's interesting.

My sense is that you disagree with the cultural Left on values, perceive them as more of a threat to your worldview than fascism, and by that pretext launder some of your own unpopular views on race and gender and civics by inflating criticism of an unpopular impulse among part of the cultural Left. Hence why you don't rely on the old standby of an imminent Communist uprising coming to ban private property, because that particular fish doesn't get at which of your oxes is presently being gored.

For instance, peep this state history curriculum about to be enacted in Texas, with regard to the struck-out clauses. I doubt you would think to have any substantive objection to the authors' agenda.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00003I.pdf

It would be something else entirely if you sought out perspectives on how societies should go about memorializing figures as such in public spaces over time. There's at least scope for a grounded discussion; I've read multiple non-worthless thinkpieces in that vein. Or if you just wished to register displeasure at vigilante iconoclasm, I wouldn't pressure it.

But spare me the 'ZOMGbbq teh statues SJdubz gone mad' crap that you clearly can't justify up front.

[ReluctantSamurai]

There isn't any news there in terms of the filibuster. We still can't conflate the bare fact that donors influence the decisions of politicians, and vice versa, with resistance to overcoming the filibuster; all national Democratic politicians benefit from large donors, yet the vast majority support filibuster reform.

Except the "Justice Democrats" who don't accept corporate bribes...err I mean donations. Abolishing the filibuster is a non-issue....it will never happen unless one side or the other wins a clear, decisive majority. The current legislation on the Congressional agenda wouldn't require a 60 vote majority if the corporate Democrats voted to enact law for the people of the United States instead of their donors.


Whereas if no law, then no nothing.

What law are you referring to?~:confused:


In my opinion individual, non-fungible, characteristics are most relevant in the case of Sinema and Manchin.

And it should be obvious by now that those "non-fungible" characteristics most relevant to Manchin and Sinema are fealty to their corporate donors. There's even Manchin on tape actively seeking donors to bribe an out-going GOP senator in an attempt to garner the required 60 vote bi-partisan majority, just so he can avoid criticism for the "far-left". Bribery and corruption has been in politics as long as there has been politics. What's needed more than ever, is to call out that corruption, and to at least attempt to vote those who are corrupt, out of office. And there needs to be pressure from within the party to get on board with the extremely popular Democratic agenda. But of course this president has little stomach, or back-bone for pressuring the Manchin's and Sinema's, because he's just like them...:inquisitive:

In the coming days, His Royal Highness will most likely show his true colors on the climate change portions of the infrastructure bill:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/joe-manchin-reconciliation-climate-change/index.html


"I know they have the climate portion in here, and I'm concerned about that," Manchin said moments after Biden met with Senate Democrats in the Capitol on Wednesday.

"Because if they're eliminating fossils, and I'm finding out there's a lot of language in places they're eliminating fossils, which is very, very disturbing, because if you're sticking your head in the sand, and saying that fossil (fuel) has to be eliminated in America, and they want to get rid of it, and thinking that's going to clean up the global climate, it won't clean it up all. If anything, it would be worse."

Eliminating major sources of CO2 emissions like coal, actually makes climate change worse? WTF!?!

Ohhhh...this might be an explanation for that brilliant piece of stupidity:

https://prospect.org/power/manchin-profits-from-coal-sales-to-utility-lobbying-group-me/


Sen. Manchin expressed skepticism about the Biden administration’s goals to halve greenhouse gas emissions from their 2005 levels by 2030, a policy target for which there are still no binding laws. In the current Congress, Manchin’s vote would almost certainly be necessary for the Senate to approve plans to reduce polluting emissions, which would require a clean-energy transition for the coal industry of West Virginia.

Skepticism over how to finance "green energy"? Or maybe someones got some numbers skewed incorrectly? Maybe climate change is "fake news"? Anything? Something? Ahhh....good old fashioned greed:


Manchin earns hundreds of thousands of dollars each year through coal sales to power plants that supply Edison Electric Institute member companies. His family company, Enersystems, is a contractor of American Bituminous Power Partners (AmBit), a coal power plant located near Grant Town, West Virginia, that provides energy to Monogahela Power Company, according to documents from the West Virginia Public Services Commission (PSC). Also known as Mon Power, the electric company is a subsidiary of energy giant FirstEnergy and an EEI member.

Manchin founded the coal brokerage Enersystems in 1988 and helped run the company, handing control to his son Joseph upon being elected West Virginia secretary of state in 2000 and reportedly (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/07/26/26greenwire-sen-manchin-maintains-lucrative-ties-to-family-64717.html?pagewanted=1) moving his holdings into a blind trust between 2005 and 2010. In Manchin’s most recent financial disclosure, covering the fiscal year 2020, he reports that his non-public shares of Enersystems, a “contract services and material provider for utility plants,” are worth between $1 million and $5 million, and sent him an income of $492,000. His total income from the company since joining the Senate is more than $4.5 million.

So 4.5 million reasons for opposing the move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But there's more:


A 2017 report (https://www.energyandpolicy.org/utilities-knew-about-climate-change/) by the Energy and Policy Institute, “Utilities Knew,” documented the role of electric utilities in blocking lawmaking on polluting emissions while continuing to invest in fossil fuel facilities, despite EEI sponsoring climate research in the 1970s and early 1980s. “For example,” the report writes, “EEI and Southern Company spearheaded the 1991 Information Council on the Environment ad campaign, which aimed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’” Also in 2017, an Energy and Policy Institute report (https://www.energyandpolicy.org/utility-ratepayers-fund-the-edison-electric-institute/) found that utility companies funded by ratepayers sent $760 million from 2004 through 2015 to EEI in member dues, which then spent a total of $130.6 million on lobbying and political expenditures, 14 percent of its total expenses.

The event (https://thegreenmarketoracle.com/2021/06/06/eei-2021-the-road-to-net-zero/) where Manchin spoke, called “The Road to Net Zero,” also featured Eric Holdsworth, director of climate programs for EEI, who previously served as deputy director of the industry group Global Climate Coalition that attacked climate science and lobbied against climate policy in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Edison Electric Institute spends more than $8 million (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2018&id=D000000297) a year on lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets. The trade association’s lobbyists have raised money for the Democratic House (https://readsludge.com/2019/04/03/as-it-works-to-stifle-primary-challengers-dccc-takes-more-money-from-corporate-lobbyists/) and Senate (https://readsludge.com/2019/08/29/dscc-raked-in-cash-from-health-care-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-before-endorsing-hickenlooper/) campaign arms. Last year, EEI used (https://www.energyandpolicy.org/eei-campaign-institute/) efforts by FirstEnergy as case studies in boot camps for executives on how to defeat clean-energy campaigns, including through interference with initiatives brought to voters through ballot measures.

"Non-fungible" characteristics indeed! :ballchain:

[Viking]

See, disregarding the logical flaws in your polemic by escaping to the level of meta-abstraction - defending the mere availability of abstraction - does not increase the credibility of your initial attempt here, which was to insinuate jeopardy in the public discourse on subjects like race and gender.

Notwithstanding one's opinion of the Vietnam War, someone urging that American forces ought to be recalled to the mainland in order to stave off Native American genocide of the White majority, in connection with the emergence of the American Indian Movement, could be dismissed without further thought.

You should expect to do a lot of heavy lifting to explain why unsubstantiated potentials from an unsubstantiated harm (that is more often part of an affirmative good) have some kind of precedence over an ongoing national crisis.


Designating left-wing radicalization a point of anticipation is dubious when we've had generations of right-wing radicalization outpacing it by an order of magnitude. We already know what's going on here.

So in summary, statue violence has an unclear connection to cultural leftism in general or the development of the Democratic Party, the indicia of radicalization are responsive to conditions outside the activities of the Left, and it is uninformative to analyze current events without actually setting them in current events.

The idea is not that the Democratic party is likely to be taken over by authoritarians within the next few years, but your point seems to be that authoritarian or totalitarian movements no longer will spawn on the 'left' today - which raises the question, what are Jughashvili, Mao, and Saloth Sar doing today? Playing Civilization or staying involved with the 'alt-right'? Even if that were the case, you can be confident there are new names to replace them.

The point is that people are dangerous, not the 'right', not the 'left', not 'fascists', not 'communists' - but people. All dictators, murderers etc. were and are people. When (sub-)movements with clear anti-intellectual and anti-democratic inclinations appear, they are worthy of attention, and many of them are found on the 'left'. That is a fact.


Is your point that this terminology or the concepts they denote are bad and dangerous, that it is as bad as you think toppling a statue is, that the two are somehow related, or that they represent a path of objectionable extremism for the Democratic Party? You will, as before, have a very hard time actually supporting any of the above with more than appeal to infinite possible worlds.

But as a matter of fact "trigger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger)" and "survivor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Assault_Survivors%27_Rights_Act)" have been mainstream terminology since the Obama era. Hope that doesn't undo you.

The point is of course how fringes can make their way closer to the Democratic mainstream over the years.

I don't think use of the word 'triggered' this way was particularly common in mainstream usage 10+ years ago, particularly not in combination with a phrase like 'femme-led'.


Now your turn on why talking about sex crime and nonstandard genders and orientations manifests danger from the left.


But spare me the 'ZOMGbbq teh statues SJdubz gone mad' crap that you clearly can't justify up front.

I brought up statues because it is much more relevant than talking; and now you bring up talking again. Politics is of course never just about talking. Implying so is disingenuous.


Here's the problem again. You're wounded when I recount the specific actions of what is certainly a well-defined group of people, primarily in the context of modern American politics no less, yet you see no breach of etiquette in implicitly condemning the broad left on the basis of almost literally nothing but vague discomfort.

Reasonable debate is what is wounded. Yes, you bring up specific actions by specific people to condemn a very large and very heterogeneous group of people that has nothing to with said actions. I have not addressed the 'left' in general, but specific individuals and subgroups, in particular one group that has defined itself through its actions (toppling statues).

If you mean US conservatism, then state so. Even then, tarring aside, implying that people like Trump and Milton Friedman are basically the same is not very useful, to put it mildly.


That is of course not what happened.

"If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions.”


I am not always going to be present to call you out when you engage in this dishonest tactic of motte-and-bailey abstractions. The issue at hand in the Damore controversy was never whether there are non-zero differences between men and women as groups.

Except it is exactly what happened. The memo presented an alternative science-based hypothesis for the hiring pattern in technology (coupled with criticism of related corporate practices), and this argument was perverted, either intentionally or out prejudice, by people such as the CEO to justify Damore's firing (quote: "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK." (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-40865261)")

As long as you cannot substantiate your claims, you have no credibility on this topic, so this is pointless.


Liberals and leftists the world over continue to get less religious by the year, but freedom of religion has always been a liberal plank. For example, most Evangelical Christians are scum, but that's not an excuse to discriminate on a group level. Evangelical Christianity was originally the birthplace of progressivism in the United States, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, but those days are very long gone.

This plank seems to occasionally provide a cover for Islamists (https://www.ctc.usma.edu/british-universities-continue-to-breed-extremists/) (i.e. 'fascists').

Veering slightly from the original topic here, but freedom of religion is nothing but special treatment of religions. There is nothing here that should not already covered by concepts like freedom of speech, assembly, association, and so forth - unless special treatment for religions actually is the goal.


My sense is that you disagree with the cultural Left on values, perceive them as more of a threat to your worldview than fascism and by that pretext launder some of your own unpopular views on race and gender and civics by inflating criticism of an unpopular impulse among part of the cultural Left. Hence why you don't rely on the old standby of an imminent Communist uprising coming to ban private property, because that particular fish doesn't get at which of your oxes is presently being gored.

[...]

It would be something else entirely if you sought out perspectives on how societies should go about memorializing figures as such in public spaces over time. There's at least scope for a grounded discussion; I've read multiple non-worthless thinkpieces in that vein. Or if you just wished to register displeasure at vigilante iconoclasm, I wouldn't pressure it.

The problem is that you keep practising as a hobby psychoanalyst, looking personal reasons instead of sticking to the sentences that are actually written down and not rely on more context than what is logically necessary to interpret the sentences.

[Montmorency]

I have to admit, this is amusing.
https://twitter.com/itsdylan46/status/1418402191467941888 [VIDEO]



There's even Manchin on tape actively seeking donors to bribe an out-going GOP senator in an attempt to garner the required 60 vote bi-partisan majority, just so he can avoid criticism for the "far-left".

We discussed this a few weeks ago, and I explained my thoughts on how the story reflects on various perspectives of Manchin.


In the coming days, His Royal Highness will most likely show his true colors on the climate change portions of the infrastructure bill:

Given Biden's most recent statements, dovish on the filibuster and on voting suppression (upholding the idea that sufficient mobilization can reliably overcome the latter), I think he's no longer in the driver's seat. That is, regardless of whatever Biden's private beliefs are on the matter, I think he's given up on Congress.


What law are you referring to?~:confused:

I'm referring to the idea that a bird in hand is better than two in a bush. To the extent that corporations can be alleged to micromanage legislators, particularly marginal or swing legislators, it is to their advantage to encourage the passage of legislation that contains goodies for them (such as actually happened earlier in the year with the aforementioned U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or even, arguably, the individual market component of the ACA). Whereas if it were true that corporations, broadly, are buying Senators to block any major investment from being enacted, they would typically be harming their own interests compared to the possibility of tilting that legislation in their favor.

For example:


So 4.5 million reasons for opposing the move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But there's more:

It would be pretty easy for Manchin to secure Big Coal a bailout (as they have been begging for over the years), or even a subsidy for his own business concern, as a precondition to passing Biden's/Democrats' agenda. He would notch a win for himself, for his party and its electoral prospects, and for the bottom line of whomever he wishes to favor. There are many worlds where everyone's wheel gets greased. Yet he doesn't want to do that.

Another example from the other direction: Here (https://wild.house.gov/sites/wild.house.gov/files/Frontliners%20Medicare%20letter%207.14.21.pdf) is a letter to Congressional leadership calling for Medicare price negotiation to be included on the agenda right now. Rep. Katie Porter is a signatory, but included are centrists such as Malinowski and Slotkin. Indeed, most of the signatories appear to be centrist/moderate from competitive districts. Now, to be sure, Medicare price negotiation is very far from a radical proposal, yet some other Democrats (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democratic-moderates-pharmaceutical-industry-prescription-drugs_n_60f2f625e4b0a771e8049b40) - from safer districts - categorically reject any such policy in legislation. Take Jake Auchincloss, a freshman from Massachusetts who opposes price negotiation and received heavy pharma PAC support (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jake-auchincloss-big-pharma-cash-prescription-drug-bill_n_60f07ab1e4b022142cf6654c). Now here is a politician I could easily believe would take a different view on things under different political circumstances (which I do not affirm as the case with Manchin or Sinema). Is it because he's corrupt? Well, his district, and Massachusetts as a state, are pharma hubs (https://readsludge.com/2020/07/20/in-race-for-open-kennedy-seat-pharma-and-private-equity-execs-cut-big-checks/), and he barely won his primary (where some of his opponents explicitly supported (https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/07/29/fourth-congressional-district-race-republican-democrat-candidate-profiles) drug price controls). If the pharma lobby decided to spend hundreds of thousands on a friendly challenger, or signaled to the relatively-high number of pharma-industry-and-adjacent constituents that there is a problem with their Representative, that would present a threat to his political career. While constituting a sort of selfishness, the motivation behind resisting drug price controls suddenly looks a lot less like "corruption"...

Take the celebrated liberal lion John Dingell, after all, a New Dealer and "old-fashioned social Democrat" to his end just a few years ago, basically Sanders-wing. One of his last contributions was this op-ed (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/) calling for the abolition of the Senate (https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate). He nevertheless demonstrated an outsized level of deference to the auto industry (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/02/08/john-dingell-championed-auto-industry-detroit/2789703002/) throughout his career; he represented part of Detroit.

And, as always, if you suspect a pol is bought, you should be eager to test the honesty of their graft, to see whether your side can sway them with a better offer. Donald Trump - the ultimate byword for corruption, yes? Now tell me if he would accept $10 billion cash from Uncle Sam to stay out of politics for good. Nah, some things can't be bought.

Look, even Harry Truman - as we now know - was personally corrupt. Manchin or Sinema could be corrupt as well, if perhaps in more licensed ways. But it's often not explanatory of political behavior. Or at least you need a direct case, not a gesture. I think Manchin's putative corruption affects his beliefs about energy policy, and what policy action he is willing to tolerate, but simultaneously has about as much to do with his filibuster stance or his bipartisanship stance or his voting rights stance as Harry Truman's corruption has to do with the Korean War.

I just think your narrative for why what's happening is happening is too "just so."

[ReluctantSamurai]

Whereas if it were true that corporations, broadly, are buying Senators to block any major investment from being enacted, they would typically be harming their own interests compared to the possibility of tilting that legislation in their favor

If it were true? C'mon man, you can't really think that that statement in any way, shape or form, holds water? Please explain how a corporation bribing a congressional official (legal in most forms here in the US) harms their own interests. I could cite a litany of examples from the energy sector alone, but you can just find all that yourself. Start with Exxon/Mobil.....(who, by the way, has had direct dealings with Joe Manchin, in the past)


But it's often not explanatory of political behavior. Or at least you need a direct case, not a gesture.

I've given direct cases already (more so for Manchin than Sinema). Digging up more seems like it will do no good...:shrug:


I think Manchin's putative corruption affects his beliefs about energy policy, and what policy action he is willing to tolerate

We will know about his views on energy policy in 2021, before the end of summer...:inquisitive:

But somehow, I don't think he's changed his stance in 10 years:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xpkj3/congressman-who-shot-a-climate-change-bill-with-a-rifle-to-lead-energy-committee

[Montmorency]

In semi-relevant news, Manchin has been hinting that he intends to stand for reelection in 2024 (which will almost certainly be a terrible year for him to run).


If it were true? C'mon man, you can't really think that that statement in any way, shape or form, holds water? Please explain how a corporation bribing a congressional official (legal in most forms here in the US) harms their own interests. I could cite a litany of examples from the energy sector alone, but you can just find all that yourself. Start with Exxon/Mobil.....(who, by the way, has had direct dealings with Joe Manchin, in the past)

You're not understanding me, and I'm not sure what else I can do to make myself understood.


I've given direct cases already (more so for Manchin than Sinema). Digging up more seems like it will do no good.

The bottom line is that 'There are companies who could be harmed by some versions of Democratic legislation, they financially support Senator Manchin, therefore he presents as a filibuster advocate' is not a sound or sufficient syllogism for me. At least answer me this: Can Manchin be paid off to support ending the filibuster, and if not, why can he be paid off to oppose ending it?



The idea is not that the Democratic party is likely to be taken over by authoritarians within the next few years, but your point seems to be that authoritarian or totalitarian movements no longer will spawn on the 'left' today - which raises the question, what are Jughashvili, Mao, and Saloth Sar doing today? Playing Civilization or staying involved with the 'alt-right'?

So, once again, it was seen that all your initial premises are unsupportable, and the best you can do is cite the existence of armed revolutionary insurgencies in radically-different situations in agricultural societies a century ago. What are those individuals doing today? They're dead, and their projects have evaporated.


Even if that were the case, you can be confident there are new names to replace them.

I'm pretty sure we can be confident of the opposite, and you can't show me wrong. If we're making historical comparisons, note that KPD-like street militias or even mass movements essentially do not exist anywhere in developed countries, and when they did exist they were outnumbered at least ten-to-one by fascists and monarchists in the likes of Germany and France, pre-war. Nowadays what passes for "far-left" in the US are tantamount to postwar European social democrats, and revolutionary illiberal militants on the Right might now outnumber those on the Left a hundred or a thousand-to-one. Now THAT is a world-historical development worthy of attention and explanation.

It takes a very specific kind of perspective to engage with this reality by demanding respect for alarmism about the Left.


The point is that people are dangerous, not the 'right', not the 'left', not 'fascists', not 'communists' - but people. All dictators, murderers etc. were and are people.

Again, vacuous as anything but advocacy for Precrime programs, Huxley's Brave New World, or "the Giant Meteor." That "people" are dangerous doesn't tell us anything about anything, and is no more relevant to this thread than the phrase "Solar flares are dangerous" would be.

But I'll tell you who are dangerous: political, economic, and religious elites uniting in destructive purposes. Comparisons of the attitudes and practices of factional elites in the United States are too numerous to repeat, but no discussion is worthwhile when not undergirded by awareness of them.


When (sub-)movements with clear anti-intellectual and anti-democratic inclinations appear, they are worthy of attention,

You have done nothing to justify this statement or your existing application of it.

'When national states with clear military capacity and traditions appear, they are worthy of attention. Now let's talk about why Norway could be an existential threat to its neighbors and world peace.'


and many of them are found on the 'left'. That is a fact.

An alternative fact perhaps.


The point is of course how fringes can make their way closer to the Democratic mainstream over the years.

I don't think use of the word 'triggered' this way was particularly common in mainstream usage 10+ years ago, particularly not in combination with a phrase like 'femme-led'.

Two hundred years ago, "liberalism" and "universal suffrage" were fringe concepts that made their way to the mainstream. What's your point? You have a problem with that? And what does it have to do with "anti-intellectual" or "anti-democratic" inclinations?

Where were you when anti-intellectualism became the mainstream of the Republican Party under Reagan and Bush? Was that not worth attention?

Right now, radical national reorganization and disenfranchisement of political enemies are the mainstream of the Republican party, both its elite and its base. The mainstream of the Democratic Party is civil rights and access to healthcare. You can only ever insult my intelligence by redirecting attention to the possibility - in the sense that "anything is possible" - that one day the Democratic Party might get even a fraction of the way the collective Right has gone, at that on account of the existence of both queer people and Joseph Stalin.


I brought up statues because it is much more relevant than talking; and now you bring up talking again. Politics is of course never just about talking. Implying so is disingenuous.

Why is it relevant, and to whom? You started all this by wrongly insinuating some sort of noteworthy, inarticulable "danger" arising from the cultural Left.


Reasonable debate

whar!


Yes, you bring up specific actions by specific people to condemn a very large and very heterogeneous group of people that has nothing to with said actions.

The entire political movement is vocally organized around said actions.


I have not addressed the 'left' in general, but specific individuals and subgroups, in particular one group that has defined itself through its actions (toppling statues).

Again, you inserted yourself to say there is cause to be afraid of people who talk about race and gender, as somehow illustrated by the existence of statue toppling and James Damore. You're the one making connections.


Even then, tarring aside, implying that people like Trump and Milton Friedman are basically the same is not very useful, to put it mildly.

Naturally I never mentioned Milton Friedman to you, nor equated him - or any other Republican - to Donald Trump. But if your angle is that few Republicans are personally equivalent to Trump in character, it won't take you far.


As long as you cannot substantiate your claims, you have no credibility on this topic, so this is pointless.

I'm telling you, I have waning patience for flagrant insults to my intelligence.


This plank seems to occasionally provide a cover for Islamists (i.e. 'fascists').

College Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Republicans) also exist, but moreover the Federalist Society (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/the-conservative-pipeline-to-the-supreme-court) is the world's Number One source of judicial terrorists. Are you among those who imagine that 'tertiary education = Communism'?


but freedom of religion is nothing but special treatment of religions.

You want to know why the US and most European countries constitutionally specify the freedom to practice religion? I would expect your European education to have elaborated this to you - that you should know what it is, mind you, prior to agreeing or disagreeing - far better than my American one.

The issue of communal practices of religion, plural religions, and their relation to the state is one of the defining factors of the development of what is sometimes called "the West." The history of conflict over religious status and practice was so intense and so durable that Christian-dominated countries eventually came to a strong Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment consensus that noninterference in religious affairs should be a core social tenet. Therefore many of their national constitutions specify that religious affiliation or practice is to be explicitly protected as an important factor of its own and not as a mere derivative and subsidiary of freedom to association, speech, or belief. Even the outlier secular French constitution mandates that "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order."

A specification of a right to undisturbed religious practice or belief, where not derivative or subsidiary to other rights, is nevertheless not to say that religion is being treated as an isolated right distinct from its relatives.

You may, of course, disagree with any and every historically-informed feature of modern societies. Some atheists want to ban religion for example. Some neoreactionaries wish to reinstate hereditary autocracy. I could be persuaded toward banning ethnostatism.


The problem is that you keep practising as a hobby psychoanalyst, looking personal reasons instead of sticking to the sentences that are actually written down and not rely on more context than what is logically necessary to interpret the sentences.

You act as though I've never read anything you've written outside this thread. Or as though you're not recapitulating the same exact schtick I've seen from innumerable reactionary liars over years. But even from a blank slate your input in the thread has been incoherent in its basis and layered with distinctly-biased editorialization. Enough theater criticism. In the name of God, put up or shut up.

[ReluctantSamurai]

At least answer me this: Can Manchin be paid off to support ending the filibuster, and if not, why can he be paid off to oppose ending it?

I have never tied Manchin's corruption to the filibuster, mainly because, as I've mentioned previously, the filibuster is a non-issue. I'll clarify that---would it be easier for the Dems to get legislation passed without the filibuster in place? Of course. Is removing or revising the filibuster absolutely necessary to get said legislation passed? No, not if the Dems voted as an entire caucus. Bringing up the filibuster is a DOA issue in the Senate at this time, so why waste time and effort talking about it?

What is important is can/has Manchin been paid off to insist that certain energy proposals that are likely to be included in the Dems-only infrastructure bill, be removed before he will support it? When the bill gets drafted, and we get to see the actions/reactions of Manchin and the other conservative/corporate Democrats, only then will we get to see whether these Dems vote for the people, or for their donors. I'm betting on the latter because money talks....:inquisitive:

[Montmorency]

I have never tied Manchin's corruption to the filibuster, mainly because, as I've mentioned previously, the filibuster is a non-issue. I'll clarify that---would it be easier for the Dems to get legislation passed without the filibuster in place? Of course. Is removing or revising the filibuster absolutely necessary to get said legislation passed? No, not if the Dems voted as an entire caucus. Bringing up the filibuster is a DOA issue in the Senate at this time, so why waste time and effort talking about it?

What is important is can/has Manchin been paid off to insist that certain energy proposals that are likely to be included in the Dems-only infrastructure bill, be removed before he will support it? When the bill gets drafted, and we get to see the actions/reactions of Manchin and the other conservative/corporate Democrats, only then will we get to see whether these Dems vote for the people, or for their donors. I'm betting on the latter because money talks....:inquisitive:

Huh, well I'm stumped, because the second graf has nothing I disagree with. It's been a few weeks, but IIRC our exchange was initially about Manchin's motivation in resisting the Dem agenda overall (including re: filibuster), and specifically the For the People and John Lewis Voting Rights acts.

To summarize where I stand at least:

1. Manchin's private and public attitudes, and legislative behavior, on energy policy, labor law, and any number of other issues are influenced by such factors as campaign finances, personal finances, his upbringing and social circle, and more. What it amounts to is conservatism.
2. If Manchin is refusing to pass anything at all on the agenda from now on, whether supra-filibuster or by reconciliation, drawing from the claimed principle of bipartisanship and its inadequate fulfillment, then that is rooted in his personal beliefs/ideology and not on external contingencies.

Sounds like you're saying the first point is most relevant to what you were talking about all along.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Sounds like you're saying the first point is most relevant to what you were talking about all along.

Yep. Except that I don't equate being conservative (a very valid way of thinking) with being corrupt. But with Manchin and the 8 or 9 other corporate Democrats, the external contingencies are all about giving their donors what they want. Those donors are multi-billion dollar enterprises, who don't hand out money without expecting something in return.

We shall see....:shrug:

[Viking]

So, once again, it was seen that all your initial premises are unsupportable, and the best you can do is cite the existence of armed revolutionary insurgencies in radically-different situations in agricultural societies a century ago. What are those individuals doing today? They're dead, and their projects have evaporated.

Dubious individuals on the 'left' show up all the time in mainstream media if you pay attention. Here is just one recent example:


Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says. Reading Lorde and hooks “helped me understand my identity.”


https://time.com/5171270/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors

Evidently, there is residue left after Mao's brew evaporated. Notably not one critical follow-up question about a mass-murderer (Mao) and an authoritarian (at best) like Lenin being an inspiration in matters of economy.


Nowadays what passes for "far-left" in the US are tantamount to postwar European social democrats

What is found on the actual 'far left' in the US are groups that some post-war European social democrats would be bothered enough about to engage in illegal surveillance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_Report) of, as a matter of fact. Post-war European social democrats were of course also part of the founding NATO to protect against the Soviet Union.


and revolutionary illiberal militants on the Right might now outnumber those on the Left a hundred or a thousand-to-one. Now THAT is a world-historical development worthy of attention and explanation.

This is not happening in Venezuela, an actual 'left-wing' authoritarian government to take up arms against. State power has its benefits.


That "people" are dangerous doesn't tell us anything about anything, and is no more relevant to this thread than the phrase "Solar flares are dangerous" would be.

Except that the subject is threats to democracy rather than threats from natural disasters.

The equivalent debate would be that person A talks about the threat from flooding, person B points out that solar flares also pose a threat, which person A refuses to concede because only floods are worth talking about on this forum.


But I'll tell you who are dangerous: political, economic, and religious elites uniting in destructive purposes. Comparisons of the attitudes and practices of factional elites in the United States are too numerous to repeat, but no discussion is worthwhile when not undergirded by awareness of them.

There are many dangers out there, but in intellectual debate, there is no need great need to create a direct competition between them. If you don't want to discuss threats to democracy stemming from the 'left', then don't; but don't pretend they do not exist.


An alternative fact perhaps.

Just by using normal distributions - which tend to show up everywhere - for traits like opposition to democracy, it would be the case that you would find plenty of individuals on the 'left' with this trait. Inferring from your posts, it seems that you think this distribution at some point would take the shape of a cliff at one end; which would be quite a remarkable distribution.


Two hundred years ago, "liberalism" and "universal suffrage" were fringe concepts that made their way to the mainstream. What's your point? You have a problem with that? And what does it have to do with "anti-intellectual" or "anti-democratic" inclinations?

The individual in question seems to be on the wacky side, and there is plenty more where she comes from. If irrationalists that care little for a rational understanding of the world make it to the mainstream, that is a big problem, yes.


The mainstream of the Democratic Party is civil rights and access to healthcare. You can only ever insult my intelligence by redirecting attention to the possibility - in the sense that "anything is possible" - that one day the Democratic Party might get even a fraction of the way the collective Right has gone, at that on account of the existence of both queer people and Joseph Stalin.

It was you that brought up the mainstream of the Democratic Party, my focus were on the street and political fringes.


The entire political movement is vocally organized around said actions.

There is no single movement that all (US) conservatives take part in.


Again, you inserted yourself to say there is cause to be afraid of people who talk about race and gender

Do you want to be taken seriously?


Naturally I never mentioned Milton Friedman to you, nor equated him - or any other Republican - to Donald Trump. But if your angle is that few Republicans are personally equivalent to Trump in character, it won't take you far.

Topic was conservatives, not the US Republican Party.


I'm telling you, I have waning patience for flagrant insults to my intelligence.

Huh, intelligence? Every person has to demonstrate their credibility by showing that they grasp a topic. Proclaiming that a topic is settled does of course not demonstrate that it is understood. No one can force anyone to debate a case, but of course their credibility relating to that case - and closely related topics - will suffer severely if they categorically refuse. No one is going to take your word for it that your analysis is correct.

Alternatively formulated:


put up or shut up


Are you among those who imagine that 'tertiary education = Communism'?

I suppose the answer to my earlier question is: no, you don't really want to be taken seriously.


You act as though I've never read anything you've written outside this thread. Or as though you're not recapitulating the same exact schtick I've seen from innumerable reactionary liars over years. But even from a blank slate your input in the thread has been incoherent in its basis and layered with distinctly-biased editorialization. Enough theater criticism. In the name of God, put up or shut up.

To return the favour of psychoanalysis, you come across as having a superiority complex, attacking the character of the people who oppose you in debate and interpreting their statements in just about the least charitable manner that you can, so that you can easily strike down your interpretations of what was written - in an aggressive and condescending manner. On top of that, when you are expected to substantiate a claim, something that is expected of any participant in a debate, you claim to have been insulted.

[Hooahguy]

Potentially some good news (https://twitter.com/srl/status/1420793690403000323?s=20)? Maybe?


Klobuchar says in press call that she, Manchin and Warnock met with Schumer this week and are "very close" on an agreement for the For The People Act

Klobuchar says senate legislation will include provisions that address election subversion

Klobuchar doesn't say specifically what provisions are included in new bill, but mentions anti-gerrymandering, vote by mail, automatic voter registration as areas being addressed. "This isn't one of those 'oh maybe we'll get it done,'" she says.

Mentions discussions around filibuster - carveout for voting rights, standing filibuster as possibilities she suggests. Says they wouldn't be moving forward if they thought they couldn't get bill done

Would be interested in what exactly these provisions are, but I guess we will see.

[Montmorency]

Viking, you must really hold an expectation that a liberal is someone too broadminded to take their own side in a quarrel, like so


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


Dubious individuals on the 'left' show up all the time in mainstream media if you pay attention.

Audre Lorde is of course one of the most celebrated philosophers and activists on the American left, and you clearly don't know enough about her contributions to venture which ones are dubious.


What is found on the actual 'far left' in the US are groups that some post-war European social democrats would be bothered enough about to engage in illegal surveillance of, as a matter of fact.

99% of the far left here is within the mainstream of those post-war European social democrats, and post-war European social democrats were far enough left to be illegally surveilled in the United States themselves (https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/american-surveillance-abuses-and-excesses-in-cold-war-era/). Unless, again, your specific concern is with the cultural element that doesn't really have a counterpart in historical European politics.


Except that the subject is threats to democracy rather than threats from natural disasters.

If that's the subject, you haven't addressed it so far in a single post. You can't be allowed to enjoy the benefit of invisible quantum goalposts.


The equivalent debate would be that person A talks about the threat from flooding, person B points out that solar flares also pose a threat, which person A refuses to concede because only floods are worth talking about on this forum.

Your first posts in this thread, entrained as it was with the decline of American society to far-right insanity, were to loudly declare that the contemporary open discourse on social problems was a matter of concern because people are dangerous.

A yet-more-generous analogy would be to question the relevance of a thread on climate change with the ostensibly-valuable hypothetical of a future alien invasion overwhelming our ecosystems.


There are many dangers out there, but in intellectual debate, there is no need great need to create a direct competition between them.

See above on your framing a competition. I would love to have an honest and stimulating exchange on which aspects of left politics I value more or less (to the extent I keep drafts of topics), but I have lost faith in your maturity or capacity.

And in the final analysis, fascism is a set of actions to oppose, not an idea to debate, so I don't put stock in whatever you consider your parameters for intellectual debate.


Just by using normal distributions - which tend to show up everywhere - for traits like opposition to democracy, it would be the case that you would find plenty of individuals on the 'left' with this trait. Inferring from your posts, it seems that you think this distribution at some point would take the shape of a cliff at one end; which would be quite a remarkable distribution.

According to this invalid invocation of the concept of the normal distribution, I could speculate that 10-year-olds will present the same mortality distribution as 100-year-olds. And I am absolutely certain you know better.

In reality (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/22/wide-partisan-divide-on-whether-voting-is-a-fundamental-right-or-a-privilege-with-responsibilities/):

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ft_2021.07.22_votingattitudes_01a.png



If irrationalists that care little for a rational understanding of the world make it to the mainstream, that is a big problem, yes.

Your ostensible assumption that nonheteronormativity is in itself irrational is a nasty one and an example of your present indifference to persuasive argumentation over ipse dogshit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit).

Also another example of the implicit competition in dangers you endorse, to so smoothly print a phrase like that in a thread like this. On one side, an acute and total fulfillment of your claimed fears, and on the other, 'well, people are dangerous, so maybe we should be worried about something or other someday.' But, you know, gotta defend the putative honor of the conservatives who spent a lifetime wrecking this country. Maybe save that #NotAllConservatives for when it's really apropos, such as after Trump declares himself God-Emperor for Life. One just has to love that intellectual debate.


It was you that brought up the mainstream of the Democratic Party, my focus were on the street and political fringes.

No, you yourself suggested that they may gain power over the mainstream of the Democratic Party somehow, and indeed there is no plausible mechanism to justify a focus on some construal of "potential" threat from "street and political fringes" on the Left except thereby.

The alternative, which more closely reflects almost all recorded instances of an authoritarian left seizing political or social power, is overt armed conflict, a scenario here perhaps too ludicrous even for you to gently palpitate.

I mean, you literally contradict the quoted with your preceding sentence and pretend like every sentence is a capsule, my god.



Again, you inserted yourself to say there is cause to be afraid of people who talk about race and gender
Do you want to be taken seriously?


Essentially, you seem to not recognize that societal and political developments related to 'social justice' present any risks to 'good people'. In actual reality, people generally present a risk to other people in one form or another.

It becomes strongly ironic when a lot of relevant ire is directed at the police, an organisation with a core purpose of supressing antisocial behaviour and facilitating delivery of justice. An organisation that is furthermore funded by the state and not run in accordance with capitalist ideals of maximizing profit.

What would a good person have to fear from an organisation that has such noble goals and that can not make profit? It's not coming for you (plural), is it?

It's bad enough that you never even took the easy path of sticking to your stakes and organizing some propositions around "developments related to 'social justice'" or the threats they post - this is like one of the lowest possible bars in current conservative thought, a whole ubiquitous genre, that you couldn't clear - but now I even have to relive the sheer mendacity of the police analogy!

But yes, people are dangerous, a premise equally-rationally pursued here:


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

So seriousity. Many logic.


There is no single movement that all (US) conservatives take part in.

Yes, as I said, many of them are Democrats, and until fairly recently were the party's center of gravity. Something to think about.


Huh, intelligence? Every person has to demonstrate their credibility by showing that they grasp a topic. Proclaiming that a topic is settled does of course not demonstrate that it is understood. No one can force anyone to debate a case, but of course their credibility relating to that case - and closely related topics - will suffer severely if they categorically refuse. No one is going to take your word for it that your analysis is correct.

What is advanced without evidence (or coherence) can be rejected without evidence. Notwithstanding that most of my positions have been evidenced. You're the one interjecting yourself with disconnected bald assertions and gnomicisms, so the onus to actually generate some sort of argument is on you. Trying to put it on me while you're being so evasive and illogical is bound to be taken as disrespectful.

I've given you so many opportunities up to now that I don't believe you have anything interesting to say.


To return the favour of psychoanalysis, you come across as having a superiority complex, attacking the character of the people who oppose you in debate and interpreting their statements in just about the least charitable manner that you can, so that you can easily strike down your interpretations of what was written - in an aggressive and condescending manner. On top of that, when you are expected to substantiate a claim, something that is expected of any participant in a debate, you claim to have been insulted.

Your statements were interpreted as you wrote them, so the fault lies in their writing. I attack your character specifically for this low-grade effrontery, and if at some point the same repeated action produces the same reaction, you should refer to Einsteinian insanity. You don't have my unlimited charity when you consistently degrade it. From my perspective you chose to invent some protean debate for me to participate in and conducted yourself execrably in terms of speaking clearly and seeking truth.

Here's a bit of usable psychoanalysis if it's yet unclear: My personality is deeply responsive to reciprocity in interactions.

[Montmorency]

If you don't want to discuss threats to democracy stemming from the 'left', then don't; but don't pretend they do not exist.

Take the effort to show your meaning and your work.

The problem is not that there can't be more than one subject of discussion in the world, even among disparity of import and salience.

The problem is not that there is nothing to criticize about any aspect of Left politics or ideas.

The problem is not that there are no imaginable or realizable conditions under which powerful authoritarian movements or organizations can emerge from Left politics.

The problem is that you refuse to submit considerations on any of these worthy topics. Instead you quite consciously derailed a thread to:

Allege spectral dangers from ill-defined elements of the left without clear reasoning and with constantly-shifting rhetorical postures.
Most passionately denounce proportionate, detailed, condemnation of perfidies on the other side of the spectrum.
Bleat about etiquette and psychoanalysis while pinballing around concrete issues and primly resisting numerous opportunities to remedy flaws and gaps in your literal positions.

As though such could ever make for a respectable and rational exchange of ideas, rather than preemptively dissolve any atmosphere thereof. Be decent and pick up your end of responsibility to actually articulate and defend an argument, or how can you complain if you end up being treated with less esteem?


As much of a sucker as I am for Discourse, I'll give you a hand in your performance art routine.

Plenty of Cassandra-like observers from the 1960s on through the 2010s reported that the American Right, having briefly accepted liberalism (in the international sense) as legitimate following WW2, was clearly following a track to aggressive illiberalism and authoritarianism, spearheadeded by its revisionist economic, religious, and media leaders as a top-down project - one that finally escaped and consumed them. The result is that, a half-century after the height of the Civil Rights Era, the Republican Party is a full-blown fascist vanguard in a symbiotic semiotic relationship with its tens of millions of supporters. The American center-right have no electoral options other than the Democratic Party, which they have been successfully lobbying for more than a generation but with fewer prospects in the future of an activated progressive base and unresolved national needs.

Is it plausible that the Democratic Party is on a similar long-term trend as the Republican Party?

To argue that it is, you would have to:

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the history of American politics and its two major parties.
2. Explain milestones in the contemporary development of the Republican Party and historical indicators of its degradation (include key terms such as "John Birch society," "radical resistance," "Southern Strategy," "Moral Majority," "James McGill Buchanan," "Lewis Powell Memo," "Roe v Wade," "Phyllis Schlafly," "Iran Contra," "Rush Limbaugh," "Contract with America," "Fox News," etc.).
3. Provide a general thesis of how political coalitions can become antisocial.
4. Develop the thesis against the context of the contemporary Democratic Party.
5. Follow standard conventions of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. 2000-3000 words, Times New Roman, double-spaced. MLA citation format.

