I suspect that Churchill's comment on the democracy is apt here. Capitalism is the worst form of economic structuration...except for all the others.
Printable View
I suspect that Churchill's comment on the democracy is apt here. Capitalism is the worst form of economic structuration...except for all the others.
I'll retort with Zhou Enlai's admonition that it's too soon to say. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If anyone's interested, here's an up-to-date timeline of Trump's trade policies.
You can see the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests starting at 1:50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woQV_61iSqQ
Edit: Sorry, I read the thread title as Democracy 2020.
Even our space operas and sci-fi stories can't imagine a future without capitalism (with exception of pre Deep Space Nine Star Trek).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Even in old Trek there were capitalists -- though Rodenberry's basic premise was that energy was so "cheap" that most things were at an extremely low unit cost and that day-to-day subsistence was without struggle.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You might be right, I just seem to recall a TNG episode where they unfreeze a venture capitalist who expresses frustration that there is nothing to buy or trade since the replicator provides to all. Picard tells him people work to improve themselves nowadays and that money is obsolete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
An episode wherein they encounter the Ferengi, who do practice old-school capitalism. Again, the basic premise was that, with a replicator handling most things, the unit cost of the large majority of items made subsistence issues irrelevant. Only rare goods, power source (dilithium crystals) etc. were of marked value.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Whoever owned the replicator must've been rich and powerful, unless he or she replicated the replicators.
It's probably really cheap and easy to manufacture, otherwise this might be the case. It could also be subsidized by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Kamala and Pete off to a strong start in the first round of debates. That's the ticket of the future.
Biden is going to get hammered on his past.
You reading New York Times food critics? Well, I'll bite my tongue.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But it's confirmed that New York will not play a role in the selection, having set its primary date as April 28. Put a vote in for [redacted] for me on Super Tuesday. :creep:
(Did you know New York has sent 5 or 6 men to the White House in American history,but New York City only once?)
I'm so confused. I follow the 538 live blog, not the NYT since 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I saw this article today in the NYT op eds, seemed serendipitous.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But the whole contemporary mass-media "debate" format just gets worse and worse, and reminds me why I've never bothered to watch political "debates". I wish one of the candidates would just stage a communist revolution on set and seize the means of communication from MSNBC to distribute among all the candidates. Whoever manages that presumably becomes frontrunner by default for their skillful display of leadership.
It's a common reaction to the debate. They just handled themselves better than the rest. Don't blame Frank for saying the obvious. What Frank doesn't touch upon which is typical for NYT is that the age of Sanders and Biden doesn't show a "generational divide", it showed just how slow they are to respond and how quick they are to anger and evasive statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Bill Maher brings up "ageism" as being the last acceptable discrimination, yet, we are seeing the problems with older candidates such as Biden, Sanders, and Hilary. They are unable to emote, rely too much on canned statements, and double down on policies which were politically convenient in the past and morally outrageous today (e.g. Biden's opposition to Federal busing). These are character traits that are diametrically opposed to the values of young liberals and progressives who tout candidates that are blunt, empathetic, and carry a sense of authenticity. I think Bernie in the 2016 election did showcase two of the three values (his bluntness and authenticity), but unfortunately I think he lacks in the empathetic department which is now becoming an issue when other progressive candidates make Bernie's image go from revolutionary to angry neighbor.
As the sole progressive voice it was refreshing to hear him in 2016. Now that he opened the floodgates he should have done what Biden also should have done and acted as an elder statesman who could push the next generation to success. But as Biden said in the debate "I'm still holding the torch."
I'm voting for Williamson btw.
EDIT: To be clear, what I am getting at is that commentaries like the NYT make the point that I just did of emphasizing the characteristics that people like to see, but then dance around the 'why' with vague terminology.
Trump won because he was the oldest, the most unstable and struck in a backwards mentality reflective of the greater Republican psyche. For the Democrats it's the opposite, and at this point we should call it for what it is. Older people just can't deliver what Democrats want. And I say that as someone who was secretly waiting for Jerry Brown to announce his candidacy all last year. But now that I see things through this context, I'm glad he called his career over and went home.
I can't say I'm following the issue closely, but can you actually believe that the other candidates will follow "Bernie's" agenda as much as he would? You say the others are more authentic, but Bernie has basically had this agenda for over 20 years, if that is more authentic than someone who just has it now because the old guy showed that it can be trendy nowadays, then I don't know what makes authenticity anymore.
It's not wrong to change your mind, but the Democrats have always had the great ideas and delivered very little in the past decades. Perhaps in part because they couldn't, but somehow the Republicans often can do a lot more, or so it appears. I'm not sure I buy that they're all serious, plus they mostly seem to have picked one or two of his ideas to differentiate themselves instead of going with the whole package. You'd have to go through 3-4 presidencies to get all of it. (you might have to anyway of course)
I also suppose that if you've been saying the same things for over 20 years and hardly anyone ever listened, it's not surprising that they may sound memorized now or that you'd get tired of people saying "you should've come with that when you were younger!" because that's basically what you did, but they didn't want the ideas back then because they failed to realize their importance...basically "blaming" Bernie for his age is like externalizing the fault for not having seen the importance of his positions earlier. :shrug:
I said the others were more empathetic than Bernie. Bernie is one of the most authentic candidates given he is the only one embracing the democratic socialist label.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
When Bernie gets asked about race relations he pivots back to economics. You can call it avoiding Identity Politics, but it's not a good look to try to unite the workers of the world with color blind lenses.
Look, success in politics is always dependent on timing, as men who are ahead of their time are always by nature of being ahead, ignored in their own time. I can certainly blame his age in the now, because he chooses to ignore the bad timing and forces himself into the conversation when the time is ripe to act as an advisor not as the face of his cause.
2016 was his year and he certainly made the most of his legacy in that year. I think he is squandering that now.
Not sure if serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What is the concept of authenticity as a particularly valuable trait compared to character, executive ability, and experience? You don't elect a leader merely for things they believe, or else you would maybe vote for me and that would be a silly idea. A lot of people think Trump is "authentic" too, and the way to make this coherent despite Trump being one of the most prodigious liars and eminence fronters in human history is if many of his supporters like the idea of someone letting loose and acting like a slovenly piece of shit with no repercussions. All that, and research finds that politicians usually try to effect the promises they make and positions they stake while campaigning; Trump has certainly done so, he knows his stakeholders. So what exactly is the independent value of "authenticity?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I would say Warren has developed the ideas Sanders subscribes to more comprehensively than he has; while he keeps repeating the same lines about how billionaires and corporations have too much power, Warren identifies concrete social problems derived from that fact and offers a map to address them, while connecting them all to a comprehensive narrative of economic freedom.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
First we should revisit some history. To simplify, the Democratic mainstream was pushing many of these "democratic socialist" (admittedly New Deal liberal) ideas in the 1970s, and some of them, like universal healthcare and a job guarantee, appeared to be close to fruition (just like union militancy seemed to be reaching new heights in the 1970s). Democrats continued to maintain strong majorities in both chambers of Congress. This is why Nixon's record of signing progressive legislation can be confusing at first glance. You have to understand that these emerged from the Democratic Congress and Nixon only signed them because he felt he had little choice but to pay lip service to Keynesianism. Unfortunately this was a very bad moment for left-wing politics because economic stagflation, social upheaval (e.g. the reaction of white Americans to the civil rights movement), the beginnings of capital flight and globalization as we know it severely weakened the position of the radical left and of labor movements after Nixon. The Republicans pivoted to become the party of neoliberal business and social reaction. Because the Republicans won resounding victories throughout the 1980s in the White House and states, the Democratic establishment moved right to a degree and also accepted neoliberalism. This paid off to some extent with the Clintonian Third Way victories of the 1990s, but it also meant that a lot of the major legislation they managed to pass under Clinton had a poisonous element of being too assimilated to Republican principles (e.g. welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall). The fruit of this was in 2000 when the 5 Republican justices awarded Bush Jr. the presidency even though the Dem candidate Gore probably won Florida narrowly. As you know Bush Jr. proceeded to have a Top 3 Worst Presidency, and while the Congressional Republicans still struggled to achieve their goals of undermining Medicare and Social Security, the Democratic politicians elected by now tended to be conservative in the sense of very cautious and there was little appetite to stick out their collective necks in advancing bold new programs. (Though some good ones, like CHIP, did maintain the party's pro-worker agenda on the margins).Quote:
It's not wrong to change your mind, but the Democrats have always had the great ideas and delivered very little in the past decades. Perhaps in part because they couldn't, but somehow the Republicans often can do a lot more, or so it appears. I'm not sure I buy that they're all serious, plus they mostly seem to have picked one or two of his ideas to differentiate themselves instead of going with the whole package. You'd have to go through 3-4 presidencies to get all of it. (you might have to anyway of course)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The short story of the Obama admin is that, while he was mistaken in trying so hard to appeal to Republicans, and he was too influenced by neoliberal advice on topics like stimulating economic recovery, retraining, and school choice, his record of left legislation is the most extensive and dramatic since the 1960s, the ACA being only one of his accomplishments. What you have to understand is that the Congressional Dems didn't have the numbers (e.g. 60+ solid Senators) to pass more sweeping changes, and after 2010 of course we saw increasing Republican majorities that foreclosed any possibility of progress. Just to use the ACA as an example, the window of time where there were 60 Senators to pass it lasted a couple of months, and conservative Senators like Joe Lieberman (who was retiring anyway) held it hostage until it shed major provisions like the public option; Obama couldn't do anything about the intransigence of conservative Dems or Independents. To speak directly then, the Congress was the limiting factor on Democratic ideas and policies.