Hint: You couldn't if you tried (which you won't), because in relevant analogies between parties the component is outright missing for the Democratic Party. To the extent factors have overlapped - bipartisan commitment to American imperialism and the security state, and state support of capitalism - anyone criticizing the Democratic Party from the right falls into an awkward space, if they have any sense of shame at least.

But I suppose all that is context.


Something more worthy of notice (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/us/politics/covid-poverty-aid-programs.html):

https://i.imgur.com/hKmq8dh.png
https://i.imgur.com/psMQ0I9.png
https://i.imgur.com/5eCjlCM.png

[ReluctantSamurai]

This is certainly not going to help the Democratic Party going forward:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/us/politics/eviction-moratorium-biden-housing-aid.html

There is certainly blame to go around, from the overly complex application process to receive federal aid (only around 3 billion of the 47 billion set aside has been disbursed), to the typical "wait until the last possible moment" government muddling, to huge multi-national corporate land-lord companies.

Make no mistake, there are companies and individuals who stand to make billions as hundreds of thousands of people get evicted from their homes and apartments (click on the link to view the PDF report):

https://ips-dc.org/cashing-in-on-our-homes/


America’s 61 billionaire landlords have wealth totaling $240.9 billion – and have seen their wealth increase $24.4 billion since mid-March 2020. The top billionaire residential landlords in this report have wealth totaling $194 billion and have seen their wealth increase $21.2 billion since mid-March 2020.

To wit, federal, state, and local agencies, bear the brunt of the failure to disburse the CARES Act funding:


The piecemeal eviction measures at the federal, state and local level provide some tenants important protections but have left too many people unprotected or unable to access them. The regulations have been extremely difficult for economically stressed families to navigate during the COVID crisis and have not prevented landlords from filing evictions against tenants. While many evictions filed during the ongoing pandemic may be illegal, as they are against renters who are covered by various eviction moratoriums, it is the tenants who bear the heavy burden to defend themselves. They must show up in court during a health crisis and make a complicated legal case that the filing violates the various moratoriums. This could force them to miss work and potentially expose them to the coronavirus and requires tenants to research, understand and make complex legal arguments regarding numerous and ever-changing eviction policies and regulations. And there has been little to no public education for tenants, who are already struggling to keep themselves and their families safe, healthy and fed during a pandemic.

There is certainly one group that is smiling at the coming debacle:


Not content with reaping billions from their existing holdings (read: our homes), leaders and owners of corporate landlords are openly delighting in plans to profit once millions of Americans are evicted, seeing housing as an “opportunity sector” where they can extract more wealth for investors and themselves. They are poised to profit from the pandemic economic downturn much as they capitalized on the 2008 financial crisis and mortgage meltdown, with plans to buy up more real estate and increase their stranglehold over the residential housing market. As Starwood Capital CEO Barry Sternlicht said on a 2020 quarterly earnings call: “When it’s really ugly, it’s a good time to invest.”26 The Wall Street Journal reports that Invitation Homes, the largest U.S. single-family rental company, has raised $1 billion to purchase more homes. This is just one example of how dozens of companies, as detailed below, are raising billions — what we refer to as “cash on hand” — to profit from our suffering by buying up more homes, raising rents and repeating a deadly, racist cycle.

Irregardless of the blame game, the optics of throwing hundreds of thousands, and probably millions out of house and home during the worst global pandemic in a century, is not going to look good for an administration that's already struggling with following through on promises made during the 2020 campaign run-up. That this is happening under Biden's watch will not be lost on voters in the 2022 mid-terms, and the 2024 presidential election.

[Hooahguy]

What a shitshow.


That this is happening under Biden's watch will not be lost on voters in the 2022 mid-terms, and the 2024 presidential election.
TBH I think you really overestimate the memories of voters.

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1422676587946913798

https://i.imgur.com/60oB4Sk.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NZic8FN.jpg

[Viking]

Audre Lorde is of course one of the most celebrated philosophers and activists on the American left, and you clearly don't know enough about her contributions to venture which ones are dubious.

The article is about Cullors, not Lorde.


According to this invalid invocation of the concept of the normal distribution, I could speculate that 10-year-olds will present the same mortality distribution as 100-year-olds. And I am absolutely certain you know better.

Yes, they are part of the same distribution (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age-and-sex-in-the-us) - mortality is not zero for ten-year-olds. An important thing to note about about mortality, is that it has a (skewed) U-shaped distribution: the mortality rate increases very steeply as the age approaches 0 from higher ages. Presumably due to the drastic change of environment birth represents.

U-shaped distributions are also natural candidates for various traits along political spectrums (and no, using binary categorization in the form of two political parties will not work as a substitute for an actual political spectrum).


What is advanced without evidence (or coherence) can be rejected without evidence. Notwithstanding that most of my positions have been evidenced. You're the one interjecting yourself with disconnected bald assertions and gnomicisms, so the onus to actually generate some sort of argument is on you. Trying to put it on me while you're being so evasive and illogical is bound to be taken as disrespectful.

I've given you so many opportunities up to now that I don't believe you have anything interesting to say.

Given the handicapping of the debate here, the continuing use of strawmen, the continuing assumption of bad faith, and the continuing use personal attacks, I am not going to be bothered with this debate.

[ReluctantSamurai]

What else would you expect from this guy:

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1422539629375496192


These sorts of stunts are so unbelievably off-putting and stupid

Says a man whose net worth is around $20 million...

And even from her own district:

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-cori-bushs-antics-generate-publicity-but-they-wont-change-political-reality/article_66133724-233a-508f-9a5e-7383f7ec6b5f.html


She is generating a lot of headlines but not necessarily for the right reasons, mainly because she clearly misunderstands the complicated process required to restore the moratorium. As with many progressive ideals, righteous-sounding aspirations never seem to take into account political reality.

Well, editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cori Bush obviously understands political reality better than you, because those very same headlines you poo-poo, got results, however temporary. And you folks miss the point...restoring the eveiction moratorium just kicks the can down the road a ways. How about you pundits, in all of your editorial wisdom talk about what's necessary to address the real problem here, which is multi-billion dollar cororations driving up the costs of housing for profit, and the fact that millions of Americans are paid poverty-level wages and can't afford the housing?

Progressives, for all their flaws, are trying to at least bring these root causes to the forefront, while you sit in your air-conditioned offices and dump on at least one Congresswoman who's actually earning her paycheck...:inquisitive:

[Hooahguy]

A good-faith question about the eviction moratorium though: whats the end game here? Like we cant keep kicking the can down the road forever, but at the same time a lot of families wouldnt be able to afford to pay ~18 months of rent at one time, all but guaranteeing their eviction. My thought is that perhaps a rule saying that rent back payments be made in installments rather than all at once, but the moratorium has to end eventually.

[ReluctantSamurai]

My thought is that perhaps a rule saying that rent back payments be made in installments rather than all at once, but the moratorium has to end eventually.

Yes, it has to end eventually. Not all landlords are big corporations, and those people have bills to pay, as well. There's still roughly $44 billion in federal aid designated specifically to help with this, sitting unused. Delegating disbursement to the states was a mistake, IMHO, as few states have the infrastructure to do the said disbursement. And the language of the two bills that set up the funds to begin with, are overly complicated, and in some ways very vague.

Addressing the root causes for this mess is going to take a lot of time, if it ever happens at all. But in the meantime, get this money disbursed and pursue avenues like the installment payments you suggested...:shrug:

[Hooahguy]

Pretty big news (https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/politics/senate-infrastructure-weekend-work/index.html) regarding the infrastructure bill: the Senate defeated a filibuster on the $1.2 trillion bill, with 18 Republicans defying Trump and voting for the bill. While the bill itself is much smaller than Biden's original infrastructure plan, its still a definite win. An infrastructure bill was joked about for four years, and now Biden will be able to add another big win before the midterms. Now the real question is what can/will be done regarding an infrastructure bill via reconciliation.

[Montmorency]

Pretty big news (https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/politics/senate-infrastructure-weekend-work/index.html) regarding the infrastructure bill: the Senate defeated a filibuster on the $1.2 trillion bill, with 18 Republicans defying Trump and voting for the bill. While the bill itself is much smaller than Biden's original infrastructure plan, its still a definite win. An infrastructure bill was joked about for four years, and now Biden will be able to add another big win before the midterms. Now the real question is what can/will be done regarding an infrastructure bill via reconciliation.

To be clear, the new spending in the bill is $550 billion; the contents are fairly close to the Republicans' initial offer (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-unveil-568-bln-infrastructure-package-counter-bidens-23-trillion-2021-04-22/). I'll have to think more about the policy drawbacks once it's passed, but in terms of optics I wouldn't expect much more benefit to accrue to Democrats than to Republicans (who naturally can have things both ways by denouncing the deal and appropriating any of its benefits). The signal concern remains whether Democrats can implement the agenda unilaterally. Maybe the right flank of the party would like another dip at the well depending on the polling for this bill, or on the other hand they could see their mission as accomplished (with the party losing all remaining leverage over them until at least the midterms).

[Hooahguy]

in terms of optics I wouldn't expect much more benefit to accrue to Democrats than to Republicans (who naturally can have things both ways by denouncing the deal and appropriating any of its benefits).
Considering the ranting and raving Trump is doing about Republicans who voted for the bill, Im wondering if that will negatively impact turnout for those who voted yes, much like how he negatively impacted the GA runoffs. But we shouldnt miss the forest for the trees here. Is it a perfect bill? Definitely not. Definitely doesnt go far enough about climate change for example, so we can hope that a reconciliation bill can rectify it. That being said, part of Biden's shtick was "I will move past the gridlock to get stuff done in a bipartisan way" and in that regard this is undoubtedly a win and something to campaign on.

[rory_20_uk]

The Bill that has been passed is barely enough to complete emergency repairs. If this is the best result that bipartisanship can manage then hard questions have to be asked whether another four years are squandered whilst significant infrastructure that was past its expected useful life roughly 20 years ago degrades further... or whether a more drastic approach is taken.

Functioning infrastructure in a country is a key facet of the country's ability to support the military in an old fashioned brute force approach, let alone economic war. And one could easily say that this is an emergency.

If it is an emergency, then perhaps utilise emergency powers and divert money from the military (or resources) to start repairing the infrastructure.

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Two things:

How is the new spending being paid for? If the bulk falls on the average taxpayer through regressive taxes, and leasing public infrastructure to private business (which rarely turns out well for the public), the long-term effect on Democrats will not be so good, IMHO.

https://nrcne.org/a-guide-to-understanding-and-evaluating-infrastructure-public-private-partnerships/itpi_infrastructurep3sguide_jan2017/)

If the bi-partisan bill passes first, then the attempt to pass further legislation through reconciliation is DOA.

[Montmorency]

Because the equation fundamentally remains that the most bought-and-paid-for Democratic senator can contract out their liberum veto to their "handlers" in order to pass legislation redounding to their party's and their own political benefit, while also watering it down to protect - even lard it to reward - whatever donors or constituencies they might need to. Whereas if no law, then no nothing.

btw this (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/9-moderate-democrats-threaten-to-tank-biden-presidency.html) is the sort of thing I was talking about.

(Context: The 9 most conservative Dem Representatives refuse to support a party-line reconciliation package until the Senate compromise is passed in conference, among other things.)


Notably, the moderate House Democrats have been loading up the reconciliation bill with a series of conflicting demands. On the one hand, they have been complaining about its overall size and pushing to shrink down the headline number. On the other hand, they have been making their own costly demands. Josh Gottheimer, one letter signer, has been crusading for a restoration of the state and local tax deduction, a benefit for some of his affluent constituents. Jim Costa, another signer, wants to protect the heirs to massive fortunes from any taxation on their windfall.

These demands, notably, are not designed to protect the Democratic Party from the left’s unpopular baggage. Most of the broader debate has focused on the toxic brand damage of slogans like defunding the police and Green New Deal, but the moderate Democrats are, in this case, threatening to tank a highly popular agenda of taxing the very rich in order to give broad middle-class benefits. The moderate Democrats are the biggest obstacle to making the math work, simultaneously complaining about the size of the bill while ordering more expensive goodies for themselves.

Thaaaaat's the good old stuff.

[Furunculus]

not rory's biggest fan, but thought this was on point:

https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1428747865933889543

[Pannonian]

not rory's biggest fan, but thought this was on point:

https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1428747865933889543

You're blaming the wrong president.

Watch Rachel Maddow Highlights: August 20th | MSNBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc35eiFjk98)

The Trump administration deliberately and systematically screwed the Afghans over.

"I started the process so the troops are coming back. 21 years is enough, don't we think? They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process...by a government that wouldn't last. The only way they'd last is if we were there for another 21 years, for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous, so we're bringing our troops back home from Iraq, we're bringing our troops home from Afghanistan."

Also testimony from insiders on how they deliberately delayed the visa processing so as to ensure that Afghans who worked with the US, who would be in line for reprisals that they knew were coming, would not get their visas before the US left.

[spmetla]

Both President's screwed up big time. Trump should never have dealt with the Taliban and Biden shouldn't have been over eager to pull out. I know both were eager to 'end the war' by closing our part in the war though that doesn't end the war at all.

The visa processing has been a joke since the program started. That's why I advised the two interpreters I worked with in 2013 to try and get immigration to Australian instead of the US (I was attached to a Australian led advisory team the 205th CAT), one of them is now in Australia and the other, no clue where he is.

Had a lot of turnover with interpreters though, some would steal shit and sneak off base, a lot go on leave and never return. Some would be intercepted on cell phones giving info to the Taliban about the base and Afghan Army and Police. Of the seven interpreters that worked for me directly in Afghanistan only two stayed with the linguist company all the way through my eleven months there.

It is crazy though the Trump amnesia so many are suffering, some hardline pro-Trump guys that are adamant that he would have made the withdrawal go better. They seem to forget Trump abandoned the Kurds from the actual battlefield without any warning after a phone call with Erdogan. He's also the guy that signed the withdrawal agreement without the Afghan government involved and then pressured the government to release thousands of Taliban prisoners.
Trump kept trying to just leave instantly with the DoD fighting him on it and wanting it to be conditions based and not just on a whim or timeline.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/esper-memo-troop-withdrawal/index.html
Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper sent a classified memo earlier this month to the White House asserting that it was the unanimous recommendation of the chain of command that the US not draw down its troop presence in Afghanistan any further until conditions were met, sources familiar with the memo tell CNN.

The assessment from the chain of command -- Esper, US Central Command leader Marine Gen. Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie and commander of NATO's mission in Afghanistan Gen. Austin Miller -- stated that the necessary conditions had not been met. Others agreed, sources tell CNN, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
The memo is believed to have been one of the main reasons why outgoing President Donald Trump fired Esper last week.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/17/politics/mark-esper-donald-trump-taliban-afghanistan-cnntv/index.html

Esper told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, "my concern was that President Trump, by continuing to want to withdraw American forces out of Afghanistan, undermined the agreement, which is why in the fall when he was calling for a return of US forces by Christmas, I objected and formally wrote a letter to him, a memo based on recommendations from the military chain of command and my senior civilian leadership that we not go further -- that we not reduce below 4,500 troops unless and until conditions were met by the Taliban."
"Otherwise," Esper continued, "we would see a number of things play out, which are unfolding right now in many ways."
Trump fired Esper in November 2020 in the wake of the presidential election.

Biden does still deserve the full blame for the conduct of the withdrawal this year though, he slowed it down by two months but that's about it, it could have been managed far better for the actual withdrawal so we weren't just making the ANA feel abandoned. The Afghan government could have gotten solid means of support short of the US fighting, the Taliban could have been at the least punished for continuing their violence and assassinations.

I'm really curious what Biden will do into the future, will the Taliban be a pariah state while whatever remainders that continue to resist get recognized? Will the Taliban be recognized as the legit government? There's a lot of questions that remain for the future that simply washing our hands of fighting do not answer.

[Montmorency]

not rory's biggest fan, but thought this was on point:

https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1428747865933889543

"No US serviceman has been killed in Afghanistan in 18 months."

This is the kind of dishonesty we come to hate in our natsec mediocrities.

What happened exactly 18 months ago, one is compelled to ask.

The American government concluded a formal agreement with the Taliban provisioning, among other things, a path to US-Taliban armistice in exchange for a total American withdrawal.

That's why there were no American casualties* - Americans were hardly fighting!

From 2017 to 2020, when there were 8000-15000 American soldiers in Afghanistan, the Taliban continued to make gains, while killing tens of thousands of Afghan soldiers. Had we altered the 2020 deal too far, the Taliban would have besieged the remaining coalition forces, quickly overwhelming them absent reinforcement, entailing a fresh surge of thousands more troops and a reset in the "peace" process. There was no low-cost option in Afghanistan.

That's what we're talking about, Sir Lord Whoever-this-chump-is. By the way, South Korea hasn't been a warzone for 68 years; they trade with us, pay for our military presence there, and have even supplied their own armed forces to American campaigns. What a foolish thing to compare South Korea to Afghanistan.

*There were at least 2, but close enough.


Biden does still deserve the full blame for the conduct of the withdrawal this year though, he slowed it down by two months but that's about it, it could have been managed far better for the actual withdrawal so we weren't just making the ANA feel abandoned. The Afghan government could have gotten solid means of support short of the US fighting, the Taliban could have been at the least punished for continuing their violence and assassinations.

I'm really curious what Biden will do into the future, will the Taliban be a pariah state while whatever remainders that continue to resist get recognized? Will the Taliban be recognized as the legit government? There's a lot of questions that remain for the future that simply washing our hands of fighting do not answer.

I will disagree that there was any way to withdraw while still imbuing the Afghan government and military with the will to resist. Remember, the Taliban had been making covert deals for over a year already (that our world-class intelligence agencies somehow either couldn't uncover, or buried). Contagion dynamics had been at work on the ground for a long time already.

The main flaw in Biden's process is losing control of the process of evacuating Afghan partners and dissidents, which he should have been able to perceive was imminent no later than early July. Foreigners do fine, the Taliban has had little interest in harming them on its victory march.

See longer post in other thread.

Islamic Emirate will presumably be recognized by most countries by the end of the year as long as they can meet some minimal conditions of self-presentation. We watch how they handle the ongoing protests and civil resistance I suppose.



Useful Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1428849518901071880)recapping the past 18 months in Afghanistan:


Ok, since no one seems to know any of the history of Afghanistan before this week, a refresher:
2/29/20: There are 13,000 US troops there. Trump reaches deal with Taliban. Agrees Afghanistan Gov, which is not part of deal, will release 5,000 Taliban fighters. Requires Taliban...1
...to take action against al Qaeda, not to attack US troops or coalition forces, or launch high-profile attacks.
3/1/20: Afghan president freaks out, says US has no authority to commit to release prisoners held by Afghanistan. (Trump Admin forces it to happen anyway.)
...2
...
Despite there agreement not to attack any provincial capitals, Taliban unilaterally attacks Afghan forces in Helmand province.
3/19/2020: DOD IG says U.S. cut troop levels by more than 4,000, even though “Taliban escalated violence further after signing the agreement"...3
8/18/2020: DOD IG releases report saying Taliban didnt distance itself from terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. UN and U.S. "Taliban continued to support al-Qaeda, and conducted joint attacks with al-Qaeda members against Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.”...4
...in other words *every element of the agreement - dont attack, renounce terrorists, don't work with terrorists - had been violated.
9/3/2020: Afghanistan, pressured by Trump, has been releasing the 5,000 Taliban in jail. Last 400 released this day. They return to fighting...5
...9/16/2020: In continued violation of the Trump agreement, Taliban - reportedly working with al Qaeda - attacks 3 provinces in Northern Afghanistan....
...Immediately after election, Trump Admin leaks theyre going to do a massive, rapid withdrawal of US troops before inauguration. Distressed by reports, Rubio warns of “a Saigon-type of situation." McConnell says "would hurt our allies & delight the people who wish us harm"...6
11/17/2020: Without consulting with incoming administration, which is still being blocked from security briefings, Trump Admin announces rapid withdrawal of troops down to 2,500 by 5 days before inauguration. That's down from 13,000 the year before....7
...this was playing with people's lives. This was incompetence writ large. But here is where Biden screws up - by not more fully reversing the nonsense Trump had done.
2/3/2021: Afghan Study Group, created by Congress, urges Biden to abandon the Trump timetable, and set.../8
...withdrawal on all sides - both Afghan government and Taliban - meeting all commitments under a peace framework that had been reached. So, it would be based on status, not date.
3/25: Gen Richard Clarke of Central Op Command says Taliban has not met its obligations...9
...under treaties & frameworks.
4/14: Biden sets a deadline of 9/11 for getting out of Afghanistan, ignoring recommendation of the working group. This is the big mistake.
4/18: Trump rants and raves, saying Biden should start pulling everyone out beginning in about 2 weeks...10
...so yes, Biden made a mistake. But we are dealing with a situation where the former president pulled down troop levels to a ridiculous level just five days before inauguration, ignored attacks and violations of a treaty he hit, and pretended he had succeeded. He gave them...11
....5,000 fighters. I mean, look at this: The Taliban was violating *every term* of the treaty, and Trump pulled out 1000s of troops. Other than setting ourselves up for a firefight with the Taliban, the only options seemed to be bringing people back in, changing the timeline..12
...or this. I dont know. Its a cluster. Im not even sure I can call what Biden did a mistake. Did they have intel that the Taliban, which had been moving forward since Trump struck his stupid deal, was planning to attack our troops? Who were way outmanned? I dont know. But...13
...this idea that this had some other easy solution or if - instead, as Rubio & McConnell said in December - the rapid drawdown of troops by Trump set up a disaster, a Saigon-type situation that was handed off to Biden, I don't know. But this is what you get when you...14
...allow violations of treaties, petulant troop withdrawals, and media who seems to have no memory, and a political party hopeful that no one will remember. I am not excusing Biden. I just want experts to say,given the actual situation he was handed, how it should have been done.

[spmetla]

I will disagree that there was any way to withdraw while still imbuing the Afghan government and military with the will to resist. Remember, the Taliban had been making covert deals for over a year already (that our world-class intelligence agencies somehow either couldn't uncover, or buried). Contagion dynamics had been at work on the ground for a long time already.


I'll agree that with a total withdrawal it would be difficult perhaps impossible to give the ANA and government some spine. If perhaps, troops pullouts were put on hold when the Taliban still kept targeting everyone except the NATO forces that might have changed it, or if perhaps after the fall of the first provincial capital troops were put back in to Kabul and perhaps Kandahar airfield.
All the above however is simply more what ifs on my part. I was wrong completely on assuming the ANA would fight so my what ifs are worth nothing.
I won't however just accept that it was always going to be a debacle. The GIROA its ANA may have lost in the end but holding out for at least a few months would have allowed for the country to do decide its own future as those living under Taliban rule can weight their options versus those in GIROA rule, might even have won support for it. Instead this week and half of surrender without any major battlefield loss instead just conceding the battlefield completely has created a fait accompli for the Taliban. Even if the majority of the Afghans would have preferred the GIROA over the Taliban its a moot point now. Some resistance group may win some 'honor' for certain tribes and persons but the issue is already decided. The Afghan people now will only be able to vote with their feet if this 'bloodless' and quick victory for the Taliban would have been worth fighting against.
Biden however never seems to really have engaged in considering options or conditions there, he just wanted to be done with this war despite any consequences. Perhaps that call is the right one but I'd rather the US had stood by GIROA even if it meant our part in the war kept on in some limited capacity. We supported Iraq when it looked like ISIS would bowl them over and even sent in SOF again to assist the Kurds, if the collapse GIROA could have been slowed to the speed of Washington's decision cycle like ISIS in Iraq then perhaps some limited assistance could have been provided. The Iraqis learned the hard way that their Army needed some competent leadership instead of pure cronyism, the Afghans probably would have too if the endgame hadn't come so quickly.


The main flaw in Biden's process is losing control of the process of evacuating Afghan partners and dissidents, which he should have been able to perceive was imminent no later than early July. Foreigners do fine, the Taliban has had little interest in harming them on its victory march.

From what I've been reading it seems that he tried to keep the process slow at the request of the Afghan government because they imagined it'd be a complete flight of the entire bureaucracy and all intellectuals that would speed the collapse. Seeing as the collapse happened as quickly as the Taliban could drive a pickup truck I don't think it could have happened much quicker. Once Ghazni fell and Kabul was separated from Kandahar he should have sent troops to Kabul and Kandahar to speed the evacuation there. Allowing the Taliban to take Kabul before beginning the process was stupid. The decisions made in managing this crisis were horrendous and slow. Making big decisions like this aren't easy but clearly his people in the NSC and DoD made all the wrong calls or perhaps didn't voice their opposition or concerns strongly enough.

Esper and Mattis lost/resigned their jobs ensuring that Trump didn't just abandon the Afghans (both of them) and Kurds in Syria (only Mattis for Syria). The lack of anyone doing the same in Biden's administration makes me concerned about a culture of compliance. I welcome an investigation that will look into the decision making as well as the flow of the REAL info from the bottom up. One of the Democratic leaders in Congress should open such an investigation as it is merited and the administration should comply.


Islamic Emirate will presumably be recognized by most countries by the end of the year as long as they can meet some minimal conditions of self-presentation. We watch how they handle the ongoing protests and civil resistance I suppose.
Perhaps, but entry into all the international institutions that open up trade, finance, borrowing, etc will be a long time coming. The currently recognized Afghan government hasn't 'surrendered' and until it does we may end up in a Peoples Republic of China versus Republic of China situation except that the Afghan government has no more territory to retain any legitimacy. I don't think the Taliban will try for votes as with a battlefield victory from 'god' they don't need a mandate from the people.
Will be interesting for sure to watch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

None of the US administrations in this millennium handled Afghanistan flawlessly. There are plenty of miscues, misestimations, and not a little graft that can be spread around quite broadly across the tenures of each and every administration.

Oddly enough, it could be argued that Trump came the closest to fulfilling his vision for handling US involvement in Afghanistan -- he'd been arguing for a more or less complete and immediate withdrawal since 2011. Once in office, this was tempered by "the system," (I will set aside the argument over MilIndComplex greed v. inertia v. military organizational SOP's involved separately or in combination), but I think he was truly proud to have engineered the next thing to a sauve qui peut.

[Montmorency]

I just don't think the attempt to prop up the actually-existing client state was worth more effort and experimentation considering how much failure and lying the responsible American actors have to their names. It was a doomed project with any amount of time. As Senator Brian Schatz said on Twitter, "Maybe if you got all the wars wrong you are not an expert for a TV show but just a person who keeps getting foreign policy wrong."

Take this hypothetical: A certain Bernard S. is elected president in 2000. Unleashing his Communist sympathies, he declares 9/11 an opportunity to free the people of Afghanistan from the tyranny of brutal reactionary mysticism and redeem the fallen Democratic Republic. How long does this presidency, or its mission to export democracy, last?

Securing Kabul airport on August 13th (following the fall of Ghazni) vs. August 16th makes no difference, since either way we and our evacuees are at the mercy of the Taliban's designs and their pretense (https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/08/talibans-special-forces-outfit-providing-security-at-kabul-airport.php) of securing the airport for us. It really should have happened a month earlier from the humanitarian standpoint. Because as I said in the other thread, the GIROA and Biden admin attempt to avoid mass panic and disintegration resulted in just that while stranding thousands of conceivably eligible Afghan refugees. By any means the primary criterion was unmet. July or very early August was the last chance to act on that end and physically remove as many people as possible before the extraction point fell behind the Taliban cordon. The Taliban had already taken the majority of the country by that time (which must have been unavoidable information for any intelligence briefing or briefer, or casual scan of mainstream news). As far as I'm concerned, for all that the Taliban are determined to weaken Afghan society, we may as well participate by Americanizing their "best and brightest."

In the case of IS we had a colorable excuse to intervene. The rise of IS as a conventional state was a larger threat to the international community and regional stability than the Taliban is now*, correspondingly drew in many competing international actors (allies/partners as well as competitors), involved comparatively-substantial anti-IS resistance from the Syrian and Iraqi states, and was logistically easier to manage as an intervention than Afghanistan.

There should be mass resignations in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA for - above all - their egregious abuses of this country's trust and resources.

Events have proven the Islamic Republic to be unpopular, which is not to imply a corollary of the Taliban's relative popularity. But remember, we deliberately designed GIROA and ANA to be a weak and dependent client state, rather than a self-sustaining cohesive nation. Maybe the latter wasn't feasible, but we did what we did.


*Anyone who would argue along the lines that the Taliban victory will eventually precipitate a revolutionary Islamist sweep across Pakistan and Central Asia, therefore necessitating a permanent American crusade against the Taliban, should be forced to make their case, among competing cases, to the public in no uncertain terms. Relentless coercive interventionism has received an objectively-disastrous level of affirmative action in this country's policy for over a century. It's time for a radically-different doctrine.


For decades, (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/joe-bidens-perfect-foreign-policy-storm.html) those charged with guarding U.S. national security have treated armed force as the ultimate form of engagement. The acid test of acting in the world — as opposed to retreating to contemptible (and mythical) “isolationism” — is possessing the capability and willingness to kill a lot of people in it. Whatever armaments may be necessary to defend the United States, this is a perverse ethic. In every other realm of human endeavor, we recognize brute coercion to be the antithesis of engagement among people; the resort to force, in the household or on the street, marks the breakdown of sociable interaction. Yet in U.S. foreign policy, when the call sounds to “do something,” the outcry is unlikely to stop until the bombs drop.


Do you know anything about US-Taliban refugee negotiations currently? Like so (https://tass.com/world/1326009), but, you know, the opposite.

[spmetla]

I just don't think the attempt to prop up the actually-existing client state was worth more effort and experimentation considering how much failure and lying the responsible American actors have to their names. It was a doomed project with any amount of time.

We'll only see if the costly status quo was worth anything in the future. I think you overemphasize the client state nature, it was wholly dependent on foreign funding of course but was completely unaccountable to NATO forces. When Hamid Karzai wanted to restrict NATO operations to only the daytime that pretty much happened. When I was a mentor/advisor to Afghan security forces it didn't matter how ineffective or corrupt they were in my reports because no one on the NATO side could fire or hold Afghan forces to account. People like to think that the ANA and GIROA were puppets which they weren't, in a way it might have been in our interest if they were so we could actually tackle corruption instead of just wag our fingers against it. One could argue in Iraq and Afghanistan that by trying to hand over governance so early to the host population to gain legitimacy we lost the opportunity to regulate the competency of those governments which in the end meant they didn't gain more legitimacy. That's why I blame our injecting too much cash into their system which was already corrupt and remains so, it's not like NATO was running the show.
As for doomed, well the Taliban had only been in power for five years in 2001 and were far from popular in Afghanistan outside of of the south hence the Northern Alliance fighting against them and the help of lots of tribal leaders and fighters throughout the country to our SOF in defeating the Taliban.
One thing that made the British efforts in Malaya a success were the ability to control government and military efforts. In Afghanistan NATO has only had control of elements of the military part and not even the whole military strategy in regards to the ANA. They were a partner force, not a subordinate force.


Securing Kabul airport on August 13th (following the fall of Ghazni) vs. August 16th makes no difference, since either way we and our evacuees are at the mercy of the Taliban's designs and their pretense of securing the airport for us. It really should have happened a month earlier from the humanitarian standpoint. Because as I said in the other thread, the GIROA and Biden admin attempt to avoid mass panic and disintegration resulted in just that while stranding thousands of conceivably eligible Afghan refugees.
I was sort of advocating to secure more than just Kabul airport but some of the limits of the city. Kandahar airport however is completely separate from Kandahar city so that's a different matter. Reason I'd advocate for both is so that there'd be a 'port of departure' in the south as well. As for a month earlier, I'd agree for the most part, just it wasn't clear a month ago that the Taliban would sweep into power to even the Afghans.


Take this hypothetical: A certain Bernard S. is elected president in 2000. Unleashing his Communist sympathies, he declares 9/11 an opportunity to free the people of Afghanistan from the tyranny of brutal reactionary mysticism and redeem the fallen Democratic Republic. How long does this presidency, or its mission to export democracy, last?
Just like the last one Democratic Republic and the GIROA it'd last as long there was money to fund their army. Once the Soviet Union stopped supplying paychecks to the Afghan Army and spare parts for their equipment that government essentially fell. It'd be the same with this one as the size military needed to secure a country in turmoil is far larger than it would normally have if paid by their own means in peacetime.


In the case of IS we had a colorable excuse to intervene. The rise of IS as a conventional state was a larger threat to the international community and regional stability than the Taliban is now*, correspondingly drew in many competing international actors (allies/partners as well as competitors), involved comparatively-substantial anti-IS resistance from the Syrian and Iraqi states, and was logistically easier to manage as an intervention than Afghanistan.
It wasn't really a colorful excuse to intervene. Obama pulled out of Iraq willy nilly and dragged his feet on having to reenter the country as it was proof of his failure in not even attempting to keep some forces in Iraq. The slow collapse of ISIS was due in large part to not putting any boots on the ground besides SOF. Insurgents groups actually trying to fight conventional battles do really really poorly against a semi competent military which is why the ANA not even trying fight the Taliban driving up to Kabul was such a let down and surprise.
The efforts in Afghanistan have had the support of a much broader coalition than against ISIS, the only problem was that Pakistan was never really part of that coalition as they have tolerated/flirted/aided with the Taliban continuously since its formation.
We'll have to wait and see if the Taliban are going to be an international threat or not. They were beforehand which is why we got involved in the first place, the US didn't do anything to Afghanistan that warranted their support of Al Queda training for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.


There should be mass resignations in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA for - above all - their egregious abuses of this country's trust and resources.
I don't know about mass resignations, the career members generally do what they're told, the political appointees at the top however are the ones that need to come up with a strategy or plan. Congress keeps writing the checks and authorizing the troops yet has been completely hands off for a general strategy or any accountability. Like I've said, the military is quite competent at doing military things, expecting them or the state department to reform a foreign government we don't control is a bit beyond the pale.
The lack of a cohesive national policy in foreign relations is a US failure of every administration since the end of the Cold War.


Events have proven the Islamic Republic to be unpopular, which is not to imply a corollary of the Taliban's relative popularity. But remember, we deliberately designed GIROA and ANA to be a weak and dependent client state, rather than a self-sustaining cohesive nation. Maybe the latter wasn't feasible, but we did what we did.

The Afghans wrote their own constitution, they weren't given one by the US. I've always advocated that the US should have help reinstate the old King, he could have had more legitimacy with the tribal leaders than any elected person and led the creation of a constitution too. Their being weak and dependent has to do with the problems of insecurity. Can't have investment without security, can't create some security without spending some money, can't spend money without foreign handouts as naturally they can't raise that money on their own yet. West Germany was dependent on the US and the Marshal plan for quite a while too. As for the ANA, they were designed to be independent but as we've seen the corruption and low morale in the end made them completely ineffectual. They had all the tools needed to fight the Taliban as well as the training, just no will to fight it seems. Fighting a police action against an insurgency is difficult for every conventional military, it requires a whole of government approach not just a military approach. Fighting the insurgents in the open though a conventional military should do quite well.
As for self-sustaining and cohesive nation, yeah, the Taliban aren't going to create that either.


Anyone who would argue along the lines that the Taliban victory will eventually precipitate a revolutionary Islamist sweep across Pakistan and Central Asia, therefore necessitating a permanent American crusade against the Taliban, should be forced to make their case, among competing cases, to the public in no uncertain terms.
Who's advocating for a crusade? Not me. I think propping a weak and corrupt though relatively liberal government in Afghanistan is better than dealing with a Taliban government which is an unknown factor at this point and has a poor track record for human rights, support of terrorism etc... Revolutionaries, be they religious, communist, democratic tend to try and export their successes if for no other reason than their former revolutionary fighters don't know how to be docile 'good citizens' or some can't or won't be incorporated into the army and police with all the rules that usually goes with.

My opinion and what if isms is all pointless though. We are where we are and how the Taliban are dealt with now is the major issue at hand.

I'm not for trying to oust the Taliban again at all and I don't think anyone is realistically even hinting at that. My major issue is that Biden's administration and the Trump one beforehand just wanted to wash their hands of Afghanistan which I think is more irresponsible than supporting the 'light footprint' approach I support. US conventional forces cannot do a counter-insurgency for the Afghans but could have continued to provide the air cover and the ANA paychecks and spare parts. The most valuable support would have been intelligence support to the ANA as the Afghans don't have the technical means the US and NATO do.
US casualties in Afghanistan have been low well before Trump's 'peace deal' and small footprint would likely have continued that low casualty trend. I don't treat US casualties lightly either, I've lost friends there, recently too. The idea that Trump's peace deal is the only reason for a low casualty count is nonsense, the numbers have been down because for the most part NATO hasn't been in the front line of the fight for seven years now.


Do you know anything about US-Taliban refugee negotiations currently? Like so, but, you know, the opposite.
The refugee situation will be quite something in the next few months. Once the resistance in Panshir is crushed I doubt there will be any further resistance to the Taliban so they can then create security using brutal methods that religious fanatics always feel entitled to. I think they are keeping the gloves on in part to try and revamp their image as well as stall any support to resistance elements. All working women being order to go home is likely just the start.

The US position during the G7 talks is mind boggling though. Biden really just wants out no matter what it seems and a lack of clarity on his part is inexcusable at this point. The idea that we can't evacuate are own after the 31st because we're scared of the Taliban is pathetic, especially when our allies are willing to share the dangers to remain faithful to those that worked with us.

[Montmorency]

Yo, Pelosi shepherded the $3.5 billion bill (albeit only to the drafting stage) with zero defections, not even among the conservative pecksniffs I posted about earlier in the month. If the hostage-taking with the compromise bill can get it past Sinema and Manchin largely-intact, that would be a genuine victory. I forget, does the legislative session expire in only a month (fiscal year ending Sept. 30) or in December?




When I was a mentor/advisor to Afghan security forces it didn't matter how ineffective or corrupt they were in my reports because no one on the NATO side could fire or hold Afghan forces to account.

Someone put this very fact in the framing 'we built GIROA strong enough to do what we wanted but not strong enough to go its own way' (i.e. not strong enough to survive independently). This is what I mean when I say client state, and it's very well known that American foreign policy heavily emphasizes achieving compliance by many means from its engagement with other countries (though an accurate view of what the US government "wants" at a given time is required). In Afghanistan it was never really in the interest, and likely skillset, of the leadership to tackle corruption, which would involve heavily investing in creating a strong and demanding middle class with skin in the game; can you really say that was ever an objective in practice or on paper compared to the mere Afghanization of anti-Taliban operations? It was also of course the explicit project of PNAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century), who argued - wrt Iraq - that the United States should overthrow Saddam Hussein and promote an anarchic (denationalized) Iraqi market in oil extraction/production in order to attain a pliant (to the US) oil market that would reduce prices for American consumers and undercut Saudi-led OPEC - all without regard to what would actually be going on with the Iraqi people. They literally campaigned on this! A lot becomes clearer when one views US policy as tending to be callous, self-absorbed, and exploitative, rather than serving some high ideal.

We never lost the war in Afghanistan (so not quite Vietnam), we just thoroughly lost the peace. We knew how to wage war, but we didn't know - and hardly tried - to build peace. The structure of the GIROA reflected that.

The truly radical and unselfish thing would be more in the vein of Lend Lease or the Marshall Plan, where we really try to build the other country up with few strings attached. Rediscovering that spirit is IMO the one and only path to American greatness, and something only America can do for the world besides.


just it wasn't clear a month ago that the Taliban would sweep into power to even the Afghans.

It might not be clear to an ordinary person on the ground, or to someone like me who read a few articles and reports on the region every so often to catch up. On the other hand, it's disgraceful if no one was bringing to the Oval Office: "Mr. President, the Taliban have tripled their territorial control over the past couple months with minimal resistance, holy crap! Any changes to our plans now that there's no reason to expect Kabul to hold indefinitely?"


Just like the last one Democratic Republic and the GIROA it'd last as long there was money to fund their army. Once the Soviet Union stopped supplying paychecks to the Afghan Army and spare parts for their equipment that government essentially fell. It'd be the same with this one as the size military needed to secure a country in turmoil is far larger than it would normally have if paid by their own means in peacetime.

I wasn't just using this hypothetical to remind everyone that the DRoA outlasted the Soviet Union itself with only a decade of Soviet support. :sneaky:

The point was that the hypothetical president and his party would get absolutely trashed by the media and the electorate for their exorbitant presumption, as liberals/leftists do, yet the Republican successor and the Blob under him would merely repurpose the intervention toward furthering their own institutional and financial interests while restraining public attention in the misadventure - so we still maintain the long-term occupation.


The efforts in Afghanistan have had the support of a much broader coalition than against ISIS,

I don't know about that, when comparing the resources and manpower committed by various state and non-state actors in the Fertile Crescent compared to Afghanistan: Israel, Iran, US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Russia, FSA, various other Kurdish and Arab groups, Hezbollah...

Other than the UK and US, I suspect all of the above invested more against IS than against the Taliban (who on the other hand were dealing with US, UK, and ANA forces almost exclusively). From a geopolitical standpoint the fight against IS was clearly more important to more actors than the details of continuing intervention in Afghanistan.


Congress keeps writing the checks and authorizing the troops yet has been completely hands off for a general strategy or any accountability.

Congress should of course take responsibility for more of the broad decision-making and goal-setting of armed conflict again, though I wouldn't expect their decisions to be much of an improvement anytime soon. At least theoretically the media could hold the more concretely accountable for emanations of policy they license. Abridging all the old AUMF from the War on Terror, and the Patriot Act, is the first step.

FIRST step, dammit! (https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-repeal-two-older-military-force-authorizations-11624993924) :wall:


House Votes to Repeal Two Older Military Force Authorizations
AUMFs relate to the 1991 Gulf War and a 1957 measure countering ‘Communist aggression’


The Afghans wrote their own constitution, they weren't given one by the US.