Now, part of the reason the Democrats lost the House and so many state offices during the Obama admin is that Democratic voters themselves tend to place too much emphasis on the Presidency at the expense of all other offices, including legislative offices generally. This is a serious weakness in mindset because the history I told should impress on you the lesson of how important an active legislature is to policy success. (As an aside I would remind you that the legislature possesses all the regulatory powers the executive lacks; though Trump seems to be very active in using what executive power he does have, he uses it mostly to wreck and sabotage, which is of course easier than building something.) The Republican base has more discipline IMO.
Though I skipped over Jimmy Carter, you should mark the legislative-executive relationship between his and Nixon's terms. Despite having a somewhat stronger Dem Congress than there was under Nixon, Carter was a muddled executive who did not understand how to prioritize policy and work with Congress to get it passed. That's why he personally couldn't get progress on his legislative wishlist (though Congress was still legislating its own priorities, including where they overlapped). Some accused Carter of being so enamored of his good ideas that he thought he could simply dictate them and they would just become reality. A lesson with respect to Sanders and his weak record as a Rep/Senator, or his murky record as a manager, I would say. Though of course a Republican president would never cooperate with a Democratic Congress today, the derived principle remains that a strong Dem Congress with an active left flank (e.g. AOC) combined even with a conservative Democratic President like Joe Biden is worth more than a weak Democratic or even a Republican Congress combined with a radical President who makes Sanders look like Margaret Thatcher. If a progressive Congress wants to pass progressive legislation, it will get it done - all the President needs to do is sign it.
love will drive out Trump's hate. Then we will call New Zealand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
But at the top of every mountain is another, taller, mountain. And there are no mountains in New Zealand.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Just to nit pick your premise about a strong congress > strong president. You can't get a strong congress without a strong president precisely because of the Democratic mentality you pointed out. The game is to have a strong presidential candidate to carry all the down ticket choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I do have some hope that we are changing that mentality by focusing on the Congressional leaders, in particular we need to shine more attention on Mitch McConnell and less on Donald Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
To some extent the coattails effect does manifest, theoretically jetzt erst recht, but it's only relevant every four years, and if you can't get the electorate to see the bigger picture then - especially insofar as they aren't paying attention to executive branch minutiae anyway - they* will wind up routinely disappointed by their "Great (Wo)Man" candidate who ostensibly fails to live up to their expectations because they never seem to have the numbers even to ram the popular reforms through.
Which breeds cynicism, both-sidesism, and apathy. A fatal feedback loop if it remains in action at this juncture. We're probably about to put to the test which presidential disposition among "Better things are possible" and "I can't wave a magic wand" feels more disappointing when the legislature is stymied.
But the Dem establishment is to blame as well to some extent, for hyping the Presidency above all else and shunting the bulk of party/base resources toward the presidential races. And this even while failing to develop their grassroots, most dramatically when Obama dissolved his campaigning instrument-cum-community OfA (Organizing for Action) after 2008. Trump never stopped campaigning and energizing his grassroots organizations, and it's working about as well for him as anything he does. Looking back in time again, the Tea Party movement demonstrated the importance of an energized and on-message grassroots, even if that grassroots turned out to be mostly astroturfed by billionaires.
But attitudes are shifting. If the Democratic electorate gets away from blindly trusting state institutions and pining for bipartisan comity, we're on the right track. Hopefully the Kavanaugh confirmation signals a long-term decline in Democrats' comfort with the Supreme Court.
By the way, on the subject of Congress vs. President, because when writing sweeping comments you always miss something, re: my treatment of the Nixon years I want to attest that the Dem Congress certainly did not always get its way even when it had the votes, such as when Nixon vetoed a federally-funded universal childcare bill (less generous than Warren's I think).
The bill was just short of veto-proof, and the kicker is that Pat "Monster Mash" Buchanan was involved in shutting it down.
Quote:
The goal was not just to kill the bill but also to bury the idea of a national child-care entitlement forever. "I insisted we not just say we can't afford it right now, in which case you get pilot programs or whatever," Buchanan said. The veto message was actually a toned-down version of what Buchanan had suggested -- he wanted to accuse the bill's drafters of "the Sovietization of American children." But it did the job Buchanan... had hoped it would do. It delivered the message that it was much more politically dangerous to work in favor of expanded child care than to oppose it.
Child labor unions? Fighting adults? You mean like - THIS? Well shit, we have truly been consigned to the worst timeline. :laugh4:Quote:
There was little public attention surrounding the bill at the time Congress was debating it. After the veto, though, the very idea of government-funded child care spawned a fantastic misinformation campaign, complete with rumors that any such efforts would inevitably lead to government indoctrination of small children, and child labor unions empowered to fight their parents.
On the other other hand, a timely example of the value of controlling legislatures is New York leftists breaking the mutually-gerrymandered hold on Albany in the 2018 elections, over the past 6 months passing one of the more extensive rafts of legislation in New York history, including the most ambitious decarbonization targets in the country - despite Andrew "The Machine" Cuomo remaining as governor. Though it would certainly be easier on New York City if one of his last two Democratic challengers had beat him in the primary.
I just finished listening to Biden's latest book about his son Beau, and I can't help but feel proud that he is a US Senator.
Must have been listening for 4-5 hours during work, almost started tearing up in front of coworkers.
If only he was 10 years younger, but I'll say this I will not hesitate to cast my vote if he wins the nomination.
Monty (and anyone else still reading this thread), I would recommend listening to the audiobook, if only because it is not so much a "pre-running political book" but more of a book about loss and how he used work in between the rough moments to get him through.
I've heard the stories about his personal life, hard stuff. I'm firm in my calculations of value. He wasn't the most conservative Democrat of his time, but he hasn't been a good statesman. At risk of coming off coarse, the Presidency is for closers. He's a good father? Let him go home and play with his (grand)kids. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I won't hesitate to vote for Biden but for different reasons.
He has had some serious personal tragedy, but that is not what this about.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Like Monty I will cast a vote for him, if only because it will help the Democrats generally.
Biden would make it tough for Trump to carry all of the MI, OH, PA, WI quartet as he did last time. Biden appeals pretty well to the working class. The Dems are doing a pretty good circular firing squad effort so far, so it remains to be seen if they will hand it back to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania.
Of course, but I think it makes the choice easier when you are voting for someone who understands loss and suffering. This is what we are ultimately trying to fight against, correct? The needless suffering and loss of the poor and the foreign for the benefit of an entrenched ethno-aristocratic movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
We thought the Republican primaries were a shit show all the way until election day. There is no such thing as a firing squad, you go balls out and don't apologize for anything and the people will love you for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The death of Democratic politics starts when the public starts to confuse confidence with shamelessness.
Well, based on his record and current policy orientation, not really. In fact, it doesn't really make much sense. Most people throughout history have known suffering and loss, I wouldn't trust them in government, and even among those I would trust I doubt many would uphold leftist politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I don't think Biden's record is as bad as the progressives make it out to be. And I honestly don't think empathy to suffering is a character trait of most Republican lawmakers. key difference in experiencing loss vs understanding loss is being able to recognize loss in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Policy, policy, policy is a myopic view of what we want in a President. The role is as much a moral position as it is a policy position.
I've met some Democratic campaigners...you can still be Progressive and have absolutely no individual character.
It really is quite bad, even if his segregationist friends were worse. (Check later for edit with some tiddies)Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
His empathy is lacking, or he would show better judgement about not creeping on girls and women despite being asked not to for years.
Indeed, dude is infamous for his poor political judgement.
And aside from all that empathy would not be the only measure of character - you need leadership and thoughtfulness and other good qualities Biden has not evinced. Warren beats out the crowd for empathy FYI.
Let's take a step back and take his performance in it's proper context. Isolated you can easily target key mistakes in anyone's career and amplify them. Let's not make up a narrative and find ourselves calling Joe Biden a man who has been a Senator since 1973 a man of "poor political judgement". Bit arrogant for a couple of random people with (I presume) no political experience to be talking in an online forum about what makes good political judgement. I guess Obama must have poor political judgement for wanting Biden as his VP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And quite frankly, that first sentence is exactly the type of firing squad mentality Seamus mentioned. His political career was in a time of outright segregationists, and now we want to bash the ally and write him off as useless because the zeitgeist is starting to move ahead of him.
Dude, can we comment on any politician? This is on the level of "you can't criticise this movie, what's the last film you directed?" It's not just my opinion, he's had such a reputation since before you were born. It's borne out by observation of his career and his current campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
As far as I know Biden's major legislation has all been bad for the country. Obama took on Biden as an affable old white guy, semi-Southern, well-connected in the party establishment; VP and President are obviously different positions.
Vetting candidates is not a circular firing squad. He's had the kid gloves compared to Obama, Clinton, Sanders. If longtime government experience is all you need, Sanders has it. If a sob story is all you need to pick a candidate, why not Harris' for her busing story?
His political career began in the 1970s, not in the 1950s. And he spoke warmly of these segregationists and adjusted his policy to them, not the other way around. He was very quick to take their side and support their politics, which he now justifies as an example of the bipartisanship he favors. (Bipartisanship like Biden in 2018 supporting Republicans in races against Democrats and probably helping them narrowly win. Now that's reaching across the aisle, after a fashion!) He went out of his way to do this, mind you. It would be one thing if he said "It was distasteful working with these characters but you had to swallow your pride and get it done," he valorizes it. He valorizes assimilating to segregationists. In an age when liberal Republicans could frequently be counted upon to vote with liberal Democrats against Yellow and Blue Dogs. Here's a quote from James Eastland, one of Biden's closest friends and mentors:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The "civility" of yore, ladies and gentlemen.
Why would you pick Joe Biden when every other first or second tier candidate is superior in almost every way? Is Biden really who this country needs? Can he correctly identify our acute and chronic problems and advance realistic and effective solutions? Can Biden pull a wave into the House and Senate in 2020 or 2022? Will he use the full authority of the executive branch even to repair the damage Trump and Repubs have done there? Let's be rational.
Funny you picked that comparison to movies, because I precisely agree with what you just said. And as proof you can look up all the dozens of bullshit 'film theory' or 'talking head education' youtube channels that will spent 10-20 minutes talking about why a movie is bad and they have no idea what goes into making a movie, the degree to which choices are freely made by the decision makers, and the limitations that went into making the movie. That type of commentary is everywhere but it is all 100% dog shit, and I admit, that I, like any human, loves to indulge myself with coming up with 'opinions' for every topic under the sun. But the reality is that when it comes to movies I can tell you whether something worked for me, such as 'I liked the music' or 'that scene made me really tense'. But I have no intuitive compass and no experience and little education on which to say, 'that editing was terrible from a professional standpoint' or 'the director made some terrible choices and ruined this film'. At that point I am talking completely out of my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
To my understanding, Obama picked Biden because he needed someone that could give him the necessary expertise on foreign policy, which Obama lacked and Biden was known for being heavily involved in Senate Foreign Relations committee. Biden said no when Obama offered the position the first time and Obama then flew him out to a campaign rally to convince him to join in person.Quote:
As far as I know Biden's major legislation has all been bad for the country. Obama took on Biden as an affable old white guy, semi-Southern, well-connected in the party establishment; VP and President are obviously different positions.
If Obama wanted a white candidate with strong connections in the party establishment, and a semi-Southern background he would have offered it to Hillary! Who by the way also had strong support in the rust belt (at the time) as shown by her 2008 primary wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Indiana. Where do you get Biden as semi-southern btw? He was a Senator of Delaware and was born in Pennsylvania.
Cutting down allies as if they are conservative sympathizers because they didn't do enough at a time when they couldn't is just odd. How much did Bernie actually get done to promote progressive/socialist democratic policies through Congress in the 1990s?Quote:
Vetting candidates is not a circular firing squad. He's had the kid gloves compared to Obama, Clinton, Sanders. If longtime government experience is all you need, Sanders has it. If a sob story is all you need to pick a candidate, why not Harris' for her busing story?
This is where you get too wrapped up in the ideology testing Monty. We get ourselves into a position where we start praising Sanders for voting against 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' in 1993 because the morally correct/progressive position was to simply let them in with no discrimination. Well, that's great and all but you know who else didn't want Don't Ask Don't Tell? Hardcore evangelicals. Because the policy of the US military up until 1993 was an outright ban of all homosexuals and bisexuals whether they were closeted or not. Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
All politicians adjusted their policy to the wave of conservatism that took hold over the voters. If Clinton and the rest of the Dem leadership had not shifted the party to become more cooperative with conservatives at the time, we would have had two terms of H.W and an ineffective resistance to the hard right that were pushing for more extreme policies.Quote:
His political career began in the 1970s, not in the 1950s. And he spoke warmly of these segregationists and adjusted his policy to them, not the other way around. He was very quick to take their side and support their politics, which he now justifies as an example of the bipartisanship he favors. (Bipartisanship like Biden in 2018 supporting Republicans in races against Democrats and probably helping them narrowly win. Now that's reaching across the aisle, after a fashion!) He went out of his way to do this, mind you. It would be one thing if he said "It was distasteful working with these characters but you had to swallow your pride and get it done," he valorizes it. He valorizes assimilating to segregationists. In an age when liberal Republicans could frequently be counted upon to vote with liberal Democrats against Yellow and Blue Dogs.
These types of disgusting compromises were only done because American voters did not want liberal policies. Clinton pushed for universal health care and the voters didn't back him. They thought he was reneging on this 'third way' (I don't know what it was called at the time) type message and gave us the Republican Revolution in Congress. Clinton pushed to allow LGB citizens to freely enlist and the voters did not back him. So what is a politician to do, take a moral stand like Bernie and wait 30 years for everyone to hopefully realize 'oh you were right all along', or you cut deals and get cozy with the enemy to temper their actions in the immediate and lay the groundwork for further improvement until you can convince the public to go in a different direction in the future.
Monty, I've been very explicit that Biden is not my first choice, he's not even my second. I'm a Harris/Mayor Pete guy. But I have to put myself in the position of defending him because we have a primary where the other candidates simply don't have the same experience of battling in Congress like he does, with the exception of Sanders. But oddly that experience and that record is being called a weakness because the young Progressives have no context, no education, no conception of what America was like before they reached middle school. Christ, this country was so anti-lgbt that when Ellen came out as gay in 1997 the next season of her show lost 25% of its viewers.Quote:
Why would you pick Joe Biden when every other first or second tier candidate is superior in almost every way? Is Biden really who this country needs? Can he correctly identify our acute and chronic problems and advance realistic and effective solutions? Can Biden pull a wave into the House and Senate in 2020 or 2022? Will he use the full authority of the executive branch even to repair the damage Trump and Repubs have done there? Let's be rational.
If Biden can beat Trump, yes he is what this country needs.
Yes, I believe that Biden, if he has not lost some mental faculties in the past few years, has the potential to come up with realistic policy that can pass both chambers of Congress.