Set me straight here, but from what I can gather the Bonn Agreement established a Constitutional Commission that then presented a version of the old monarchist constitution to an inherently American-backed elite conclave (loya jirga) for approval. Under those conditions it's hard to say that the Afghan people confirmed this constitution, and its state, in terms of either Afghan-traditional or modern Western legitimacy.

But more to the point, we've been hearing for years that the GIROA was considered ineffectual by the population and was widely disliked and disrespected. This can be true even where most Afghanis distrust the Taliban. There's kind of an incestuous effect in foreign perceptions here, where foreign media and military were most closely interacting with those Afghans who were most Westernized or otherwise most committed to the success of the government, which could color one's impression of attitudes just as much as being in a Twitter bubble.


As for the ANA, they were designed to be independent but as we've seen the corruption and low morale in the end made them completely ineffectual.

But they literally couldn't operate air combat or transport missions without American logistics or contractors! To quote Col. Mike Jason(ret.) from the other thread again,


We did not successfully build the Iraqi and Afghan forces as institutions. We failed to establish the necessary infrastructure that dealt effectively with military education, training, pay systems, career progression, personnel, accountability — all the things that make a professional security force. Rotating teams through tours of six months to a year, we could not resolve the vexing problems facing Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s armies and police: endemic corruption, plummeting morale, rampant drug use, abysmal maintenance, and inept logistics. We got really good at preparing platoons and companies to conduct raids and operate checkpoints, but little worked behind them. It is telling that today, the best forces in Afghanistan are the special-forces commandos, small teams that perform courageously and magnificently — but despite a supporting institution, not because of one.


I think propping a weak and corrupt though relatively liberal government in Afghanistan is better than dealing with a Taliban government which is an unknown factor at this point and has a poor track record for human rights, support of terrorism etc...

In principle, so do most people, whether or not they agree with the intervention - but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride... We'd also like all the great powers of the world to set aside their petty jockeying and invest collaboratively in the greater good. Some outcomes just turn out to be unrealistic and unattainable in a set of parameters.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5Y32mMz_8


Revolutionaries, be they religious, communist, democratic tend to try and export their successes if for no other reason than their former revolutionary fighters don't know how to be docile 'good citizens' or some can't or won't be incorporated into the army and police with all the rules that usually goes with.

Speaking of which, what do we know of what IS alums have been up to - the ones who didn't stay behind?


US conventional forces cannot do a counter-insurgency for the Afghans but could have continued to provide the air cover and the ANA paychecks and spare parts.

Might have meliorated some of the issues I mentioned above, at low risk, but nevertheless we know for sure atp that the ANA was structurally crippled for a standup fight, the Taliban had become extremely proficient in combat and non-combat aspects of conflict against both the ANA and American-style capitalized opposition (I stand by "unit-for-unit martial superiority" against the ANA), and there wasn't popular will for a unified front or "total war." None of that would change in these nudges on the margins.


US casualties in Afghanistan have been low well before Trump's 'peace deal' and small footprint would likely have continued that low casualty trend. I don't treat US casualties lightly either, I've lost friends there, recently too. The idea that Trump's peace deal is the only reason for a low casualty count is nonsense, the numbers have been down because for the most part NATO hasn't been in the front line of the fight for seven years now.

The Taliban were advancing widely before the deal, under Trump, when there were 10000+ American soldiers present. I remember reading reports on the Taliban being in better shape than at any time since 2001 from the beginning of Trump's term. The math just doesn't work. This is a horned dilemma and someone was going to get impaled. That's what made it a boondoggle.


The idea that we can't evacuate are own after the 31st because we're scared of the Taliban is pathetic, especially when our allies are willing to share the dangers to remain faithful to those that worked with us.

Idk, it seems he expects the airport to be cleared out by then given the pace of evacuations, at which point we may as well charter repatriation of stragglers (and Afghan asylees) by block. In a way the current operation is like Dunkirk, a major strategic and operational defeat followed by wildly successful extraction of available human assets. As for Taliban recognition, the G7 tacitly admitted (https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-08-23/g7-leaders-plan-to-pledge-unity-on-taliban-recognition-sanctions-sources) that there is a path to recognition when they said it will be a unified decision either way.

[Hooahguy]

Yo, Pelosi shepherded the $3.5 billion bill (albeit only to the drafting stage) with zero defections, not even among the conservative pecksniffs I posted about earlier in the month. If the hostage-taking with the compromise bill can get it past Sinema and Manchin largely-intact, that would be a genuine victory. I forget, does the legislative session expire in only a month (fiscal year ending Sept. 30) or in December?

Every 2 year block of time is a new Congress. We are currently in the 117th Congress. The two years are split into two sessions, with each session ending at in December of that year. Bills introduced in the first session are still "live" through the second session. Bills only "die" when the second session end, so in our case it would be December 2022. However momentum is a thing so its hard to say what will happen.

[Furunculus]

You're blaming the wrong president.

Watch Rachel Maddow Highlights: August 20th | MSNBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc35eiFjk98)

The Trump administration deliberately and systematically screwed the Afghans over.

"I started the process so the troops are coming back. 21 years is enough, don't we think? They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process...by a government that wouldn't last. The only way they'd last is if we were there for another 21 years, for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous, so we're bringing our troops back home from Iraq, we're bringing our troops home from Afghanistan."

Also testimony from insiders on how they deliberately delayed the visa processing so as to ensure that Afghans who worked with the US, who would be in line for reprisals that they knew were coming, would not get their visas before the US left.

that is a separate issue.

it is entirely true that trumps Doha deal left biden with a turd - in presenting an agreement that that was not enforceable and merely a vehicle for the taliban to leverage the threat - but it was only a problem because it was what biden wanted; exit. if it wasn't what biden wanted then there was plenty of taliban non-compliance of doha to repudiate the deal.

but what rory talks about is specific and discrete to the actions of biden.

[rory_20_uk]

not rory's biggest fan

I think you might well be... competition isn't fierce ~;)

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Katie Porter takes aim at Joe Manchin:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/katie-porter-joe-manchin-donors-b1917309.html

I swear to god, if this woman ever runs for President, she has my vote...:2thumbsup:

[Montmorency]

Corruption (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/wealth-lobby-buying-up-democrats-to-kill-bidens-tax-reform.html)! from one of the more-screentimed Democratic critics of AOC in 2019.


Last week, Democratic senator turned anti-tax lobbyist Heidi Heitkamp, who represented North Dakota for one term before losing in 2018, appeared on CNBC to make a surprisingly emotional appeal against President Biden’s plan to close a notorious loophole for the wealthy. The loophole, called “stepped-up basis” or “the angel-of-death loophole,” allows capital gains to escape any tax at all as long as the owners pass the asset on to their heirs before they sell it.

Heitkamp’s thoughts were with the victims of this reform. She did not invoke the tax implications for the handful of extremely wealthy families that have been financing a lobbying effort to preserve their tax advantages, including the group that currently employs her as its public face. Instead, she cited the burden of an imaginary working-class man named “Sam.”

The scenario that troubled Heitkamp was that Sam, or people like him, would inherit a family-owned cabin that had become extremely valuable and now have to pay tax on the estate. “The truck driver — let’s say truck-driver Sam, who let’s say makes $100,000 a year — all of a sudden now has a tax that he owes on inheriting that property,” she complained.

In fact, the original Democratic proposal allowed for a $1 million exemption per spouse, and it allowed heirs a 15-year period to spread out the payments. So poor Sam would only have to pay tax on whatever value his cabin had over $2 million, which seems like a rather lavish spread for a working-class fellow, and he would have enjoyed a comfortable period over which to make those payments.

Even so, the pleas made by Heitkamp and other moderate Democrats on behalf of the rural petite-bourgeoisie heirs to landowning fortunes exceeding $2 million were felt. Democrats in Congress proposed to raise the exemption to $5 million per spouse. Surely, now that truck drivers inheriting cabins worth less than $10 million would be spared, Heitkamp would have softened her opposition.

But when I reached her on the phone, Heitkamp explained that these adjustments did not satisfy her. When you look at the polling, she told me, people “didn’t believe these exclusions” would really apply. The problem was public opinion. Democrats couldn’t run the risk of taxing extremely large fortunes because working-class folks like “Sam” think they would be targeted.

The fact that this belief was completely false seemed to be beside the point to Heitkamp. She likewise seemed untroubled by the possibility that the reason working-class people would get this false impression in the first place was that groups like hers would spread it. Heitkamp’s group is currently running ads making the case that Biden’s plan to tax the fortunes of the wealthy would hit regular folks. Heitkamp is arguing that even if the proposal won’t hit regular folks, the regular folks won’t believe them. Therefore, Democrats can’t take the risk of raising taxes on the wealthy people who are paying her.

Generally speaking, conviction is an underrated factor in politics. When you get a few drinks in a politician or an insider, what they’ll confide is usually the same talking point they say in public, or perhaps just a more unhinged and partisan version of it.

But sometimes, naked pecuniary self-interest does come into play. This appears to be one of those times.

A good test of when a political or policy stance is more principled or more venal:


Six months ago, Heitkamp described the angel-of-death loophole as “one of the biggest scams in the history of forever,” a view that comports with the analysis of economists on both the left and the right. The New York Times reports that Heitkamp was “recruited” to the anti-Biden side by “superlobbyist” John Breaux, who as a member of Congress once confessed, “My vote can’t be bought, but it can be rented.” (Cool story, Breaux.)

That's a good line in the spirit of so-called (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/simon_cameron_128832) "dishonest graft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Plunkitt#:~:text=For%20honest%20graft%2C%20one%20pursues,This%20was%20honest%20graft.)." Heitkamp lays claim to honest graft.


Heitkamp further explained that her primary concern is for the Democratic Party’s political welfare.

Conclusion:


It is probably true that enacting a big tax hike on the wealthy runs a political risk: The wealthy will fund a lot of television ads attacking you over it. The trade-off is that for every dollar in tax hikes Democrats give up, they have to give up a dollar in spending on popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and a universal child tax credit. [B]Some of those programs serve social needs more serious than the travails of an imaginary working-class truck driver who inherits a cabin worth more than $10 million.

[rory_20_uk]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

~:smoking:

lol

The Founders were relying on the common sense of most and the dedication to learning, logic, and reason of the more more moneyed.

[Montmorency]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

~:smoking:

The Big S (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_(politics))?

[rory_20_uk]

The Big S (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_(politics))?

I think that Full-Fat Socialism is as sensible as "Defund the Police" - perhaps in a perfect society everyone would be equal and crime would be zero but that is something that has been achieved nowhere (apart from the smallest communities and even then only for short periods of time).

Social Democracy as seen in the Nordics IMO is a the target for now - how realistic rather depends on the country. There would continue to be winners and loosers, but society is a lot "fairer" and "kinder". How one encourages the winners in the current system to both give more and stop the propaganda that somehow the tax system is better as it is; if the general populace could grasp that socialism isn't communism that'd be great.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

~:smoking:

I think that Full-Fat Socialism is as sensible as "Defund the Police" - perhaps in a perfect society everyone would be equal and crime would be zero but that is something that has been achieved nowhere (apart from the smallest communities and even then only for short periods of time).

Social Democracy as seen in the Nordics IMO is a the target for now - how realistic rather depends on the country. There would continue to be winners and loosers, but society is a lot "fairer" and "kinder". How one encourages the winners in the current system to both give more and stop the propaganda that somehow the tax system is better as it is; if the general populace could grasp that socialism isn't communism that'd be great.

~:smoking:

It has to be noted that this exchange follows on relentless news of centrist liberals being corrupt or self-interested and trammeling the efforts of the center-left to craft responses to national priorities.

Just saying...

[Montmorency]

Reminder (http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf) of how the effort to persuade Pence to disregard electoral procedure argued. Not that this would have worked, but it should be noted that John Eastman is one of the most elite conservative law professors in the country and was among those suing on Trump's behalf to overturn state election results last year. He was even a speaker at the January 6 DC rally.


1.VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro TemporeGrassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).

2.When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.

3.At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” –the language of the 12th Amendment--is 454.This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe(here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.

4.Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote. . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.

5.One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one—a constitutional no-no(as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone –Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. –should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.

6.The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission –either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position --that these are non-justiciable political questions –thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.


His most 'benign' contribution to the 2020 election was an op-ed that Kamala Harris is not an American citizen, and that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on persons born in American jurisdiction.

Last month (https://www.thebulwark.com/the-seditionists-cookbook/) he was, pursuant to the allegedly illegitimate and unprecedented federal pandemic measures (such as they even exist) that are constitutive of a "cold civil war," arguing for Republican states' "robust assertion" of state police power to preempt federal authority. Use cases being state border controls, eminent domain, "high-intensity demonstrations" in major cities, displacing the national currency with cryptocoin, and independent enforcement of "individual civil rights."

I hope Democratic politicians take notes, at least some of the time. "Those who have the power take and those hold who can."

[ReluctantSamurai]

I hope Democratic politicians take notes, at least some of the time. "Those who have the power take and those hold who can."

The upcoming votes on the two proposed infrastructure bills will determine who has power, and who doesn't. And I don't mean Republican vs Democrat....

[Montmorency]

Contemporary McCarthyism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/21/james-whitfield-school-board-vote/)


The upcoming votes on the two proposed infrastructure bills will determine who has power, and who doesn't. And I don't mean Republican vs Democrat....

I don't like to take time reading much about bills that haven't become law, but to the extent one does it's truly shocking just how many elements - in genuine compromise legislation that costs a fraction of the pandemic stimulus bills enacted so far, 6% of federal spending over a decade (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57339) - have been sacrificed for the sake of conservative lawmakers who quite likely won't even vote for the final product. Even though it will hurt their country and their party. And in the context of normal politics, this is the last chance Democrats would have at unified government for the next decade at least; at least offer us some brief consolation before, in the context of real politics, the Republicans overthrow the government and we have to hit the streets. I didn't expect any better with such a slim majority, but the proximate agents staking out the insufficiency sure are a disgrace.


When a couple (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/national-paid-family-leave-2021.html) brings a new life into Sweden, they are entitled to 71 weeks of leave, during which time they receive 78 percent of their normal earnings. In the United Kingdom, couples may take up to 41 weeks of combined paid parental leave. Just across our northern border, Canadians may take up to 50 weeks.

America is the only developed country whose citizens are entitled to none. And we aren’t just an outlier within the OECD. A 2014 United Nations report found that, among the 185 countries with relevant data, only three declined to guarantee some form of paid maternity leave to their citizens: Oman, Papua New Guinea, and the United States. Only the latter two nations are still holding out today.

For years, the Democratic Party’s signature paid-leave legislation was Senator Kirsten Gilibrand’s FAMILY Act. That bill would guarantee 12 weeks of publicly financed paid leave, at a minimum of two-thirds of one’s previous wages (up to a limit of $4,000 a month), to workers who are:

• caring for newborn children or seriously ill family members
• battling a serious illness
• coping with the adverse consequences of a loved one’s military deployment
• mourning a lost loved one
• or recovering from an incident of domestic violence or a sexual assault

The bill finances those benefits through a 0.4 percent payroll tax, split between firms and their employees. This is the same funding structure used by Social Security and all state-level paid-leave programs.

Gee, sounds inadequate!


But the Family Act is not the version of paid leave that’s most likely to make it into law. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a similar but distinct paid-leave proposal. The new legislation, authored by the committee’s chairman, Richard Neal, retains the bulk of the Family Act’s basic design: It guarantees paid leave for the same list of reasons, at roughly the same rate of reimbursement, for the same length of time.

But there are a few critical differences between the two plans. One is that Neal’s proposal lacks a minimum benefit. In order to ensure that part-time workers with low-earnings secure non-negligible leave payments, the FAMILY Act guaranteed all eligible workers at least $580 a month in cash aid, even if they would be entitled to less money under the bill’s wage-replacement formula. The two bills also have different financing mechanisms. Whereas the FAMILY Act is funded through a dedicated payroll tax, Neal’s legislation is paid for out of general tax revenue.

The most significant difference, though, concerns each bill’s mode of administration. The FAMILY Act has the same model as Social Security — a unified federal program. Neal’s bill has a much more complex operating structure. In brief, the proposal subsidizes employer-provided paid-leave insurance plans and state paid-leave programs while reserving direct federal benefits as a backup for Americans who lack access to a state or employer plan. In other words, the legislation is modeled less on Social Security than on the tangled web of public-private and federal-state partnerships that the U.S. health-care system comprises.

This policy design poses some serious administrative hazards. As Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy project argues:

By including private insurance in this way, the bill ensures that we will waste some of our paid leave money on private insurer overhead and profits. It also invites employers and insurers to profit off of benefit denials and cream-skimming of various sorts. An employer who has a workforce that takes a below-average amount of paid leave could conceivably get an insurance contract that charges less than the grant the Treasury pays them and then pocket the difference.

The employer and state plans will also massively complicate the system for individuals trying to take paid leave. Individuals seeking leave have to figure out firstly whether they are covered by an employer plan, secondly whether they are covered by a state plan, and then, if not, apply to the federal government for benefits and, in that process, prove they aren’t covered by an employer or state. What happens to someone who was covered by an employer plan at the beginning of the year but was later fired and is now seeking paid leave? According to the bill text, their name will show up in the Treasury database as being covered by their prior employer even though they no longer are.
Neal’s plan also suffers from shortcomings common to all of the Democrats’ recent paid-leave proposals. The 12-week duration of its individual benefits trails the OECD average of 18 weeks. Further, the duration rules are structured in a manner that disadvantages single parents relative to co-parenting couples. The latter can stagger their respective 12-week leaves, thereby avoiding child-care expenses for a full six months. Single parents are not, generally, more capable of incurring the costs of child care than two-earner couples are. Nor are the children of single parents generally in less need of parental nurturing during their infanthood. A more equitable policy design — common to paid-leave programs in many other countries — would provide all parental units with the same amount of paid time off and allow couples to divide the time between each other as they see fit, while enabling single parents to take the same amount of total leave as couples do.

Separately, the paid leave policy’s eligibility requirements likely render upwards of 30 percent of all new parents ineligible for cash support during their newborns’ first months. This is because parents must show labor-market earnings in the months before their desired leave. This excludes parents who have children while attending high-school or college, those suffering long-term unemployment, and the disabled, among others. If the point of paid leave is to allow parents to bond and nurture their newborn children, it is not obvious why unemployed parents should not be provided with at least a modest 12-week subsidy following their infants’ birth.

Neal’s paid leave proposal has made it out of committee. But now, like virtually every other item on the Democratic agenda — from green investment to universal prekindergarten to child allowances — the fate of a national paid-leave program rests on the success or failure of a single megabill.

Never let way less than the bare minimum be the enemy of Jack Shit.

https://i.imgur.com/nU2iHEE.png

[ReluctantSamurai]

This article sums up pretty well what I meant by the upcoming votes determining who has the power:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/25/democrats-divded-imperiling-biden-agenda-aoc-adams


Divisions between progressives and moderates in Congress are threatening to scuttle a $3.5tn social spending program, which includes childcare, education and green energy measures, and a $1tn bipartisan infrastructure bill that has passed the Senate and is pending in the House of Representatives.

Moderate Democrats back a vote on the $1tn bill for roads, bridges, ports and broadband connections scheduled for the House on Monday. But they have also raised objections to the size of the $3.5tn social spending package, warning against government overreach that will drive up the national debt.

And yet those same corporate Dems (in fact, just about everyone---vote was 420-9 in the House) had no trouble handing over ANOTHER billion dollars to Israel in addition to the $3.3 billion we've already given them (Israel is the top recipient of US foreign aid). So where are the fiscal hawks now? It's all BS political maneuvering...

But I digress:


“If we have certain members of our caucus who want to take money from Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big ‘insert name here’, then we’re never going to have a Democratic majority that’s willing to actually serve real people first.”

And there's the rub---donors for the corporate politicians want the bi-partisan part because it contains a substantial amount of "pork" for said donors (and to be fair, there are measures contained in the bill that will actually benefit the American people).

They are steadfastly against the Reconciliation Bill that contains the core of Biden's agenda because it proposes taxes on the ultra-rich to help pay for it, and it has virtually all of Biden's climate proposals for reducing CO2 emissions (read as bad for Big Energy), and provisions for Social Security to negotiate drug prices (bad for Big Pharma).

So it comes down to this:


She added: “It’s really not Democrat versus Republican. It’s the ultra wealthy and the corporations versus all the rest of us because a bill like this in the midst of a pandemic should be very easy to pass. This is a part of Biden’s agenda. It’s actually already a compromise position because progressives wanted way more.”

Progressives have vowed to tank the Bi-Partisan version if the Reconciliation Bill is not voted on first. What you are going to see from corporate media like CNN and their ilk, is an attempt to frame progressives as the bad guys:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/opinions/aoc-biden-democratic-party-harrop/index.html


While under the Democratic umbrella, she seems to have made it her mission (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__time.com_5562050_alexandria-2Docasio-2Dcortez-2Ddccc-2Dprimary_&d=DwMFaQ&c=W8uiIUydLnv14aAum3Oieg&r=7ObF8wY7pjpd2oWG56VO3njN33pASZIcLYUarX2PMbI&m=6kL1xW29ju-Bd0UVYW1x7e6BIvl5cyRmouB3ICp3f98&s=iK8vloBSfYvl1Na3NEekKr3ywo90CwuVX56qWzdPlv4&e=) to fight the "Democratic establishment." In particular, she has worked with a group called Justice Democrats, a small, grassroots organization that supports progressive Democratic candidates as part of a larger effort to transform the party in the image of politicians like AOC.

Heaven forbid a Democrat calls out other Democrats for taking huge corporate handouts and then voting in favor of those donors. But hardly a peep from CNN about Joe Manchins' views being influenced by his corporate donors...:rolleyes:

And recently:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/09/22/cnns_keilar_grills_progressive_caucus_chair_pramila_jayapal_about_budget_battle_youre_willing_to_tak e_nothing.html

Note the framing of Keilar's question..."You're saying you're willing to take nothing, because it may come to that," Keilar asked. In other words, "If you progressives tank the bi-partisan bill in order to get your demands for what the American people want (go ahead and check that with your poll of choice), then you will take nothing."

And more BS from CNN (again, note the framing of the questions from Tapper and Keilar):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7r1u0x-nIo

Yep, progressives will be made out as the bad guys for attempting to give the American people what they want and need...

[Montmorency]

It will be challenging to direct liability to the left flank of the party when all roadblocks to the process so far have been submitted by 10 or 20 Democrats in the House and as few as 2 in the Senate. Let it never be dismissed that the vast majority of the federal caucus, including most "moderates," have been vocally supportive of the greater part of Biden's agenda from the outset. Just ask Conor Lamb and Elissa Slotkin.

[ReluctantSamurai]

It will be challenging to direct liability to the left flank of the party...

Don't count on it:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/30/white-house-progressives-manchin-sinema-514775


As progressives continue to make the case for dual tracking the two bills, there is fear among some close Biden allies and moderate Democrats that they may be tarnishing the infrastructure component in politically damaging ways. It’s a proposal that the party still plans to run on during the mid-terms, and the fear is it will have less impact if Democratic lawmakers themselves are downplaying it.

“Those are powerful images — the commemorative hard hats and the golden shovels. Those visuals are solid gold. They are great for TV. It may be the only thing that saves our bacon in 2022,” said Colin Strother, a Democratic strategist in Texas who works with moderates and regularly tangles with progressive activists. “A full bowl of rice does wonders for your polling, as a lot of countries will tell you. Biden needs this win. He really, really needs this win.”

The BS is coming fast and heavy against progressives. You see the rhetoric---"we gotta have something or we get crushed in 2022"---"and the jobs back home..."


We need to be in some of these progressive districts talking about the infrastructure bill and what it will do and how many jobs it will create. We need to get them on our program.”

Of course when Manchin, Sinema, or any other conservative (calling them moderates is a joke) drag their feet, or demand changes/deletions/additions to a particular bill, that's ok---"they are fiscally responsible moderates looking out for the best interests of the country." (anyone catch Sinema's recent spreadsheet theatre as reported in this BS account by Axios)

https://www.axios.com/scoop-sinemas-secret-spreadsheets-f6f1137f-a537-4c34-89d6-1de4775b0bd3.html

Of course noone actually knows what's in those spreadsheets, or even if Sinema can read one...:creep:

One thing is certain---she knows how to read a check with her name on it:

https://www.dailyposter.com/sinema-threat-followed-boost-from-pharma-group/


During her career, Sinema has raked in more than $500,000 (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=CAREER&type=I) from donors in the pharmaceutical and health products industries — and she is now the sixth largest Senate Democratic recipient (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=2022&recipdetail=S&mem=Y) of campaign cash from those industries this election cycle, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets.

And she's not alone:

https://www.dailyposter.com/follow-the-pharma-money/


The three conservative Democratic lawmakers threatening (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/14/democrats-oppose-drug-price-plan/) to kill their party’s drug pricing legislation have raked in roughly $1.6 million of (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=All&recipdetail=H&sortorder=N&mem=Y&page=10) campaign (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kurt-schrader/industries?cid=N00030071&cycle=CAREER&type=I) cash (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/scott-peters/industries?cid=N00033591&cycle=CAREER&type=I) from donors in the pharmaceutical and health products industries. One of the lawmakers is the House’s single largest recipient (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=2022&recipdetail=H&mem=Y) of pharmaceutical industry campaign cash this election cycle, and another lawmaker’s immediate past chief of staff is now lobbying for drugmakers.



BULL...:7gangster:

[Hooahguy]

RS is right here. I think the blame here is squarely on Manchin and Sinema. Is it great that House Progressives are threatening to tank the infrastructure bill? No, since a win is desperately needed, but at the same time they were fed a line about dual tracking the bipartisan bill alongside a bigger reconciliation bill. And then Manchin and Sinema backtracked on that, while being super vague and shady about negotiating something. Last I heard Manchin now wants to add the Hyde Amendment or something. What a headache, I'm extremely glad I'm no longer in partisan politics anymore because I'd have an aneurysm by now.

At least a government shutdown was averted.

[Montmorency]

At least the obstructionist House Dems - by and large - have specific pounds of flesh they're asking for, disagreeable as they may be for any post-Clintonite Democrat.

Manchin and Sinema meanwhile: Read my lips - no new taxes. (https://www.businessinsider.com/kyrsten-sinema-deletes-post-calling-for-tax-hikes-rich-corporations-2021-9)

That's not even Conservadem, that's Lieberman-tier betrayal (if old-timers remember).

The House and Senate leadership (Chair of the Senate Budget Committee Bernie Sanders!) crafted compromise legislation over months, in which progressives and moderates both had their priorities considered. The deal was always that the reconciliation package go through, if needed alongside a bipartisan package. A handful of wreckers can't just unilaterally Darth Vader (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D3D8TEJtQRhw&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj-0-yn9qfzAhV-SjABHTlXCzYQtwJ6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw3tDbqHAnnn0ghpLg5-oFlT) the deal and pin the blame on the majority they betrayed. It cannot be overemphasized how radical Manchin, Sinema, et al. are in their play here. We have no real choice but to call their bluff, even if they really are sick or crazy enough to blow it all up.

Imagine the Taliban had suddenly turned the heel mid-August and proclaimed that they would round up and summarily execute every foreigner in the country they could find, unless the US both followed through on its departure and delivered them ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY). Of course you have to go to war.

[ReluctantSamurai]

At least ManchSinema are not able to just mosey along with noone questioning their agenda like 8 months ago. Manchin got quite testy with a reporter recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thdfeYzH7kE

Sinema doing her best to be flippant and ignore tough questions:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/senator-kyrsten-sinema-emerges-main-165257604.html

[Xantan]

Speaking of topics mentioned above...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/could-sen-kyrsten-sinema-face-primary-these-progressives-are-trying-n1280392


WASHINGTON — A group of Arizona Democrats backed by a network of deep-pocketed donors is laying the groundwork for a primary challenge to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, organizers said.

Sinema, a moderate Democrat who is up for re-election in 2024, is at the center of a standoff within the Democratic Party over the future of President Joe Biden's infrastructure agenda, and she has faced strong criticism for holding up the package from more than the usual suspects on the disgruntled left.

The new Primary Sinema PAC does not plan to support a particular primary challenger. Instead, it will fund local groups to pressure Sinema and help build the support and infrastructure for an eventual candidate.

[spmetla]

I just hope they start focusing more on that debt-ceiling than anything else. Getting angry that the Build Back Better (B3) bill might be smaller than ideal in order to get the support to raise the debt ceiling is more of the dangerous brink-man ship that makes our politics a gridlock.

I know you folks have told me time and again how it's better to put lots of items into one giant bill but I still look at the current mess and have to disagree.
How about we pass something to raise the debt ceiling, then the infrastructure, and then perhaps break up the B3 bill into separate ones, yes there will be give and take but if these all or nothing games end up with nothing to show for then perhaps compromise would've been the better option. I support a lot of the progressive items in the B3 bill but there's no need to do it all at once. Put the most important ones in first and save the controversial ones for later. If they are the success we want them to be then the gains in the 2022 elections should be proof of that. The infrastructure bill could have been passed months ago and to see it possibly go to nothing as a victim to the B3 bill is infuriating.
The idea that we'll have another fund the government drama again in December is frustrating and that's assuming we don't default on our debts in October.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Put the most important ones in first and save the controversial ones for later.

Won't ever happen. There might be a reason Republicans favor the bi-partisan bill:idea2:---there's a lot of pork in there for business and corps, and the most important part is no tax increases for the rich. To be fair, there are definitely good things for the American people in that bill, but the "asset reallocation" provisions (for one) mean higher costs for Americans.

You pass that bill first, you've lost all leverage to get anything else, and the Biden presidency is effectively over...:shrug:

Dr. No stated earlier this year that the Republican agenda for the remainder of Biden's term is to obstruct anything he tries to do. Unfortunately, there are two Republicans disguised as Democrats that are making McConnell's task that much easier. Dr. No is pretty good at getting what he wants....

[Montmorency]

ManchSinema

Manchinema (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinima)


You're going to like what Porter has to say (https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/rep-porter-we-have-to-deliver-the-entirety-of-the-president-s-agenda-122349125630).



How about we pass something to raise the debt ceiling

We have to eliminate the debt ceiling. Of course, Biden's agenda would already have been enacted in full by now if the will existed to abolish the filibuster to move on the debt ceiling. But like so many elements of our extant system, the debt ceiling is something that could only be imposed by a hostile occupier in another country. No surprise that debt ceiling brinkmanship originated a generation ago with Republican (Gingrich-era) malice.


I know you folks have told me time and again how it's better to put lots of items into one giant bill but I still look at the current mess and have to disagree.

The fundamental problem remains that if Manchinema won't like green eggs and ham in a stone soup, they won't like it in 12 convenient, easy-to-prepare, weekly home-delivered meals. With an omnibus, compromise is as simple as submitting an amendment - the size of a bill doesn't preclude that, as we have seen amply demonstrated over the summer negotiatons. So it's not even that there is no difference - with your strategy literally nothing passes, except maybe the one exact microbill that Sinemanchin would personally author (such as Manchin's just-released version of a voting rights bill, which can't run through reconciliation anyway).


Put the most important ones in first and save the controversial ones for later.

We don't have 50 years to pass a minimum wage or subsidize community college. Turtledove's lizard race we're not, if that means anything to you.


Put the most important ones in first and save the controversial ones for later. If they are the success we want them to be then the gains in the 2022 elections should be proof of that.

But part of the compromise is that most of the programs fit into the bill won't take effect for years. Take Medicare expansion clauses (as of a month ago): Vision benefits phase in in 2022, hearing in 2023, and dental only in 2028. Now, this is done in part to game the neoliberal-era CBO scoring metrics that measure costs, revenues, and deficit characteristics of a bill out to 10 years, but it's obviously a terrible way to legislate both from the perspective of accomplishing effective, well-designed social reform, and of populist campaigning. It's our only option as of now, however, because of the actors currently installed in Congress. Add 5 Warrens to the Senate and 20 AOCs to the House and this crap wouldn't exist.

Moreover, the terrible truth is that evidence is accumulating that the public, as little as it reportedly cares about policy, may actually not care at all. This year, hundreds of millions of Americans received direct cash infusions from the federal government - virtually all Americans in fact - in the form of economic impact payments, pandemic unemployment insurance, and child tax credits (the permanent expansion of which is one of the key elements of the Build Back Better agenda). A majority of Americans likely directly benefited from at least two of the above. Now, by the theory of "voting oneself the treasury" this should have increased public support for, and the salience of, a functioning government. And yet polling and qualitative evidence so far has seemed to show that not only did Biden, Congress, and the federal government receive minimal credit for immediate and concrete cash benefits, many Americans actually struggle to identify the source or cause of this sudden windfall!!!!! Government action in people's lives veritably can't get more visible than it has this year short of armed troops or Gmen knocking at your door.

Now, this discovery is fucking terrifying for the entire broad Left to the extent it is descriptive, and upends most of our longstanding assumptions of political action: If we can deliver any sort of benefit but gain no political benefit in turn, nor increase public consciousness of politics and policy, then aren't we all just doomed? Maybe all that remains to us is strenuously attempt to implement as much good government as possible, while we can, not because anyone will reward us for it, but because it helps people and it's the right thing to do...



Unrelatedly, Senator Tom Cotton almost got this amendment to the debt ceiling stopgap passed:


Cotton’s amendment sought to cut off housing, food and medical aid, among other assistance, as of March 31, 2023, for Afghans who were granted parole to quickly enter the United States.

[spmetla]

You pass that bill first, you've lost all leverage to get anything else, and the Biden presidency is effectively over...

It would mean that perhaps the ability to pass legislation without republicans may be over. I know the R leadership are dug in as just opposition but surely there's a handful that could be brought over a few issues.

Not passing either bill and possibly defaulting on our debt will certainly end his presidency and who knows what else for the US as a superpower.


The fundamental problem remains that if Manchinema won't like green eggs and ham in a stone soup, they won't like it in 12 convenient, easy-to-prepare, weekly home-delivered meals. With an omnibus, compromise is as simple as submitting an amendment - the size of a bill doesn't preclude that, as we have seen amply demonstrated over the summer negotiatons. So it's not even that there is no difference - with your strategy literally nothing passes, except maybe the one exact microbill that Sinemanchin would personally author (such as Manchin's just-released version of a voting rights bill, which can't run through reconciliation anyway).

Manchin has been a known issue for months and his lack of clarity as to his demands has led us to this point. Letting him hold up the government with two minute to midnight issues is of course ridiculous but if you need his vote then perhaps you'll have to cave to his whims sooner than later. Which is exactly why I'd want the infrastructure bill passed without it being held hostage.

Perhaps if B3 bill was broken up you could win over a vote or two from the few centrist Republicans by trying to make a few of the issues they agree with separate bills.

Yeah, we'll have to have more nonsense pork in whatever passes but if that keeps the government rolling allows for some progress then so be it.


We don't have 50 years to pass a minimum wage or subsidize community college. Turtledove's lizard race we're not, if that means anything to you.
Those being the only two major things in the B3 plan that I'm against that'd be fine with me.


Now, this discovery is fucking terrifying for the entire broad Left to the extent it is descriptive, and upends most of our longstanding assumptions of political action: If we can deliver any sort of benefit but gain no political benefit in turn, nor increase public consciousness of politics and policy, then aren't we all just doomed? Maybe all that remains to us is strenuously attempt to implement as much good government as possible, while we can, not because anyone will reward us for it, but because it helps people and it's the right thing to do...

The the actual policies of the Left aren't winning people over then perhaps that's not the major issue. I think you and I can agree that the Republican Party as it stands now is not a policy based party but really just a mush of reactionary forces in the US from fear of immigration, to fear of 'socialism', to fear of 'woke culture' and political correctness. Half the country support a yahoo like Trump despite his completely incoherent policies and complete disconnect from one day to the next on what he says or does. A third of the country refuses free vaccines for the stupidest of reasons and that's with looniest on both ends of the political spectrum.
As we've seen the stupid radical elements of the right are more frequently resorting to violence too. Perhaps addressing these ridiculous fears somehow might be worth it.

My dad and my brother are both closet-racists yet both voted for Obama because they wanted 'change' even though both could not describe what that was to them specifically. They both also voted for Trump over Hillary somehow. My dad actually watches the news too, he enjoys Rachel Maddow and the Cuomo Report yet somehow was pro-Trump until about a month into his presidency. Same with one of my coffee milling client, he's a anarchist farmer doing the organic thing and selling weed. Yet he too wanted Trump instead of the establishment candidate that was Hillary or Biden.

There's some deep underlying dissatisfaction with the government and woeful ignorance of how the government works at any level from the county to the federal level. Perhaps trying to hold the corrupt in check and make the current government more functional and accountable to the people that fund it would be worth while.
Discounting this weird undefined dissatisfaction as just idiots to be ignored though is probably needed but they need to at least be soothed in some manner, no clue how.

I think you both have good ideas about what the US needs and the Democrats are for the most part working toward that. Perhaps though we should also figure out what the majority of Americans actually want from their government too as the last twenty years has made it far from clear where we're going as a nation and what that means to the average joe.

[Pannonian]

Manchinema (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinima)


You're going to like what Porter has to say (https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/rep-porter-we-have-to-deliver-the-entirety-of-the-president-s-agenda-122349125630).




We have to eliminate the debt ceiling. Of course, Biden's agenda would already have been enacted in full by now if the will existed to abolish the filibuster to move on the debt ceiling. But like so many elements of our extant system, the debt ceiling is something that could only be imposed by a hostile occupier in another country. No surprise that debt ceiling brinkmanship originated a generation ago with Republican (Gingrich-era) malice.



The fundamental problem remains that if Manchinema won't like green eggs and ham in a stone soup, they won't like it in 12 convenient, easy-to-prepare, weekly home-delivered meals. With an omnibus, compromise is as simple as submitting an amendment - the size of a bill doesn't preclude that, as we have seen amply demonstrated over the summer negotiatons. So it's not even that there is no difference - with your strategy literally nothing passes, except maybe the one exact microbill that Sinemanchin would personally author (such as Manchin's just-released version of a voting rights bill, which can't run through reconciliation anyway).


They are preparing for the Rapture. They believe that, through their obstructionism, they will bring about a state of America that will see the coming of God. In short, they believe in Deus ex Manchinema.

[Montmorency]

Mother of God, this was a bad idea (https://twitter.com/ajentleson/status/1153334905608294402) (c. July 2019):


Wait, Dems are going to clear the decks on government funding and debt ceiling for the remainder of Trump's term, forfeiting all leverage, but set up a major crisis point for Republicans in the first summer of a potential Dem presidents' term? This seems like a very bad idea.
A credible threat of debt default, like in 2011, becomes an all-consuming fight and media narrative. And it can trigger a recession. Republicans could easily mount a credible threat if a Dem wins the WH, consuming a *massive* chunk of capital from the first year of a Dem POTUS.
Republicans don't need to control the White House, House or the Senate to threaten default in 2021. They just need 41+ Senate seats, which they will definitely have. The only way the 7/31/21 deadline is good is if it provides the motivation to nuke the legislative filibuster.



It would mean that perhaps the ability to pass legislation without republicans may be over. I know the R leadership are dug in as just opposition but surely there's a handful that could be brought over a few issues.

If Romney and Collins - or any of the Trump-impeaching Republicans, as Robert Kagan has implausibly implored - wanted to form a limited unity government/popular front against the excesses of Trump and the Republican Party, they would have done it by now. There's no reason to believe they care. Unless you can find taxless pork barrel spending of the sort that benefits their offices directly, while being zero-cost with respect to Democrats' (increased) prospects, which counts for close to nothing of the PRO Act, John Lewis/For the People Acts, BBB, or anything else left on the agenda.

There's no reason, no benefit, to capitulate to Manchinema without testing them, then. Either they compromise, or their bet that the majority will survive through 2022 is correct and there's another year to work them. If they're wrong, and the House and/or Senate falls to Republicans before the midterms (due to deaths among the caucus for example), then they can be made to live with their betrayal - it'll be up to the Republicans to decide if they can push the bipartisan bill to Biden (which he certainly wouldn't veto).

In sum, for 250 Democrats to surrender preemptively to a handful would benefit us and the country awfully little, while costing us everything. See also above on Pelosi regaining the House to deliver a favorable compromise to Republicans (even as Trump was attempting to subvert American foreign policy to undermine his domestic opponents).


I think you both have good ideas about what the US needs and the Democrats are for the most part working toward that. Perhaps though we should also figure out what the majority of Americans actually want from their government too as the last twenty years has made it far from clear where we're going as a nation and what that means to the average joe.

Most of Biden's agenda polls with majority support, 60%, 70%, more...

The point I was making above wrt recent polling and analysis of public perceptions is that many people genuinely lack a causal framework for government. They vaguely want things to get better, include supporting some broad ideas like investing against climate change or raising the minimum wage, but they simultaneously have a status quo bias that reacts negatively toward any perception of change (good or bad), which leaves them unable to associate positive change or benefits that they ostensibly like with specific institutions or political actors. To the extent this is the case, it is almost impossible for government to "succeed," in the sense of producing accomplishments that persuade people to support it and award it, or parties under it, with more power.

The workaround would then be to promote various social reforms that one hopes will broadly increase trust and confidence in government over time without necessarily having them attributed to their proponents - more social trust and confidence in government could only redound in liberals' favor. But, again, we're not lizard aliens living in a stable and secure environment, let alone with full unity on the path forward...



In Manchin news, two days ago a purported secret memorandum between him and Schumer was leaked. Eric Levitz believes it should build our confidence in Manchin's position relative to Sinema's, in that Manchin is an honest fool rather than mendacious like Sinema I guess. Here's the purported document (https://static.politico.com/1e/ef/159cabd547868585f9b1a8f06388/july-28-2021.pdf), and Levitz' analysis.


n this context, Politico’s revelation of a secret agreement between Manchin and Schumer from late July — in which the former called for slashing $2 trillion off Biden’s agenda — actually served as a source of hope. Simply put, the West Virginia senator’s opening bid in negotiations over Build Back Better could be a lot worse.

Manchin’s terms for voting to initiate the budget-reconciliation process in July — the first step for passing Build Back Better — did include a lot of reactionary nonsense. The document suggests that the West Virginia senator’s avowed concerns with inflation and the deficit aren’t cynical. Many observers had assumed otherwise, since the idea that Build Back better could spark runaway inflation makes little sense: The package gradually increases federal spending by just 5 percent over a decade and offsets the bulk of that spending with (deflationary) tax increases. Yet in his memo to Schumer, Manchin suggested that he would only support a new spending bill if the Federal Reserve ended quantitative easing (QE), an expansionary monetary policy. Only an earnest inflation crank would make this sort of demand in a private document. (As it happens, the Fed recently signaled that it may soon end QE.)

Manchin also indicates that he would ideally like the reconciliation bill to reduce the federal deficit. You don’t score any political points by playing a deficit hawk in a memo the public can’t see.

Most disconcertingly, in his demands on “families and health” spending, Manchin says something about “targeted spending caps on existing programs” and “no additional handouts or transfer payments.” It is not clear what, exactly, these words mean. If Manchin were calling for de facto cuts to existing entitlement programs (say, by capping overall Medicaid spending), that would obviously be catastrophic. But the West Virginia senator hasn’t proposed anything like that in public. So it seems likely that these phrases refer mostly to his desire for means testing benefits and pairing them with work requirements, which are his public positions on new social-welfare spending. Those demands are cruel, and they would limit the bill’s impact on child poverty. But they are fairly standard for a Democrat of Manchin’s generation and background. And if progressives maintain a united front, they should be able to limit the damage.

If the document reveals Manchin to be a genuine deficit-phobe and welfare skeptic, it also suggests he’s more comfortable with raising taxes on the wealthy than one might have guessed. Unlike some moderate Democrats in the House, Manchin endorses ending the carried-interest loophole, raising the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent, the top personal-income tax rate to 39.6 percent, the corporate rate to 25 percent, and the corporate domestic minimum tax rate to 15 percent. Those measures, combined with more funding for IRS enforcement and savings from allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices — two reforms Manchin has voiced public support for — would likely generate enough revenue to “pay for” a Build Back Better package worth upward of $2 trillion. What’s more, Manchin endorses “dynamic scoring” in the document, which is to say, cost projections that take the future fiscal benefits of public investments in education and green infrastructure into account. Taken together, this gives progressive negotiators a decent amount to work with.

Of course, Manchin does say in the document, as he has previously stated in public, that he doesn’t want the overall package to cost more than $1.5 trillion and would like any excess revenue generated by his preferred tax increases to go toward deficit reduction. Critically, however, the document doesn’t characterize Manchin’s demands as a best and final offer. Rather, it merely says that “Senator Manchin does not guarantee [my emphasis] that he will vote for the final reconciliation legislation if it exceeds the conditions outlined in this agreement.” Schumer, for his part, scribbled, “I will try to dissuade Joe on much of this” below his signature.

In other words, the document seems to constitute a guarantee that Manchin will vote for a reconciliation package that meets all his criteria, not a promise to vote against one that doesn’t.

Finally, Manchin’s demands on climate look surprisingly benign (for a coal baron, anyway). He doesn’t declare his opposition to a clean energy standard, only asking that it be overseen by his Senate committee. He says he won’t support new subsidies for renewable energy unless fossil fuel subsidies are also maintained, but the current legislation already (unfortunately) maintains such subsidies. He wants carbon capture and storage (CCS) included in the bill, which it already is.

All of which is to say: If this is Manchin’s starting point, a deal that secures a lot of green investment and a significant expansion of the American welfare state seems possible. Which shouldn’t be taken for granted, considering that Democrats boast a single-vote Senate majority that hinges on a guy from one of America’s reddest states.

The big question is whether other moderates will march to Manchin’s drum. From the beginning, a key threat to Biden’s agenda has been divisions within his own party’s right wing. Some moderates, like Manchin, are more averse to increasing the deficit than raising taxes on the rich; others evince the opposite preference. If Sinema, Josh Gottheimer, and other tax-allergic moderates get on board with all of Manchin’s revenue raisers, it will be possible to enact a large portion of Biden’s program without increasing the deficit. As of earlier this week, however, Sinema was reportedly opposed to both new progressive tax increases and allowing Medicare to force down drug prices. If Manchin were just posturing about the deficit, then it would be possible to satisfy the pro-plutocracy Democrats’ demands while still enacting a large spending bill. Manchin’s apparent sincerity about the national debt forecloses that option.

[ReluctantSamurai]

...in that Manchin is an honest fool rather than mendacious like Sinema I guess

I don't buy that for one second. He know's exactly what he's doing which is bowing to his donors (which I pointed out in previous posts), making millions from his coal interests (any wonder why he's dead set on tanking the climate action portions of the Reconciliation Bill?), and keeping the minimum federal wage increases as low a possible (he has widespead food service interests in WVa). He's a sneaky snake, talking about fiscal responsibility (where the hell were you Joe when Trump's tax cuts added to the deficit?), while raking in millions on dirty coal:

https://tyt.com/stories/4vZLCHuQrYE4uKagy0oyMA/2bUPGFk5gVC4rAZQw5Hkno


Manchin has a vested and longstanding interest in the coal industry as a senator from West Virginia. The state is second in the nation in coal production and coal is part of its identity. Between 2011, the year covered by his first Senate disclosure filing, and 2020, Manchin raked in a total of $5,211,154 in dividend income from Enersystems, a coal and energy resource company he founded in 1988, before entering the public sector, according to annual financial disclosures. The senator earned $491,949 in dividends last year alone, as journalist Alex Kotch reported (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/joe-manchin-big-oil-democratic-senator) this summer.


Enersystems represents a staggering 71 percent of Manchin’s investment income, according to FinePrint (https://www.fineprintdata.com/post/manchin-enersystems). It accounts for 30 percent of his net worth. His stake in the company is worth as much as $5 million. Manchin, in other words, has a vested interest in creating policies to keep coal profitable.


Earlier this year, Unearthed, Greenpeace U.K.’s investigative unit, obtained video of now-former Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy discussing 11 senators he called crucial to Exxon’s interests, referring to Manchin in particular as “the kingmaker.” McCoy bragged (https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation) about speaking with Manchin’s office on a weekly basis.

Then there's this:

https://thejourneyman.substack.com/p/why-joe-manchin-blackballed-neera


When Tanden decided to call out Joe Manchin’s daughter for yet another example of corporate greed, little could she have known that while Joe Manchin can rationalize confirming Bret Kavanaugh, an accused sexual predator (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-manchin-blasted-by-both-dems-and-gop-after-kavanaugh-vote/), and Jeff Sessions, a renowned racist (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/manchin-explains-why-he-walked-alone-on-sessions-vote-in-senate-2017-02-09), her mean tweets about his daughter are where he draws the line.

Now there were other legitimate reasons for rejecting Tanden, but that quote is difficult to call coincidence.

And where was "King Manchin" when this happened?

https://inthesetimes.com/article/west-virginia-united-steelworkers-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-manchin-democrats


In a statement, Joe Manchin said, ​“For months, I have engaged in conversations with Viatris, Monongalia County, the Morgantown Area Partnership, and local and state leaders to find a solution that protects every single job.” (Since the plant’s 1,500 jobs are set to be eliminated in a week, any conversations he had were apparently fruitless.)

Lots of blah-blah-blah, but no action:


Joe Manchin, he says, gave the union members ​“two minutes of his time” several months ago, and has not done anything meaningful on their behalf.

Ya think a $30 million 'golden parachute' for his beloved daughter had anything to do with his lack of action?

The man spouts nothing but BS, as in this quote:


“Wherever there is one job on the verge of being lost, I will fight to save it. Wherever there is one company looking to grow in West Virginia, I will fight to make that growth a reality.”

Yep, how do you think the fine citzens of WVa feel about seeing their jobs headed overseas? Sorry, "The King Maker" is nothing but a corrupt, money-grubbing politician that is using his office to increase his own personal wealth at the expense of the American public.

Sinema is a different animal...a chameleon. She got elected by running as a "progressive", but has quickly changed her tune (or maybe it was her plan all along) and is now one of the main fronts for BigPharma having accepted close to $1 million in campaign donations from pharmaceuticals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ljgTvvmq4

Compare the "progressive" rhetoric in that interview with the crap she espouses today. LIAR.


Most of Biden's agenda polls with majority support, 60%, 70%, more

It's nearly 80% in Manchin's home state of WVa, and that polling includes nearly 60% of Republicans across the states.


Not passing either bill and possibly defaulting on our debt will certainly end his presidency and who knows what else for the US as a superpower.

Methinks you are getting caught up in the political rhetoric...:shrug: Republicans are fully aware of what a debt default means, and so does Big Business. It ain't gonna happen in the end, but the GOP wants to milk the fear of debt default to pressure the Democrats into concessions.

We've neglected our infrastructure for decades. What's a few more days or weeks to hammer out negotiations on the Reconciliation Bill. Progressives know full well that as distasteful as certain items in the Bi-partisan bill are, swallowing them without fighting for the $3.5 trillion package, is a serious dereliction of duty, so-to-speak. There will be an infrastructure bill passed...eventually, but surrendering to the conservatives on this issue virtually insures a completely GOP-controlled government by 2024, and then if you have any notions of living in a democracy, best find another country...:creep:

[Montmorency]

One way or another, he's going to be forced to make a public commitment. In principle, there's nothing to his personal profit, or the coal industry's prospects, that requires revenue for deficit reduction, a $1.5 trillion topline target, or vehicle and fuel tax credits for hydrogen technology (:sneaky:). If Manchin really will accept the tax increases listed in the memo, he ought to be counted on to vote for some form of BBB. If Sinema really won't accept any such tax increases (nor Medicare price controls), nothing of BBB will ever pass.

We get to find out what the truth is, how exciting!

[ReluctantSamurai]

a $1.5 trillion topline target

This is the part that infuriates progressives. Both Manchin and Sinema voted to proceed on the $3.5 trillion Reconciliation package (at least on the overall amount), in return for bringing the two bills along separately. Now the two want to pretend they never voted as such, approve the bi-partisan bill, and renegotiate the Reconciliation package. And we all know that means that package is DOA.


We get to find out what the truth is...

I think that's already obvious...:inquisitive:

[Montmorency]

I think that's already obvious...:inquisitive:

If the leaked memo is legit - in the sense of it being an authentic document - then the big question is why wouldn't Manchin mean what he was saying, while he was saying it not to the public but to his own Senate Majority leader alone? Now, it's possible that Manchin is going the full evil and has just being trying to maximally screw with Congress for months by misrepresenting himself to his own colleagues in private, but there's at least as good a case that this is just what Manchin believes.

People can have different opinions than you, even if those opinions suck. You know that perfectly well from life experience.

We'll get to find out, because if Manchin is lying about his position then he will dodge when BBB is modified for his benefit to scrap it anyway. So the puzzle will be solved in the end.


As for Sinema, she's been running and governing as a Conservadem for almost her entire political career. Not that I read too much on her before this year, but mea culpa for buying the lazy mainstream narrative that just because she was once a Green supporter she must be secretly progressive. She told us who she was for more than a decade, we should have listened. Not exactly a good look for the (American) Greens in view of the longstanding criticism that they have no ideology other than running spoiler against Democrats.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/sinema-cueing-up-to-go-indy-must-read

Another article on Sinema's perils, that I think hits the nail on a general point, even if I don't agree with everything else he says.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/sinema-menace


That said, I think progressive thinking on money in politics is generally pretty outdated and tends to reverse cause and effect.

In recent cycles, Democratic candidates have had no problem raising money. Indeed, Democrats have had so much money that deep longshot campaigns like Jamie Harrison in South Caroline or Amy McGrath in Kentucky end up showered with cash. Studies show that large-dollar Democratic Party donors are generally to the left of rank-and-file Democratic Party voters and small-dollar donors are even further left. As we saw in the 2020 primary, small-dollar donors love Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Big money loved Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke. The voters loved Joe Biden.

In other words, if Sinema wanted to be a strong progressive ally, she would have plenty of cash for her reelection campaign. I don’t anticipate Mark Kelly will struggle to raise money, for example.

Sinema isn’t blocking popular progressive ideas because she’s getting corporate money; she’s getting corporate money because she’s blocking popular progressive ideas, and businesses want their key ally to succeed and prosper.

Sinema should be ejected from the Democratic Party, not because she's putatively driven by corruption, but because she's a narcissistic climber with a bad and dangerous worldview.


But you can imagine a world where Sinema-ism takes over, and Democrats become an upscale suburban party that supports free trade and balanced budgets. A party that doesn’t rock the boat and taxes and spending. Where everybody reads “Lean In” and “White Fragility” and makes sure the company they work at runs DEI seminars. And, where you are constantly losing elections due to the lopsided nature of the Senate map, but even when you do govern, you’re just a kind of technocratic clean-up crew that doesn’t really try to tackle major social problems. I think you got a flash of what that kind of politics might look like in the final couple years of Bill Clinton’s administration, but then in the 21st century, Democrats broke left on economics rather than right.

But nothing is inevitable in life, and I think there is a plausible world in which Sinema is the future. And to people who actually care about addressing things like America’s sky-high child poverty rate, the tragic persistence of medical bankruptcies, and the inadequacy of our provisions for young children and their parents, that’s a real problem.

I am the furthest thing in the world from a DINO hunter, but I really do think that if Sinema persists in this course, it would be worth mounting a strong primary challenge to her.

[ReluctantSamurai]

...but there's at least as good a case that this is just what Manchin believes.

Yep, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I've certainly been vocal about mine. I don't take seriously what any politician says anymore, privately or publicly. I look at what they actually do. You can say Manchin truly believes in what he says, and that he's just that ignorant to trust that bi-partisanship is still viable, and that he's seriously concerned about the national debt. I think his reasons for voting the way he does have been laid quite bare, and if his recent testy reply to a Bloomberg reporter is any indication, he's getting quite uncomfortable with the press looking into his finances. I think his BS (read as corruption) has never been more on display than letting 1400 high-paying jobs leave his own state for Germany, without so much as a whimper, all so his daughter can profit. He's as corrupt as they come...


Sinema isn’t blocking popular progressive ideas because she’s getting corporate money; she’s getting corporate money because she’s blocking popular progressive ideas, and businesses want their key ally to succeed and prosper.

Does it really matter which came first? The result is the same...a dire threat to President Biden's agenda, an agenda that has widespread popular support even among Republican voters.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/01/former-senior-aide-to-kyrsten-sinema-is-now-top-lobbyist-for-jpmorgan-chase-fighting-hikes/


A former senior aide to "centrist" Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., worked until recently as one of the top lobbyists for JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank and a leading opponent of President Biden's proposed corporate tax increases — which Sinema also opposes.

Sinema, a former Green Party member who campaigned on lowering drug prices (https://twitter.com/dailyposter/status/1443282620473921551) and previously called for big corporations and the rich to "pay their fair share," (https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1443645357464883202) has also balked at Democrats' plan to lower prescription drug costs (https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema--then-she-opposed-bill/) and increase taxes (https://www.salon.com/2021/09/28/kyrsten-sinema-holding-fundraiser-with-business-lobby-groups-that-want-to-bidens-agenda/) on the wealthy and large companies, amid a massive lobbying blitz (https://www.salon.com/2021/09/02/former-sen-heidi-heitkamp-now-lobbies-for-tax-loophole-she-called-one-of-the-biggest-scams/) by corporations and industry groups aiming to torpedo the bill.

JPMorgan Chase has spent more than $1.3 million on lobbying on "corporate tax issues" and other matters between the first (https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/fa5b001a-3d27-467f-a5ac-fd8926901df1/print/) and second (https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/c2f08eba-65f8-4d5c-9f0b-6705e452512a/print/) quarter this year, according to its lobbying disclosures.

Another longtime former Sinema aide (https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmgonzales/), Kate Gonzales, earlier this year joined the high-end lobbying firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which brags (https://web.archive.org/web/20210625055617/https:/www.bhfs.com/services/practices/GovernmentRelations) that its "political connections deliver results" and that former Capitol Hill staffers are among its principals. Gonzales is a member of the firm's Energy, Environment, and Resources Strategies Group, where she "provides insight into Democratic priorities," according to the company (https://www.bhfs.com/people/policy/kate-gonzales). "She is highly skilled at developing compelling messaging for moderate Democrats and Republicans," her bio says.

Meanwhile, Sinema's current chief of staff, Meg Joseph, used to be a lobbyist (https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema--then-she-opposed-bill/) at Clark & Weinstock, which has represented Pfizer and other top pharmaceutical companies and trade groups that oppose Biden's proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs.

IMHO, given that Sinema campaigned as a Green Party member, she's blocking progressive policy because she's receiving huge hand-outs from corporations, and not the other way around:


Pharmaceutical companies and medical firms have donated more than $750,000 to Sinema (https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema--then-she-opposed-bill/) during her career, including more than $466,000 (https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/sinema-opposes-drug-pricing-reform-takes-lots-of-money-from-the-pharmaceutical-industry-12026240) since she was elected in 2018. Sinema has also received more than $920,000 (https://www.accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-09-10-Research-on-Sinema-Support-From-Corporate-Reconciliation-Opponents-FINAL.pdf) from companies and industry groups leading the lobbying blitz against Biden's proposal, according to an analysis from the progressive government watchdog group Accountable.US.

Some of the embedded links are very informative.

At least Sinema, unlike Joe Manchin, is out in the open about all of this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kyrsten-sinemas-fuck-off-ring-is-the-new-i-really-dont-care-do-u

[Montmorency]

Again (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-debt-forgiveness-public-service-60-minutes-2021-10-03/)on why we need to cancel federal student debt (https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2021-06-14/federal-student-aid-posts-two-new-quarterly-portfolio-reports-fsa-data-center-and-highlights-recent-changes-public-service-loan-forgiveness-ea-id-general-21-40) ASAP, this time with more relevance for spmetla maybe:

It's long, so buckle up.


Student debt is a crushing burden on millions of Americans. To help, Congress passed a law in 2007, creating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, promising that if you're a public servant - a cop, a teacher, a soldier - and you work for 10 years, your debt will be erased.

But maybe it should be called the unforgiveness program: 98% of those who've applied for relief were told they're ineligible. We focused on the military. According to an April report by the GAO – the government's watchdog agency - of nearly 180,000 active-duty service-members with federal student loans, only 124 individuals have managed to navigate the confusing rules of the program and get their debt wiped clean.

We talked with a group you'd assume could figure it out: JAGs – lawyers who work for the military.

Lesley Stahl: What was your student debt when you went into the service?

Heather Tregle: About $90,000.

Brandon Jones: $108,000.

Carson Sprott: $150,000.

Charles Olson: over $150,000.

Charles Olson – a Marine; Carson Sprott – Air Force; and in the Army: Heather Tregle, Jonathan Hirsch and Brandon Jones. They say the rules laid out in the law seemed clear - they had to be employed in a public service job and repay typically small increments of their loans until they reached 120 payments. And whatever remained of their debt at that point would vanish: no matter how much.

Lesley Stahl: How many of you in your own mind think that you have paid up the 120 months and that you deserve to be forgiven? [ALL RAISE HANDS] All of you.

But all of them were told they're mistaken: they were off by years.

Lesley Stahl: Were any of you derelict in making your payments?

ALL: Never. No. No. Never.

Carson Sprott: As military members, if we fail to pay our debts, we're subject to discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Brandon Jones: And our security clearances are on the line. So all this--

Lesley Stahl: If you don't pay, you lose your security clearance?

Brandon Jones: You can. If you default on your loan, you can lose your security clearance.

They all say they were walked through a bureaucratic maze that tripped them up.

Carson Sprott: Nobody ever explained that some of your loans are coded one way. Some of them are coded the other. And some of those don't qualify.

Major Carson Sprott was told he had 41 extra months of payments after he thought he was done. Turns out under the rules of the program only one type of federal student loan is eligible for relief. His type of loans didn't qualify. But he says that wasn't explained to him by the loan servicing companies contracted by the Department of Education to collect his money.

Carson Sprott: Not until I'd been paying on the loans for two and a half years.

Lesley Stahl: Aren't you angry?

Carson Sprott: I'm a little angry. (LAUGHTER) I'm a little angry. I wrote a dozen letters over my first two years to all my lenders. And I got no response other than assurances that everything was fine.

His loan servicer told him his only recourse was to convert to another type of loan and restart the month count from zero. And his other headache? Under the rules, he had to make small monthly repayments. But his repayments were so small – they didn't cover his interest.

Lesley Stahl: Do you actually owe more now than you did when you started this program?

Carson Sprott: Significantly. My initial loans of $150,000 are now at approximately $215,000.

The way this program is set up, many borrowers don't find out there's a problem for years. Army JAG Lt. Colonel Jonathan Hirsch found out after a decade.

Jonathan Hirsch: I got a letter that said I had zero months accumulated towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Lesley Stahl: No!

Jonathan Hirsch: Zero. And I had been paying for ten years.

He had the right type of loans, but the wrong type of repayment plan - so he had another decade to go!

Jonathan Hirsch: All of my kids are going to college. And so I am taking out parent plus loans to help pay for their college--

Lesley Stahl: Oh, no--

Jonathan Hirsch: --at the same time that I am making payments on my loans.

Lesley Stahl: Heather, you were in Afghanistan for a year?

Heather Tregle: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: So did that year count toward your 120 months?

Heather Tregle: Half of it did.

Army JAG Major Heather Tregle, mother of two, doesn't know why those six months didn't count. She always stayed on top of her loan, even when she was in warzones. Like when she was in Kandahar and noticed her loan servicing company suddenly hiked up her payments.

Heather Tregle: So I spent days, because when you're in Afghanistan, you only can call for 20 minutes at a time--

Lesley Stahl: You're calling from over there?

Heather Tregle: Correct. So you had to use a morale line to call. And it cuts off after 20 minutes. So I would wait on hold and try to speak to them-- and get it all sorted out. And then tell them, "I am calling from Afghanistan. Can you please give me a number that I can just call you back-- that I don't have to wait on hold?" And they couldn't do that--

Here's something else that's maddening: as long as they're in a warzone they're allowed to skip their loan payments. But what's not always explained to them – we discovered - is that that brings their monthly count to a grinding halt. In other words: serving in actual combat can set them back years in getting relief

Seth Frotman: Think about what that means. Think about someone who is serving overseas. Think about how many of their kids' birthday parties they missed, only to be told, "None of that time counts."

Seth Frotman heads an advocacy group called the Student Borrower Protection Center. He says borrowers should have started getting relief through the forgiveness program four years ago – a decade after it started – but over 9 out of 10 military members who have applied for debt relief have been turned down.

Seth Frotman: Well, the first thing a 90%-plus denial rate shows you is this isn't one-off borrower's fault. This isn't just individual people who made mistakes.

Lesley Stahl: Right.

Seth Frotman: This is an entire system who let down our men and women in uniform.

Lesley Stahl: We're talking not just about JAGs. We're talking about military doctors, we're talking about cyber experts.

Seth Frotman: The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was created because the country was desperately worried that student debt was going to stop America's best and brightest from entering critical fields like the military.

But the rules drive them crazy - like making them chase after their commanders for their signature to verify that they're even in the military.

Seth Frotman: This is where the system breaks down. Where service members are told "You're not eligible because we don't think you got the right officer to fill out your form." Or, "You may have found the right officer, but they forgot to date the form."

Lesley Stahl: Oh, come on.

Heather Tregle: They make it more difficult than it needs to be.

Major Tregle thought she did everything right to qualify: She had the right loan, right repayment plan. She can follow the fine print, afterall, her title is chief of complex litigation for the Army's prosecutors. So after nine years of paying, she confidently started filing the necessary paperwork.

Heather Tregle: I should have been about 12 payments away from 120 at that point. And they said that I had only paid 12 qualifying payments.

Lesley Stahl: They're telling you that your nine years of monthly payments amounted to one year.

Heather Tregle: Yes. So I obviously called them and said, "I don't understand. I have been in auto-payment the entire time, so you guys take my payment when it's due and the amount that is due." And the woman looked through my account and she says, "You may have an issue that we know is an issue where the auto-debit takes the payment but one penny short of what is actually due so it doesn't count."

Lesley Stahl: Woah, woah, woah. What?

Heather Tregle: So it's a known problem that through the auto-payment, it's not-- it doesn't take the full amount due. It takes one cent shorter than it should.

Nobody's ever told me if that is in fact what was wrong with those payments. That was just something the servicer said on the phone that day of, "Well, this is a known problem."

Lesley Stahl: If it's known - fix it.

Heather Tregle: Right.

And online, borrowers complain that paying a few pennies over the sum can get payments disqualified too.

Heather Tregle: I submitted my case for a review. And it sat in review for three years. And in the interim, I was paying because you're like, "Okay, well, they're reviewing it. They're doing something." But it-- the review never-- three years later, it was still under review.

It's an obstacle course. We found payments often disappear when the student loan is transferred from one servicing company to another, which happened to Marine Judge Advocate Major Charles Olson. When he applied for relief, his new servicer provided him this endless list of why he wasn't getting credit for over six years' worth of payments.

Charles Olson: All those payments don't count for a variety of different reasons. The payment wasn't on the correct due date. The payment wasn't the correct amount. And the frustrating part is I've sent the payment information via mail, via uploading to prove to them that I've-- I've made the payments, the 120 payments.

Lesley Stahl: On time. The right amount?

[CHARLES NODS AFFIRMATIVE]

He figured out that most of his records just hadn't transferred properly between servicers.

Lesley Stahl: I can't imagine that when you saw that, you didn't run out of your house and start screaming!

Charles Olson: If I wasn't a Marine-- yeah, I would have lost my bearing, ma'am.

He's been arguing and appealing for over a year in vain. Army JAG Major Brandon Jones thinks repeated human errors cost him over three years of payments - his arguing and appealing has also proved futile.

Brandon Jones: It seems like they're just trying to wear us down to the point where we either have to hire an attorney or do something else.

Lesley Stahl: Or give it up and continue to pay--

Brandon Jones: Or just give up. Yep.

Carson Sprott: These are three years of my life in the service of my nation that-- as I counted on them to count for this, they don't. And the reason they don't count, in my opinion, is that I was misled.

Seth Frotman: One of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in is because the student loan companies, who have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars to implement these programs, have cheated borrowers. They have deceived borrowers. They have chosen their bottom line over helping our men and women in uniform.

You see this in the lawsuits that have been filed across the country. You see this in the federal regulators who have taken to task the student loan industry.

Regulators like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which recently concluded that loan "servicers regularly provided inaccurate information", accusing them of deception.

Carson Sprott, whose debt has grown, has left the Air Force, but he got a civilian public service job, so he's still counting months. Jonathan Hirsch, after many appeals, just got his debt wiped clean. Heather Tregle heard earlier this year that hers was too.

Heather Tregle: It was absolutely amazing. I believe I cried. (LAUGH)

This problem didn't start under President Biden, but Seth Frotman says he could fix it immediately.

Seth Frotman: So there is a law that Congress passed as the War in Iraq was raging, as the War in Afghanistan was raging, which said, no member of the military should ever be denied a benefit because of bureaucratic red tape or government bureaucracy.

Lesley Stahl: So there is an actual law that could deal with every one of the glitches the JAGs are talking about?

Seth Frotman: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: And the president, you believe, has the power to put that law in over the law that created this law.

Seth Frotman: He could do it tomorrow.

At the end of this past week, the Department of Education told us that the number of military people whose student debt has been forgiven has inched up to 350. It also said it plans to announce a major overhaul of this program as early as this week.

^^^How is that stuff above not outright fraud exactly?

Of the millions of people who could be eligible for public service debt forgiveness, fifty-five hundred have seen the commitment honored over the past - since the Great Recession in other words.


We are putting special focus here on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), which has recently undergone substantial changes to the application process. Over the years, PSLF has spawned much confusion and frustration. Millions of people are employed in public service, including teachers, firefighters, law enforcement, and some nonprofit workers, yet only about 5,500 borrowers have received PSLF discharges thus far, totaling $453 million.

Taking in the bigger picture of student debt during the pandemic:


As of March 31, 2021, the outstanding federal student loan portfolio is $1.59 trillion, representing 42.9 million unduplicated student aid recipients... As a result of special pandemic flexibilities for student loans, the number of borrowers in repayment status has fallen sharply. Only about 500,000 Direct Loan borrowers were in repayment status as of March 31, 2021, compared to 18.1 million borrowers a year ago, which was just a few days after the CARES Act was passed. Only one percent of all outstanding Direct Loan dollar balances are currently in repayment status, consisting largely of customers who have opted out of the CARES Act payment pause. More than 23 million Direct Loan borrowers with outstanding loans of about $938 billion are now in forbearance status, and more than 99% of these balances are in the special CARES Act


So to recap:

1. Federal student debt is now in the trillions
2. A jubilee is within the federal government's authority (admittedly Republican judges will disagree)
3. Student debt is currently crushing the lives of more than 10% of the country, tens of millions of people, virtually all in their 20s and 30s - the so-called future of the nation.
4. It is an economic drag that keeps billions of dollars out of the consumer economy and out of entrepreneurial investment
5. It literally costs the federal government money to hold this nonperforming debt that will never be repaid, adding to the national debt/deficit

What are our options?

A. Try to nullify at least some of the debt, even a mere (as Biden campaigned on) $10K per borrower
B. Sorry, but comprehensive national reform of the entire education sector is not forthcoming, therefore we must permit the perfect to be the enemy of the good, indefinitely
C. If you have the chance to make people eat as much shit as you please for the price of a few dollars, surely it's a moral hazard not to "add more weight"
D. I believe we should execute the young

Hmmmmm....




Yep, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I've certainly been vocal about mine. I don't take seriously what any politician says anymore, privately or publicly. I look at what they actually do.

That's what I'm saying, that his behavior so far is most consistent with the described worldview. And it remains a striking observation that if Manchin needed money, national democrats could get him $10 million in a week compared to a million in a year from oil, gas, and mining PACs or whatever the figure is. Who paid Manchin to ask for hydrogen fuel tax breaks? Who's paying for his demand the bill contain federal abortion restrictions he's always supported (Hyde Amendment)?

Or as Manchin recently proclaimed (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1443618588280115200): "I’ve never been a liberal in any way, shape or form... and all they need to do is, we have to elect more - I guess for them to get theirs - elect more liberals.”

Or (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1443622277405413378): "I believe in my heart, that what we can do, and what needs we have right now, and what we can afford to do, without basically changing our whole society, to an entitlement mentality."


Does it really matter which came first? The result is the same...a dire threat to President Biden's agenda, an agenda that has widespread popular support even among Republican voters.

It matters because the implications are different between someone whose vote is rented by special interests and someone whose vote is bought by their own principle. In a certain sense you can call that corrupt as well - like, 'a politician who convinces themselves of the need to defend an unjust status quo is inherently corrupt' - but it's not going to be the traditional sense.

I broached the story earlier of multiple House members, many of whom are in light-to-solid blue districts, abruptly changing their positions and demanding unpopular redactions from BBB following special interest lobbying and donations. We can bargain with that. If someone is just scared of inflation or taxes or whatever, or would trust their life to Republicans, or isn't a team player, there's less space for negotiation.

At any rate, if the memo represents Manchin's current asks, it is in fact a good sign for the legislation's prospects (compared to the alternatives).


IMHO, given that Sinema campaigned as a Green Party member, she's blocking progressive policy because she's receiving huge hand-outs from corporations, and not the other way around:

If she's been doing this (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/sinema-cueing-up-to-go-indy-must-read) since the second Bush term (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/opinion/sinema-kyrsten.html), when she was AOC's age, then it's probably just who she is. Was Reagan paid off to "become" a conservative?

To make a point, Seamus, what is the opinion of Sinema held in your circles?


Broadening the question again, if the reconciliation bill comes to a vote, and fails, (ignoring the House) whose vote is more likely to sink the agenda between Manchin and Sinema based on what we've seen of them so far?

[ReluctantSamurai]

And it remains a striking observation that if Manchin needed money, national democrats could get him $10 million in a week compared to a million in a year from oil, gas, and mining PACs or whatever the figure is.

Methinks you are overlooking one key difference between PAC funds and money he makes in the fossil fuel industry: the former---in the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. (in theory, at least); the latter---goes directly into his personal bank account. A significant difference, no?

Mark it on your calendar, Manchin will work to scale back the climate related portions of BBB, he will fight against raising taxes on the rich to help pay for it, and he will want to put some kind of restrictions on the portion allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices (thereby securing a significant reduction in drug costs). The first will be because of his heavy investment in coal, the second is because his second biggest donor group include some of the largest law firms in the country, and the Chamber of Commerce, and the third will be because of his daughters significant role involving Big Pharma.

[NEWS FLASH]

Just saw this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-manchin-says-his-spending-climate-stance-should-be-no-surprise-11633040698


In comments to reporters and a newly disclosed document from the summer, Mr. Manchin called for shrinking Democrats’ education, healthcare and climate package by more than half, to $1.5 trillion. He also laid out his terms for the climate portion of Mr. Biden’s agenda, insisting on preserving fossil fuel subsidies and avoiding penalties for coal, gas and oil; that position amounts to a break with progressives on the substance of the agenda in addition to the price tag.


In the memo, Mr. Manchin said he would support a 25% corporate tax rate, a 28% capital-gains rate and an enhancement of the Internal Revenue Service’s ability to collect taxes owed. House Democrats have proposed raising the corporate rate to 26.5% from 21% and raising the top capital-gains rate to 28.8%, drafting an additional 3% surtax for those with incomes above $5 million.

So my point about Manchin fighting to continue fossil fuel use is correct, it seems (the rhetoric about H2 production is ridiculous, as his proposed funding is for "blue hydrogen" using natural gas, which creates more emissions than it saves). It's the typical BS a fossil fuel addict uses---"What's the hurry? Let's just keep fossil fuels in the energy mix, and slowly phase in cleaner energy". Jeezus, we're not even going to keep the temp rise below 2 degrees C, let alone 1.5...meanwhile half the world is on fire, and the other half is deluged with flooding...:no:

And how about this as a sad commentary about how fucked-up our government is:


Mr. Manchin’s memo also stipulated a number of demands to help the fossil fuel industry. It said that, in his role as chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, he must have full control over crafting the central climate change provisions of the legislation — all but ensuring that those provisions will be far less ambitious and more fossil-fuel friendly than Mr. Biden had hoped.

So someone who has a vested interest in fossil fuels is demanding to oversee all the the provisions of the climate change provisions in the BBB. Jeezus...:shame:

I'm not into figuring out how much of a difference there is between a 25% rate and a 26.5% rate is, nor a 28% rate vs 28.8%, so someone more mathematically inclined can do the math. Suffice to say, I'm correct he'd be against tax rates, but I honestly expected a lower number from him. Yet to see where he weighs in on drug costs....


then it's probably just who she is.

She lied to the people who worked to get her elected, if recent events involving ASU students and others who worked on her campaign. Doesn't make any difference which came first, the money or the greed. It's the result that's important.


Seth Frotman: One of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in is because the student loan companies, who have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars to implement these programs, have cheated borrowers. They have deceived borrowers. They have chosen their bottom line over helping our men and women in uniform.

$70.3 billion. That's the amount of interest the federal government collects on student loans on a yearly basis:

https://slate.com/business/2021/03/student-loan-total-annual-government-payments.html


For a size comparison, $70.3 billion is a little more than one-third what the government took in (https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#7) from capital gains tax receipts in 2019 ($183 billion), or a little less than double what it makes from the federal gas tax ($36 billion). It’s about 3.6 percent the size of the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief effort—probably not enough to take much heat off the economy if payments restart next year.

Too simplistic to say that's the only reason, but it's hard to ignore that $70.3 billion isn't just chump change...:shrug:

[Montmorency]

Methinks you are overlooking one key difference between PAC funds and money he makes in the fossil fuel industry: the former---in the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. (in theory, at least); the latter---goes directly into his personal bank account. A significant difference, no?

The saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" encompasses all forms of bias here. But no one questions, as he has always maintained, that Manchin seeks to defend the coal, gas, and mining industries. That was baked in from the start.



[NEWS FLASH]

Just saw this:

That was in the memo. As the linked article says in the headline, it's no surprise.


And how about this as a sad commentary about how fucked-up our government is:

Don't get me wrong, it's a shame that we are beholden to people like this, whose generational derelictions have cost civilization so many of its opportunities, but they've had a lot of cover from the tens of millions of average Americans eager to believe all the same things about "entitlements" and the power of industry and the evil of big government and so on.


Yet to see where he weighs in on drug costs....

Sinema and a handful of House members are the sticking point here, since IIRC they've already announced total rejection of Medicare price controls. So Manchin doesn't matter too much unless 'double dead' is a thing.

Like so, but I seem to have read of even stronger opposition.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-kamala-harris-kyrsten-sinema-joe-manchin-3f796484455ad3f36aea0da36ac3363a
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/19/kyrsten-sinema-biden-drug-pricing-prescription-plan-512907

I can't access this resource (https://insidehealthpolicy.com/inside-drug-pricing-daily-news/sanders-unsure-where-sinema-stands-govt-drug-price-negotiation), but lol.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said Wednesday (Oct. 6) he isn’t sure where Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) stands on letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, but he has heard she is against it. Lobbyists for government drug price controls say, more than any other lawmaker, they don’t know how big of a barrier Sinema is to drug pricing legislation. Politico recently quoted two background sources as saying she opposes H.R. 3, which takes the most aggressive approach to Medicare price negotiation



$70.3 billion. That's the amount of interest the federal government collects on student loans on a yearly basis:

Too simplistic to say that's the only reason, but it's hard to ignore that $70.3 billion isn't just chump change...

Remember when I said that it costs the government money (https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2016/04/10/federal-student-loans-will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/?sh=6789185262a9) to hold this debt? :sneaky:


Democratic politicians often claim that the federal government makes a profit on student loans. However, the latest release from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the truth of that assertion depends on how you slice the numbers. Using fair-value accounting, which incorporates the big risks that taxpayers take when lending to students, the government is losing money on student loans. And this is no small loss. Over the next ten years, the federal student loan program will come with a $170 billion price tag.

For a more recent source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-u-s-student-loan-program-in-a-deep-hole-one-banker-thinks-so-11619707091):


Mr. Courtney’s calculation was one of several supporting the disclosure in a Journal article last fall that taxpayers could ultimately be on the hook for roughly a third of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio. This could amount to more than $500 billion, exceeding what taxpayers lost on the saving-and-loan crisis 30 years ago.

The assumption that all this student lending would mean growing profits for the federal government and savings for taxpayers has been consistently off the mark.

The federal government extended $1.3 trillion in student loans from 2002 through 2017. On paper, these would earn it a $112 billion in profit.

But student repayment plummeted. In response, the government revised the projected profit down 36%, to $71.5 billion. The revision would have been bigger except for the fall in interest rates that let the U.S. borrow inexpensively to fund loans.

The phenomenon is worsening in recent years. For the fiscal year ended September 2013, the government projected it would earn 20 cents on each dollar of new student loans. For fiscal 2019, it projected it would lose 4 cents on each dollar of new loans, federal records show.

Congress approves the student loan program each year, doing so based on a profit assumption. Then, in subsequent years, it revises those profit estimates based on the repayments that actually arrive.

If repayments come in lower than expectations—as has happened successively in recent years—the Treasury Department fills the gap with cash infusions to the Education Department.

This process takes place outside of the budget review and outside of congressional oversight. Ever-larger cash infusions from the Treasury have been needed.

students who took out federal loans in the 1990s had repaid, on average, 105% of the original balance a decade later, including interest. Since 2006, they had repaid an average of just 73% of their original balance after a decade.

DELEVERAGE THOU FISCAL CONSERVATIVES!!!!!

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh


Edit: Let me be clear, the government will not lose many billions off student loans - because there is no difference between a book loss from unprofitable loans and simply scratching an equivalent liability (as progressives propose); what it amounts to is the same - no money at all - since in principle the government has unlimited dollars to lend out and is not constrained by an inability to recover them. The real loss to the government is in administration, bureaucracy, which probably does take billions, but only a comparative few. Nevertheless, surely conservatives and moderates wouldn't endorse big government tyranny over the citizenry just because it 'only' costs billions.

[Montmorency]

Nois (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/10/14/kyrsten-sinema-poised-to-lose-democratic-primary-in-2024).

25132
25133
25134
25135

Never go up against a Sinema when an election is on the line!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WTelEdb6jk

[Hooahguy]

Ruben Gallego would be a great challenger, I really hope he runs against her. Plus more Latino representation in the Senate never hurt anybody.

[Crandar]

Biden exposed:

https://i.imgur.com/BqtpIAq.png

[Hooahguy]

Saw this coming (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/10/senator-joe-manchin-democratic-party-exit-plan-biden-infrastructure-deal-exclusive/).


In recent days, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has told associates that he is considering leaving the Democratic Party if President Joe Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill do not agree to his demand to cut the size of the social infrastructure bill from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion, according to people who have heard Manchin discuss this. Manchin has said that if this were to happen, he would declare himself an “American Independent.” And he has devised a detailed exit strategy for his departure.

What a whiny little baby. I hope he doesnt for obvious reasons but I really hate how the Senate is 50/50. Even if it was 51/49 it would be better so we wouldnt have to kowtow to Manchin. An obligatory :daisy: Maine for voting for Biden but also reelecting Collins.

Edit: apparently its a bs story (https://twitter.com/elwasson/status/1450886851066220548?s=20) but honestly who knows lol

[ReluctantSamurai]

As far as these upcoming bills are concerned, it doesn't matter all that much which side of the isle he's on. The net result either way will be a gutting of all the climate-change policy, high drug prices will remain in effect, and who knows what else will get removed from BBB...:shrug:

Question...if he switches parties, does he have to return all the PAC money he got from the Democratic Party?