No one can pull a wave into the Senate. Yes, Biden can pull a wave if the "Bernie Bros" don't pull another 'Hillary is just as bad' move.
I believe every president exercises the full authority of the executive branch, and then some.
So, are you saying that we should be relying more on the analysis of experts? I would suggest that's already where we get most of our facts and opinions on candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Another possible way to read you is that we shouldn't be permitted to discuss politics, participate in activism, or even vote until we become polisci experts or work in politics ourselves...
Ultimately I disagree even on the merits of your objection to criticism of films (and most of the major film analysis youtubers I'm aware of are either professionals or have academic background in the field), because anyone who has eyes to see and a mind to think can think through the elements of film. That's not to say any opinion is as good as the next, but it's not some rarefied subject available only to the wizened elders sitting above us. More saliently, film is a largely aesthetic experience and a consumer product - politics isn't, or shouldn't be, either of those. Politics isn't about what makes you feel good or an exercise of your individual expression. It's about negotiating the distribution of influence and resources in society.
I'm sure foreign policy was part of it (didn't he give Obama pretty bad advice on Afghanistan?). Clinton became his Secretary of State, a position with more influence over US foreign policy than the VP. But as I recall she was one of the people Obama's team considered (the "unity ticket"). His other top picks mostly being old-ish white guys deep in the establishment (one of them was son of Birch Bayh, top presidential contender in the Dems primary in 1976, who died just a few months ago), the pattern is clear as to what the most important factors were though. I said semi-southern because Biden's whole career was serving a small state like Delaware (small like Vermont!), one that straddled the Mason-Dixon boundary; I forget if I thought of this myself or read it somewhere, but throughout the 20th century Dems gave considerable thought to their Pres/VP selections in the effort to include someone to represent the South. This article from the election states that Obama was also looking for someone who wouldn't get in the way of reelection.Quote:
To my understanding, Obama picked Biden because he needed someone that could give him the necessary expertise on foreign policy, which Obama lacked and Biden was known for being heavily involved in Senate Foreign Relations committee. Biden said no when Obama offered the position the first time and Obama then flew him out to a campaign rally to convince him to join in person.
If Obama wanted a white candidate with strong connections in the party establishment, and a semi-Southern background he would have offered it to Hillary! Who by the way also had strong support in the rust belt (at the time) as shown by her 2008 primary wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Indiana. Where do you get Biden as semi-southern btw? He was a Senator of Delaware and was born in Pennsylvania.
ACIN, I don't understand. Is it possible to criticize a politician on any matter of substance? Is it possible? I'm sure you believe it is. If so, what in principle do you find objectionable in my scrutiny? What can Biden be criticized for and why? Why isn't it a circular firing squad to disprefer other candidates? You're not making any sense. Like, I give reasons not to like Biden, and without addressing any of them concretely declare them invalid and an example of unreasonable ideologized partisanship - 'iT wAs A dIFFEREnT tImE'. Yet, you're allowed to have a positive attitude toward Biden because - why?Quote:
Cutting down allies as if they are conservative sympathizers because they didn't do enough at a time when they couldn't is just odd. How much did Bernie actually get done to promote progressive/socialist democratic policies through Congress in the 1990s?
How is Biden an ally anyway? Dude's retired, and he's not helping any causes. Expanding my paragraph above, is it ever possible to criticize a member of the Democratic Party for their record, for being too conservative, or other reasons? I think it is, and I think my criticisms are sober, measured, and justified. Change my mind.
As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, why do you think it was good at all? Have you lowered your standards so much you think bad is good? :P The question you would have to answer is, "Did DODT make life better or worse for LGBT in the military compared to the status ante quo?" 500-1000 words please.Quote:
This is where you get too wrapped up in the ideology testing Monty. We get ourselves into a position where we start praising Sanders for voting against 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' in 1993 because the morally correct/progressive position was to simply let them in with no discrimination. Well, that's great and all but you know who else didn't want Don't Ask Don't Tell? Hardcore evangelicals. Because the policy of the US military up until 1993 was an outright ban of all homosexuals and bisexuals whether they were closeted or not. Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Again, do you ever test anyone on the basis of ideology? If not, do you believe every Democrat is just as good as any other Democrat so long as they pay their dues? Speaking of paying dues, I notice you didn't address my observation that Biden literally campaigned for Republicans against Democrats in 2018.
I would normally be sympathetic to this as a bare historical point of order, but in the circumstances I'll have to challenge you:Quote:
All politicians adjusted their policy to the wave of conservatism that took hold over the voters. If Clinton and the rest of the Dem leadership had not shifted the party to become more cooperative with conservatives at the time, we would have had two terms of H.W and an ineffective resistance to the hard right that were pushing for more extreme policies.
1. Prove it, on a macro and micro (individual policies or areas of interest) level
2. Prove that they didn't go much too far right relative to what was possible
The revisionist argument is that by tacking so far right they only emboldened the far right, reinforced conservative memes in the public consciousness, dissolved the left flank of the Democratic bench with repercussions for the tutelage of future lawmakers, and passed a lot of overwhelmingly negative law that was by no means inevitable. This one I haven't looked into, but there's even a rumor that Clinton was about to privatize Social Security until the Republicans stopped him.
If you're going to claim that every single event in the past was always the most optimal outcome for the left, you're making a very heavy claim that needs heavy evidence.I agree that voters then were more conservative than they are now, but that cannot be used to justify any specific compromise.Quote:
These types of disgusting compromises were only done because American voters did not want liberal policies.
Also, that's just not true. Biden cozied up to segregationists because he thought it would make him more electable in Delaware. If this was ever defensible, it became less so with time, and rapidly, as he went from an upstart to an entrenched incumbent. Taking Biden's current rhetoric at face value, he cozied up to them more than was even ever strictly necessary because he genuinely liked them and appreciated having them around. To me that is 100% indefensible - how can you deny it?
Hillary's healthcare agenda and the 1994 midterms are not topics I've learned much about, but I find it hard to believe being too left on healthcare could have been the driving factor behind the Republican Revolution. IIRC Clinton campaigned (and won) heavily on universal healthcare, and after the beginning of his term quickly began fishing for a compromise package. Healthcare reform was no longer getting traction by the time of the midterms; Republican victory isn't what killed it. If I were being reflexive, Clinton's moderation might as well be did him in. The reality is probably that the Republicans were (and remain) simply better at messaging and propaganda. If I looked into Clinton's experience with Gingrich I expect I would find an eerie precursor to the concerted demonization of Obama (though Republicans could still be expected to routinely vote across the aisle by the dozens in the 90s).Quote:
Clinton pushed for universal health care and the voters didn't back him. They thought he was reneging on this 'third way' (I don't know what it was called at the time) type message and gave us the Republican Revolution in Congress.
The voters did back him, they elected him. Most of the people who voted for him supported repealing the ban. I think the military leadership was a more prominent obstacle than public opinion.Quote:
Clinton pushed to allow LGB citizens to freely enlist and the voters did not back him. So what is a politician to do, take a moral stand like Bernie and wait 30 years for everyone to hopefully realize 'oh you were right all along', or you cut deals and get cozy with the enemy to temper their actions in the immediate and lay the groundwork for further improvement until you can convince the public to go in a different direction in the future.
Prove that it was worthwhile. 'Making things worse' is not a genius compromise and it is not a centrist victory. Also, I don't know the legislative history of DODT - what was the actual Congressional breakdown during deliberations?
Was Biden the left-most Democrat until Obama? Of course not. He was more to the right of the party than Pelosi is now (she's about in the center by ideological or voting metrics I've seen). You act as if the Left was totally extinct and no one could uphold it, and there was no option but to capitulate to conservative preferences, even preemptively.Quote:
Monty, I've been very explicit that Biden is not my first choice, he's not even my second. I'm a Harris/Mayor Pete guy. But I have to put myself in the position of defending him because we have a primary where the other candidates simply don't have the same experience of battling in Congress like he does, with the exception of Sanders. But oddly that experience and that record is being called a weakness because the young Progressives have no context, no education, no conception of what America was like before they reached middle school. Christ, this country was so anti-lgbt that when Ellen came out as gay in 1997 the next season of her show lost 25% of its viewers.