And Uncle Mitch sez he "admires" Joe:


On a visit to Pikeville, in his home state of Kentucky, the minority leader told ABC (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/abc) affiliate WCHS: "I really greatly admire Senator Manchin. "Senator Manchin almost single-handedly is preserving the Senate as we have always known it, which is a body that requires a supermajority to do most things."

If that isn't a tacit acknowledgement from Dr. No that Manchin isn't already doing what the Republicans want, then I don't know what is...

[Crandar]

Wouldn't Manchin leaving the Democratic party be a positive development? Right now, he's sabotaging the most essential proposals, by occupying a seat as a Democratic candidate. I doubt he would prevail in the West Virginia elections as a Republican or independent, because that would require a lot of popularity and clientèle connections. If he quits, then it can be assumed that another Democratic candidate will take his place. Or am I missing something obvious?

[Montmorency]

West Virginia is the first or second most Republican state in the country; Manchin is one of the only Senators remaining in the country who is part of a split-party state delegation.

It was always understood that Manchin would be replaced by a Republican in the next election there. If Manchin refuses to caucus with Democrats, we instantly lose the Senate and no more legislation will be enacted.

[Hooahguy]

Exactly. I loathe Manchin but without him control of the Senate goes back to Mitch who wont pass a single bill. If we had 51 Dems in the Senate that would be a different story but sadly we do not.

[Montmorency]

Exactly. I loathe Manchin but without him control of the Senate goes back to Mitch who wont pass a single bill. If we had 51 Dems in the Senate that would be a different story but sadly we do not.

Reminding you that Manchin is far from the only obstacle, Sinema has reportedly reaffirmed her commitment against any tax increases (i.e. she effectively approves of the Trump-era tax cut that she voted against).

Real bastard people.

I told y'all since October 2020 or so, the only real chance for passing the agenda was 52+ senators.

[Hooahguy]

Oh Im aware, I was just focusing on Manchin for the moment.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I, for one, am sick of discussing Manchin/Sinema et al. Their corruption, and all the others, are well documented at this point. There can be absolutely no doubt why conservative Democrats are voting the way they are.

What I want to know is where the eff is President Biden?? He's worked for over 30 years as a politician to get to where he is---President of The United States. Why is he letting Manchin & Company dictate the narrative? Why is he not aggressively promoting his BBB agenda? Talk was big during the campaign, but where is the rhetoric now? Discussions behind closed doors isn't cutting it. Neither Manchin nor Sinema have budged an inch on what THEY want.

This is what we get for electing a career politician instead of someone with a vision who's willing to fight tooth and nail to see that vision realized. Yes, choices were limited, but if/when the GOP completely reclaims the federal government, there won't be another chance, IMHO, before the end of this decade.

Biden needs to get off his ass and fight aggressively for what he claimed he wanted for this country.

:soapbox:

[Hooahguy]

I mean if you look at his social media and public schedule he has been. Literally just two days ago he was promoting it in Pennsylvania, and then yesterday had a town hall with CNN promoting it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The key word in my statement is "aggressively". When you hear media discussion of BBB, how often is Biden's name mentioned compared to Manchin or Sinema? I'd venture a guess it's not even close...:shrug:

How many times do we need to hear "Manchin doesn't like this, or Sinema doesn't like that"? The mainstream media mostly portrays Manchin & Company as fiscally responsible "moderates" who are just watching out for the bottom line (with a smattering of how corporations are actually dictating their narrative). How about strong messaging like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS8NHHOhY88

WHAT'S IN THE DAMN BILL!?!

And BTW, the CNN town hall showed just how delusional he stubbornly remains---with this statement:


As Biden put it during CNN’s Town Hall on Thursday night, “When you’re president of the United States, you have 50 Democrats — every one is a president. Every single one. So you gotta work things out. It’s all about compromise. Compromise has become a dirty word, but bipartisanship and compromise still has to be possible.”

Still talking about "bi-partisanship"? At this point? Just sad...:shame:

[Hooahguy]

The key word in my statement is "aggressively". When you hear media discussion of BBB, how often is Biden's name mentioned compared to Manchin or Sinema? I'd venture a guess it's not even close...:shrug:

How many times do we need to hear "Manchin doesn't like this, or Sinema doesn't like that"? The mainstream media mostly portrays Manchin & Company as fiscally responsible "moderates" who are just watching out for the bottom line (with a smattering of how corporations are actually dictating their narrative). How about strong messaging like this:


I agree that the media is doing a terrible job. Almost as if they are trying to rile things up because they thrive on chaos. I havent been following most of the developments on purpose- Im terribly burnt out.

[Montmorency]

Biden being more active in media, as hinted above, wouldn't move the needle on low-commitment voters, on uncooperative lawmakers, or, indeed, on the media itself. It would however be useful as part building cohesion among the Democratic base. Over the past decade the Democratic electeds have consistently failed to realize the need to organize the liberal masses into a self-conscious and politically-activated unit. There's more to a society than fundraising solicitations.

In other news, Biden's approval rating is officially in Trump territory.

[Hooahguy]

Looking at the polling (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/), it seems like Afghanistan was the turning point. I guess we know why nobody else wanted to pull the trigger on leaving until now.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Biden being more active in media, as hinted above, wouldn't move the needle on low-commitment voters, on uncooperative lawmakers, or, indeed, on the media itself.

Instead of a lot of blah, blah, blah at a "Biden Town Hall", how about this---take out media time in West Virginia with an ad that puts King Manchin squarely in the crosshairs:

"Did you know that Joe Manchins' proposals to slash the BBB Plan is actually costing West Virginia new jobs by more than half? The Institute for Policy Studies says the Biden version of the plan would create 17,290 new jobs (there), compared to the 7,410 jobs created under Manchin’s plan. Contact Sen. Manchin's office and make your voice be heard. The job you help create might be your own."

Then take out media time in Arizona with an ad something along the lines of this op-ed:


According to a poll (https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/) done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 88% of adults believe that giving the government the authority to negotiate drug prices would dramatically lower the cost of life-saving prescriptions. Your voters like the idea, Senator. You should listen to them.

In 2020, more than 1.35 million Arizona residents had Medicare (https://www.kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/total-medicare-beneficiaries/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22states%22:%7B%22arizona%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D). That’s almost 19% of the state’s population. These are voting adults who can easily sway your next election. Legislation that lowers the cost of their medication is not only in their best interest, but also in yours.

Including this in the budget is fiscally responsible. According to a report (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-12/hr3_complete.pdf) done by the House of Representatives in 2019, this measure is projected to save approximately $500 billion over the next 10 years if included in the budget. Footing the bill for these savings would be the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Don’t worry, they can afford it. Big Pharma rakes in around $1.3 trillion a year. That’s $13 trillion over the next decade—if there isn’t any growth, that is, but there’s always growth. The projected $500 billion bill is less than 1% of that. Big Pharma will be just fine. But with rising prescription costs, if you don’t get this passed in the 2022 budget, 1.3 million Arizonans and even more Americans might not be fine at all.

But what did we get from Joe Biden? This crap: He praised Sinema as “smart as the devil” and said Manchin was “not a bad guy.” Sinema will likely not get re-elected in Arizona in 2024 but she might jump to the Republican Party or take a job as a corporate lobbyist. Dunno whether that qualifies as being smart, but if it makes you a millionaire, I suppose it does. Manchin will likely be personally responsible for hobbling the quest for the US to become carbon neutral by 2050, all for the sake of personal gain. I'd say that makes him one of the worst kinds of individuals there are.

Pathetic...:no:

[Hooahguy]

Except its pretty abundantly clear that dragging Manchin and Sinema, as good as it makes us feel, isnt working.

[ReluctantSamurai]

And why is it that Manchin/Sinema apparently don't budge? Because they both know there aren't any consequences or push-back for what they're doing. Neither of them (or the other corporate Dems hiding behind them) are in any immediate danger of losing their positions as lawmakers, but if I had been working in politics for as long as Biden has, and now I have a moment to make a real impact on the future of this country, I'd make damn sure that those two were made as uncomfortable as possible, instead of kissing their asses. But that's just me.

I'd argue that caving to their every demand isn't working either...:shrug: Instead, we will get a repeat of the response to the 2008 economic crisis---a halfway response that made the whole ordeal last much longer than it had to.

[Hooahguy]

If I knew the secret to getting through to them I sure as hell wouldn't be posting about it first on a video game forum lol. But for real, its crap like this which is why I'm 1) exhausted, 2) disengaged, and 3) work in a policy field that's very bipartisan. I wouldn't survive if I had to do the partisan politicking thing for a living.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I agree that the media is doing a terrible job. Almost as if they are trying to rile things up because they thrive on chaos.

Perhaps some evidence to that effect:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-build-back-better-americans-dont-know-opinion-poll/


While congressional Democrats negotiate within their ranks over the "Build Back Better" plan, the public is more likely to have heard about what it would cost than about the specific policies that would be in it. Despite the popularity, in principle, of these program ideas, some of the very popular ones — like expanded Medicare coverage and lowered prescription costs — are among the least heard about.

Perhaps as a result, even though a slight majority approve of it, only about a third of Americans think the plan would help them directly — or help the economy overall, for that matter. That includes only 61% of Democrats, though it's their party's bill. More broadly, this all may be impacting views of Democrats' priorities too: just over a third of the country describes Joe Biden and the Democrats as focused on the issues they care a lot about. Only 10% of Americans describe themselves as knowing a lot of specific things about what's in the Build Back Better plan, and a majority admit to either not knowing specifics or anything at all.

Say what you will about the Republican Party (and these days there's little good to say), you can be damn sure if this was a GOP bill, the entire world would know what's in the bill. An absolutely abysmal job of messaging...:no:

WHAT'S IN THE DAMN BILL!

[Hooahguy]

A surprise (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/) to nobody:


Rolling Stone separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”
...
Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Its beyond me how those congresspeople haven't been tossed on their asses yet.

[Montmorency]

Once more the polls have proved precise, validating the rising expectations of the past month. Democrats recaptured the entire Virginia government last cycle under Trump, but now they are suffering their worst setback in at least the past decade, losing the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races (no benefit of vote splitting either). The state legislature too appears poised to flip along a number of close contests.

Everything is looking deec in New York however; too early to comment on the statewide ballot measures/constitutional amendments.

Minneapolis is rejecting the proposal to reform/rebrand the police department into a public safety agency though (but yes to rent control and empowering the mayor at the expense of the city council).

[Hooahguy]

Once more the polls have proved precise, validating the rising expectations of the past month. Democrats recaptured the entire Virginia government last cycle under Trump, but now they are suffering their worst setback in at least the past decade, losing the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races (no benefit of vote splitting either). The state legislature too appears poised to flip along a number of close contests.
Tough losses in Virginia with bad portents for 2022. At least the state senate is remaining Dem to prevent the worst of GOP impulses. I find the excuse that "oh Dems havent done anything" to be weak, as Virginia Dems have passed voting rights expansion, weed legalization, Medicaid expansion, abortion rights, gun control, universal pre-k, criminal justice reform, and abolished the death penalty. Some of these things were even signed into law by McAuliffe himself in his previous term as governor. So its frustrating that voters didnt care about any of that. My gut feeling is that the culture war stuff like CRT is working for the GOP since fence-sitters scare easy. Or perhaps the media is doing their heavy lifting by falling for obvious dupes, such as this guy who claimed to the NYT (https://twitter.com/KatzOnEarth/status/1455025703838158865?s=20) to be a Biden voter who is now voting for Youngkin but actually had been a longtime GOP donor and had written articles about CRT before the 2020 election. And the NYT reporter did no research into the guy, only changing it after getting ridiculed online. So much for the libruhl meedia. Also the media blasted McAuliffe for a gaff about teachers schooling, and seemingly ignored the number of racist dogwhistles Youngkin was putting out.

Anyways, the GOP is very motivated and Dems are seemingly incapable of countering the culture war narrative, so unless something changes massively in the next year I expect full GOP control of both chambers of Congress. To counter CRT panic I think Dems need to stop talking about American history in such a negative light, and as Ben Rhodes (https://twitter.com/brhodes/status/1455731644141228037?s=20) puts it, "progressive change as a validation of American history and not a repudiation of it." The activists wont like it though so I dont know how this would go down. But one things for sure, clamoring to take down statues of the founding fathers dont go over well for most people.


Everything is looking deec in New York however; too early to comment on the statewide ballot measures/constitutional amendments.

Minneapolis is rejecting the proposal to reform/rebrand the police department into a public safety agency though (but yes to rent control and empowering the mayor at the expense of the city council).
I think this is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of activists, but voters simply do not want to defund the police. I think activists need to recognize that due to rising crime rates people dont want to defund the police. Time to find another, better slogan. I mean India Walton got beaten by a write-in candidate in Buffalo, even after getting endorsed by people like Schumer and Gillibrand.

[Montmorency]

To my mind, the likeliest explanation is that Biden's approval rating has been tanking since the beginning of August, and reached firm Trump territory a month ago (also when McAuliffe's numbers really began sliding). This slump owes to the resurgent Covid wave and linked global economic upheaval, amplified in part by media coverage of the Afghanistan pullout. Democrats lost the most ground in Northern Virginia, the suburbanized region with close sociopolitical ties to Washington DC, the same area whose shifting politics had powered the Democratic restoration in the state over the past decade.

For what it's worth, these were close defeats that probably won't interrupt the state's general trend for long. The Republicans retook the House of Delegates 52-48 (seats, not vote %), and won the executives with less than 51% of the vote each.

See also (https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1455701917930250241):

https://i.imgur.com/5NDEAb1.jpg


Ultra-long (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/11/the-thermostat-is-a-harsh-mistress) account of the Virginia elections found here:


Notes on the State of Northern Virginia: Or How the Multicultural Bourgeoisie Ushered in the Coming Herrenvolk

My canvassing partner that has knocked on probably 2000 doors between this year and 2016 after working on Saturday and Sunday canvassing basically the same area that I did, refused to canvass today that was how bad it was. Young Kim (alias he okayed) who is an Asian American said it was hopeless with these voters. He is the one usually talking me off the ledge. He talked about how everyone he sees he hates after the conversations he had this weekend and how they went out and voted today.

This is a combination of two posts I wrote starting around 7:30 pm Election night. I cross posted it on the other VA thread, not even realizing this one had started.

I canvassed Fairfax County over the weekend and today. My anecdotal evidence was that Terry had lost as of 6 pm. If people want to know what I think were problems, I would be happy to share, but I don’t want to get downvotes like when I stated Warren was DOA in November of 2019. I talk to actual Democratic voters, leaners, and independents. LGM doesn’t really understand actual voters in GE and primaries. I am really burned out at the moment, but can share some of my experiences if people are really interested.

I am still hoping I am wrong, but it doesn’t look good from my perspective. VB is bad, NoVA didn’t vote in the numbers and the percentages to make up for the rest of the state. I don’t think Hampton, Newports News and Richmond area can make up for it.

Ok a little about me if it helps. Feel free to skip over this section if it is TMI. I will bold the beginning of the section on canvassing.

I grew up in the Midwest until my teenage years, and I have lived in various parts of VA since, except for a few months at a time in other parts of the country. The first time I canvassed was for Bobby Scott when he ran against Herb Bateman in the Va 1st District House race of 1986. I canvassed a little until the 1992 Clinton campaign when I canvassed hard. I got a DNC internship in 1994 and was shipped out to the Midwest. After that clusterfuck, I didn’t canvass again until 2000. I canvassed for Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2012, Clinton in 2016, and a Democratic congressional candidate in 2018. I would have done much more in 2020, but Covid scared me. I also questioned if it would even be beneficial or turn off voters. I try not to have too much responsibility over others in terms of elections, if possible, after 1994. I like being able to canvass 5 days a week or none with it not being a job. I’m a Gen X slacker.

I am a white male Cis, which I have never admitted to in the comments section. I feel like identifying has a limiting effect on what one writes here. People too easily dismiss it as being misogynistic, patriarchal, or heteronormative without trying to understand what is being stated. I try to be empathetic and understanding of most viewpoints, and I can easily be mistaken at times as someone that is arguing with someone, when I am trying to critique their approach in terms of is it effective or not. This is also the first time I have ever been even quasi specific about where I canvass.

In 2016, I had a bad feeling early about Trump. I thought Democrats nationwide and across the country were really complacent about his prospects. I started canvassing early, for me at least, around late summer. It was brutal compared to previous times. I thought Obama 2012 was a bit of a slog, but I could understand it in terms of he was no longer the blank canvas and fresh faced candidate of ‘08. He was a known commodity by that election.

2018 was the first time I think since 1994, I had done much in a midterm. In some ways, it was better than 2016, but in other terms it was worse. There was more belligerence. More implied threats of violence, threats to call the police, get off my property threats.

I canvassed a little bit for Warren in the Fall of 2019. She was not getting any traction. I stopped volunteering thinking it was futile. I went out the Sunday before the VA Primary, hoping her debate performances had turned things around, but she was weaker than she had been in November. I remember being linked to this Buttigieg supporter for most of the afternoon. When I went home that evening, I heard on the radio, that Buttigieg was dropping out. I felt like there was no hope for Warren, and I didn’t want to be that Buttigieg guy on Monday. So I again quit going out and ended up voting for Biden, because Warren had no chance.

I canvassed a little in 2017 and worked the polls that year for the Democrats. Ok this year.

I don’t think Terry ran a very good campaign from ads and media perspective. He wanted to run a national campaign on the economic package the Democrats had assured him would be done by the Fall/Labor Day. I blame Biden for overselling the prospects. Terry reacted too much, and ran on stale stuff like $15 an hour. Not that it is not important, but it is boilerplate stuff that doesn’t have much impact. Most voters that vote in off year elections are well off and it is not on their radar.

I have no idea what message Terry was running on. Covid was important over the summer. He should have run ads that showed how good Virginia’s response to the pandemic was compared to the other southern states. He should have hammered home Youngkin’s anti vaccine stance was what got Texas and Florida in the mess they were in and showed that Youngkin’s lack of action would lead us down the same path of death and economic stagnation. Then he should have pivoted to how Virginia was able to navigate the pandemic much stronger than those states. That being vigilant on Covid was the path to economic recovery.

In terms of the voters I spoke with, the biggest issue was the school boards. Terry was seen as being against parents. He never made a forceful ad that he was concerned about violence and intimidation against other parents and school board members. It was soft and cuddly horseshit. I don’t even know exactly what happened at the Loudon county schools, but the voters seemed to know. It was very bad and the Democrats covered it up. My sense was that there was a sexual assault between two teens that had consensual sex two times previously. For some reason the boy that sexually assaulted the girl was wearing a dress during the incident, but had never identified as a female. Apparently, the crime was not dealt with and the boy was moved to another school where he assaulted two more girls. This was McAuliffe’s and Mark Herring’s, our current state AG and candidate for the office this election, fault in their minds, when this is and was a local issue.

One issue that I don’t think gets mentioned enough in the national media and seemingly never on LGM is that Virginia is basically a conservative state that went Democratic for past 15 years of election cycles due to specific factors. They almost always back the opposite party of the one holding the White House in the Gubernatorial race. The fact that Terry McAuliffe was able to buck that trend in 2013 was more of a fluke as opposed to how strong a candidate he was. In addition, Cuccinelli was a horrible candidate that had a long paper trail of odious beliefs that were not popular. Youngkin was a political cypher that could be whatever you thought he should be, and he was for parents!

I have never bought Ben in RVA’s happy talk about how glorious the political landscape of Virginia currently is or will be. We have a ton of fissures in the Democratic Party, and much of relatively easy wins were due to many Republicans and Independents voting against Trump and the Republican Party that was lead by him. People don’t really understand how damaging the Northam, Fairfax, and Herring imbroglio from a few years back caused lasting damage among the rank and file and different factions. The 2020 election results papered it over. I remember in 2018 being at the Tim Kaine election celebration after they had declared him the winner and thinking 2021 was going to be a shitstorm with Herring and Fairfax duking it out for the Governor’ Mansion. That was before the photos and allegations had hit. I never liked Fairfax due to his anti-unionism. He seemed like a glad handling empty suit when I met him that night. I like Herring. Herring seemed angling for the Governor’s spot ever since he was elected AG eight years ago, but he didn’t seem to have built up enough of a base like Northam. So I assumed Fairfax would beat him out by 5-10 points in the primary. It never happened.

Most of the voters I talked with were tired of being “blackmailed.” They lived in a world that they could vote for the Republican that seemed nice. They wanted to be happy to vote for someone, they were all special snowflakes: Middle Eastern, South Asian, South East Asian, Latino, Caucasian, African American, Straight, Gay, all of them Katie. This is not a sustainable coalition. Another issue is that we need more people that can translate for languages like Tagalog for Filipino voters, Spanish for Latino voters, etc. I don’t why the Democratic campaigns national, state, and local can’t figure this out. Pay them. I would rather spend millions on translators than wasting money on ineffective ads that are more inefficient the more times they run.

As I type this Juanita Tolliver just appeared on MSNBC or wherever my DVR is in terms of when she actually appeared. I remember last week how she talked about how VA had the gold standard for GOTV. “They got this,” she stated or words to that effect. I thought she was wrong at the time about our GOTV operation, but if she is correct we as a nation are royally f’d.

We have to get better at so many things, and these issues are ones that we have been dealing with since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Vendors that give us out of date data. Campaigns that don’t value the work of the volunteers. People don’t get trained properly and then go out and do more harm than help. We need to spend so much more money on the people and quit spending so much money that just has no or extremely limited value on Inside the Beltway status quo commercials that do nothing but feeding the consultants and local media. Why was it so difficult to have a commercial with two good old types, a Harry and Louise type of commercial, where a couple is talking about voting for Youngkin and remembering the last time they voted for a seemingly nice Republican. Then they mention Governor Ultra Sound and his imprisonment on corruption charges. The final line could be “Maybe we should stick with the Democrats.”

Also, I don’t think the Democrats did enough to play up the fact that abortion rights are back up for debate, along with other privacy issues. The fact that Democracy itself is on the table was never mentioned. I don’t know what stops Youngkin along with a Republican state legislature from putting in Republican electors if they need them in 2024. He stated he wanted to audit the 2020 election which is code with I’m ok with the next coup.

Ok these are some samples of voters supposedly inclined to support the Democrats going into the weekend.

I am posting all demographic information to point out that all our problems are not just with white males and females, and not to shame anyone or demo. They were all American legally entitled to vote. It is across the board with our coalition. They don’t know, don’t care, or happy our Democracy is at stake. I may or may not have shaded their ages up or down an age group to protect some anonymity.

Mid 30’s South Asian man: I could go either way. I always vote for the Democrats but I don’t like being blackmailed. I want to be happy.

He hated paying taxes. Thought the Fairfax county schools were taking way too much money. Just incensed they worked in a nice office building. I mentioned my parents were teachers (it was my grandparents but I got flustered or was trying to sell him on seeing them as people). He backtracked about he liked teachers, but administrators were horrible. Hated the ACA. Swore it raised prices for him. He has no idea what it was like pre-2009, because mom and dad were paying for his healthcare. Just a petulant spoiled millennial. Grew up upper middle class outside of Philly. He hated free college and student debt loan forgiveness. I explained that it was only for community college, and currently I didn’t think it was still on the table.

He was a little more amenable about that part, but still adamant that debt forgiveness was evil.

No matter what Loomis and most or many LGM people think, free college and debt forgiveness are not the no-brainer slam dunks they think it is. I had a white lady in her late 60s really go off on me about it as well. That was her only gripe that I had to endure. I have had people bitch about in previous cycles and just out of the blue in normal conversation. I think the proposals are fine, but we may need to rework it and our messaging is horrible on it.

Mid 30s White lesbian woman. I voted for Youngkin. I don’t know why? I usually vote Democrats, but McAuliffe had no plan for anything.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

She was really spacey. Was really excited at first to explain her vote. She looked like the woman who sees starbursts when she throws her baby at Trump, she was so giddy. She may have thought I was a pollster or Republican canvasser. I asked her what plans Youngkin had that excited her. No response. I asked if Youngkin supporting auditing the 2020 election concerned her. She was absolutely positive he would not find any shenanigans or discrepancies, because she had worked elections before. I tried to explain that it was a dog whistle for overturning the votes. She got really pissed and told me she didn’t have time for this. I thanked her for her time and sharing her thoughts.

White guy early 30s: I voted for Princess Blanding. I voted for Trump in 2020, because I hated Biden. I voted for Hillary in 2016.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

I asked him if he would vote for Trump in 2024, and he said no way he just hated Biden. I have no idea if he was for real, which I usually have a good sense about. He was so confused and all over the place ideologically, I suspect this was the real person. He was really upset about the school board issues. He may have known more about it than me to be honest. However, he didn’t really understand that McAuliffe was talking about the threats of violence and intimidation that was taking place at the school board meetings and the anti vaccine part of the problems. I explained to him that canvassing had gotten progressively worse with people answering the door strapped with guns, and implying they would use them if I didn’t get the hell out there. I have also been threatened to leave the entire area if I knew what was good for my well being. These were in 2016 and 2018. This election I didn’t go too far out past the Beltway or outside of Fairfax County. He had no problem with it and thought that was their right. Walking around with a glock strapped to your waist is normal and perfectly acceptable home behavior in his estimation.

Late 20’s Asian woman: I don’t like your aggressive campaign tactics. Get off my property.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

She seemed to have a problem hearing me through my mask, and I honestly had a problem with hearing her as she seemed to be whispering the whole time. She didn’t really seem to want to engage or was very hesitant to talk with me. I wish she had realized she could end the conversation at any time. I asked her what was important to her in the election, if there was an issue or topic that really was important to her. She didn’t understand the question. I tried to talk about overturning the election and the insurrection of 1/6. I phrased it like “having you been paying attention” which was my mistake I will admit as I was getting exasperated trying to make any connection. That was when she expressed her desire for me to leave and I thanked her for her time and left as quickly as possible. I don’t think language was an issue as she spoke impeccable English, better than me. From my experience Asian Americans are the most hesitant to talk with strangers canvassing. We need to work on this. It is not just me, as my usual canvassing buddy has the same problem and he is Asian American as well. He speaks passable Korean so he can get past it with Korean speakers for the most part.

Late 50s or early 60s white guy: We should have gone with someone else. I really like Terry but he is yesterday’s news. I really like term limits. Me: Who did you vote for in the primaries? Him: I didn’t vote. I guess I can’t complain. Me: (Yeah)

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

Probably the best person I met. He was ok with bill negotiations in Congress. Very pro vaccine as he had gotten it in March of 2020 and got the shots asap and recently got the boosters. He agreed with me that McAuliffe should have played to that strength which polled well. He thought Youngkin was another DeSantis and was worried Covid could come back in the state if we didn’t stay on top of it getting everyone vaccinated. Let’s continue to get back to normal which should have been McAuliffe’s campaign slogan.

Late 20’s White male: I was planning on voting. I was seeing where the day took me. Now I am running late for work. I guess I won’t vote. Oops.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

That was my entire conversation with him. As it was well past 6 on Election Day and polls closed at 7 with no way to get to their local precinct by 7pm closing, I called it a day on that high note. These are voters we have to depend on to keep Democracy on life support.





The nationalization of elections was also felt in New Jersey, where the incumbent governor won a close reelection in a traditionally-Democratic state (though his margin will increase by a few points once all votes are counted).

At least progressives won big in Boston (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/02/progressives-break-through-boston/) and some other cities.

I'm waiting for the margins in New York State (the constitutional amendments) to solidify, since of course New York takes an exceptionally-long time to finalize results, but so far we can confirm that the electoral proposals have all been decisively defeated (with 25% turnout rofl), which is annoying, but not harmful as they were more symbolic nice-to-haves than anything. In positive news New York will adopt a constitutional right to clean air and water. Analysis of historical antecedents and how it might be put into action here (https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CLPS-green-amendments-report.pdf).


I think this is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of activists, but voters simply do not want to defund the police. I think activists need to recognize that due to rising crime rates people dont want to defund the police. Time to find another, better slogan. I mean India Walton got beaten by a write-in candidate in Buffalo, even after getting endorsed by people like Schumer and Gillibrand.

Meh, the measure wasn't exactly "defunding", it won 44% of the vote, and Back the Blue initiatives and candidates throughout the country suffered defeats. Don't fight the last battle.

[Hooahguy]

The nationalization of elections was also felt in New Jersey, where the incumbent governor won a close reelection in a traditionally-Democratic state (though his margin will increase by a few points once all votes are counted).
Interestingly enough, we might be having the Orthodox Jewish community to thank (https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1455914242209718274?s=20) for Murphy's reelection.


I'm waiting for the margins in New York State (the constitutional amendments) to solidify, since of course New York takes an exceptionally-long time to finalize results, but so far we can confirm that the electoral proposals have all been decisively defeated (with 25% turnout rofl), which is annoying, but not harmful as they were more symbolic nice-to-haves than anything. In positive news New York will adopt a constitutional right to clean air and water. Analysis of historical antecedents and how it might be put into action here

I know very little about the NY state ballot initiatives, but any insight as to why the voting reform stuff failed?


Meh, the measure wasn't exactly "defunding", it won 44% of the vote, and Back the Blue initiatives and candidates throughout the country suffered defeats. Don't fight the last battle.
I was framing it more against the idea/slogan than against that specific measure. My point being that its an unnecessary albatross.

[Montmorency]

I can't say, though the word is that there was heavy Republican advertising against Proposals 1, 3/4, and comparatively-little Dem advertising in support (though numerous politicians, such as Chuck Schumer, did formally endorse).

Proposals 2/5 (2 is the environmentalist amendment) got little attention from either party it seems.

More directly, part of the story has to be that turnout in NYC was lower than in the rest of the state, though this is the norm (NYC has at least 40% of the registered voters of the state, but only a third of the votes processed are from NYC so far). In the end the proposals didn't even get a majority in NYC though.


Edit: Interesting Virginia exit polling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2021/exit-polls-virginia-governor/#h-Y5IF6NZDJZFT3PK2ZNXGJRNMMQ

McAuliffe improved on minority voters from Biden, but went 38-61 with White voters, compared to 45-53 in 2020. This is actually a decline with non-college Whites, as college White margins were conserved from 2020, whereas NCW went from 38-62 to 24-76 Dem.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Dems are up against a classic persuasion problem, and Social Judgement Theory says they have not done enough to prepare the ground. link (https://socialjudgementlikelihood.weebly.com/social-judgement-theory.html)

Scrapping the police is outside the non-committal zone for many and in the rejection zone. "Defund the police," as a slogan, is catchy but damning to shifting thinking on the issue.

I think the Dems face this problem en masse. Did Trump shift people to the left as a backlash -- a fair number. Did he completely change the political map among the 'purples' -- no. The Dems are pitching their efforts too far towards the rejection zone and too far out of the acceptance zone for many of the more middle-of-the-road. Add in Biden's apparent ineffectualness in corralling his own party and it is not a strong recipe for making major changes.

Nor does it help that the Trump wing can actually counter with simplistic 'back-the-blue,' 'no-nanny-state' or 'socialism is evil' slogans and sentiments. These fit on single line bumper stickers and are therefore within the reading abilities of some of the Trump core.

And THEN you can add in the legalized corruption that RS is on about...

[Montmorency]

That frames the problem as one of media representation (https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory). As we've noted here in the past, contrary to that stalwartly-smug stereotype of the "liberal" media, the mainstream outlets have and will always be quick to defer to Republicans while criticizing and misrepresenting Democrats.

For the Democrats' part, few on Capitol Hill have offered any threat to police prerogatives so far, let alone defunding. Fiscally, conservative Democrats like Sen. Sinema and Rep. Gottheimer are to the right of pre-Trump Mitt Romney (https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/10/29/what-exactly-is-mitt-romneys-tax-plan/) and Marco Rubio (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/11/rubio-tax-plan-would-cost-6-8-trillion-over-a-decade-still-less-than-trumps/) on tax rates and carveouts. Meanwhile, strong majorities continue to poll in favor of the original, more generous, legislative package endorsed by the Biden administration, though most do not believe that its provisions would benefit "people like them" - not even most Democrats in some polls! What space for maneuver is there, and how to deliver the People what they putatively want, when the flank of the party is disloyal or venal, the bulk of the electorate is burdened by apathy, confusion, under- and misinformation, and an adversarial clickbait media would rather peddle gobsmacking lies about inflation (https://twitter.com/brikeilarcnn/status/1456227125346832384) than prioritize responsibility and education?

But I suspect the vagaries of media and messaging more often suppress Democrats at ballot than persuade the public as such against them. Take note: According to Virginia exit polling, Democrats gained some ground with Hispanics and Asians, held steady with college-degree Whites (though there may have been some exchange between men and women), and lost double digits with non-college Whites. Virginia Republicans won as much as 3/4 of that demographic. In other words, a mix of declining turnout (McAuliffe lost 750K votes from 2020, to Youngkin's 400K) and vote-switching among this single demographic (at least 1/3 of voters in Virginia) was dispositive.

And it seems the most liberal non-college Whites (https://catalist.us/what-happened-in-wisconsin/), the old labor left of the northern states, are Boomers and Silents; the advance of time will only aggravate this point of weakness, at least until late in the century (and who's projecting to then?).

The reality is that a durable mix of structural factors - both demographic sociopolitics and the thermodynamics of a disengaged electorate, known to characterize American politics since the beginning - can be counted on to produce genuinely-predictable results such as in the late contest.

The more immediate problem - as I mentioned earlier - is the persistence of global economic dislocation. The course of that single issue over the coming year, or else its narrativization, will determine the results of the midterms, within the limits imposed by (unfavorable) structural parameters. It was widely acknowledged by analysts in November 2020 that Democrats would have a hard time holding onto their Congressional majorities, and there's been no ground gained since then. Politically-passive and weakly-aligned citizens just can't be bothered to regard the Republican Party as illegitimate, any more now than before. . Discourse is fuzzy and exciting, but we're executing a boring old maths formula here.

[Montmorency]

I suppose I'll be the first to comment on the news (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/house-votes-infrastructure-build-back-better/index.html).

Yesterday or over the past week, there was apparently a shift in Biden's calculations. From what I understand he made clear to Pelosi that he wanted the bipartisan infrastructure deal passed without delay, and Pelosi whipped the caucus to see the vote through, which they did more or less unanimously. Progressive caucus chair Jayapal expressed confidence in Biden's promise to find enough votes in the Senate for the administration's signature Build Back Better agenda. As you may recall, over the past season the progressive half of the Democratic House majority insisted that the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the larger Build Back Better package be passed in tandem to avert a full reneging on the latter by party conservatives.

Conservatives succeeded in removing disfavored components, and expanding tax breaks for affluent blue state residents, cutting BBB's topline in half from the original $3.5 trillion (itself down from $6 trillion in groundwork negotiations in the spring); it remains unclear if they will all commit to voting up the final product catered to them.

Meanwhile, more serious Democrats continue to release their own proposals, such as Senator Wyden's billionaire tax (though IMO closing the stepped-up basis carveout and instituting a wealth tax would be more effective.)

https://i.imgur.com/RTBtcnE.jpg


Away from the halls of power: "76 percent of meat processors (https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1456668962226380805) have nerve damage in their hands and amputations of fingers or other body parts happen about twice per week in US meat plants, in case you were wondering why they're having trouble getting workers." One of Biden's regulatory actions (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-administration-meatpacking-slow-production-lines_n_60b111b1e4b02a79db8d588f) this year was to retract a rule change in 2020 that would have allowed meat processing management to drive their workers even more recklessly fast. ReluctantSamurai

[Montmorency]

Seriously, what could Democrats do to persuade people?

https://i.imgur.com/xo4j7dn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hwJFV2H.jpg

[spmetla]

Seriously, what could Democrats do to persuade people?

The Democrats would need to divorce themselves from their most unpopular stances as they are losing the 'culture war' not the soundness of policy. Years of Republicans propaganda as well as the actions/statements of a few more extreme 'progressives' have made the the Democrats the party of 'uncontrolled migration' to intentionally change the current demographics as well as the party that is out to 'undermine social values' through LGBTQ rights, 'wokeness,' and by thinking that freedom of religion doesn't just mean christian denominations.
The conservative values of a large part of the country reject the above and those efforts of tolerance as ways to change america into something else. They are reactionary in nature as the change no matter how morally correct is too fast for them to cope with.

Having mottos such as 'defund the police' instead of 'police accountability' doesn't help as that scares away the centrists as well.

Though Dem policies are actually the ones that help the working class the Dems are rejected by so much of the working class because they don't like the perceived values of those 'vile liberals' out to make their sons gender neutral gays that are ashamed of their country.

This article by Jacobin Magazine seems to hit a lot of the key points.
Everyone Hates the Democrats
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/everyone-hates-the-democrats


On this question, the progressive and centrist wings of the party are more divided than ever. Conservative Blue Dog Democrats like Abigail Spanberger blame radical rhetoric for the party’s poor results in Congress: “we need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of it.”

In response, our left-wing leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez contend that the Democrats will fail to mobilize their most enthusiastic voters if big-ticket progressive ideas get dropped from the agenda. They argue that the party’s biggest liability was its unimaginative, uninspiring, and thoroughly orthodox economic conservatism. Joe Biden’s promise that “nothing will fundamentally change” might have won over some moderates disgusted with Trump, but it failed to inspire voters to elect a Democratic majority.


Centrism is a dead end that promises nothing but razor-thin victories, divided government, and an ever-shrinking share of working-class votes. But getting “woke” also means alienating most voters — of all colors — and handing the Republicans easy layup victories at the polls. Still, it will probably take more than a rhetorical adjustment to regain the confidence of working people.

Struggling Americans want jobs, health care, decent schools, safe neighborhoods, and somebody — anybody — in Washington to listen. But why would they listen? Democrats today represent the richest House districts in the country, and Republicans consistently send the wealthiest individuals to Washington. The median income in Congress is 500 percent greater than that of the nation at large — half of our federal legislators are millionaires.

I think the support that Trump got seems to discount the idea though that workers want to necessarily vote for someone that's also a worker but more someone that shares their world view and values. Everyone seems to hate political correctness so Trump saying offensive and stupid things someone won him support. Trump railed against Europeans which so much of the country seems to see as freeloading socialists that are being overun by muslim migration and too weak to stop that and that won him support. His stance on immigration and america first economics are of course the two major issues that brought him support even if his implementation of both were stupid and counter-productive because people liked what he said and blamed the 'deep state' for any failures to get result.

I've told my Republican friends enough that if they were immigration friendly and not so outwardly hostile to poor blacks and hispanics that they'd win those votes right over as most working class hispanics that I know are staunch Catholics and reject the social values of the democrats.

[rory_20_uk]

Double post

[rory_20_uk]

If these issues are less important to individuals than say gun rights or pro life then it doesn't matter. Then add in the electoral college.

Also, what percentage of democrats are truly concerned about these issues rather than themselves.

Oh, the NYT has investigated this. In essence people are happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk
https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

I was referring to conservative Democratic politicians, and I was being ironic; I've made my opinion on Biden's approval rating plain. But I can work with this.

The basic complications for the thrust of this sort of attitude are:

1. It's old and prevalent enough that it reads more as wishcasting than an appraisal of political ecology
2. There are things the Democratic party stands for, and it should not and could not change those things to attempt to appeal to those who hate Democrats most
3. Low-propensity (some of whom are swing) voters are closer to the Democratic party on cultural values
4. If someone can be swayed to fascism by the mere existence of disagreeable viewpoints, their political behavior is seldom going to be sensitive to contrary political messaging from a party with which they happen to associate those viewpoints



The Democrats would need to divorce themselves from their most unpopular stances as they are losing the 'culture war' not the soundness of policy. Years of Republicans propaganda as well as the actions/statements of a few more extreme 'progressives' have made the the Democrats the party of 'uncontrolled migration' to intentionally change the current demographics as well as the party that is out to 'undermine social values' through LGBTQ rights, 'wokeness,' and by thinking that freedom of religion doesn't just mean christian denominations.
The conservative values of a large part of the country reject the above and those efforts of tolerance as ways to change america into something else. They are reactionary in nature as the change no matter how morally correct is too fast for them to cope with.

Having mottos such as 'defund the police' instead of 'police accountability' doesn't help as that scares away the centrists as well.

Though Dem policies are actually the ones that help the working class the Dems are rejected by so much of the working class because they don't like the perceived values of those 'vile liberals' out to make their sons gender neutral gays that are ashamed of their country.

I think the support that Trump got seems to discount the idea though that workers want to necessarily vote for someone that's also a worker but more someone that shares their world view and values. Everyone seems to hate political correctness so Trump saying offensive and stupid things someone won him support. Trump railed against Europeans which so much of the country seems to see as freeloading socialists that are being overun by muslim migration and too weak to stop that and that won him support. His stance on immigration and america first economics are of course the two major issues that brought him support even if his implementation of both were stupid and counter-productive because people liked what he said and blamed the 'deep state' for any failures to get result.

This is of course what movement conservatives believe, to varying degrees - but they're the third of the country who are almost always opposed to liberal politics, and have been since liberalism was invented. Losing the culture war on Christianity and LGBTQ since the Clinton-Bush era is one of the major fonts of rage, but those people are veritably the enemy, not persuadable voters. They have fundamentally-contrary affective and ideological commitments to the majority of the population, and I would condemn them prescriptively as well. Unfortunately, their identity is still so normatively established that they are never - unlike Democrats - expected to obsess over reaching across the aisle. There is little evidence that if Democrats simply assimilated to Republicanism they would win more votes - it's been tried before to limited effect - but at any rate it is no more to be countenanced within the Democratic base than for Ted Cruz to find it in himself to don a pussy hat and demand justice for defrauded refugees.

To be sure, there are many competing movements within the Democratic coalition, and not all of them can get what they want. On some "culture war" issues Republicans do have an advantage rooted in asymmetric activation, such as with guns and immigration. That is, the proportion on the right who consider those top issues is clearly larger than that on the left, regardless of the putative popularity of any given liberal policy, so moving left on policy in those domains wouldn't be electorally-advantageous; either success or mere formal espousal would invite more counter-mobilization than mobilization. But the observation only implies reinforcing the status quo on particular issues, while investing in organization and activation elsewhere. On guns, Americans will have to just accept rising levels of societal brutalization and violence, but in marginal, material, terms the cost of thousands of extra deaths and tens of thousands of injuries compared to a reachable alternative is not intolerable in the face of competing priorities. Vaccinating all Republicans alone would probably be as salutary to the country as a moratorium on new gun manufacturing (though it seems neither is remotely achievable...)*. Similarly, while the current immigration regime is deplorable, even the Obama-era status quo would still maintain many of the latent benefits. When I say "benefits" I refer more to what this country as such can extract than with regard to the interests of the general population of people looking to come to America for whatever reason; still, a more active executive than we've had could readily erode the most egregious features of the system for the duration of their tenure (such as working to reduce wait times, detentions, and abuse).

*Now of course there's not so much a gun problem per se in this country, it's bound up... But it's become evident that you can't get after right-wing extremism through guns; it will have to be the other way around. (https://www.thebulwark.com/prepare-for-the-shock-troops/)

But when it comes to the basic societal status of women and non-whites and workers, that much constitutes an existential and civilizational conflict that brooks no capitulation from either side, and it would be insulting to recommend as much. Substance aside, the only reason liberals have any optimism is, again, we've been winning the argument consistently at the most basic level. Even the Republican bench of politicians is facially more diverse than the Democratic party's was during the Reagan era! The greatest failure of the American general public would be in failing to care enough to vehemently resist Republican counterrevolution, not in approving it in principle.

In my opinion, the bigger picture here is that actual Democratic policies and ideas are popular, Republican ones are not, but the Republicans are longtime experts in generating moral panics (viz. the deficit, Communism, political correctness, etc.) to attach a negative perception to Democrats. The very existence of people who think police are not to be trusted, or that abortion is a human right, is risible as a point of contention in a supposedly-free country when these are given short shrift on one political end, while on the other side it is mainstream for fascists in high office to openly advocate the elimination of the listed and their like.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053895408/paul-gosar-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-anime-twitter-video-backlash

Shouldn't Democrats contest lies and slanders and perversities rather running to embrace them, if they intend to viably represent a political movement? I'm not saying one has to share something like this whenever Republicans are mentioned, but come the hell on.

https://i.imgur.com/yGlAd48.jpg


Here is Senator Mitch McConnell's wife - previously a corrupt and unqualified Secretarial sinecure in the Bush and Trump Cabinets - spouting unvarnished Bolshevik propaganda that has become the Republican party line. Is the media or any coordinated Democratic effort going to make hay out of this 'gaffe' or use it to undermine the image of the Republicans? Will she be denounced as an un-American freak in the public discourse? No, it's not even news.
https://twitter.com/EveAsks/status/1457770645429702656 [SHORT VIDEO]

Will radical Marjorie Taylor Greene be excoriated as a race-baiter or communist for praising Black radical Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, treatment Obama received despite his profound lack of connection to these very longtime bogeymen of the conservative movement?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/09/gop-ted-cruz-marjorie-taylor-greene-rhetoric-reality-check-newday-avlon-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/ [VIDEO]

Yet in Virginia, McAuliffe's much less extreme opinion that parents should have limited input on school operations was made into a campaign meme - noteworthy regardless of whether or not that line of attack was enough to open the Republican's winning margin.


(For an example of what comes with parental input in education:)


Spotsylvania School Board orders libraries to remove 'sexually explicit' books (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html)

The Spotsylvania County School Board has directed staff to begin removing books that contain “sexually explicit” material from library shelves and report on the number of books that have been removed at a special called meeting next week.

The directive came after a parent raised concerns at the School Board’s meeting Monday about books available through the Riverbend High School’s digital library app.

The board also requested a report next week on the process by which books are selected for inclusion in digital and hard copy library collections at the different school levels and indicated that it will consider a division-wide library audit.

The criteria for pulling books from circulation this week is “sexually explicit,” but the board plans to refine how material is determined to be “objectionable” for a further review of library holdings.

The board voted 6–0 to order the removal. Berkeley District representative Erin Grampp was not in attendance for the vote on that issue.

Two board members, Courtland representative Rabih Abuismail and Livingston representative Kirk Twigg, said they would like to see the removed books burned.

“I think we should throw those books in a fire,” Abuismail said, and Twigg said he wants to “see the books before we burn them so we can identify within our community that we are eradicating this bad stuff.”



It's more likely the room for improvement for Democrats lies in lack of action or weak action, than in excessive action or a lack of censoriousness. When does it stop making sense to demean Democrats for Republican excesses? When does strategy distill from personal preference?

During the summer, as I linked a few posts earlier, the Republican operative Chris Rufo announced across major media that he would attempt to condition the phrase "critical race theory" with association to all discourse on race, in order to manufacture stigma against what used to be bipartisan consensus ideas even a generation ago (shades of "public schools and Social Security are socialism"). To the extent one believes some shameful subset of people would digest this premeditated formula, how would it be either moral or effective to respond by, having accepted the opposition's terms, pivoting to rhetoric against racial inclusivity as an unacceptable attack on White safe spaces? I just don't see how anyone could argue, after all we've seen over the past 15 years, that perpetually cringing, crouching, and caving to far-right ravings would win Democrats more votes than going on the offense. It would be one thing if the electorate were the same as in the 1950s, but it's not. Maybe most Whites still don't really want their children attending mixed schools, but even so they tend to accept that discussing the role of slavery or Jim Crow in our history does not constitute lese majeste against Whiteness. Helping the Republicans by agreeing with them that it does would be destructive at every level.


This article by Jacobin Magazine seems to hit a lot of the key points.
Everyone Hates the Democrats
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/everyone-hates-the-democrats

As a mere example of the basic flaws in these sorts of criticisms of Democrats, the Jacobin set are demonstrably hated by a much larger proportion of the population than the Democratic Party is - so where's the beef? In extreme cases I've seen it rise to the level of self-delusion, a contention that if some voters will reject a $15 minimum wage if it comes packaged with feminist ideas such as non-discrimination, they would, for example, welcome a nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy so long as you "don't mention the war." Any exemplary voter with such a high level of sensitivity and commitment to social reaction will never support leftist politics, which at that grade are inherently socially progressive. They wouldn't vote for a Jacobin socialist even if he went so far as to regress to heartfelt 1920s values and call for the expulsion of women and Blacks from labor unions! They would easily vote for someone with the same views who better understands that we ought to be grateful for what the "successful" and the "job creators" have to bestow on us. It's just incoherent.

As close as I am to the Jacobin left ideologically, many of them have often shown themselves to be more concerned with in-group self-satisfaction than with thinking about how to build power. That type is sprt pf the mirror image of centrist neoliberals in a way, ironically, but much less accomplished in the real world.

On the other hand, this recent Jacobin-sponsored public survey (https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/common-sense-solidarity-working-class-voting-report) seems like a serious attempt to analyze electoral challenges. Despite it emphasizing some of the obstacles we've already known about, it may not tell conservatives what they want to hear either. (I'm not clear on how they operationalized "woke" though.)


Working-class voters prefer progressive candidates who focus primarily on bread-and-butter economic issues, and who frame those issues in universal terms. This is especially true outside deep-blue parts of the country. Candidates who prioritized bread-and-butter issues (jobs, health care, the economy), and presented them in plainspoken, universalist rhetoric, performed significantly better than those who had other priorities or used other language. This general pattern was even more dramatic in rural and small-town areas, where Democrats have struggled in recent years.

Populist, class-based progressive campaign messaging appeals to working-class voters at least as well as mainstream Democratic messaging. Candidates who named elites as a major cause of America’s problems, invoked anger at the status quo, and celebrated the working class were well received among working-class voters — even when tested against more moderate strains of Democratic rhetoric.

Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but certain identity-focused rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progressive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.

Working-class voters prefer working-class candidates. A candidate’s race or gender is not a liability among potentially Democratic working-class voters. However, a candidate’s upper-class background is a major liability. Class background matters.

Working-class nonvoters are not automatic progressives. We find little evidence that low-propensity voters fail to vote because they don’t see sufficiently progressive views reflected in the political platforms of mainstream candidates.

Blue-collar workers are especially sensitive to candidate messaging — and respond even more acutely to the differences between populist and “woke” language. Primarily manual blue-collar workers, in comparison with primarily white-collar workers, were even more drawn to candidates who stressed bread-and-butter issues, and who avoided activist rhetoric.

Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but certain identity-focused rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progressive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.
[...]
1. Respondents from all racial groups were equally or more favorable toward female and minority candidates than white candidates.
2. Respondents from all racial groups were strongly supportive of progressive civil rights and health care positions, but whites were less supportive than other racial groups.
3. Woke candidates were viewed less favorably than other candidates bywhites, but not by respondents of color.

I don't think it would be an insurmountable difficulty to say the same things and advocate the same ideas with polls-tested framing and wording. As I said, the more persistent issue, outside the scope of this report, is the long-term derogatory image that has been attached to the Democratic Party by long Republican and media activism; if you can't reestablish trust in the first place, what you say almost doesn't even matter. If you want better healthcare or more job security and I promise to deliver that, but you as a political subject have no confidence in the political class, in my party, or in government itself to effect solutions, you'll never take me seriously. Messaging is a hard row to hoe, but IMO Democratic politicians outside blue jurisdictions ought to try directly confronting these negative perceptions in an attempt to dispel them.

"I hear my Republican colleagues have been telling you the Democraps are the do-nothing party of manhaters and race baiters. Now let me tell ya..."

A Monty Python skit could be fashioned out of everything liberals have gotten to the common folk of the country, or everything the conservatives have taken.

Despite Democratic electeds missing their opportunities consistently (1/6 may even have been the last call), I maintain my insistence that they won't gain sufficient momentum until they declare rhetorical war on the Republican Party: They have to stentoriously proclaim that it's not worthy of collegial respect, it's not normal, and it's a threat to our way of life. As much shit as the media gets for amplifying Republican talking points, you can't blame them for not running ahead of Democratic talking points, which are infused with irresponsible fairmindedness towards the monstrous regimen. Yes, it is difficult. Even I would have a hard time establishing the right frame of mind to say what needs to be said if challenged in-person to produce the prescribed performance. But that's the whole game on the table there.

Bonus: If someone is of the character to perceive this policy (https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.11/indigenous-affairs-people-places-decolonizing-idahos-road-signs) by the Republican government of Idaho as an attack on their core American identity, they will never, ever, vote for liberalism, and they almost certainly never have. It's basically a premodern worldview. Don't even think about it.

[Montmorency]

If these issues are less important to individuals than say gun rights or pro life then it doesn't matter. Then add in the electoral college.

Also, what percentage of democrats are truly concerned about these issues rather than themselves.

Oh, the NYT has investigated this. In essence people are happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk
https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw

~:smoking:

Property values and school demographics/selection are two areas in which very few on the broad left are willing to part with socioeconomic advantages.

You're right, but no offense, aren't you in the same boat with your constitutional pessimism about the possibility for improvement? The NYT too gets little of my approval for raising this issue given the density of conservative apologia and boosterism that it publishes - including such as what tends to militate against the movements to spread affordable housing and integrated schooling.

[rory_20_uk]

Property values and school demographics/selection are two areas in which very few on the broad left are willing to part with socioeconomic advantages.

You're right, but no offense, aren't you in the same boat with your constitutional pessimism about the possibility for improvement? The NYT too gets little of my approval for raising this issue given the density of conservative apologia and boosterism that it publishes - including such as what tends to militate against the movements to spread affordable housing and integrated schooling.

Prior to this I was ignorantly under the misapprehension that Democrats were mainly hamstrung by the lack of a significant majority to overcome the fillibuster and fix some of the issues. But it in fact appears to be the case that they are quite pleased to not have the ability to do something that they have the luxury of loudly declaiming knowing they'll never have to follow through.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Prior to this I was ignorantly under the misapprehension that Democrats were mainly hamstrung by the lack of a significant majority to overcome the fillibuster and fix some of the issues. But it in fact appears to be the case that they are quite pleased to not have the ability to do something that they have the luxury of loudly declaiming knowing they'll never have to follow through.
~:smoking:

I mean, none of the Biden agenda contains any dramatic measures with regard to racial or gender issues (other than, for example, very modest family leave policy* which is only controversial by the standards of 100 years ago, and is an idea beloved by the very urban/suburban professionals you identify as hypocrites on other issues). Edit: So "they are quite pleased to not have the ability to do something that they have the luxury of loudly declaiming knowing they'll never have to follow through" isn't an accurate takeaway, or not in this regard. (To add, BBB does not AFAICT contain any mandatory or well-incentivized abridgements of common local zoning rules favoring single-family housing (good for property values, bad for density and affordability).

https://i.imgur.com/HVWKRco.png

*I can't recall, but by now it's either out of negotiations entirely or reduced to 4 weeks.


My point is just, most Democrats in DC are at least not like Kyrsten Sinema, who has publicly withdrawn prior stances on taxation and Medicare administration following overt advances by business groups, only to declare:


However (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/17/kyrsten-sinema-strikes-back-522732), she will criticize her party for its complicity in setting unachievable, sky-high expectations, just like the Republicans who promised to repeal Obamacare under former President Donald Trump. A $3.5 trillion social spending bill, sweeping elections reform, a $15 minimum wage and changes to the filibuster rules were always a long shot with Sinema and Manchin as the definitive Democratic votes in the Senate.

“You’re either honest or you’re not honest. So just tell the truth and be honest and deliver that which you can deliver,” Sinema said. “There's this growing trend of people in both political parties who promise things that cannot be delivered, in order to get the short-term political gain. And I believe that it damages the long-term health of our democracy.”

There's talking a big game while foreclosing any followthrough!

[Montmorency]

First-world country. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-29/allegations-lapd-gun-store-case-investigation-claims-corruption)

spmetla


Before it all came crashing down, Archi Duenas’ gun-stealing scheme was relatively simple, county prosecutors wrote in a memo. He just couldn’t go on vacation.

Duenas, manager of the gun store at the Los Angeles Police Academy, had been reprimanded over the years for tardiness and sloppy record keeping, but he never took time off, according to the memo. As the store’s closing supervisor, he was there each night to lock up — and hand count the inventory.

If someone else had been assigned that count, they might have discovered that dozens of guns were missing and that Duenas was stealing them and selling them for cash, prosecutors wrote in the memo. But since he was always there, the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club was apparently none the wiser.

This went on for years, prosecutors wrote, facilitated by a lack of oversight and safety protocols that are considered standard in other gun stores.

Then, in February 2020, Duenas’ bosses told him he had accrued the “maximum allowable leave hours” and had to take time off, prosecutors wrote in the memo. When he did, another manager finally made the startling discovery: Boxes meant to have guns in them were actually empty.

The resulting investigation quickly led to Duenas’ arrest. But it also uncovered a larger scandal inside the LAPD: The clientele for Duenas’ stolen weapons included cops.

There are also dueling claims by some of the accused officers that they have been scapegoated by overzealous investigators despite doing nothing wrong and being victims themselves — not only of Duenas’ deception but also of years of negligence on the part of the LAPD to ensure proper management of the gun store, which it directed officers to use.

That alleged neglect, according to a pending claim against the city from one officer, came despite the fact that the LAPD was aware for years of “prior negligence and mismanagement issues related to the sale, tracking, and documentation of firearms and firearm transactions” by gun store personnel.

The case raises red flags about the LAPD’s oversight of the gun store and its ability to investigate its own officers. It also offers an eye-opening window into the gun culture within the LAPD and the degree to which LAPD officers are allegedly profiting off the sale of firearms — including “off roster” guns that police officers have special access to despite their being declared unsafe for commercial sale in the state.

Investigators alleged LAPD officers, including several who are still on the job, knowingly purchased stolen weapons from Duenas, bought and sold much larger numbers of firearms in questionable ways, and dangerously stored loaded guns in places accessible to children, according to internal police records.

Top commanders, meanwhile, have been accused by the captain who initially oversaw the investigation of purposefully impeding the work of her detectives and assisting those in their crosshairs, including by forcing investigators to interview a high-ranking captain whom they suspected of wrongdoing before they were prepared to do so, and by ushering that same captain into his home — armed and in uniform — while investigators with a warrant were searching it, internal LAPD records show.

“The facts speak for themselves,” wrote Capt. Lillian Carranza, who oversees the LAPD’s commercial crimes division, in an April email to other top officials. “There have been several attempts to shut down this investigation.”

To be fair, while the problem is especially acute in the US, the whole "developed" world (https://www.dw.com/en/ksk-german-special-forces-company-dissolved-due-to-far-right-concerns/a-54386661) will eventually need to come to grips with its relationship with the delegation of unaccountable power and violence to armed state agents. This capacity and the institutions it builds for itself is ultimately the sort of thing referred to in the aphorism that "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" - though oddly enough the sort of people who tend to invoke this phrase apply it almost always to the likes of food-safety regulations rather than the security arm of the state.



We knew last November that Dems would probably lose the House, but by now it's all but confirmed that 2022 will be a 2018-style wave, but against the Democrats. The gerrymandering disparity alone would be decisive once all states complete redistricting - these represent fewer than half of Congressional districts so far. The 2020 gerrymanders are proving to be much more effective than even the unprecedented 2010 gerrymanders. The Democratic commitment to neutral districting in states they have influence over is ironically unilateral disarmament in the absence of a comprehensive constraint. Even as states like Illinois and Maryland pursue more favorable Democratic gerrymanders, most of the gettable seats are left on the table by way of bipartisan power-sharing and non-partisan committees - largely implemented over the past decade. In this regard maybe it's better to stand by good government and rely on negative radicalization of the masses; the battle for the Republic won't be decided by such marginal tactics (as countergerrymandering) anyway.

https://i.imgur.com/x7jz2oG.jpg

Conservative Democrats are not just damn fools for failing to support electoral reform and gerrymandering bans - let alone DC statehood - they are outright Vichy collaborators, to revive a Bush-era epithet.

To sweeten the deal, the abortion marketplace in the United States is about to get quite tight.

[spmetla]

To be fair, while the problem is especially acute in the US, the whole "developed" world will eventually need to come to grips with its relationship with the delegation of unaccountable power and violence to armed state agents. This capacity and the institutions it builds for itself is ultimately the sort of thing referred to in the aphorism that "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" - though oddly enough the sort of people who tend to invoke this phrase apply it almost always to the likes of food-safety regulations rather than the security arm of the state.

Well, the recruits for these positions are typically people that want this type of power. It's always been the dilemma of who's to guard us from the guards? Just like the military, the police need to try and recruit from a wide spectrum of the population that's just restricted by the specific job requirements, certainly one of the benefits to mandatory service/draft.

For the police though, there's certainly room for reform in the US, one of the major things would be not using the police for so many things. If State and County police departments further compartmentalized the roles of police into separate things. Should the police really be in charge of firearms registration and such? I get enforcement and seizures of illegal firearms but surely police are too short handed to something like this. State level firearms departments or ATF of a sort might be better suited.

Think the policy of civil forfeiture in the US would be one of the many aspects that need to be fixed as it pretty much rewards policy overstepping their bounds with no real recourse by citizens.

[Hooahguy]

I think people are finally starting to realize that the media is not exactly unbiased in either way. 2020 made me realize that the media thrives on chaos, and 2021 only reinforced that view.
See this graph:
25261

Article link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/biden-media-coverage-worse-trump-favorable/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social)


In 2020, Trump presided over a worst-in-world pandemic response that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths; held a superspreader event at the White House and got covid-19 himself; praised QAnon adherents; embraced violent white supremacists; waged a racist campaign against Black Lives Matter demonstrators; attempted to discredit mail-in voting; and refused to accept his defeat in a free and fair election, leading eventually to the violence of Jan. 6 and causing tens of millions to accept the “big lie,” the worst of more than 30,000 he told in office.

And yet Trump got press coverage as favorable as, or better than, Biden is getting today. Sure, Biden has had his troubles, with the delta variant, Afghanistan and inflation. But the economy is rebounding impressively, he has signed major legislation, and he has restored some measure of decency, calm and respect for democratic institutions.

We need a skeptical, independent press. But how about being partisans for democracy? The country is in an existential struggle between self-governance and an authoritarian alternative. And we in the news media, collectively, have given equal, if not slightly more favorable, treatment to the authoritarians.

Sentiment analysis ranks coverage from entirely negative (-1.0) to entirely positive (1.0), and most outlets are in a relatively tight band between -0.1 and 0.1. Overall, Biden was slightly positive or neutral for seven months, ranging from 0.02 to -0.01. That plummeted to -0.07 in August — a lower number than Trump hit in all of 2020 (or 2019) — and has been between -0.04 and -0.03 ever since. Trump never left a narrow range of -0.03 to -0.04. (The data set doesn’t go far enough back to make a comparison to Trump’s first year in office.)

Lets also take this little article from Axios: McConnell: No legislative agenda for 2022 midterms
(https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-no-agenda-midterms-91c73112-0a2e-441b-b713-7e8aa2dad6bf.html)
Until the media begins to treat the severity of the current situation, American democracy is doomed. Whether we like it or not, the media helps shape perceptions. Like how many of the "Democratic infighting" stories are actually just stories of different factions arguing over legislation? Which is what should be happening in a health democracy- groups of people debating over policy, seeking for common ground. But its being presented as mortal enemies fighting within a coalition. Meanwhile the GOP has dropped any pretense of governance and seeks power for the sake of power and that's not being handled with the appropriate severity by enough people.

I also agree with Monty, the nonpartisan redistricting panels might look like a good and noble idea on paper, but unless every state has them, they were a terrible idea that shot Dems in the foot. But I guess its a bit late to change any of that, isnt it.

:wall:

[Pannonian]

Are there any areas where Manchin votes with the Democrats against the Republicans?

[Montmorency]

Are there any areas where Manchin votes with the Democrats against the Republicans?

He's voted to accede most of Biden's judicial and administrative nominations, the son of a son. Without him we would have nothing at all, is the reality of life on the legislative edge. And we almost certainly lose his seat in the 2024 election regardless.

But Manchin is a stock character in bourgeois democracy. The fundamental problem is that people can't get the sense to vote better elsewhere, or even in sheer recognition of the collapsing state of the country and the depredations upon it. Also, this excerpt (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/manchin-build-back-better-schumer-december.html) from Levitz on Manchin recently:


Democrats had hoped the enhanced CTC’s impending expiration would work as a forcing mechanism for Build Back Better’s passage. After all, the whole “do many temporary programs” strategy is premised on the idea that Congress simply cannot resist extending social benefits once they’re in place. Faced with a choice between acceding to the leadership’s demands or allowing West Virginia families to lose their monthly benefits, Manchin would feel compelled to cave.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case. On the contrary, Manchin reportedly sees the enhanced CTC’s expiration as a feature, not a bug. And the senator’s indifference to extending the program doesn’t just reflect his own peculiar ideological hang-ups. It’s also indicative of the fact that overwhelming public support for the policy has failed to materialize. Democrats have been sending hundreds of dollars every month to each of the roughly 40 percent of U.S. households that have kids under 18, yet in an NPR/Marist poll released last week, only 17 percent of voters said their family had ever received a monthly payment. Roughly half of the enhanced CTC’s beneficiaries don’t even know they have been benefiting from the program. But Democrats are counting on this constituency to be so politically powerful and mobilized that a future Republican Congress would have no choice but to extend the enhanced CTC. If direct monthly payments have failed to create a self-sustaining constituency, there is little basis for believing that less universal (and/or more dysfunctional) programs like the Democrats’ current child-care and paid-leave plans will do so.

I've been on this beat throughout 2021. We can't aspire to a self-governing polity when so many people don't even understand enough to vote themselves the treasury.

[Montmorency]

Good summary (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/12/how-the-white-house-lost-joe-manchin.html) of Manchin's 2021.

Sometimes (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-manchin-build-back-better-child-tax-credit-drugs_n_61bf8f6be4b061afe394006d) it's funny enough to bring you to tears:


In recent months, Manchin has told several of his fellow Democrats that he thought parents would waste monthly child tax credit payments on drugs instead of providing for their children, according to two sources familiar with the senator’s comments.

Continuing the child tax credit for another year is a core part of the Build Back Better legislation that Democrats had hoped to pass by the end of the year. The policy has already cut child poverty by nearly 30%.

Manchin’s private comments shocked several senators, who saw it as an unfair assault on his own constituents and those struggling to raise children in poverty.

Manchin has also told colleagues he believes that Americans would fraudulently use the proposed paid sick leave policy, specifically saying people would feign being sick and go on hunting trips, a source familiar with his comments told HuffPost.

Seamus Fermanagh

I don't have great respect for the rural White myself, but this is altogether too much. :smash:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't have great respect for the rural White myself, but this is altogether too much. :smash:

A culturally vexing group. As an aggregate, they represent many of the best qualities of US culture -- and simultaneously champion and exemplify many of the worst aspects of our culture.

[Montmorency]

A culturally vexing group. As an aggregate, they represent many of the best qualities of US culture -- and simultaneously champion and exemplify many of the worst aspects of our culture.

Well, yes, such as lacking the resources to, or outright refusing to (https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/12/22/covid-deaths-obscured-inaccurate-death-certificates/8899157002/), categorize Covid deaths as Covid deaths, but Manchin's level of reflexive prejudice is still appalling. "Americans would fraudulently use the proposed paid sick leave policy... people would feign being sick and go on hunting trips" sounds like a remark that would come from Donald Trump. Then again, he and Manchin do share a class.

[Montmorency]

1 year anniversary of the Republican beta for 2024.

The cartoonist Garrison is widely appreciated among the Left for his pure uncut doublethink and surrealism.

https://i.imgur.com/Ew281a5.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/amTXMHl.jpg

[Montmorency]

Like Illinois and Oregon's, the New York Democrats appear to be stepping up gerrymanders. Fair enough.

https://i.imgur.com/tk6m46X.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/iwwWWVS.png

In 2019, the Supreme Court was asked to disallow extreme partisan and racial gerrymandering on constitutional and legal grounds. John Roberts replied ":daisy: you."*

For at least the past 4 years - most recently last December - Congressional Democratic leadership has been asking Republicans to join them in passing federal prohibition of gerrymandering. Mitch McConnell replied ":daisy: you."

When Democrats turn and respond, "No, :daisy: YOU," they can at least impose some little measure of consequence.

As the redistricting process comes closer to a conclusion, it turns out that the imbalance is less severe than once feared. With Republican states having mostly maximized gerrymandering back in 2011-2, and many GOP incumbents now prioritizing the reinforcement of their safer districts over the dilution of liberal ones, increased gerrymandering in some Democratic states leaves the national Republican advantage only somewhat more than it previously was. That's appallingly bad, but not as bad as it could have been. Republicans are likelier to take only a modest majority in the House.

*Some on the Org heartily approved.

[Furunculus]

what a mess.

the UK doesn't do too badly with its Boundary Commission by comparison.

[rory_20_uk]

what a mess.

the UK doesn't do too badly with its Boundary Commission by comparison.

Indeed. Given in the UK both parties tend to be upset at both a party level (they might loose seats) and at an individual level (an individual might have more chance of loosing their cushy job).

Although not ideal, using a mathematical formulae to delineate boundaries (divide the numbers of voters in half by the shortest line possible; repeat until the desired number of areas created) is extremely difficult to fix and is easy to double check.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

what a mess.

the UK doesn't do too badly with its Boundary Commission by comparison.

Electionpolling.co.uk Swingometer (http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/uk-parliament)

2019 result
Conservatives: 44.72%
Labour: 32.9%
Result: Conservative 80 seat majority

Switch Conservative and Labour numbers
Conservatives: 32.9%
Labour : 44.72%
Result: Hung Parliament, Labour short by 3

[Furunculus]

Electionpolling.co.uk Swingometer (http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/uk-parliament)

2019 result
Conservatives: 44.72%
Labour: 32.9%
Result: Conservative 80 seat majority

Switch Conservative and Labour numbers
Conservatives: 32.9%
Labour : 44.72%
Result: Hung Parliament, Labour short by 3

that sounds like a problem of the electoral system, i.e. FPTP where the party has an inefficiently spread vote
rather than a problem of the electoral wards, n.b. which is the responsibility of the Boundary Commission.

[Montmorency]

that sounds like a problem of the electoral system, i.e. FPTP where the party has an inefficiently spread vote
rather than a problem of the electoral wards, n.b. which is the responsibility of the Boundary Commission.

Well yes, I reminded you of this just recently in our discussion of structural barriers to Labour politics in the UK.

FPTP is inherently likely to disadvantage certain constituencies or factions. This applies more or less also to those fixed geographic jurisdictions, in the US the "several states." After the Civil War, Republicans had enormous advantages in the Senate and Electoral College almost all the time until the New Deal (in part by using federal power to establish many small new Republican-dominated states in the West), then the Solid South gave Democrats the slant most of the time, but by the 21st century as the South finished turning deep Republican this advantage swung back to the Republican Party.

But for the most part, in both the UK and US, the jurisdictions composing the representation of the House of Commons/Representatives are not fixed. These are maps that must be drafted semi-regularly for the sole purpose of running elections. The exceptions are the single-district states in the US and national (Scotland, Wales) malapportionment in the UK (and, like, islands or whatever).

I haven't done a lot of reading on the districting process in the UK, but it seems a commonly-held observation that districting tended to be biased toward Labour in the late 20th century until rather recently - not because the districting commissions are necessarily biased, but because the rubrics they hew to had been biased toward the political geographies of Labour support. You can't claim a neutral process if the whole system is built to make one party's votes much more "inefficient" across constituencies. This is why the FPTP reform wave in the US over the past 20 years has focused on creating mathematical measures of fairness and competitiveness, such as the "efficiency gap," producing highly-competitive maps in deep-blue states such as California and Colorado, whereas as I understand it the UK districting framework largely deprecates explicit consideration of political bias and relies more on 19th-century modes of building credibility; compact borders, natural communities, and similarly-populated districts (at least compared to the US) are not enough.

From this 2001 analysis (https://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1322.pdf):


There is general agreement that first-past-the-post in single-member constituencies is
one of the most disproportional of electoral systems. The reasons for this are well
understood. Much less discussed and understood, however, is the degree to which that
system treats political parties differentially, creating bias.

Such bias is well-illustrated by recent UK general elections. In 1979, the Conservative
party won 43.9 per cent of the votes cast and 53.4 per cent of the seats. Four years
later, it won 42.4 per cent of the votes but 61.1 per cent of the seats. In 1987, its
shares of the votes and seats were 43.4 and 57.8 per cent respectively, and then in
1992 its vote share fell slightly, to 42.3 per cent, but its share of the seats fell more
sharply – to 51.6 per cent. Labour won in 1997, with 43.3 per cent of the votes and
63.6 per cent of the seats. Thus over five elections, whereas the leading party’s share
of the votes only ranged between 42.3 and 43.9 per cent its share of the seats varied
more, from 51.6 to 63.6 per cent. With virtually the same share of the votes at four
successive elections the Conservatives won very different shares of the seats, and then
when Labour won with the same vote percentage its share of the seats was larger than
the Conservatives ever achieved.

The reasons for this differential treatment are found in the ‘classic’ abuses of
constituency-definition – malapportionment and gerrymandering. These – as Gudgin
and Taylor (1979) conclusively demonstrated – operate even when the redistribution
process (the UK term for redistricting) is undertaken by non-partisan, independent
bodies (in the UK, the Boundary Commissions, which operate under an Act of
Parliament with specified rules – albeit ambiguous and contradictory, as shown in a
recent detailed study: Rossiter, Johnston and Pattie, 1999)

Thus in 1997 Labour got 43.3 per cent of the votes cast and the
Conservatives 30.7. Reducing the Labour share by 6.3 percentage points in every
constituency and increasing the Conservative share by the same amount makes them
equal, with 37.0 per cent each. But with those equal shares, Labour would have won
82 more seats than the Conservatives – a very clear bias in its favor (the total number
of seats was 659).

Why has Labour increasingly benefited? In the 1960s and 1970s this was largely
because of the malapportionment components plus abstentions. In the 1990s
gerrymandering, abstentions and minor party influences all played a part.
Three reasons generated this change in Labour’s fortunes – given that its geography
of support remained very much the same across the 14 elections and the Boundary
Commission procedures did not change markedly.

1. The negative impact of the cracked gerrymander. A cracked gerrymander is risky
for the benefiting party: constituencies with small majorities are vulnerable if its
opponent performs well at an election. Labour benefited from its large vote share
increase in 1997 (allied with the Conservatives’ lowest share), winning many
constituencies in the usually pro-Conservative cracked gerrymander areas. The
gerrymander bias component was worth 48 seats to Labour as a consequence.

2. Labour’s focused campaigns in 1992 and 1997. Labour paid relatively little
attention to its safe seats at these two contests, knowing it would almost certainly
win them all – especially in 1997. In the absence of intensive local campaigns,
turnout was generally low, increasing Labour’s advantage from the abstentions
component (from 10 seats in 1987 to 20 in 1992 and 33 in 1997) without it losing
any seats.

3. Tactical voting (the British term for strategic voting). In 1992 and, especially
1997, the volume of tactical voting in Conservative-held seats increased
substantially, as an increasingly sophisticated electorate (many of them
determined to unseat the Conservative candidates) responded to cues provided by
the parties and other interest groups to support the opposition party best-placed to
achieve that. In general, the second-placed party in Conservative-held seats
increased its vote share by more than the average amount whereas the third-placed
party’s share fell (often absolutely). As a result, many of the second-placed parties
won – increasing the number of minor party victories – whereas the number of
wasted votes per seat lost by third-placed parties fell. (On tactical voting see
Johnston et al, 1997, and Evans et al 1999.)

Together, all three strategies meant that Labour substantially reduced both its number
of surplus votes per seats won and number of wasted votes per seat lost (which for the
first time fell below the Conservative level). Not only did it increase its vote share
substantially between 1992 and 1997, therefore, it also increased the efficiency of its
vote share: it got a much better return on its votes (a higher seats:votes ratio) than ever
before.

But of course political geographies can change, coming from above (e.g. change in districting authorities, or contraction/expansion of the legislature), or below (e.g. the rise of new parties or coalitions). I can't say how the maps are being changed by the long-term shift of college-educated voters into center-left parties as that continues. And one might also argue that it is not a desirable principle for elections to be more competitive, though I don't know why low competitiveness would be preferable in any healthy electoral democracy.

But, so anyway, with the past 6 UK elections having been conducted using districts based on data from 2000 or older (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ge2019-bias/), and that map becoming biased against Labour representation since the end of the Blair era, I can only hope new boundaries in the 2024 election wind up helping Labour. I'm sure someone has done low-maths analysis of the possibilities.

[Furunculus]

the general expectation is that the redrawn boundaries will get the tories another 5-10 seats in England:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/08/why-are-uk-constituencies-being-changed-and-what-will-the-impact-be

[Pannonian]

the general expectation is that the redrawn boundaries will get the tories another 5-10 seats in England:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/08/why-are-uk-constituencies-being-changed-and-what-will-the-impact-be

Any studies of how requiring voter ID will help the Tories? Since it's a tried and tested way of excluding poorer and less privileged voters whilst dressing it up as a way of preventing voter fraud which all studies indicate is close to non-existent.

[Furunculus]

Any studies of how requiring voter ID will help the Tories? Since it's a tried and tested way of excluding poorer and less privileged voters whilst dressing it up as a way of preventing voter fraud which all studies indicate is close to non-existent.

Not that i know of...

[Pannonian]

Not that i know of...

I remember someone saying that it was a way of combating fraud, and me pointing out that electoral fraud in the UK is near non-existent. It was especially notable because the requirement is a tried and tested way in the US of stopping poor people from voting Democrat.

Edit: It was in response to a prob-Trumpian who was sceptical that Biden had won the election legitimately, alleging fraud because there isn't 100% reliability.

[Pannonian]

Someone noted earlier in this thread that they couldn't be 100% certain there wasn't fraud in the 2020 election, and thus doubted if Biden had won fairly. It turns out that there was indeed electoral fraud in Colorado, just as that poster had feared. Except it was by a Republican election official.

Given how much cheating the Republicans did, how much did Biden really win by? How much cheating will the Republicans do in the future, given that we know that they are determined to break all rules?


Colorado's top elections official said Thursday that she is investigating a "potential breach" in voting security by a local Republican county clerk.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said that in late January her office learned of a social media post, "attributed to Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Merlin Klotz," in which the official appears to boast that he made a copy of the hard drives used by local election systems.

[Montmorency]

I remember someone saying that it was a way of combating fraud, and me pointing out that electoral fraud in the UK is near non-existent. It was especially notable because the requirement is a tried and tested way in the US of stopping poor people from voting Democrat.

Edit: It was in response to a prob-Trumpian who was sceptical that Biden had won the election legitimately, alleging fraud because there isn't 100% reliability.

Yes, the Republican axiom, nowadays stated openly, is that a Democrat is of itself not a legitimate voter, so elections won by Democrats are a definitional matter of fraud.

In your country this really depends on UK particulars that other people sort out and which I prefer you to search out for posting, but based on what we know of the effects of voter ID laws in the US, I would expect limited effects on turnout and Labour vote share from any similar rules if:

1. People without ID are much less likely to be politically active or informed.
2. Affected prospective voters would be disproportionately concentrated in party-locked constituencies.
3. People falling into the target demographic are more politically mixed - when they do try to participate - than those targeting them may assume.
4. Some effects of voter suppression laws can be conditionally compensated for by increased investment in voter outreach and civil-societal or party activism (n.b. this costs money and time).

Sample overview (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13481816/voter-id-suppression-turnout) of the American case.

But it's a troubling sign of the Conservative Party's trajectory. I've read that the UK system provides ample time to cast a vote before election deadlines, and that traditional polling places are plentiful with no or minimal wait times. If that's currently the case, worry more if and when the government moves to change it.

I was a little confused to hear this news, because I thought the the UK was counted in the ranks of countries with mandatory universal ID. It turns out Cameron's government reversed the mandate by repealing the Identity Cards Act of 2006 as one of its early actions. Hmmmm...

(If the British government can strictly regulate butter knives, it can hand its citizens ID cards.)

Some tangential data on historical UK election turnout (https://assets-learning.parliament.uk/uploads/2021/12/Turnout-at-Elections.pdf).

[Pannonian]

Yes, the Republican axiom, nowadays stated openly, is that a Democrat is of itself not a legitimate voter, so elections won by Democrats are a definitional matter of fraud.

In your country this really depends on UK particulars that other people sort out and which I prefer you to search out for posting, but based on what we know of the effects of voter ID laws in the US, I would expect limited effects on turnout and Labour vote share from any similar rules if:

1. People without ID are much less likely to be politically active or informed.
2. Affected prospective voters would be disproportionately concentrated in party-locked constituencies.
3. People falling into the target demographic are more politically mixed - when they do try to participate - than those targeting them may assume.
4. Some effects of voter suppression laws can be conditionally compensated for by increased investment in voter outreach and civil-societal or party activism (n.b. this costs money and time).

Sample overview (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13481816/voter-id-suppression-turnout) of the American case.

But it's a troubling sign of the Conservative Party's trajectory. I've read that the UK system provides ample time to cast a vote before election deadlines, and that traditional polling places are plentiful with no or minimal wait times. If that's currently the case, worry more if and when the government moves to change it.

I was a little confused to hear this news, because I thought the the UK was counted in the ranks of countries with mandatory universal ID. It turns out Cameron's government reversed the mandate by repealing the Identity Cards Act of 2006 as one of its early actions. Hmmmm...

(If the British government can strictly regulate butter knives, it can hand its citizens ID cards.)

Some tangential data on historical UK election turnout (https://assets-learning.parliament.uk/uploads/2021/12/Turnout-at-Elections.pdf).

I've never carried mandatory ID in the UK. nor have I ever needed ID to vote. These two things were things that happened abroad, not in the UK. A photo ID was only needed for certain functions, and it was easy to go through years without needing one. Voting was a matter of turning up to a polling station and confirming identity by saying "I am so and so at this address", when you're given a ballot paper.

[Furunculus]

I was a little confused to hear this news, because I thought the the UK was counted in the ranks of countries with mandatory universal ID. It turns out Cameron's government reversed the mandate by repealing the Identity Cards Act of 2006 as one of its early actions. Hmmmm...

(If the British government can strictly regulate butter knives, it can hand its citizens ID cards.)

we refused to go along with the notion that ID cards were for our own convenience and security, after that the argument to create another mega database and compel people to present ID on request died an ignominious death.

[Montmorency]

The usefulness of a universal ID is manifest even without requiring it for such daily activities as walking down the street. I wish we had one here (in the meantime, I make do with my Social and a REAL-ID-compliant NY state ID).

More to the point, politicians who reject universal IDs while demanding photo ID at the ballot never have security or convenience as their objects. Never.

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure where to post this, as it's a British action, but it relates to US government. Are trade deals a federal thing governed by the national government, or is it actionable by individual states? Is it possible to bypass the executive (President)? Presumably the President has to sign it off at some point, but does it have to go through the Houses of Congress as well?

I'm asking this because, according to one of our papers, the UK government is planning to bypass Biden by signing trade deals with individual US states.

[Furunculus]

there was a solid argument from Sam Lowe (trade expert) a few years back that it was perfectly possible for EU nations to individually make sub-trade-deals with third parties, to negotiate useful business facilitation (a.k.a. a trade 'agreement') with third countries as long as it did not impinge on competences granted to the EU.

this could be very similar.

[Montmorency]

What does the UK government say they want to negotiate state-by-state? I doubt it would be constitutional to any meaningful extent though:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

I believe a foreign company can come and negotiate various arrangements with states or localities, such as tax abatements and other incentives, but if it's a government entity, not even that much may be permitted.