Biden wasn't battling for the most left-wing policy he could get. He was battling to present himself to the public like a tougher hippy basher than his Republican colleagues. If you want to defend someone, defend Ted Kennedy or John Dingell. Hell, defend Robert Byrd. How can you defend Biden beyond some weird sentiment that Democrats could do no wrong during the Reagan era?
Anyone can get experienced by sticking around for a long time. As many an army has learned, that's not necessarily a benefit to having them in charge.
There are no other candidates who can beat Trump? That's the comparison to be making.Quote:
If Biden can beat Trump, yes he is what this country needs.
Such as? That's one of the craziest things you've said so far. Get off the bipartisan supply. This is about as realistic as Sanders thinking that public outrage could pressure on Mitch McConnell to pass Medicare for All (and in Sanders' defense I am not aware of him being on record as saying this out loud, so zero points for Biden).Quote:
Yes, I believe that Biden, if he has not lost some mental faculties in the past few years, has the potential to come up with realistic policy that can pass both chambers of Congress.
That was never a thing. To caricature: 'Sanders should have done more to convince conservative independents to vote for Hillary Clinton' - but - 'Biden deserves slack for anything he ever did in his career because it was presumptively for the greater good.'Quote:
Yes, Biden can pull a wave if the "Bernie Bros" don't pull another 'Hillary is just as bad' move.
I'm talking about content, which is where ideology comes into play most of all. Presumably you don't believe Trump's engagement with the executive branch was equivalent to Obama's, or a putative Clinton administration's?Quote:
I believe every president exercises the full authority of the executive branch, and then some.
Ultimately, even if one were to accept that no politician should be criticized for being conservative in the Reagan era - a terrible idea mind you - nothing written in your posts has offered anything to recommend Biden directly.
I am saying that the degree to which we can comfortably summarize the performance of a career is tied to the degree of experience of being in the weeds or, yes, education from experts who have studied it in detail. But with the follow up point that the sources we think are reliable are not really all that good. I read the NYT, the Economist, and I read the occasional biography or political sci book from time to time, and I honestly do not think I am remotely educated or knowledgeable at all about what it takes to be a politician and about the means and methods of political decision making. So I try to reserve judgement and give each candidate as charitable view as possible...when I am able to keep my anger in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
My mind is more focused on the specific act of making, I guess let's call it summary judgements. I would love to be in a country where everyone participated in the process and shared their experience and their views and why they believe in what they believe in. My issue is when we get into the realm of criticism, where we tend to generate narratives based around those criticisms which we then use to filter content or individuals. Because when we lack the right tools, and knowledge, or even the right language to be able to engage in a well thought out criticism we get bad narratives which lead people to pick garbage choices.Quote:
Another possible way to read you is that we shouldn't be permitted to discuss politics, participate in activism, or even vote until we become polisci experts or work in politics ourselves...
I too like 'Every Frame a Painting', but your tastes may simply be leading you to more intellectual content (praise algorithms), whereas most film content is on the level of garbage (screenjunkies) or pseudo-intellectual (nerdwriter). Or maybe the algorithm is telling me my tastes are terrible.Quote:
Ultimately I disagree even on the merits of your objection to criticism of films (and most of the major film analysis youtubers I'm aware of are either professionals or have academic background in the field), because anyone who has eyes to see and a mind to think can think through the elements of film. That's not to say any opinion is as good as the next, but it's not some rarefied subject available only to the wizened elders sitting above us. More saliently, film is a largely aesthetic experience and a consumer product - politics isn't, or shouldn't be, either of those. Politics isn't about what makes you feel good or an exercise of your individual expression. It's about negotiating the distribution of influence and resources in society.
Every analogy breaks down at some point...but on a very real level, democratic (as in the political structure) politics really is about what makes people feel good and exercising individual expressions. That's a very cynical take, but there is a large amount of truth to it.
Yeah, I think I have heard that before. They make the comment that pre-Obama, the last three successful Dem presidential candidates came from the South (Clinton, Carter, LBJ).Quote:
I'm sure foreign policy was part of it (didn't he give Obama pretty bad advice on Afghanistan?). Clinton became his Secretary of State, a position with more influence over US foreign policy than the VP. But as I recall she was one of the people Obama's team considered (the "unity ticket"). His other top picks mostly being old-ish white guys deep in the establishment (one of them was son of Birch Bayh, top presidential contender in the Dems primary in 1976, who died just a few months ago), the pattern is clear as to what the most important factors were though. I said semi-southern because Biden's whole career was serving a small state like Delaware (small like Vermont!), one that straddled the Mason-Dixon boundary; I forget if I thought of this myself or read it somewhere, but throughout the 20th century Dems gave considerable thought to their Pres/VP selections in the effort to include someone to represent the South. This article from the election states that Obama was also looking for someone who wouldn't get in the way of reelection.
I think that you can criticize a candidate for the positions he advocates now. Decisions made in the past can be criticized but in the context of the time they were made, which requires a level of expertise which most people (maybe not you, I don't know your job) don't cultivate. So as far as the average voter (like me), I can say 'well he says he is now for medicare for all, even if he didn't endorse it in the past' and walk away thinking more highly. Or I can even say, 'well he still thinks that X policy he championed from the 1990s is still the right policy for today' and be disappointed. But I think I run into problems if I go and say 'well he thought that X policy was good to implement back in the 1990s, and I think that policy is bad'. because over time we have the benefits of hindsight and of a culture which has reacted against the culture of past (or even several layers of reactions to reactions). and if I am not thinking critically about this and I am not in the right context, I can get to some odd conclusions. It's not impossible, but it is really damn hard.Quote:
ACIN, I don't understand. Is it possible to criticize a politician on any matter of substance? Is it possible? I'm sure you believe it is. If so, what in principle do you find objectionable in my scrutiny? What can Biden be criticized for and why? Why isn't it a circular firing squad to disprefer other candidates? You're not making any sense. Like, I give reasons not to like Biden, and without addressing any of them concretely declare them invalid and an example of unreasonable ideologized partisanship - 'iT wAs A dIFFEREnT tImE'. Yet, you're allowed to have a positive attitude toward Biden because - why?
Yes, if they continue to defend the policy as it stands in the context of today or if we do go into the weeds and find that they could have likely done more at the time of the original decision.Quote:
How is Biden an ally anyway? Dude's retired, and he's not helping any causes. Expanding my paragraph above, is it ever possible to criticize a member of the Democratic Party for their record, for being too conservative, or other reasons? I think it is, and I think my criticisms are sober, measured, and justified. Change my mind.
Where I see us going on this conversation is a judgement on whether Biden's record can be adequately explained by the conservative culture of the time or not. And if we can do it properly and say, hey here was the scenario in its proper context and we had a path to something better and instead folded to what we got, then sure I would be onboard with trashing him for his record. But to regurgitate my self-deprecation from above, is that an analysis we can adequately perform? Even professional historians give each administration essentially three different biographies. The first when they leave office, the second when they die, and the third when everyone involved is dead.
To my knowledge I think it was good because it dismantled the codification of exclusion to LGB community even if it was to a frustratingly limited degree. Assuming that citizens always follow the law, DADT made service possible for LGB citizens whereas previously it was impossible. I think practically all measures to make things 'better' are measures which make things 'less bad'.Quote:
As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, why do you think it was good at all? Have you lowered your standards so much you think bad is good? :P The question you would have to answer is, "Did DODT make life better or worse for LGBT in the military compared to the status ante quo?" 500-1000 words please.
Of course, I test all the candidates on the basis of ideology. That's why I don't vote Republican lol. You know, conservatives don't seem to have a problem treating every Republican as just as good as each other. Doesn't matter their choice in the primaries, whoever wins they all line up to vote as if it was their favorite choice.Quote:
Again, do you ever test anyone on the basis of ideology? If not, do you believe every Democrat is just as good as any other Democrat so long as they pay their dues? Speaking of paying dues, I notice you didn't address my observation that Biden literally campaigned for Republicans against Democrats in 2018.
As for Biden campaigning for Republicans, I honestly don't know anything about that I don't even recall hearing about it until now, so I just don't know how to respond. I don't have enough time tonight to google this and read up before thinking of a response.