Seems like a subject for the blogs and Twitter experts.

[Pannonian]

What does the UK government say they want to negotiate state-by-state? I doubt it would be constitutional to any meaningful extent though:



I believe a foreign company can come and negotiate various arrangements with states or localities, such as tax abatements and other incentives, but if it's a government entity, not even that much may be permitted.

Seems like a subject for the blogs and Twitter experts.

Here you go, from The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-pursues-us-trade-deals-state-by-state-after-biden-snub-kppw26zd0).


Britain pursues US trade deals state by state after Biden snub

Ministers have begun a move to strike “mini” trade deals with individual American states after President Biden made clear he had little interest in pursuing a trade agreement with Britain.

Under a new strategy by the Department for International Trade, ministers have led a charm offensive in state capitals to take advantage of America’s federal structure of government.

[Montmorency]

Here you go, from The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-pursues-us-trade-deals-state-by-state-after-biden-snub-kppw26zd0).

I mean the specific objects the UK hopes to align on. Like if California is one of the UK's top partners in trade and FDI, what does the UK wish to propose to California (ignoring concerns of facial legality)?

[Furunculus]

What does the UK government say they want to negotiate state-by-state? I doubt it would be constitutional to any meaningful extent though:



I believe a foreign company can come and negotiate various arrangements with states or localities, such as tax abatements and other incentives, but if it's a government entity, not even that much may be permitted.

Seems like a subject for the blogs and Twitter experts.

indeed, i have one such linked below:

the quoted tweets ae interesting in providing further detail to the main thread:

https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1494633599789895695

MOU's and trade promotion pehaps.

[Montmorency]

indeed, i have one such linked below:

the quoted tweets ae interesting in providing further detail to the main thread:

https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1494633599789895695

MOU's and trade promotion pehaps.

An example of a US-UK Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) is the FDA (https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/cvm-updates/fda-and-united-kingdom-announce-mutual-recognition-agreement-pharmaceutical-good-manufacturing)-VMD (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vmd-and-fda-announce-mutual-recognition-agreement) Sectoral Annex for Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices.

An example of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the FTC (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/03/ftc-signs-memorandum-understanding-uk-privacy-enforcement-agency)-Information Commissioner-Privacy Commissioner (https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/what-we-do/international-collaboration/international-memorandums-of-understanding/mou-uk/) (of Canada) MOU on Mutual Assistance in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Personal Information in the Private Sector.

Is there any information on what the UK government seeks to accomplish at the state level, and why? FYI I see that an MOU means something more forceful in the UK than it does in the US, which is more often tantamount to a statement of intent or aspiration.

[Pannonian]

An example of a US-UK Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) is the FDA (https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/cvm-updates/fda-and-united-kingdom-announce-mutual-recognition-agreement-pharmaceutical-good-manufacturing)-VMD (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vmd-and-fda-announce-mutual-recognition-agreement) Sectoral Annex for Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices.

An example of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the FTC (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/03/ftc-signs-memorandum-understanding-uk-privacy-enforcement-agency)-Information Commissioner-Privacy Commissioner (https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/what-we-do/international-collaboration/international-memorandums-of-understanding/mou-uk/) (of Canada) MOU on Mutual Assistance in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Personal Information in the Private Sector.

Is there any information on what the UK government seeks to accomplish at the state level, and why? FYI I see that an MOU means something more forceful in the UK than it does in the US, which is more often tantamount to a statement of intent or aspiration.

This question is easy enough to answer. Johnson is tainted by hypocrisy, so he needs to regain political capital. A reliable way of doing so is to continue having done Brexit, as that's the slogan he was elected on. Since Biden won't countenance a trade deal that compromises the Northern Ireland agreements, the Tory government wants to find a way of getting those Brexit headlines. The UK government has done a number of agreements that it's subsequently tried to go back on (and been caught on camera stating that they'd intended to go back on). As long as those agreements are initially made, they can get their headlines and their political capital. The details don't really matter (Johnson has admitted that he doesn't follow the details).

[Montmorency]

Some polling, albeit pre-war, around the Ukraine crisis (https://morningconsult.com/2022/02/22/ukraine-russia-polling-donbas-sanctions-gas-hikes/) and gas prices (https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/11/17/do-voters-disapprove-of-biden-or-rising-gas-prices).

https://i.imgur.com/L0HEUxf.png
https://i.imgur.com/z0KAKuk.png
https://i.imgur.com/HJXIsQj.png

Since the end of the year Biden's approval has been firmly in Trump territory. (Approval on Ukraine in particular in aggregate tracks with general approval, since voters tend to transfer their general impression to specific issues.) There's just too many voters who judge neither process nor results and prioritize indignation about rising prices, in particular gas prices, a subject which the vast majority understand nothing about. So we see a distillation down to core partisanship. Unfortunately, gas prices are going to rise no matter what else Biden does, even if he outright apologizes to Putin and works to reverse all sanctions. In the plausible scenarios of the West leaning on sanctions but not escalating further, price rises are likely going to prove persistent to some degree through the end of the year. If only there were a comprehensive investment package on offer that would put us on the path to energy independence and sustainability...

Anyway, average gas prices in America will assuredly reach all-time highs sometime in 2022. This is, of course, a disastrous portent for Democrats in the November midterms and beyond, since in the nationalized political environment an individual politician of the president's party has their marginal approval rating determined by constituent attitudes toward the president.

(Tangentially, it does lend some credence to pessimistic predictions that the West will quietly roll back almost all the new sanctions by the end of the year in order to make nice with a triumphant Russia for the sake of domestic economic recovery.)

Dear Euros, you will lead very troubled lives if both Russia and America come under the grip of mystical fascist delusion. Throw in China and India TBD and it's a definite Game Over for the human experiment.

[Montmorency]

A shocker for once. If Florida's new district map contains no surprises, and all currently-approved maps remain approved, then (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/us/politics/redistricting-congressional-maps-elections.html)


In a departure from a decades-long pattern in American politics, this year’s national congressional map is poised to be balanced between the two parties, with a nearly equal number of districts that are expected to lean Democratic and Republican for the first time in more than 50 years.

Despite the persistence of partisan gerrymandering, between 216 and 219 congressional districts, out of the 435 nationwide, appear likely to tilt toward the Democrats, according to a New York Times analysis based on recent presidential election results. An identical 216 to 219 districts appear likely to tilt toward Republicans, if the maps enacted so far withstand legal challenges. To reach a majority, a party needs to secure 218 districts.

The Republicans have indeed reached the limits of gerrymandering as of last cycle, and New York, New Jersey, and Illinois picked up the slack this time with countergerrymandering. As far as New York's map is concerned, it might even be unconstitutional but courts seem inclined to let that be remedied next year with primary elections just a few months away.

To be clear, this isn't a "fair" set of maps outside a select set of states, it's just that Democrats acting more unfair than usual negated much (but not all) of the advantage Republicans gained by being unfair.

If by the summer Joe Biden can put an American boot up Putin's ass while living to tell the tale, and secure a deal with Venezuela and the Gulf states to produce more oil, then Democrats have a shot at keeping the House majority. If the Democratic West gave up neutral redistricting,

[Montmorency]

I don't recall if I posted this, but for the one-year anniversary of its publication I'll quote from the essential distillation of all right-wing politics in America, fundamentally present down to the Founding.


“Conservatism” is no Longer Enough (https://americanmind.org/salvo/why-the-claremont-institute-is-not-conservative-and-you-shouldnt-be-either/)

Let’s be blunt. The United States has become two nations occupying the same country. When pressed, or in private, many would now agree. Fewer are willing to take the next step and accept that most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.

I don’t just mean the millions of illegal immigrants. Obviously, those foreigners who have bypassed the regular process for entering our country, and probably will never assimilate to our language and culture, are—politically as well as legally—aliens. I’m really referring to the many native-born people—some of whose families have been here since the Mayflower—who may technically be citizens of the United States but are no longer (if they ever were) Americans. They do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people. It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non-American Americans; but they are something else.

What about those who do consider themselves Americans? By and large, I am referring to the 75 million people who voted in the last election against the senile figurehead of a party that stands for mob violence, ruthless censorship, and racial grievances, not to mention bureaucratic despotism. Regardless of Trump’s obvious flaws, preferring his re-election was not a difficult choice for these voters. In fact—leaving aside the Republican never-Trumpers and some squeamish centrists—it was not a difficult choice for either side. Both Right and Left know where they stand today… and it is not together. Not anymore.

Practically speaking, there is almost nothing left to conserve. What is actually required now is a recovery, or even a refounding, of America as it was long and originally understood but which now exists only in the hearts and minds of a minority of citizens.

This recognition that the original America is more or less gone sets the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy apart from almost everyone else on the Right.

Conservatism, Inc. is worse than useless in this regard because it does not understand through perpetual study what Trump grasped by instinct. As if coming upon a man convulsing from an obvious poison, Trump at least attempted in his own inelegant way to expel the toxin. By contrast, the conservative establishment, or much of it, has been unwilling to recognize that our body politic is dying from these noxious “norms.” Keep taking the poison! it advises. A cynic might suppose that many elements on the right have made their peace with (and found a way to profit from) the progressive project of narcotizing the American people and turning us into a nation of slaves.

What is needed, of course, is a statesman who understands both the disease afflicting the nation, and the revolutionary medicine required for the cure. But no such figure has emerged, and it is unreasonable to pin our hopes on such a savior simply turning up.

What, then, are Americans to do?

In the meantime, give up on the idea that “conservatives” have anything useful to say. Accept the fact that what we need is a counter-revolution. Learn some useful skills, stay healthy, and get strong.

For fascism, only one dessert. What else?

I can't count how many pieces using this language I've read from the Right's 'intellectual' wing since 2016, growing in vehemence and urgency, but today it's more than ever necessary to frame this ratchet's context widely. It's the same ratchet that returned great power war to Europe, making a sham of that rickety so-called Long Peace, the necessity that drove Final Solutions in Rwanda, Myanmar, and many others. For "them", there is no choice but to act before it's too late. Ukraine took that penny's flight, its due course, to secure themselves; in America we still haven't used our time wisely. This struggle will never be won by force of arms unless we allow it to be.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm sure there are other countries, but I am always taken aback that people seem to think that the USA was perfected upon creation and nothing good ever happened since then and everyone should return to these mythical days. Most other countries accept that things have changed and perhaps for better or for worse but few want a wholesale return to the past. I think it starts with the USA teaching such a biased version of its own history which divorces people from reality.


Mind you, if the outlook of the early settlers had a summary "xenophobic extremists" would be pretty close.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

I think it starts with the USA teaching such a biased version of its own history which divorces people from reality.

Almost all countries teach heavily biased national histories. It's a hard thing to overlook. The effects are just more salient when it comes to large and powerful countries, see: Russia.


Mind you, if the outlook of the early settlers had a summary "xenophobic extremists" would be pretty close.

Important detail: White Protestant xenophobic extremists.

Select manifest top policy priorities of the Republican mainstream since 2020:

Criminalize abortion
Criminalize birth control
Criminalize the upbringing of trans children
Criminalize "racially uncomfortable" pedagogy
Criminalize gay marriage

Next: Revoke judicial protections on interracial marriage (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/22/braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage/)?

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has promoted the full merging of Russian and American far-right propaganda by linking his accusation about Ukrainian evil biolabs with Q-Anon archvillain Hunter Biden (https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-ramps-up-the-crazy-with-biolabs-presentation-featuring-hunter-biden). Here he is all but declaring the new Fascist International. Where else will he find allies but the Western fifth column?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1507333553448800309 [VIDEO]

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... I am always taken aback that people seem to think that the USA was perfected upon creation and nothing good ever happened since then and everyone should return to these mythical days....

Mythical indeed. Our founding covenant of governance was so incomplete that we drew up a new one less then 7 years after the revolution. And THAT one had to be immediately amended to garner enough support to pass. Please remember that I am a fan of harkening back when it comes to the Constitution.

I also suspect that a fair number of our founders would thump the Trumpers upside the head with a stick for an utter lack of common sense in waddling after an obvious demagogue who is using them for his own power. Even Huey Long was more genuinely supportive of his followers.

[Montmorency]

A leak from CBS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/03/30/cbs-mulvaney-backlash/) recapitulates longstanding narratives about mainstream media bias in the US. CBS hired Mick Mulvaney, a Republican Congressional firebrand-cum-Trump White House Chief of Staff because they want "access" to Republicans, whom the CBS leadership are sure will win the midterms. Previously the former CEO of CBS, notorious sexual predator Les Moonves, was caught in 2016 advocating that his network promote Donald Trump in order to gain ratings.

[Montmorency]

In a bitterly divided Congress (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/us/politics/gop-joseph-hatchett-florida.html), it was a rare measure that had been expected to sail through without a fight.

A bill to name a federal courthouse in Tallahassee after Justice Joseph W. Hatchett, the first Black man to serve on the Florida Supreme Court — sponsored by the state’s two Republican senators and backed unanimously by its 27 House members — was set to pass the House last month and become law with broad bipartisan support.

But in a last-minute flurry, Republicans abruptly pulled their backing with no explanation and ultimately killed the measure, leaving its fate unclear, many of its champions livid and some of its newfound opponents professing ignorance about what had happened.

Asked what made him vote against a measure that he had co-sponsored, Representative Vern Buchanan, Republican of Florida, was brief and blunt: “I don’t know,” he said.

The real answer is as much an allegory about the state of House Republicans in 2022 as it is about a federal building in Florida. With little notice and nothing more than a 23-year-old news clipping, a right-wing, first-term congressman mounted an 11th-hour effort on the House floor to persuade his colleagues that Judge Hatchett, a trailblazing judge who broke barriers as the first Black State Supreme Court justice south of the Mason-Dixon line, was undeserving of being honored.

The objector was Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Shortly before the House vote, he began circulating an Associated Press article from 1999 about an appeals court decision that Judge Hatchett wrote that year that struck down a public school policy allowing student-approved prayers at graduation ceremonies in Florida. The decision, which overruled a lower court, held that the policy violated constitutional protections of freedom of religion.

“He voted against student-led school prayer in Duval County in 1999,” Mr. Clyde, a deacon at his Baptist church in Bogart, Ga., said in an interview. “I don’t agree with that. That’s it. I just let the Republicans know that information on the House floor. I have no idea if they knew that or not.”

Since being sworn in last year, Mr. Clyde has drawn attention for comparing the deadly Capitol attack to a “normal tourist visit” and voting against a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal to police officers who responded that day. He also opposed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, which made lynching a federal hate crime and explicitly outlawed an act that was symbolic of the country’s history of racial violence. Mr. Clyde also voted against recognizing Juneteenth as a federal holiday.

The naming of federal buildings is among the more mundane tasks that Congress undertakes, and it is usually a consensus matter. In the Senate, it is often accomplished without debate or even a recorded vote, which is how that chamber passed the measure to honor Judge Hatchett in December. In the House, it is typically considered under a fast-track process reserved for uncontroversial matters that limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority for passage.

But Mr. Clyde’s late objection turned the routine ritual into a conservative litmus test for Republicans, who quickly joined him in turning against Judge Hatchett.

The bill failed on a vote of 238 to 187, falling short of the two-thirds threshold, with 89 percent of Republicans opposed.

Know-Nothing political correctness.

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/MalloryMcMorrow/status/1516453738403143681 [VIDEO]

Hear hear.

In response to the intense Republican campaign to vilify and criminalize the LGBTQ spectrum and allies as pedophiles. They may have to make up for long time, the Russian right was on this beat 15 years ago already.

What can one do against such reckless hate?

https://i.imgur.com/BKNSedh.png

[Montmorency]

On Republican preparations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/) to ban abortion nationally by 2025, with the status of contraception in question as well.

Yet, I didn't even realize things had gotten to be this bad already (I mean before Texas). We're facing down prospectively the most extreme and repressive reproductive control regime in the world, much worse than anything we had in the past, imposed by the most radical tenth of the population.


Conservative lawmakers (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/abortion-bans-out-of-state-missouri-texas-oklahoma.html) who view abortion as homicide do not want it to be legal anywhere in America, and they are already trying to stop blue states, as well as the federal government, from facilitating it. Although the FDA has approved medication abortion, some states are seeking to outlaw abortion pills—deeming them a dangerous substance akin to narcotics and imposing yearslong prison sentences on anyone who distributes or possesses them. These drug-trafficking laws are bound to ensnare people who order the pills online, or transport them home from nearby blue states. The growing number of criminal charges against women who obtained an illegal medication abortion demonstrates that it is impossible to criminalize abortion pills without also criminalizing patients themselves. (There were nearly 1,300 criminal investigations of pregnancy outcomes between 2006 and 2020, when Roe was still on the books; that number will spike after it falls.)

Today’s anti-abortion movement has even proposed new laws that prevent people from crossing state lines to terminate a pregnancy. Republicans in Missouri are considering such legislation right now. Under the statute, Missouri’s citizens could sue doctors who perform an abortion on a Missouri resident in a different state—like neighboring Illinois, whose clinics serve countless Missourians. Missouri’s citizens could also sue anyone who facilitated the abortion, including the friend or family member who transported the patient across state lines. Similarly, in 2019, Georgia Republicans passed a sweeping law that appeared to impose criminal penalties on patients who traveled out of state for an abortion. The courts have put that law on hold, but the state may commence enforcement after Roe is overturned.

Here’s where the new goals of the anti-abortion movement matter most. If fetuses are legal “citizens,” then states could argue that they must be protected from out-of-state abortion providers. A red state might order a blue state to extradite an abortion provider (or patient) within its borders, dragging the judiciary into “complex, uncharted territory.” Or a red state could threaten to prosecute any provider who stepped inside its borders. Hill also pointed out that the Constitution also requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the judgments of other states’ courts. So if a Missouri court orders an Illinois doctor to pay damages for terminating a fetus from Missouri, the Illinois courts are, in theory, obligated to make him pay up.

Fugitive Uterus Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850) indeed.


EDIT: lolololololol the Republican SCOTUS already drafted the decision on abortion a while ago it seems (it's due at the end of spring), but someone has leaked it. Very hostile to all precedents on privacy rights (e.g. contraception, gay marriage, interracial marriage), not just abortion.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

[spmetla]

Yeah, it is a pretty sad state to see the SCOTUS in to plan to do this. Make me wonder if we'll need to see Conception Certificates in addition to Birth Certificates and potential manslaughter investigations for every natural miscarriage in some of these states.

Perhaps this will help Democrats get the vote out more, youths that are disillusioned by Biden should surely see the danger that current brand of Republicans are to basic human rights and get out and vote.

[Crandar]

It may galvanise some potential supporters, but I don't think it will have a significant impact, as it will mostly affect the counties already voting for Democrats. That being said, if the protests are dynamic enough, the Supreme Court may chicken out and water down the final text. Out if curiousity, is it explicitly forbidden to leak the document? As far as I know, there's no similar precedent, but quite a few Republicans are pretty vocal about the nasty punishment they would to impose on the "mole".

[Montmorency]

Interesting note: this draft appears to have been prepared starting in January, around the same time that Justice Breyer, the oldest liberal justice, announced his retirement after a year of adamantly refusing to retire (he was finally replaced last month). I wonder if these developments are related.


It may galvanise some potential supporters, but I don't think it will have a significant impact, as it will mostly affect the counties already voting for Democrats. That being said, if the protests are dynamic enough, the Supreme Court may chicken out and water down the final text. Out if curiousity, is it explicitly forbidden to leak the document? As far as I know, there's no similar precedent, but quite a few Republicans are pretty vocal about the nasty punishment they would to impose on the "mole".

This leak isn't unprecedented - one similar one was in the 1850s (not an auspicious timeline comparison!), and generally justices used to be much more loose-lipped about internal affairs - but in the modern age it is rare. It might be the most ostentatious leak in the court's history. From what I can tell this might be the first time an actual draft, as opposed to the decision or reasoning, has been leaked, but it's not like the contents of this document are particularly novel or notable for scintillating intellectual or rhetorical expression. In any case the outcome of this case was foreordained in most court reporting and analysis for the past year, since the specific case was first granted cert last summer, because Trump appointed the guaranteed 5th vote for overturning Roe v. Wade just prior to the 2020 election.
https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672
https://theconstitutionalist.org/2022/05/03/judicial-leaking-nineteenth-century-style/


You'd be surprised at how many conservative Evangelical and Catholic women - Republic, anti-abortion - get abortions. For example, by most exit polling of 2020, half of Catholics and 75% of Evangelicals voted Republican. In this older data (https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014),


• Many abortion patients reported a religious affiliation—24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.

You'll notice that it is not the case that 38% of Americans were irreligious or unaffiliated in 2014. All told, and considering that the CDC reported 630000 legal abortions alone in 2019, it's clear that even beyond all the anecdotal evidence there must be a large cohort of women who have had abortions in their lives who uphold anti-abortion politics. Such hypocrisies and/or coalitional compromises are probably common - just think of some of the patrons here - when it's hard to survey more than 20% national support for criminalizing abortion, going back decades.

It's remarkable that countries like Ireland, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico have all moved toward legalization of abortion in the past few years, but the US is following Poland's track and getting more and more restrictive. And the anti-abortion wing of American politics is proposing far more extreme and punitive policies than exist in Poland currently, though TBF decommunization almost completely killed legal abortion in Poland in practice long ago (one thousand legal abortion procedures per year or fewer for 30 years).

Even the Taliban reportedly allow some abortions on the grounds of threat to the mother's life or household poverty.

It remains completely unclear what sort of effect these disruptions will have on the American electorate. There are cases for both pessimism and optimism. But tens of millions did protest against police violence and impunity recently, with the 2017 and 2018 Women's Marches being two of the largest mass demonstrations in American history prior to those, and not much changed after all, so both optimistic and pessimistic accounts might hold truth.

The SCOTUS majority itself will not choke on the home stretch. Roberts, the Chief Justice, likely already had before the leak, because he is an institutionalist who believes in doing this work slowly and quietly (he condemned Roe before being elevated to SCOTUS, supported all anti-abortion jurisprudence before Trump, and most after). But the rest are very vocal about their beliefs and know well what they were installed to do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One of the more vexing issues.

If you believe that life begins at conception then you are concerned with the right to life of the unborn. If you believe in individual choice and freedom to the greatest extent possible without harming others then you may opt to curtail a woman's right to determine all things for her own body SOLELY because of the rights of that unborn standing equal to those of the mother. Those who believe abortion should not happen tend to view the only exception as being those rare instances where only one of the two beings (again accepting the unborn as an equal being which many do not) could possibly survive. Our system of rights, including the right to life, was labeled as something that exists for each individual ab initio. When life begins is the crucial question in this position.

Of course, a large percentage of those who would ban abortion would also ban contraception, pre-marital sex, non-monogamous and/or non-standard marriages, sexual education other than the reliance on abstinence; they would vehemently support the use of the death penalty for many violent crimes; and yet they would still vehemently assert their pro-freedom and pro-individual rights stance. These restricted thinkers would enact a series of restrictions that are impractical in many cases, immoral in some, often inherently self-contradictory, and arbitrarily restrictive of the rights they claim to be championing.

The whole thing is depressing.

[rory_20_uk]

The USA acts like an Imperialist Theocracy and the vast majority of the people living in it don't want it to be this way. Well, the Theocracy bit. It seems they're more laid back about the whole warfare abroad bit.

But the country was founded in a manner that would allow a small number at the top to keep all the power, and hence it is running as designed with an increasingly large disenfranchised and pseudo-disenfranchised mass having close to no say in the process whatsoever. Not quite slaves per se, but a lot closer to indentured serfs than most Western countries have their populace.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

Saying it acts like an imperial theocracy is a bit over the top. Not imperial nor theocracy. It certainly tries to act like the global hegemon but imperial theocracy is certainly not accurate. That there is a fifth of the country that want it to be a theocracy is a different thing entirely though and they are very much isolationists so not imperial there either.

As for how it was founded, you're for the most part correct there. Only caveat really would be that the ruling class at the top 200 years ago was much closer to the indentured servants and even slaves than the ruling class at the top now. The idea of suing someone into bankruptcy for libel and other frivolous things would be a shock to the founding fathers. Back then you would still see your elected representatives in everyday life as they weren't sheltered in a life of private mansion/gated community to office with security guard and vacations in the cayman islands. The disconnect from reality that the current ruling class have isn't just a US phenomenon, I think Europe and East Asia sees the same divide hence the PM's scandal of his covid parties while the rest of the country was locked down.

As for the masses not having a say, well a lot of that is unfortunately designed apathy. They absolutely could have a say but enough of the country thinks their votes don't matter or that nothing will change so they don't vote for candidates that could represent them. This allows our political class to cater toward each fringe and only try and draw enough votes from the undecided/apathetic when needed.

[Montmorency]

One of the more vexing issues.

If you believe that life begins at conception then you are concerned with the right to life of the unborn. If you believe in individual choice and freedom to the greatest extent possible without harming others then you may opt to curtail a woman's right to determine all things for her own body SOLELY because of the rights of that unborn standing equal to those of the mother. Those who believe abortion should not happen tend to view the only exception as being those rare instances where only one of the two beings (again accepting the unborn as an equal being which many do not) could possibly survive. Our system of rights, including the right to life, was labeled as something that exists for each individual ab initio. When life begins is the crucial question in this position.

Of course, a large percentage of those who would ban abortion would also ban contraception, pre-marital sex, non-monogamous and/or non-standard marriages, sexual education other than the reliance on abstinence; they would vehemently support the use of the death penalty for many violent crimes; and yet they would still vehemently assert their pro-freedom and pro-individual rights stance. These restricted thinkers would enact a series of restrictions that are impractical in many cases, immoral in some, often inherently self-contradictory, and arbitrarily restrictive of the rights they claim to be championing.

The whole thing is depressing.

There is a time and place for philosophical debate, but in our tangible world of power politics abortion law is not a philosophical debate and never has been here. I don't mean that it isn't up for philosophical debate, just that it isn't and hasn't been philosophically debated. "Force shits on Reason's back" goes the saying.

1. There is no justification for persecuting women over abortion if one believes that a woman is a person equal to a fetus, just as we neither perform forcible transfers of blood, organs, or personal property between persons on the basis of need nor fine or imprison people for declining 'voluntary' donation of the aforementioned.

2. Abortion rates have been in continuous decline across America since the early days of Roe v Wade according to many sources, and not especially in states that have moved to quasi-ban it over time. Key factors in this trend in the US and probably in other countries are better access to education, healthcare (e.g. contraceptives), and increasing social equality of women - all of which the anti-abortion lobby of American politics vehemently opposes in practice.

3. On the more (vocally) radical end of anti-abortion politics, when faced by the question of what protections fetuses deserve given that higher quality of life for gestating women translates to higher quality of life for fetuses, will propose that women be prohibited from participating in most occupations or the public domain generally on account of the elimination of stress and danger that such measures will engender.

4. The restriction of women's personal and property rights writ broadly also conveniently hinders women from obtaining illegal abortions, which tend to almost-completely fill the gap created by criminalization regimes, as is well-known.

5. Republicans before Roe v Wade were overwhelmingly pro-abortion or laissez faire. It is well-documented that Richard Nixon and other leading Republicans, starting principally in 1972, took up the anti-abortion cause in order to foster support among traditionally-Democratic conservative Catholics as well as the growing far-right Evangelical caucus, complementing the Southern Strategy among racially-anxious Whites. Recall that it was also in the 1972 election that the famous anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly launched her celebrity by (successfully) opposing the ratification of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women (her slogan: "Stop Taking Our Privileges").

There are very very few opponents of abortion, strict or lax, who endorse the adoption of universal childhood subsidies, education, healthcare, parental leave, etc. Rather more, still the mild sort, are just Comstocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws).

To repeat as always: They don't care about fetuses.

[Montmorency]

In the wake of the upcoming decision striking down abortion rights on the basis of, among other things, 17th-century anti-witch and pro-marital rape juristry


Hale's defense of marital rape, as expressed in his Historia, continued in English law until 1991 and was cited in court as recently as 2009.[4] Modern scholars also offer criticism of Hale for his execution of at least two women for witchcraft in the Bury St Edmunds witch trials and his belief that capital punishment should extend to those as young as fourteen.[5]

The view that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife was described by Sir Matthew Hale (1609–1676) in History of the Pleas of the Crown, published posthumously in 1736, where he wrote that "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract".

the most extreme Republicans are pursuing their goal of outlawing birth control.
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.html

Almost all Americans who are sexually active rely on contraceptive technologies, from condoms up, at some point. Even in the most Republican states it will take some time to get there (we can only hope for internicine strife with injuries within movement conservatism). But they will, as the timeframe for the Republican fringe to make its agenda the party line has become very compressed. Republicans, like climate change, come for us all in the end, as the scholars keep predicting.

[Crandar]

We just got our new US ambassador, Mr. Tsounis. Not exactly the American Talleyrand (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/11/joe-biden-george-tsunis-greece-ambassador), but he pays well:

A lawyer, developer and philanthropist, Tsunis has donated to both Democrats and Republicans, including more than $1.3m to Obama in 2012.

[Montmorency]

Crandar, if you wanted more about the internal dealings of the court, here is some (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/07/supreme-court-abortion-roe-roberts-alito/). And on Chief Justice Roberts, who as I said prefers to make politics with finesse and subtlety compared to his copartisans, is as I suggested being shut out (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/alito-abortion-draft-opinion-roe-00031648) by the Radical Right majority.


Of those rulings, the Obamacare one ruffled the most feathers because Roberts reportedly reversed his position days before the decision was announced, ultimately voting to find the law constitutional.

“There is a price to be paid for what he did. Everybody remembers it,” said an attorney close to several conservative justices, who was granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the court’s arguments.

Context: A decade ago Roberts was going to overrule Obamacare/ACA in its entirety, but was persuaded that doing so would damage the court's legitimacy, so he negotiated with the liberals and satisfied himself with a pound (or two) of flesh from the program.


In 2019 it was reported that Roberts had originally voted to invalidate the individual mandate and uphold the Medicaid expansion requirement. He believed that the Constitution's commerce clause never was intended to cover inactivity, such as the refusal to buy insurance. But he was uneasy with the political division in the vote tally and also did not want to invalidate the entire law because he thought the individual mandate was only inseverable from "community rating" and "guarantee issue" provisions of the law. Due to this impasse he explored the argument that the individual mandate could be upheld as a tax and invalidating the Medicaid expansion. Breyer and Kagan had previously voted to uphold the Medicaid expansion, but decided to switch and join Roberts's opinion on that section.[64]

The Supreme Court as a concept has always been abstractly indefensible in its traditional form, but moreover it's been one of the single most important factors in the totalitarian radicalization of the American Right, since those who control the courts control the laws, and those who control the laws control the future, so you might as well try to seize all power in the name of the movement.


Meanwhile, Spain's government, which previously made it illegal to harass or intimidate women in interference with their right to abortion, is increasing access to abortion in public healthcare, increasing the rights of teenagers to abortion, increasing access to feminine hygiene products (such as in schools), and mandating up to three days' leave for menstrual pains - per month.

America goddam.

[Montmorency]

my father was (https://twitter.com/afrodesiaq/status/1521314216682082305) a prominent anti abortion activist. clarence thomas was a close family friend growing up. i literally cannot tell you how many times i EXPLICITLY heard from these people, EXPLICITLY, smug glee over the idea of women dying from unsafe abortions. they see it as appropriate punishment and they say so, outright. i was told as a child, over and over again, that women who sought abortions deserved to die. you can't appeal to the morality of these people because they have none.

At first I misread the tweet as "my father was a prominent abortionst. Clarence Thomas was a close family friend" and was confused. Anyway, yes, I'm surprised if any veterans of 2000s Internet discussion boards could be unaware of this theme. But the naivety of the general population of passive liberals or apoliticals no longer surprises me, since 2016.

[Montmorency]

Here with Alabama (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/roe-dobbs-abortion-ban-reproductive-medicine-alabama.html), not to be confused for Mississippi. So it's already as bad there as it was in Ireland for the Duration, and abortion isn't even technically banned. What's horrific to me is that even if criminal(ized) syndicates can supply a steady stream of chemical abortifacients to red-state women (these already account for perhaps a majority of typical abortions), and none of these DIY procedures become medically complicated, all healthcare for women will come to suffer in quality and responsiveness.



If you want to understand the future of medical care for pregnant women in a post-Roe world, look no further than what is happening in Alabama. As others have pointed out for Slate, the leaked draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization paves the way for criminalizing many aspects of pregnancy. While Texas’ abortion ban, S.B. 8, has essentially halted all abortions in the state, Alabama offers a glimpse of a troubling future in which the provision of medical care for pregnant people is deeply intertwined with the cultural attitudes that seek to criminalize “undesirable” pregnancy outcomes.

In the summer of 2020, I got a firsthand experience of these attitudes in action. Three weeks after starting to practice at West Alabama Women’s Center, my application for a medical license was denied and my temporary medical license revoked for what we can’t help but question may have been political reasons. Although I had been hired to offer general gynecological care, the Women’s Center has historically been known as an abortion clinic, and I am open on social media about my views that abortion should be on demand. Because of the eight-month-long process to reverse and reinstate my license, I did not begin to understand how dire health care access was in Alabama until I was able to practice medicine in March 2021.

I was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.

I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.

Medical providers who treat pregnancy-related issues in red states exist in a constant state of fear of performing any procedure that can be classified as an abortion—even while the procedures remain legal. We know that we face the risk of being prosecuted, having our licenses revoked, or even being thrown in jail if we fail to precisely follow every regulation, no matter how arcane or medically unnecessary it is. (We can be cited if the clinic’s janitor’s closet isn’t the size deemed appropriate by the state, for example.)


As an OB-GYN, I work in active fear of being arrested for providing evidence-based health care in this state. I am certain that I am not alone. Intervening in an ongoing pregnancy would be examined as an “abortion” by the medical board and subject to the same scrutiny as any procedure I perform in my clinic. Doctors know that if you perform anything that could even be suspected of an abortion, you had better have all of your regulations followed to the letter. No wonder, even though we are directed under federal law to provide appropriate medical care to any pregnant person who shows up in the ER with a medical emergency, few in Alabama are willing to risk their careers and liberty to provide that care.

Too often, I see and hear about examples of this stigma and fear at work when women come to me after being refused treatment in the local ER. For example, one patient started bleeding heavily at home. When she got out of bed in the morning, she said blood and clots ran down her legs and onto the floor. She rushed to the ER, where she told the nurse practitioner that she had taken mifepristone and misoprostol for a medication abortion 10 days earlier. The nurse practitioner knew the patient was experiencing an incomplete abortion, which happens when the body is not able to completely pass the pregnancy on its own. (Miscarriage and abortion are often indistinguishable clinically, and that’s a huge problem because people miscarrying will be denied care because of abortion suspicion.)

As is protocol, the nurse practitioner called the OB-GYN on call. He said he would not see the patient. No further explanation was given. The nurse practitioner then tried involving the ER physician; however, he was “in a meeting” and unavailable. Ultimately, she was told by hospital administrators to send the patient more than 2.5 hours away for care, back to the clinic that gave her the medication to end her pregnancy.

Desperate for help, the nurse practitioner called me. I, of course, said that if the patient was safe to drive (ride with a friend) all that way, I would certainly provide the needed care. Sarah had an aspiration procedure with me that took less than seven minutes from start to finish. It was uncomplicated and safe. She later told me that she slept in the car during the 2.5-hour ride back home. Seven minutes could not be spared by the doctors at her local emergency room where she was bleeding on their floor. Instead, she was told to go away.

Many of the medical professionals in Alabama who refuse to treat women who are miscarrying are not incompetent or hateful—they are scared.

[Montmorency]

The Talibangelicals in Georgia this week bombed and destroyed a non-Christian monument (associated with right-wing conspiracism) known as Georgia's Guidestones after radical Republican politicians declaimed the site as a font of Satanic influence which needed to be smote.


God is God all by Himself. He can do ANYTHING He wants to do. That includes striking down Satanic Guidestones.

It is the culmination of a grassroots Evangelical campaign designating the site as Satanic since it was first established over 40 years ago.


ICYMI a few weeks ago the Supreme Court declared almost all gun control facially unconstitutional.

On the other hand, California has implemented its latest budget, including provisions for state-sponsored manufacturing of insulin.


During the public hearings of the January 6 Commission into Trump and stuff, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House, Rusty Bowers, testified that he refused encouragement from Trump and Giuliani to overturn the result of the election in Arizona, and reaffirmed that the Bie Lie of the stolen election is indeed a lie.


You are asking me to do something that is counter to my oath when I swore to the Constitution to uphold it, and I also swore to the Constitution and the laws of the state of Arizona. It is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so, for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being. I—I will not do it.

Strong words!


If he is the nominee, if he was up against Biden, I’d vote for him again. Simply because what he did the first time, before COVID, was so good for the country. In my view it was great.

A great display of principled fortitude against attempts to morally compel him to vote for people who intend to do things he believes to be wrong and bad. One must certainly respect the man's commitment to his ethos!

[Montmorency]

Still can't believe the entire center-to-right spectrum united for a week in lying about the non-reality of the easily-provable account of a 9-year-old who was raped pregnant and struggled to secure an abortion following the termination of constitutional privacy rights. Hundreds of pubescent children receive clinical abortions every year! It's not even rare.

But more important than even this are the millions of women who will now (already are) be withheld routine or acute medical care because of the actuarial fear that any tangential medical intervention upon females or their reproductive systems could potentially be considered abortion by zealous state prosecutors. Even the Taliban would be confused.

Such a great evil stalks this country. In every facet of our lives fascists and theocrats seek to impose slavery and death on our people.

[Montmorency]

rory_20_uk

Arguably not even the worst five stories I've seen yet about denial of medical care to ambulatory uteri.


Six days after (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/post-roe-many-autoimmune-patients-lose-access-to-gold-standard-drug) the Supreme Court struck down the right to abortion, lupus patient Becky Schwarz got an unexpected message from her rheumatologist.

“This is a notice to let you know that we are pausing all prescriptions and subsequent refills of methotrexate,” the message read. “This decision has been made in response to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.”

Schwarz was stunned. Methotrexate is a cheap, common drug prescribed to millions of Americans. Like her, many have rheumatic illnesses. Others take it to treat inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis or cancer.

Yet few are aware that it is used off-label to end ectopic pregnancies, or that it could be restricted by doctors or pharmacists even in states like Virginia that do not ban abortion.

The reasons are numerous, and muddy.

In Texas, dispensing methotrexate to someone who uses it to induce a miscarriage after 49 days of gestation is a felony; that makes pharmacists hesitant to fill such prescriptions for almost anyone with a uterus. A new total ban on abortion in Tennessee will effectively criminalize any medication that could disrupt pregnancy past the point of fertilization, with strict exceptions for a patient who will otherwise die. And in Virginia, confusion over rules about who is permitted to prescribe drugs “qualified as abortifacients” may be blocking access to the medication.

“That’s what was shocking to me,” said Schwarz, a 27-year-old who lives in Tysons Corner, Va. “In a state where I thought I was relatively protected regardless of what the Supreme Court decided, I found out I wasn’t.”

Methotrexate was originally developed as a chemotherapy agent more than 60 years ago. But in low doses, it has proved to be one of the safest, least expensive and most effective treatments for roughly a dozen autoimmune conditions, from juvenile idiopathic arthritis to Crohn’s disease.

“It’s one of the most common medications that I prescribe,” said Dr. Grant Schulert, a pediatric rheumatology specialist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “It’s really a mainstay of our practice.”

Indeed, methotrexate was first approved to treat rheumatic illnesses in 1959, before Schulert was born and almost 15 years before Roe vs. Wade was decided.

Since its reversal, many patients have been delayed or denied this “gold-standard” treatment for conditions that have nothing to do with pregnancy.

“I have gotten some reports where children have been denied methotrexate for their juvenile arthritis until they’ve proven they’re not pregnant,” said Dr. Cuoghi Edens, an assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at University of Chicago Medicine and a rheumatology expert who treats adults and children.

In one case, a pharmacist initially refused to dispense methotrexate to an 8-year-old girl in Texas. In a note the child’s doctor shared with Edens, the pharmacist wrote, “Females of possible child bearing potential have to have diagnosis on hard copy with state abortion laws.”

Methotrexate is a folate antagonist, which can cause miscarriage at high doses. Although it is not used in medication abortion, it is the preferred treatment for ectopic pregnancy, a rapidly fatal complication that affects about 100,000 patients per year in the U.S.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg never reaches the uterus and instead implants, for example, in the fallopian tube. Such pregnancies are always fatal for the fetus and can also kill the mother.

Those patients represent about 2% of the 5 million Americans who take methotrexate. Yet this uncommon, off-label use is the basis for tight new restrictions on a medication that is disproportionately prescribed to women and girls of reproductive age.

“The majority of rheumatic diseases affect females at substantially higher rates than males,” Edens explained. “The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in women to men is 3 to 1. For lupus it’s 10 to 1. And so rheumatology is a very female-predominate patient population.”

Such patients take a far lower dose of methotrexate than is used to treat ectopic pregnancy or breast cancer. Most are counseled to use contraceptives, and to switch to alternative treatments if they seek to get pregnant.

Nevertheless, some doctors have already stopped prescribing methotrexate rather than risk falling afoul of antiabortion laws.

Many pharmacists have likewise refused to fill methotrexate prescriptions, or have demanded additional proof before dispensing the medication to patients they believe could get pregnant.

Experts say it’s not clear yet how many patients will lose access to their medication in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, or even which states might try to limit it.

That’s led to panic for many patients who rely on the drug.

“The biggest thing that right now I’m hearing is just a lot of fear of what is going to happen next,” said Schulert. “Even in patients who are doing well who stop a medication, about half will flare their disease in six to 12 months.”

Without methotrexate, many of Schulert’s juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients could no longer hold a pencil or type on a computer. Others face irreversible damage to organs and joints.

“Patients are saying, ‘I’ve been on this medication for years, I’m finally feeling like myself again, I don’t want to have to switch,’” said Zoe Rothblatt, a community outreach manager at the Global Healthy Living Foundation, a patient advocacy organization. “It’s the gold standard, and we need to get the word out so people aren’t scared and they’re able to get their medication.”

Early-onset puberty in females is now considered to be earlier than age 8. Substandard medical care across the spectrum is probably a greater ongoing public health hazard to women and girls in America than Covid at its height.

[rory_20_uk]

Most healthcare professionals aren't going to put their career / lives / family on the line to fight against State laws so I'm not surprised that they're playing it safe and covering their own backs rather than risk being dragged through the courts for years. And of course, unlike prescribing vast amounts of opiates, there's no money in Methotrexate.

Most of the world looks at this (and many other things in the USA) with disbelief.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Most healthcare professionals aren't going to put their career / lives / family on the line to fight against State laws so I'm not surprised that they're playing it safe and covering their own backs rather than risk being dragged through the courts for years.


Upon further reading, what should have been obvious is becoming apparent to me: In states with a presumption of wrongdoing with respect to any medical procedure or medication administered on a pregnant or potentially-pregnant woman with effects or potential effects on reproductive capacity or fetal development (let alone actual abortions within legal exception where such exists), providers are basically required in practice to proactively justify individual care decisions to state prosecutors and regulators.

What should have been obvious is that even when care does not violate the law, even when providers have full expectation that they will be found to be above board, this bureaucracy noticeably increases the costs and decreases the alacrity of care, in the worst case restraining the appetite of providers to even offer such care in the first place. Remember, we're not even talking about abortions here, just anything that may have "effects or potential effects on reproductive capacity or fetal development," which for women and uterus-havers is kind of inclusive of much or most of modern medicine, broadly speaking.



In more developments that leave me tittering at the British version of institutional scandals, more information (https://www.axios.com/2022/07/23/donald-trump-news-schedule-f-executive-order) has emerged on Trumpworld's protocols for implementing their long-advertised purge of disloyalty in the federal government.



In electoral news, a combination of factors has made it possible to entertain the hope that the Democratic Party might just be able to tread water in the November elections, viz. simmering discontent with exuberant Republican excesses at state and national levels*, a string of poor-quality Republican candidates, the 2020 redistricting cycle being a wash for both parties, legislative movement this year, the easing of inflation and gas prices at the pump, and the grinding effect of the January 6 investigative commision's work against Trump's standing on the Right (for mixed reasons).


*Polling indicates that public belief in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has never been lower in our history. It is telling when even a genuine throne-and-altar reactionary like Adrian Vermeule (right-wing Harvard constitutional scholar) can admit (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/07/06/epa-roberts-conservative-court-libertarian/) what the left has been saying for decades:


In reality, as this case makes clear, there is no conservative legal movement, at least if legal conservatism is defined by jurisprudential methods rather than a collection of results. West Virginia v. EPA illustrates that every last methodological tenet professed by the movement will be downplayed, qualified or abandoned when the chance arises to limit the regulatory authority of the federal agencies, especially in environmental matters.

For an insight into who Vermeule (https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2019/07/a-principle-of-immigration-priority-.html) is, if you don't recall earlier discussions here:


I want to suggest a principle of immigration priority that should, I hope, be broadly acceptable or at least intriguing for all right-thinking persons concerned that current American immigration policy is racist and classist, explicitly or implicitly, de jure or de facto. The principle is to give lexical priority to confirmed Catholics, all of whom will jump immediately to the head of the queue. Yes, some will convert in order to gain admission; this is a feature, not a bug.
[...]
Catholics need to rethink the nation-state. We have come a long way, but we still have far to go — towards the eventual formation of the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and ultimately the world government required by natural law. [Ed. See also... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_caliphate)]

[Pannonian]

So basically will of the people, as represented by the judges appointed by the democratically elected government, overrides legal principles. If you're appointed by the democratic government, you have carte blanche (in this case, for the rest of their lives).

Isn't this basically an ultra-powerful extremely select House of Lords? We have several hundred of them to water their biases down.

[Montmorency]

Among the complaints you'll see is that judges appointed at least by Trump and Bush Jr. (first term if not both) lack democratic legitimacy. But judicial review artisans in general haven't really been assessed in terms of legitimacy until now. The American concept of the judiciary, traditionally at least, is that judges - where not directly elected, as they are in some states - are meant to be insulated from democratic pressure, being rather impelled to a positivistic outcome by their assuredly-apolitical legal philosophies. But whereas the jurist as a character anywhere is indeed influenced by political context and personal preference to work backward to desired outcomes, the Republican legal world has cultivated the judge-as-political operative who consults party advantage first, reactionary ideology second, and legal text, precedent, intent, and principle somewhere distantly after. In the case of American movement conservatism, the 50-year project, well-executed, was to seize the iudiciary as a vanguardist institution by which to promote the movement and the party's preferences, which to be clear are anti-democratic in nature. Explicitly so, as when many Republicans, whether politicians, religious leaders, academics, or business elites tell us that democracy is "incompatible" with liberty and sound living.

[rory_20_uk]

Judges - like many other people - can be impeached. I think that this should happen more often - if for no other reason than so they realise it isn't a lifetime power trip - they're actually supposed to be enforcing the rule of law.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

Yup, also if impeachment was used more often and for simple things like incompetence or loss of confidence instead of requiring 'caught red handed and then admitting it' levels of guilt to move forward. Would nice if impeachment trials had some formal structure instead of making it up each time as politics requires/allows.

[Montmorency]

Judges - like many other people - can be impeached. I think that this should happen more often - if for no other reason than so they realise it isn't a lifetime power trip - they're actually supposed to be enforcing the rule of law.

~:smoking:

Republicans (http://www.historygallery.com/law/impeachwarren/impeachwarren.htm) do try (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/12/ohio-republican-judge-blocking-party-from-distorting-electoral-districts) sometimes (https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-pa-state-wire-impeachments-courts-supreme-court-of-pennsylvania-8d8215c8e34b42198222ae5b00c0ca9d), but there's a reason impeachments are rare in the US - the threshold for removal in the US Constitution and most (all?) state constitutions is a supermajority.

One of the many structural problems with the judicial branch in the US - though in current events far from a decisive one - is that, as in ye olde times, judges serve for life (unless they sit in elected positions, which is its own can of worms). There is no non-perverse reason in modern government for any position to be a guaranteed lifetime sinecure. Magistrates are not royalty (nor should royalty be magistrates, or, er, anything).


Edit: Jon Stewart (https://twitter.com/jonstewart/status/1553127778169536513?) at his best (burn pits). [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

What does a wholesale revision of the constitution involve, and are there any limits? If the Republicans get their super-majority, can they reinstate slavery, for example?

[Montmorency]

What does a wholesale revision of the constitution involve, and are there any limits? If the Republicans get their super-majority, can they reinstate slavery, for example?



The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Republicans can't even claim to formally or quasi-formally begin the process to amend the Constitution unless they, like, liquidate their opposition in Congress and install "alternative" replacements. I'd be more alert about Republican courts rubber-stamping unlawful state and federal actions according to their partisan impact, or increasingly-unchecked political repression in the red states.


For a fun excursion (https://twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1553533320469905409) away from the big picture:


As a tax researcher, I was skeptical of rumors Trump buried his ex-wife in that sad little plot of dirt on his Bedminster, NJ golf course just for tax breaks.

So I checked the NJ tax code & folks...it's a trifecta of tax avoidance. Property, income & sales tax, all eliminated.

Full text of NJ tax code for land used for human burial.

No stipulation regarding a minimum # of human remains necessary for the tax breaks to kick in--looks like one corpse will suffice to make at least 3 forms of tax vanish.

The real crime is, you know, all the crime, but it's also a crime what's legal.

[Hooahguy]

For a fun excursion (https://twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1553533320469905409) away from the big picture:

The real crime is, you know, all the crime, but it's also a crime what's legal.

Wouldnt there be a zoning issue around that? Surely one small part of the property being used for a cemetery cant change the status for the entire golf course?

This follow-up (https://twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1553545538477367296?s=20&t=SJnBypt4vu0NAwAa3dlH1w) by the OP was even more revealing:


Yes, but this could not have been Trump's decision: he had not been her next of kin for decades & had no right to decide her burial place.

Ivana's *actual* next of kin--her still-living mom & 3 kids--or the executor of her estate, had to agree to this. THAT's the shocker.

Yeesh.

[Montmorency]

Wouldnt there be a zoning issue around that? Surely one small part of the property being used for a cemetery cant change the status for the entire golf course?

I'm sure there must be some complexity involved, but Trump has for years got over a hundred acres of the property zoned as farmland, allowing him to pay like 1% of the usual property tax. This was documented early in the Trump era.

He's very well known to always be on the prowl for methods by which to nickel and dime the state, some of lesser, some greater magnitude, some of lesser or greater legality.


This follow-up (https://twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1553545538477367296?s=20&t=SJnBypt4vu0NAwAa3dlH1w) by the OP was even more revealing:


It's also possible Ivana stipulated the burial place in her will, right? These are all screwy people.

[Montmorency]

Kansas has since 2019 enjoyed a judicially-enforced right to abortion access.

The Kansas government, controlled by Republican supermajorities except for another key 2018 Democratic governor win, had timely decided to put forth a referendum:


A vote for the Value Them Both
Amendment would affirm there
is no Kansas constitutional right
to abortion or to require the
government funding of abortion,
and would reserve to the people of
Kansas, through their elected state
legislators, the right to pass laws to
regulate abortion.

The date was set to the day of the primary elections, rather than the general election, to minimize turnout. There wasn't much polling done, but what was indicated the sides were evenly-balanced.

60% of voters came out for abortion rights yesterday in Kansas.


If they can (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/31/pregnancy-center-of-the-coastal-bend-expansion/) get an “abortion-minded” woman to have a conversation, Pinson feels confident that the center’s staff can change her mind. In their counseling sessions, Pinson says, they “pour into girls,” persuading them that, no matter the obstacles in their lives, they can become successful mothers.

Pinson welcomes even the most devastating cases.

“I’ve seen a lot of 13-year-olds do phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be a negative thing.”

She closely followed the case of the 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an abortion in Ohio last month. If that girl came into her center, Pinson would suggest she consider adoption, she said, adding that abortion would not fix the girl’s problems.

“That life is still a life and, even at 10, she knows a life is inside her.”

Be scared you fundagelical fucks.

[rory_20_uk]

What does a wholesale revision of the constitution involve, and are there any limits? If the Republicans get their super-majority, can they reinstate slavery, for example?

I doubt there are many if any limits in theory
The USA already has few international laws it adheres to and could leave any others
No other country has done more than a verbal criticism of such things as children in cages / Federal troops arresting people
Abroad, other countries have in many cases joined in with breaking international laws in attacking other countries


Even if they'd just baldly overturn the 14th Amendment there'd be some murmours from Europe and that's about it; elsewhere would probably be happy as the last vestiges of pretence of ethics falls away and they can get back to the ethnic cleansing etc with gusto.

The USA has already a long history of both discriminating against non-whites and non-rich and usually does this indirectly rather than overtly - let us not forget our dear Austrian leader was so keen to see how the USA did things before he copied for his own purposes.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

As before, if the US goes, say so long to Blighty.

The Republicans don't want to overturn the 14th Amendment however, they just want to reinstate the 19th century jurisprudence (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/lochner-v-new-york-fundamental-rights-and-economic-liberty) that corporations can't be subjected to the same level of regulation as women.



Trump's record with the success of his endorsements has been unflattering, so he's trying a weird new trick.

25956

No, it's not an oversight.


There is a BIG Election in the Great State of Missouri, and we must send a MAGA Champion and True Warrior to the U.S. Senate, someone who will fight for Border Security, Election Integrity, our Military and Great Veterans, together with having a powerful toughness on Crime and the Border. I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 Elections, and I am therefore proud to announce that ERIC has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

[Pannonian]

As before, if the US goes, say so long to Blighty.

The Republicans don't want to overturn the 14th Amendment however, they just want to reinstate the 19th century jurisprudence (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/lochner-v-new-york-fundamental-rights-and-economic-liberty) that corporations can't be subjected to the same level of regulation as women.



Trump's record with the success of his endorsements has been unflattering, so he's trying a weird new trick.

25956

No, it's not an oversight.

"Mr. President, do you support Eric Greitens or Eric Schmitt?"
"Yes."

[Montmorency]

It's been a miserable slog, but Sinema, Manchin, Gottheimer, et al. may have finally agreed on everything they want to cut from Biden's agenda that climate/energy investment and Medicare reform - assigned the quasi-Orwellian epithet "Inflation Reduction Act" by Manchin - is heading to the House for likely final confirmation. It's more than I predicted at least, namely nothing.

Paul Krugman: "On infrastructure, Obama wanted to invest but couldn't; Trump promised to invest but didn't; Biden actually got it done. What got lost were the extensive social programs. That's a tragedy; we could have virtually eliminated child poverty, among other things. Even there, this bill expanded the enhanced subsidies that have helped bring uninsurance to a record low. But overall, it's a remarkable record for a party with 50 senators and a relentlessly obstructionist opposition."

If by some miracle we keep the House and net a Senator in November it would be a truly self-righteous suicide to continue ignoring the urgency of structural political reform in the US, including court reform, state accession, reaffirming anti-gerrymandering and the constitutional protection of republican government, etc.

[Hooahguy]

Promising midterm news: in a special election for NY-19, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated his GOP challenger by a bit over 2 points last night. Biden won this district by just a point in 2020, and many thought it would flip. This doesnt bode well for expectations of a red wave in November.

[Montmorency]

Promising midterm news: in a special election for NY-19, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated his GOP challenger by a bit over 2 points last night. Biden won this district by just a point in 2020, and many thought it would flip. This doesnt bode well for expectations of a red wave in November.

Currently 538 projects 47-53 Democratic Senators, with a likely scenario being all hold plus exchange in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Their House projection is 230/435 Republican seats on average. There are only two competitive governor's races, those in Kansas and Arizona.

Of course, what matters is how the model is shaping up in 2 months. The latest polling is always more applicable than a historical trend. Retail gasoline prices have been falling continuously for more than a month. Hopefully the global food, water, and energy crises don't reach another acute stage in the fall.


In policy news, Biden has fulfilled his campaign quasi-promise on student loan forgiveness (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/24/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-student-loan-relief-for-borrowers-who-need-it-most/). It's a fairly moderate change whose comparative virtue is that it provides ongoing relief to future students. Biden has actually aggressively pursued existing debt-relief and repayment programs, such as through the following: Borower Defense To Repayment; Total and Permanent Disability; ITT Tech Students; Public Service Loan Forgiveness. His administration's outreach around these obscure and traditionally uncooperative programs has already assisted potentially hundreds of thousands above baseline in clearing their debt. Recent polling suggests that half of Millenials and Gen Z endorse the more expansive versions of student debt relief. Biden's policy seems calculated to garner the support of at least half of Americans overall.

Hopefully the prosecution of Republicans follows a similar workmanlike trajectory.

Quick reference: The federal government owns most student debt (university, technical/trade school, etc.) in the country. This amounts to several trillion dollars of ballooning debt, much of it chronically non-performing (i.e. it never gets repaid and the government loses money holding it), held by some 40 million Americans.

Fun fact: From the 1950s to the 1970s the typical 4-year degree in America, even from private universities, cost about what one would expect from a similar current European education, though I see European universities are increasingly 'rising to American standards.' This is amusing to contemplate considering that debt relief is least popular among Baby Boomers (for whom college debt effectively did not exist).

Basic features: $10000 of debt forgiven for those with incomes under $125K, or couples with incomes under $250K. Rises to $20000 for Pell Grant recipients (available to low-to-mid income students). About half of all student debt holders should be released from their full obligations with these caps. The Sanders/Warren proposals to forgive $50000 in debt would have absolved almost all debt holders.

Long-term improvements: For those who still have to manage student debt, doing so will become almost easy.


The Department of Education has the authority to create income-driven repayment plans, which cap what borrowers pay each month based on a percentage of their discretionary income. Most of these plans cancel a borrower’s remaining debt once they make 20 years of monthly payments. But the existing versions of these plans are too complex and too limited. As a result, millions of borrowers who might benefit from them do not sign up, and the millions who do sign up are still often left with unmanageable monthly payments.

To address these concerns and follow through on Congress’ original vision for income-driven repayment, the Department of Education is proposing a rule to do the following:

For undergraduate loans, cut in half the amount that borrowers have to pay each month from 10% to 5% of discretionary income.

Raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary income and therefore is protected from repayment, guaranteeing that no borrower earning under 225% of the federal poverty level—about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage for a single borrower—will have to make a monthly payment. [Ed. This currently designates around the first $30000 in income secure from debt repayment calculations for an individual, or the first $60000 for a family of four.]

Forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less. The Department of Education estimates that this reform will allow nearly all community college borrowers to be debt-free within 10 years.

Cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest, so that unlike other existing income-driven repayment plans, no borrower’s loan balance will grow as long as they make their monthly payments—even when that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.

These reforms would simplify loan repayment and deliver significant savings to low- and middle-income borrowers. For example:

A typical single construction worker (making $38,000 a year) with a construction management credential would pay only $31 a month, compared to the $147 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,400.

A typical single public school teacher with an undergraduate degree (making $44,000 a year) would pay only $56 a month on their loans, compared to the $197 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,700.

A typical nurse (making $77,000 a year) who is married with two kids would pay only $61 a month on their undergraduate loans, compared to the $295 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of more than $2,800.

Note the distinction between gross and discretionary income (the first is pre-tax).


EDIT: A low-salience provision of the ARRA stimulus Democrats passed in March last year is that all forgiven student loan debt is non-taxable at the federal level through 2025 (by default, the government treats forgiven debts as taxable income). Nice setup.

[Montmorency]

An important aspect of the current student loan system I forgot to mention is that during the process of nationalizing student debt 15 years ago, student debt was made less dischargable in bakruptcy than most (all?) other forms of personal debt for the lifetime of the debtor. Relevant to this example of the takedown (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/08/the-modern-gop-in-a-nutshell) in its finest form.

A Republican Congressman criticized student debt forgiveness on the grounds that doing so weakens military recruitment incentives, thus harming national security. There are programs that make shaking off student debt easier for military or other service members (N.B. Until the Biden presidency only perhaps a single-digit percentage of eligible debtors were able to take advantage of their entitlement.)

Leaving aside scrutiny of the ethical and factual dimensions of such a claim, it is absolutely delicious that this very Congressman has submitted legislation this very month that would eliminate the "costly and regressive" Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, the result of which would be to make almost all military service members ineligible for debt relief.

"Heads we win, tails you lose" as they say. These are ruthlessly-malicious cads who want to destroy the country they hate.



Of course, it's possible to use one's position toward a measure of public service rather than carnage. Talk about blue blood, but John Kerry (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5723115) makes a mockery of European claims to antique political dynasties. Well, not a mockery, but a stiff rebuke.


After months of research into Kerry’s ancestry, Burke’s Peerage, experts on British aristocracy, reported on Monday that the Vietnam War veteran is related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Russian czar Ivan the Terrible, a previous emperor of Byzantium and the shahs of Persia.

Burke’s director Harold Brooks-Baker said Kerry had his mother, Rosemary Forbes, to thank for most of his royal connections.

“Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president,” Brooks-Baker said. “

But what does this mean for America? After all, almost all our presidents can claim descent from royalty, particularly the Anglo-Saxon-Norman aristocracy, even Obama.


Similar research carried out on Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential race showed that he beat Al Gore in the royal stakes, claiming kinship with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as well as with Kings Henry III and Charles II of England.

The Bush political family as political family, in American context, only dates to the early 20th century, the interwar years. John Kerry on the other hand is a direct descendant of John Winthrop, first among the founding Puritan elite of Massachussetts colony 400 years ago. Not only that, but his Boston Brahmin ancestors - besides OG John ofc - almost continuously found themselves in powerful and prominent political roles until the Civil War era (that I can identify).

[Hooahguy]

To follow up on even more good news, the special election for Alaska's single House district went blue (https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/31/politics/alaska-house-seat-ranked-choice-ballots/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0dbzH-DP0khNc2-zF-6Y2pRe2lh0UntYYYKvmzLVFvRlciboUXGaJpnmQ)- for the first time in almost 50 years!

Definitely doesnt bode well for the red wave.

[spmetla]

Also a credit I think to the value of ranked ballot voting. Tends to leave the fringe on the fringe where they should be, I hope it's adopted in more states.

[Montmorency]

Also a credit I think to the value of ranked ballot voting. Tends to leave the fringe on the fringe where they should be, I hope it's adopted in more states.

The winner would have won on the first ballot in FPTP in this spread as well, though there might be tactical voter adjustments in that circumstance. Score/STAR voting arguably delivers a more representative outcome as a preferential or approval-type system, grading candidates by cumulative points rather than a series of virtual runoffs.

Not that I would condone the specific outcome, but polling and other indicators strongly suggest that the Republican candidate Begich III* was slightly preferred to the Democratic winner (Mary Peltola) and overwhelmingly preferred to the other Republican loser (Sarah Palin). A score-voting or STAR system would have reflected that sentiment by electing Begich.

But while there are mathematically more representative systems than instant-runoff or ranked-choice, and ranked choice wasn't really utilized in the Alaska special election, it's still a better baseline than FPTP.


*His grandfather was the Democratic Representative At-Large of Alaska in the early 1970s until he died in a plane crash and was replaced with Republican Rep. Don Young, who remained in office for exactly 49 years until he died this March.


Brandon taking off the gloves lately?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC-k-lhml4o

[Hooahguy]

It was a great speech by Biden- calling a spade a spade was inevitably going to ruffle feathers among the GOP, though the outcry has been particularly hilarious since they went from "Sleepy Joe" to "Biden is Palpatine/Hitler." As Truman said, “I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”

Also applicable- "a hit dog will holler."

Now the Dems need to follow up on this with more forceful campaigning. Biden got us off to a great start, now time to bring it home. Call the MAGA GOP a threat to democracy, show voters concrete examples of how the GOP are going to end free and fair elections. Show the rhetoric and votes that the GOP deny the election results. Dont rely on the media for this job, we know they are more invested in the horse race.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that Tyler Bowyer on Twitter said it best - "This is what we will have if you let Ranked Choice Voting and Independent Redistricting Commissions into your state."

Yes. a country governed mainly by moderates who lean more towards where the Democrats now are / where Republicans were c. 20 years ago.

25984

I'd love such a system to come to the UK where candidates are chosen more on who they are than purely have them picked by the local and central party machinery.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/WBVihZk.png

You can see my edits clearly; they represent 2019 figures. I believe I also read recently that mortality among young adults has risen to levels not seen since the mid-20th century.

When the New Deal coalition still reigned, American and Western European aggregate life expectancies were roughly equal. Now American life expectancy is probably 3 or 5 years lower.

For reference on Amerindian (the ethnic demographic hit hardest by the pandemic) life expectancy figures, the last time US overall life expectancy was 65 was during WW2.




25984

I wouldn't expect factual rigor from whatever third-echelon TPUSA hack Tyler Bowen is, but I'm genuinely curious how one could construct a scenario in which Idaho, Utah, and Tennessee - three of the most Republican states in the country - go Democratic in presidential elections (RCV or no) while near-balanced purple states like Florida and North Carolina don't. Bifurcating Texas and Florida here definitely deserves explanation. I don't know enough to analogize this to UK constituencies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would guess that chart is based on what might have occurred in 2020 if RCV had been in place. I would therefore be leery of it, since knowing that RCV instead of fptp is in place will change voter decisions. Using older data to predict would run into some validity error.

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/WBVihZk.png

You can see my edits clearly; they represent 2019 figures. I believe I also read recently that mortality among young adults has risen to levels not seen since the mid-20th century.

When the New Deal coalition still reigned, American and Western European aggregate life expectancies were roughly equal. Now American life expectancy is probably 3 or 5 years lower.

For reference on Amerindian (the ethnic demographic hit hardest by the pandemic) life expectancy figures, the last time US overall life expectancy was 65 was during WW2.

GREAT POWER SOMETHING OR OTHER

One of many reasons the American state has been losing legitimacy for a generation.

https://i.imgur.com/nHQ1Cp7.jpg



I would guess that chart is based on what might have occurred in 2020 if RCV had been in place. I would therefore be leery of it, since knowing that RCV instead of fptp is in place will change voter decisions. Using older data to predict would run into some validity error.

Yeah, that's what I was saying, in that I was skeptical of what underlying data could have been used to generate a result like that.

[Montmorency]

Confirmation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/06/elections-deniers-midterm-elections-2022/) that the majority of Republican electeds have become 2020 Truthers.

[Montmorency]

It's just been the same shit (https://twitter.com/TheTattooedProf/status/1583253788126609408) for the past decade but Dem electeds are still basically devoted to the politics of normalcy and civility, which in the long-term has had an incredibly corrosive effect on the readiness and mobilization of both the liberal coalition and the party infrastructure.


We can finally comment on the closing stretch to the midterms, two weeks out. There has been, as predicted, a reversion to the mean in public sentiment, though some still maintain the existence of a reproductive-rights swing vote. The reversion doesn't seem to be related to the modest recent reversal (0.15-20c) in gas prices, as the trends preceded it and were smooth during it. The summary from 2 months ago fundamentally still applies:

47-53 Dem Senators, though now 49-51 is the likeliest range. I suspect they maintain the 50-50 split with a one-for-one exchange, but if either of the races in Georgia and Pennsylvania turn out to be flubs as well the Republicans have the majority.
House majority of around 15 seats for Republicans (~230).

The most disturbing development is that Dem gubernatorial candidates have lately slid in the polls in many states, to the point that 5 races are competitive rather than just 2. These are Arizona and Kansas plus Wisconsin, Oregon, and Nevada, with all but Arizona staking Dem incumbency. Losing the governor's office in Wisconsin and falling short of it in Arizona guarantees that those states will declare for the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 if the Democrat carries the vote. (Oregon is at risk today because of the combination of an unpopular incumbent governor and an unusually-strong third-party entrant.)

[Hooahguy]

So how about that midterm huh lol.

I think we are looking at a 51-49 Democrat Senate, plus a narrow GOP House. Honestly if the NY Dem party didnt flub so badly on everything from redistricting to GOTV, we might have kept the House and Senate. Bummer. But on the plus side, the various NY republicans who won in purple districts might not touch impeachment because of how badly it would be used against them in 2024. Also I dont think McCarthy is Speaker in any case, nobody likes him lol

But hey, at least Boebert might lose her seat (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-colorado-us-house-district-3.html)? Suuuper close race. (as of writing this, the Dem challenger is up 50.01% to 49.99%)

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/GCXeT3z.jpg

Long story short, the midterms actually tracked the polling fairly closely (not Trafalgar or Rasmussen, better luck next time), although a large number of close contests have broken favorably for Dems. Undecideds seem to have broken Democratic for once. If anything polling was slightly too unfavorable to Democrats. Overall you could call it a mediocre night for both parties in terms of normal electoral politics, historically above-average for incumbent parties in midterm elections, and in the process of American degeneration into civil strife another brief respite.


Democrats? half-empty glass might be more full than Republicans?.

It's plain that the abortion crisis counteracted perceptions of inflation, though stable gas prices and Q3 GDP growth might also have helped.

We easily gained two governorships as the "moderate" Republican incumbents of blue states vacated their positions. Keeping the governorships in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and plausibly taking it in Arizona is legitimate security for the 2024 presidential race. Some unusual results include the first Democratic trifecta in Michigan in 40 years, and a potential flip in the Pennsylvania state House on the wire. Altogether it may be enough to foreclose Republican plans to nullify presidential election results.

At first glance voter turnout is probably below 2018, but if so I'm not sure if either party was hurt more than the other.

Control of the Senate will be decided by a runoff election in Georgia yet again, because although Fetterman pulled through in Pennsylvania despite his stroke and everywhere else is a hold, Nevada's Democratic Senator appears to be suffering a predicted narrow defeat.

Trump is widely expected to announce his candidacy for 2024 within a week, and there may be more news on his legal troubles in that time as well.

Seamus

Bill Nelson won re-election to the Senate with 55% and 4.5 million votes in 2012 in Florida, and Rubio has won now with 58% and 4.5 million votes (after winning with 52%/4.8 million votes in his last election, 2016). Miami is GONE. Every single Florida county swung right compared to 2020, which was already rightward from the 2010s average. Compare with Pennsylvania, where every county swung left or stable this cycle, or Kansas, where a similar statewide blue shift occurred in the governor's race. The notorious Orbanist De Santis performed even better than Rubio and has accumulated enough clout in one term to run a Sanders-scale campaign against Trump in 2024 if he wishes. The state legislature has gone over to a Republican supermajority. This can't be accounted for just by the pandemic influx of conservative retirees, or the tiny Cuban minority.

Is it finally time for

26074


So how about that midterm huh lol.

I think we are looking at a 51-49 Democrat Senate, plus a narrow GOP House. Honestly if the NY Dem party didnt flub so badly on everything from redistricting to GOTV, we might have kept the House and Senate. Bummer. But on the plus side, the various NY republicans who won in purple districts might not touch impeachment because of how badly it would be used against them in 2024. Also I dont think McCarthy is Speaker in any case, nobody likes him lol

But hey, at least Boebert might lose her seat (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-colorado-us-house-district-3.html)? Suuuper close race. (as of writing this, the Dem challenger is up 50.01% to 49.99%)

From what I'm seeing Cortez-Masto probably loses, but it's possible I guess. How many key elections have we won by 3 or 4 digits in the past few years?

NY Dems didn't cause non-partisan redistricting, that was by popular referendum/constitutional reform. Technically it was state lege Dems being so dedicated to trying to gerrymander this cycle that an independent drafter had to be assigned, leaving the state with a more balanced map than we might have gotten away with.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-new-yorks-redistricting

But it's not that important, since Dems were compensated with a number of seats in other states as a result of anti-gerrymandering actions and some additional gerrymandering of their own; some NY seats would have flipped anyway for the following, more troubling, reason that overall sentiment toward the party here is the lowest since the Pataki era. The long-coveted two-chamber supermajority we gained in the state legislature during the Blue Wave has been lost in both chambers by a seat or two. Schumer had his worst result since his first Senate election in 1998 against New York giant D'Amato. Uber-centrist Max Rose rode the Blue Wave into the Staten Island House district (NY-11) in 2018, then lost it in 2020 53-47. His reaction was to abandon and condemn the Democratic Party, seeking a rematch with Malliotakis as an independent. This time he lost 62-38. While it is pleasing to scornfully regard his comeuppance, we can only hope this broad downturn in the state reverts to the mean.

From what I see of the current returns the GOP winds up with 220-225 seats, I'll guess 222 (the current Democratic majority). Certainly an underperformance but enough to roast up some red meat with vexatious Congressional investigations.

[Montmorency]

The Georgia runoff will not be relevant to Senate control as Nevada's Senate race is a Democratic hold.

It appears the Republicans will only achieve a 2-seat House majority, a drastic underperformance when they were expected to gain a 10-to-15 seat majority. It's a shame, a galvanized Democratic trifecta could have produced a decent amount of necessary legislation.

Democrats did quite well (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/us/politics/state-legislatures-democrats-trifectas.html) at the state level, though of course Florida was disastrous.


But in 2022, not a single state legislative chamber flipped from blue to red. A party in power hasn’t achieved that result in a midterm election year since at least 1934, according to Post.

Many thanks to the incontinent malice of the Republican base for foisting Trump and rampantly-illegitimate juridical practices on the country when it only detracted from their opportunities.

[drone]

I hope someone informs the honorable Ms. Greene that during an impeachment trial, the Senate can subpoena witnesses and force testimony under oath. The Democrats could easily turn a trumped-up impeachment against Jordan and company (very publicly, and with legal force). Schumer should be able to nip any of those shenanigans in the bud with a few quiet words.

[Montmorency]

Now that we're pretty sure of the final election results in particulars, a brief examination of the House elections.

In 2020, Dems won 222 seats 50.8-47.7.
In 2022, Republicans won 222 seats 50.7-47.7.

222 seats of 435 is 51%.

So despite all the boundary inefficiences and gerrymandering, it may be that the combination of updated boundaries (population movement and changes according to the 2020 census), mutual gerrymandering, and the uptake of neutral districting in some places served to nullify most partisan bias in aggregate.

Polling was pretty good, as early results suggested. A national (across the board) 1pp vote swing in favor of Democrats would have retained their control with the same number of seats they had before: 222 (meaning Democrats would have achieved the very rare result of improving their representation in government during a midterm, accounting for the Senate and state elections). A 1pp swing in favor of Republicans would have given them 5 more seats, putting them almost on the line for the consensus House projection of ~230 seats. Interesting stuff.



Also, a reminder that despite some appearances this year, overall ticket-splitting (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/few-midterm-voters-backed-different-parties-for-senate-and-governor/) remains at all-time lows. However, analogously to swing voters,


split-ticket voting isn’t so rare — at least today, anyway — that the actual governing outcomes of these votes produce no split results.

https://i.imgur.com/DKJXD1k.png

[Montmorency]

If Warnock does indeed win tonight, this election cycle will be the first since the direct election of senators began in 1914 in which no incumbent has lost reelection, either in a primary or a general election. And furthermore, this will be the first time since 1934 that any president, Democrat or Republican, has seen all incumbent senators of their party running for reelection win. In 1934, no Democratic incumbents lost reelection despite the president being a Democrat. Since then, every Democratic president has seen at least one Democratic senator lose reelection in each midterm, and every Republican president has seen at least one Republican senator lose per midterm. - JACOB RUBASHKIN

It's almost safe to say Warnock has won.

[Montmorency]

Told you about Sinema btw.

[Furunculus]

This seems relavent to recent major breaks in political orthodoxy - thinking of the US and UK here particularly:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1612485568100765711/photo/1

[Hooahguy]

I dont think I ever heard anyone seriously say that Russian interference was limited to twitter bots, rather it was a larger influence campaign spanning multiple platforms and methods.

Not that Glem is exactly an unbiased person to discuss such matters. He had been calling Russian interference a hoax for years now.

[Montmorency]

I've presented information before on the collapse of American life expectancies in the 21st century, and especially during the pandemic. What follows uses in part pre-pandemic data; the situation as it stands is further deteriorated. And it's not like England is doing well here...


https://i.imgur.com/e14Nfd7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/SWYe3Wc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kadw93h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/P4WcQlQ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Qz610ZZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/DYQfzDd.jpg


Also notice how the poorest Americans are way poorer than the poorest Britons, even though Americans are considerably richer overall. United Kingdom? More like United Soviet Socialist Kingdom.
https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774303

[Montmorency]

lol (https://www.theonion.com/clarence-thomas-promises-to-adopt-code-of-ethics-for-th-1850409408)


Clarence Thomas Promises To Adopt Code Of Ethics For The Right Price

Telling critics in Congress that if they wanted serious reform they simply needed to make it worth his while, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas promised Friday he would adopt a code of ethics for the right price. “After hearing out the Senate Judiciary Committee’s concerns, I admit to seeing the wisdom in developing some kind of ethical framework for the Supreme Court, so long as Papa gets some sugar,” the senior associate justice said in a prepared statement, emphasizing that he would be willing to submit to a code of conduct that included ignoring special interests and disclosing private trips if there was some serious coinage thrown his way. “It’s reasonable to believe justices serving on the highest court in the land should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, if only so citizens can have faith in their decision-making process. And if that means so much to lawmakers, they should take whatever donors are giving me every year and double it. Also, in order for me to adhere to some sense of values, Ginni needs to wet her beak.” Thomas suggested he might also support term limits for justices if he was guaranteed a yearly all-expenses-paid trip to the Maldives in retirement.




For foreign readers, it might seem to you that we currently have most of our right-wing Supreme Court justices caught up in a pay for play scandal. This would be the wrong impression in my opinion. Republican judges don't need inducements to flout the law - it's what they're bred for. Rather, what we have here is the exposure of a suite of perquisites offered for being part of the right team. The content of the rulings was always going to be ideological, partisan, and result-oriented.

Also, it's kind of predictable that you enable corruption by placing individuals in irrevocable life tenure alongside a handful of other elites, beyond all sanction and ordinary professional regulation. Look, the Framers didn't have a concept of modern bureaucracy; it's our fault for refusing to reform.

[Montmorency]

With Trump surging in the polls following his indictment on criminal charges stemming from alleged hush money payments, one executive at a New York bank said confidence in DeSantis’s ability to win is flagging.

“DeSantis is certainly a better option than Trump at this point,” the executive said. “But he’s a really weak option.”

The executive said many are growing resigned to the possibility of a general election rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden.

“What we probably wind up with is a choice between a guy who is very old and wants to raise our taxes and reregulate everything, and a guy who could be running from prison,” the executive said.

What an interesting framing of the dilemma.

https://i.imgur.com/1rrFAg2.png

[CrossLOPER]

What an interesting framing of the dilemma.

https://i.imgur.com/1rrFAg2.png

bOtH sIdZ r tHe SaMe!

[Montmorency]

bOtH sIdZ r tHe SaMe!

Joe Biden? Communist.

Eugene Debs? Ran for president from prison, like Trump might. Communist.

So you see, the American system is really offering us a choice between two Communists.

There are even people who think this way.

[Montmorency]

You can always count on Rep. Matt Gaetz for a good laugh [debt ceiling]:


I think my conservative colleagues for the most part support Limit, Save, Grow, & they don’t feel like we should negotiate with our hostage.

For years, scholars and commentators have pointed out that the US government is constitutionally required to pay its debts, and the federal government collects enough revenue on an ongoing basis to finance much of its daily operation at least. But the issue of raising new debt to finance previously-budgeted spending that has not yet been reauthorized in a new budget is not as clearcut, so the mere fact of the uncertainty (given the Republican judiciary) is a threat to the US dollar's standing in the event that push comes to shove and the executive has to unilaterally raise bonds. Gaetz' comment is another reminder that mainstream Republicans have been fully invested in the concept of "rule or ruin" for many years.

[Montmorency]

I don't think we'll ever comment on the 2024 election per se, since it's pretty straightforward, but here goes:

De Santis and the rest of the Republican slate are so weak that Trump wouldn't even have to campaign to sail into the GOP nomination. 2024 is a Trump-Biden rematch.

There will probably not be a recession starting a year from now.

The relative popularity of the presumptive nominees is unchanged and will almost certainly remain substantially unchanged.

Biden only needs to win one of Georgia-Arizona-Wisconsin - states he won in 2020 - to win in the Electoral College if the rest of the battleground states stay Democratic, which is widely predicted. Biden will win the popular vote.

The Supreme Court, and moreover the sitting governments of the three states, preclude any shenanigans such as unilaterally awarding EC votes to a preferred candidate.

More speculatively, out of 150 million votes (~10 million fewer than were case in 2020), Biden will receive 51% and Trump will receive 46.9%, and I give an equal chance of the Democrats either holding the Senate 50-50 or losing it by one seat. The House can fall either way, but within a five-seat majority.

[CrossLOPER]

I want my 3+ party clownshow with Trump livestreaming from a cell and DeSantis, Christie and some other random alt-righter calling each other the f-slur, while Newsom stares blankly at all of this, with Biden ultimately winning in a landslide, despite falling asleep. Also, MTG comes out as bi.

[Idaho]

I really don't understand American politics. Why is anyone in their right mind not screaming for a viable democratic candidate? Seem to somehow be sleepwalking into another politically and morally bankrupt election between two awful candidates.

[Montmorency]

Biden's been pretty good actually, the best president in 45 years. Which isn't saying much, but it puts him comfortably in the top 10. I certainly can't think of anyone who'd do better on the current political scene.

Don't assume he's our equivalent to the British Labour "there isn't an endless supply of money" Party's Keir Starmer!

[CrossLOPER]

I really don't understand American politics. Why is anyone in their right mind not screaming for a viable democratic candidate? Seem to somehow be sleepwalking into another politically and morally bankrupt election between two awful candidates.

Part of it is the rise of "independent thinkers". People who won't be slaughtered like sheep. They won't drink the fluoride, they won't take the vaccine, they won't wear the face diaper. Also, NIMBYs. Very popular strategy with both right and left. Publicly say something about a particular group, but don't apply that to family members. Trans rights? Sure. Hormones? NOT FOR MY SON. I HAVE A BOY. A REAL BOY. HE IS NOT A GIRL. HE IS A BOY.

Biden is actually the best specimen for the current climate. Frustratingly boring, but stable and capable of understanding and accepting long term consequences. I was pleasantly surprised.

Also, how is Brexit going?

[Hooahguy]

The influx of faux "independent thinkers" is definitely the worst development in politics since Trump. My favorite bit from them recently was the "why is there no war footage from Ukraine" line that was going around a couple months ago, which is just so mind-numbingly stupid that Im pretty sure they all have brainworms.

[Idaho]

Part of it is the rise of "independent thinkers". People who won't be slaughtered like sheep. They won't drink the fluoride, they won't take the vaccine, they won't wear the face diaper. Also, NIMBYs. Very popular strategy with both right and left. Publicly say something about a particular group, but don't apply that to family members. Trans rights? Sure. Hormones? NOT FOR MY SON. I HAVE A BOY. A REAL BOY. HE IS NOT A GIRL. HE IS A BOY.

Biden is actually the best specimen for the current climate. Frustratingly boring, but stable and capable of understanding and accepting long term consequences. I was pleasantly surprised.

Also, how is Brexit going?

Brexit is subject to the "true Scotsman" fallacy. Ask a Brexiteer why it's been such a total shit show and they'll tell you it's because we haven't truly delivered Brexit yet.

My missus accidentally bumped into starmer last year. She heckled him as he was doing some photo op in the local park. The minders came over and said she could speak to the great man afterwards and raise her concerns. He said that he didn't have any ideology. "How do we know what you actually stand for?" She asked, without satisfactory answer. She said he was like Kryten from red dwarf in real life.