I don't know enough to prove this, other than what I have from (I hope) more knowledgeable people. Hence, people like me shouldn't be in the habit of making these types of summary judgements. :DQuote:
I would normally be sympathetic to this as a bare historical point of order, but in the circumstances I'll have to challenge you:
1. Prove it, on a macro and micro (individual policies or areas of interest) level
2. Prove that they didn't go much too far right relative to what was possible
It's possible.Quote:
The revisionist argument is that by tacking so far right they only emboldened the far right, reinforced conservative memes in the public consciousness, dissolved the left flank of the Democratic bench with repercussions for the tutelage of future lawmakers, and passed a lot of overwhelmingly negative law that was by no means inevitable. This one I haven't looked into, but there's even a rumor that Clinton was about to privatize Social Security until the Republicans stopped him.
I agree with the first statement. As for the second, why not?Quote:
If you're going to claim that every single event in the past was always the most optimal outcome for the left, you're making a very heavy claim that needs heavy evidence.I agree that voters then were more conservative than they are now, but that cannot be used to justify any specific compromise.
Let me ask you a question because I am curious where you are going with this. If a good friend/family member of yours was a Trump supporter or became a Trump supporter for 2020, would you cut off ties and ghost them?Quote:
Also, that's just not true. Biden cozied up to segregationists because he thought it would make him more electable in Delaware. If this was ever defensible, it became less so with time, and rapidly, as he went from an upstart to an entrenched incumbent. Taking Biden's current rhetoric at face value, he cozied up to them more than was even ever strictly necessary because he genuinely liked them and appreciated having them around. To me that is 100% indefensible - how can you deny it?
Should I be judged harshly for having beers and playing video games with a guy who in his free time watches alt-right content on youtube?
I gotta get some sleep, I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.
Monty, I totally lost my train of thought of how I was going to respond, lol. Le't just go from the above.
I'm with you on approaching discourse with the principles of humility and charity, we disagree on the application and the appropriate place, extent, and factors. I'm willing not to dismiss Nancy Pelosi as she grapples with her party's right flank and her demons of optics, even as I feel disappointed and have to increasingly conclude that she's fucking up a number of things since the Special Counsel terminated. Because I understand where her strengths and weaknesses are, where the problems lie with her colleagues, and the low plausibility or caucus impact of a hoped-for Heel turn on her part. I can point to what are specific failures and missteps on her part, and recommend alternative actions, but I don't see her as worthless on that account. Biden's career doesn't have such redeeming features, and your excuses aren't very applicable ones for him in particular even if you think they should apply as a general grading curve for the class of an era.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Here's one way to assess politicians: what is their "value over replacement," if any? And make sure to fit it to context. For example, if some say Biden was respected in Delaware for his constituent services, that does no good for me as a national constituent; and plenty of Republicans are also good with constituents - I wouldn't vote for them. If Biden likes knocking on doors and chatting, let him go back to the suburbs (or retirement). It often helps to ask this question with this framing, "what value does this person add in X context?"
I dropped my subscription to the Economist five years ago. If your main sources of commentary are centrist or center-right respectively, I can see why you hold the attitudes you do. Start branching out to, like, Mother Jones. :clown:
So let's read stuff and focus on the substance.Quote:
My mind is more focused on the specific act of making, I guess let's call it summary judgements. I would love to be in a country where everyone participated in the process and shared their experience and their views and why they believe in what they believe in. My issue is when we get into the realm of criticism, where we tend to generate narratives based around those criticisms which we then use to filter content or individuals. Because when we lack the right tools, and knowledge, or even the right language to be able to engage in a well thought out criticism we get bad narratives which lead people to pick garbage choices.
There's a lot of examples, like Lindsay Ellis, Red Letter Media, Jonathan McIntosh (Pop Culture Detective), Dan Olson (Folding Ideas)...Quote:
I too like 'Every Frame a Painting', but your tastes may simply be leading you to more intellectual content (praise algorithms), whereas most film content is on the level of garbage (screenjunkies) or pseudo-intellectual (nerdwriter). Or maybe the algorithm is telling me my tastes are terrible.
I watched a couple videos by Nerdwriter and he seems fine for what he does. Hee hee, where does the grace and humility go when judging entertainment compared to politicians?
What I mean is, for the kind of people who like to think themselves above the brainwashed sheep, making politics an expression of consumerist taste is a stupid vanity.Quote:
Every analogy breaks down at some point...but on a very real level, democratic (as in the political structure) politics really is about what makes people feel good and exercising individual expressions. That's a very cynical take, but there is a large amount of truth to it.
Well, since Woodrow Wilson (South/New Jersey) and his Midwestern VP, we've had:Quote:
Yeah, I think I have heard that before. They make the comment that pre-Obama, the last three successful Dem presidential candidates came from the South (Clinton, Carter, LBJ).
(1/2 southern in light blue, 2/2 southern in dark blue, victories in bold)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yeah, there might be something here. You don't see too many southern Republicans on the presidential ticket either. Agnew? Bush the quasi-Texan?
I am criticizing Biden for the positions he holds now, which are informed by and have direct continuity with the positions he has taken in the past. And to reiterate, Biden was not a liberal Democrat at any point in his career. Let me also clarify that any old Democrats further to the right of Biden at any point during his career - let alone to the right of Senator Biden today - should not be welcomed either.Quote:
I think that you can criticize a candidate for the positions he advocates now. Decisions made in the past can be criticized but in the context of the time they were made, which requires a level of expertise which most people (maybe not you, I don't know your job) don't cultivate.
It doesn't really require much expertise, just a little bit of knowledge about the history of the candidate - exactly what the media in all its forms is supposed to serve us in. People who work have a record. That record is all we have to go on. The only debate should be over how to evaluate, not whether. People undertake the measure of many thousands every year at every level of politics, as many as there are candidates for any electoral occupation.
I agree.Quote:
Yes, if they continue to defend the policy as it stands in the context of today or if we do go into the weeds and find that they could have likely done more at the time of the original decision.
Where I see us going on this conversation is a judgement on whether Biden's record can be adequately explained by the conservative culture of the time or not. And if we can do it properly and say, hey here was the scenario in its proper context and we had a path to something better and instead folded to what we got, then sure I would be onboard with trashing him for his record. But to regurgitate my self-deprecation from above, is that an analysis we can adequately perform? Even professional historians give each administration essentially three different biographies. The first when they leave office, the second when they die, and the third when everyone involved is dead.
Biden was never really a swing vote for any major legislation AFAIK, but we have to look at what legislation he actually championed and what it says about his judgement and his ideology. There's a difference between - for example - voting for the Iraq AUMF, which Biden did, and being a really gung ho active advocate for the Bush administration. While whether the former is an inflecting dealbreaker today can be debated, the latter absolutely has to be because such a hypothetical politician is a liability at the national level regardless of any shifts in their views. This much on the importance of context.
Moreover, Biden wasn't just a politician in the 70s and 80s. He was a Senator right up until he became VP in 2009, he did unnecessary bad shit under Bush as well (I'm sure you'll hear Warren bring it up). And as always, remember that the point here isn't to establish whether Biden was a hero or a monster or in between, but whether he's what we want for national leadership today, if he's even on the list of backups.
To riff on the saws about public figures' indiscretions, a lifelong career isn't a "youthful mistake."
Are you sure? Check the text of the policy, deep within an appropriations bill, Subtitle G Subsection b (page 126), and you will find the policy introduced a legal codification that had previously not existed to the effect of kicking homosexual servicemembers out of the military:Quote:
To my knowledge I think it was good because it dismantled the codification of exclusion to LGB community even if it was to a frustratingly limited degree. Assuming that citizens always follow the law, DADT made service possible for LGB citizens whereas previously it was impossible. I think practically all measures to make things 'better' are measures which make things 'less bad'.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If the result was 'officers are discouraged from interrogating troops about their sexuality, but now if we find out about it you're more likely to be harassed or discharged', then I'm not sure it was worth it.
The real metric is, how did it actually affect queer servicemembers? We had 20 years of experience with it, I'm sure someone has taken a close look. I'm not saying here I know for sure DADT was a net negative, but the burden is on defenders to show it was a net positive.
Republicans can be perfectly vicious to one another in primaries. Anyway, the practices of the Republican Party are not relevant to us inasmuch as they contradict our values or the political pragmatics of our very different voter base. You wouldn't say that we should emulate Stalin in executing our political rivals because 'look how well it went for him, he got so much done', right? You don't get cookies for breakfast just because little Billy's parents let him have cookies. This is a very bad habit among the more conservative Democrats (admittedly also among self-identified leftist anti-Democrats), who whine about how unfair it is we're 'not allowed' to support imbeciles, thieves, and sex pests when "look at the Republicans/Trump." It's because we have, or ought to have, standards of ethics and competence.Quote:
Of course, I test all the candidates on the basis of ideology. That's why I don't vote Republican lol. You know, conservatives don't seem to have a problem treating every Republican as just as good as each other. Doesn't matter their choice in the primaries, whoever wins they all line up to vote as if it was their favorite choice.
Alright, I won't be mean to you, here's a link to feast your eyes. O'Rourke did something similar, but arguably more egregious because the Will Hurd election was closer; he says he'll do better in 2020.Quote:
As for Biden campaigning for Republicans, I honestly don't know anything about that I don't even recall hearing about it until now, so I just don't know how to respond. I don't have enough time tonight to google this and read up before thinking of a response.
In this I can at least sympathize with your appeal to the need for expertise, because care should be taken when characterizing national politics of an era and Bill Clinton was only one politician among thousands, not even a legislator. But it has been and will continue to be a subject of historical and partisan debate, so it's one more thing to add to the 'good idea to familiarize oneself with' list of Left ideas.Quote:
It's possible.
If the first proposition was accepted, the second is merely a corollary. If we're measuring by optimality of compromise, you have to apply an optimality model regardless of what the constraints are. Constraints are variable.Quote:
I agree with the first statement. As for the second, why not?
It is never possible to entirely avoid compromise, not in the 1930s US, not in revolutionary Leninist Russia. So compromise or negotiation of one sort or another is omnipresent. That doesn't make A compromise desirable. Heck, even when a compromise may truly be 'the best that can be done', that doesn't make it good. Else you might wind up like some contemporary Republicans and contend that the Republicans should have compromised with the South at any cost to avert the Civil War.
Ahhh... Many would argue yes. Without revealing more about myself than I wish to, I am basally differentially affected by the presence of Trump supporters in my life than many others might be... but I do know what it means to have close family of that mindset and it would be perfectly fair to judge me for not doing more to contest their beliefs. But even among those leftists who fiercely advocate the ostracism of Trump supporters in our personal or commercial lives, family and friend are assigned a different valence from one another.Quote:
Let me ask you a question because I am curious where you are going with this. If a good friend/family member of yours was a Trump supporter or became a Trump supporter for 2020, would you cut off ties and ghost them?
Should I be judged harshly for having beers and playing video games with a guy who in his free time watches alt-right content on youtube?
If your friend is a politician, the burden is higher on you. If your friend is a segregationist politician who believes "all whites are created equal with certain rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of dead niggers," well...
If I had a friend who told me they aspire to be the next Elliott Rodger, Dylann Roof, and Brenton Tarrant all wrapped up, I should stop being friends with them, yeah. If I had a friend who didn't advocate racial terrorism but espoused many elements of the same worldview, I would ghost them like a wimp but really I should confront them if not tell them off to the face before breaking ties. If my friend was in a position to manage, employ, or teach people, then too.
Last word here on Biden, if one believes Sanders is too old because presidents should be chosen for their two-term potential and having an octogenarian president is too risky, then Biden is definitely not presidential material.
ACIN, have you read this conversation between Stalin and HG Wells yet? I still urge you to read at least a thousand words. It will strike you as highly relevant, because everything old is new again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU
Of course when Stalin speaks of concessions, he is echoing Bismarks Iron and Blood. Power is a zero sum game. That is why the Republicans fear machine works so well, they can equate change with pestilence and desolation. The Soviet system is hardly a beacon of leftism and more a marxist paint job on an authoritarian apparatus. Like most people, Stalins Materialism trumped his Communism and his rule reflected that. His publicity stunt interview with some bougie writer should not be taken as some ideological maxim.
The big fight in the Democratic party right now is not so much "who can beat Trump". Trump has been losing ground and all the key states and frankly the country will elect a democrat barring some type of disaster. The fight is really which one of these fractious groups within the party will be holding the reins when that reckoning comes.
We need a healthcare system, we need Criminal justice reform, we need education reform, we need infrastructure. We have been nickled and dimed by the top strata while the public good has fallen by the wayside. The question is who can implement those policies. The man who did the most for American working post WWII was Lyndon Johnson, hardly a saint.
Having said all that, I don't think Biden will actually do any of that so he is a non starter here.
This country is far to the right that there is really no left. AOC is the closest thing to a leftist on the national stage and she is really a social democrat. On the other hand the are more hardcore right wingers than you can shake a stick at. But we do come back to the materialism question again.
I'm really surprised Trump has done nothing on infrastructure since it is both extremely necessary, would directly help his base and would probably give also all sorts of ways for graft to his extended family.
If the Democrats blocked it, it is an easy narrative in how they're blocking hard working Real Americans having proper jobs.
~:smoking:
Like, sure, but I was just posting the interview because it's an insightful primer to the historical debates which in turn have been revived in relevance of late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
You mean, you're surprised the Republicans in Congress haven't done anything about infrastructure. You shouldn't be, they're explicitly ideologically opposed to spending money for the public welfare and they have been for decades (maybe they would be less so if we reintroduced pork spending and earmarks). Instead, Trump and Republicans are collaborating on awarding wealthy investors a capital gains tax cut via executive order. Anyone with the barest familiarity with American politics should be thinking, "Duh."Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Edit: Actually, looking further into earmarks, past reform was only shallow, and they've surged under Trump anyway. So scratch earmarks as grease for the wheel. We're still left with 'Republican Party delenda est' as the only path to rescuing the republic.
Take a shot everytime Biden says, "the fact of the matter is..."
Just as quick comment, this debate had what you wanted Monty. 3 hours of criticizing Bidens record.
I don't care about the second debate, but I wanted to catch a little of the first. Because I missed the livestream on CNN yesterday, I'm reduced to trawling for clips on Twitter. CNN has the full debates paylocked behind subscription and I can't find the full content anywhere online.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
lol, find a leftist twitch streamer, they probably live streamed it while they gave commentary in real time. Honestly, today had more substance and policy discussion. CNN on night one was non-stop questions amounting to "everyone says progressive policies are crazy, what's your response"Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Sanders and Warren refused to bash each other, they basically fought off all the moderates. I still like Mayor Pete for being positive and not trying to bash the people at the top. Give him the VP spot so he can prove that he is a better Christian than Pence.
Also, yang is now my number 3.
That the USA has a major party - and the one in power - that wants the USA to be a dilapidated wasteland with little of worth in it apart from gated communities and a populace capable of using weaponry in the military or paramilitary forces is something I continue to find mind boggling: bridges, roads, airports, dams and so on is hardly welfare but is what separates a first world country from a patch of land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
~:smoking:
our liberal mediaQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Sounds analogous to the desire to see Kamala Harris tear into Trump on-stage as a repudiation of his white male chauvinism. My inclination is to see this sort of thing as no more than a cherry on top.Quote:
I still like Mayor Pete for being positive and not trying to bash the people at the top. Give him the VP spot so he can prove that he is a better Christian than Pence.
Still not sure if srs.Quote:
Also, yang is now my number 3.
His climate change strategy is defeatist neoliberal BS.
Quote:
We are 10 years too late... We need to do everything we can to start moving the climate in the right direction but we also need to start moving our people to higher ground, and the best way to do that is to put economic resources into your hands so you can protect yourself and your families.
The aristocrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I wonder how much potential GDP we've lost over the years.
https://www.businessinsider.com/asce...-3#bridges-c-2
Random surprise though, NYC subway alone handles more daily passengers. Of course we have our own mess at hand...Quote:
The ASCE estimates the US needs to spend some $4.5 trillion by 2025 to fix the country's roads, bridges, dams, and other infrastructure.
Quote:
With some two million people per day coming through US airports, congestion is becoming a major problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
On one level, it really is ridiculous the double standards. On the other, this is the type of talking points they will have to face against the Republicans in the general election so...good practice?
I think it would be a valuable commentary on the sad state of evangelicals in this country and hopefully the start of a revitalized leftist religious tradition.Quote:
Sounds analogous to the desire to see Kamala Harris tear into Trump on-stage as a repudiation of his white male chauvinism. My inclination is to see this sort of thing as no more than a cherry on top.
Monty...I am a neoliberal. Our climate is already damaged and what we are doing is trying to prevent it from collapsing. So what is his error other than stating the obvious?Quote:
Still not sure if srs.
His climate change strategy is defeatist neoliberal BS.
UBI in principle is about as left a position as you can get, if you ignore the fact that classical conservatives advocated for it way back when.
Right now my preferences are:
1. Mayor Pete
2. Harris
3. Yang
4. Booker/Biden
Sanders and Warren policies suck too much, they go a little too far for my neoliberal senses. Why does medicare for all have to ban private coverage as well?
EDIT: I said Harris when I meant Warren.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
There is a spectrum to the kind of damage we can expect; 2* C is a very different world than 4* C. Giving up now is condemning additional millions, maybe hundreds, to death, for no reason beyond short-term political convenience or ideological self-flattery. Individual market-based adaptation is not adaptation, it will leave most of the population behind. We need collective action because it is capable of averting quite a lot of climate damage and saving lives. Yang's position is one of the worst that can be sold to the public (other than outright denialism), pretty much like Denethor from Return of the King. Besides that he has no relevant experience, is markedly business-oriented, and has a lot of half-baked ideas and little credit for developing the good ones.
UBI can be left wing or right-wing (Milton Friedman was a proponent), as with conservationism. Without getting into this whole debate, from my perspective in new spending: tax credit < cash transfer < guaranteed service.
Harris has put out her own universal coverage policy, and it moderates Sanders' policy, keeping private insurance in the form of 'Medicare Advantage for Those Who Want It'. She started her run trying to appeal to the left wing of the party - including adopting Sanders' Medicare for All legislation as her roadmap - but now her tack seems to be a centrist turn into precariously assembled nudge policy that isn't even sound on the merits. Alongside the LIFT Act she seems to be establishing herself as the candidate of technically inferior policy that may be easier to get passed. That is, I don't know if her policies are actually easier to pass, but she's very clearly keeping procedural aspects at the forefront of her thinking, which I suppose I can appreciate.
If you think even Harris is going too far... hoo boy. Read outside the Economist for a bit! I'm saddened you would rank Yang above Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, O'Rourke, etc. Best quip I saw was that President is not an entry-level job at a tech startup. Have a left takedown of Buttigieg.
Some articles on why eliminating private insurance is technically superior policy.
So on the stage his point wasn't so much there is nothing we can do, but that we need to start preparing for the worst because we are on track to experience the worst effects of climate change. Obviously he believes his UBI is a good way to protect people from the financial effects of climate disaster such as sudden crop loss, property damage, etc so he segued into a plug for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
On his website his statement is thus:
His specific market based incentive is a Carbon Fee and Dividend,Quote:
Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and our way of life. It should be a top priority of the federal government to implement policies to control anthropogenic climate change while working with other governments to implement these policies throughout the world.
It’s important to regulate fossil fuels, both to control climate change and to improve the health of the average American. Renewable energy must be invested in, not only as a means of moderating climate change but also to drive economic growth. However, innovation must also be relied on to reverse the damage already caused.
While the role of the federal government is important, much of the work will be done at the state, or even neighborhood, level. The federal government should support local efforts through funding and market-based incentives.
I meant to say Warren, not Harris. I am more preferential to Harris's formulation of Medicare for All. I would say it definitely is easier to pass because we run into the same issue we discussed about Biden's past.Quote:
The cost of burning fossil fuels is paid by all of us, but the benefits are disproportionately gained by industry. There is very little incentive to control the rate at which fossil fuels are burned or CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
While a carbon tax would disincentivize the burning of fossil fuels, the money would enter the federal bureaucracy and be detached from other solutions to the problems associated with climate change.
A carbon fee and dividend, similar to the one proposed by the conservative Climate Leadership Council, would allow businesses to find market-based solutions to their carbon release while benefiting American citizens and providing funding for alternative fuel research and upgrades to our current energy systems. It could also be used to subsidize fuel costs for low-income Americans.
The American public is simply much more conservative than what progressives want to admit. Hence, Biden's still the pack leader: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tion-6730.html
A majority of Americans think government should provide health care, but when given the choice between an opt in w/ private available and Bernie's 100% socialized system they choose the former in large margins.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for
If Yang believes that climate adaptation is facilitated by giving individuals petty cash to "go now and die in what way seems best to you", then he should be denounced. This is the tech-bro mindset of billionaires who want to bug off to New Zealand or to a seastead as the rest of the sheep die off.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The first Yang quote has been Democratic platform boilerplate for like 20 years.
Carbon taxes, cap & trade, etc. might be useful but they're pretty much pointless on their own. See the case of California. The neoliberal fallacy is inserting market mechanisms where non-market mechanisms are likely to be or known to be better.
There is little reason to believe Biden's plan is easier to pass than Harris's (in current versions), because the insurance industry has already decreed holy war against any public option, because pharmaceuticals have already decreed holy war on any measure to reduce drug prices, and because providers have already decreed holy war on anything that reduces their fees. Heck, with your political approach you might as well default to the Sanders plan because all of them approach 0% probability of passage under any circumstances. We're going to need to settle in for a long hard slog to get anything done (and the winning argument, as so often is the case, will probably be the acute suffering of the public over time) so the progressive argument is simple: fight for the best achievable program.
At least Harris is thinking about buying in insurance stakeholders, Biden doesn't even appear to be at the level of the original Obama plan. Bizarre too that Biden's team thinks his plan will cover 97% of the population - like, just add a kludge or two and call it universal, what is it with conservatives in the brain?
From polling I've seen Biden isn't the top poller because Democratic voters prefer him as a first choice - I recall when the question asks to the exclusion of perceived electability he plummets - but because they think (without evidence) that he is most "electable." The black caucus are especially are timid with respect to whitelash and so tend to look for "safe" options. I wouldn't bet against people realizing Biden isn't so golden by the time Iowa primary arrives.
I think if the Democrats were more unified on single payer the public would respond. There's also a lot of misinformation out there. Did I share with you, or just with STFS, the polling that indicates Democrats simply genuinely believe that even Sanders' Medicare for All means a public option? And that Republicans have a more accurate understanding of Sanders' proposal than Democrats? At any rate, this is certainly something concerted messaging ought to move the needle on. If you don't believe messaging is possible in the current media environment - and hell, maybe it is so - then you can't believe any version of healthcare reform is going to pass so :shrug:
I think a thousand a month would be very much welcomed by those who are struggling in this country, and I wouldn't dismiss it as "die in your own way" but as a tool to help you adapt to what is beyond out control at the moment (severe weather phenomenon). At the least an extra thousand a month would help the lower middle class and upper middle class invest in their own solar panels or buy an electric car and help with decentralizing out power sources and increase renewables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The argument does not follow the link. Cap and Trade has not impacted emmissions because according to the study emissions are already below what the market limit. Market forces are what is keeping them below the limit because industry is transitioning to gas powered generation and solar due to better economic return (gas is cheaper than coal, solar's return over the 5-10 year period is increasing every year). in addition, they admit they may not be taking full advantage of the market allowances because California being California, they could drastically lower the limit at any moment.Quote:
Carbon taxes, cap & trade, etc. might be useful but they're pretty much pointless on their own. See the case of California. The neoliberal fallacy is inserting market mechanisms where non-market mechanisms are likely to be or known to be better.
Hold the phone, like I said, the polling shows strong support for a public option. It's what we are going towards politically, because it motivates too many people for politicians to not rally around it and the insurance industry knows they can't hold it off forever. What helps the insurance companies kill the public option is to force a configuration that they simply don't want, that is, a sole public option with no private choices.Quote:
There is little reason to believe Biden's plan is easier to pass than Harris's (in current versions), because the insurance industry has already decreed holy war against any public option, because pharmaceuticals have already decreed holy war on any measure to reduce drug prices, and because providers have already decreed holy war on anything that reduces their fees. Heck, with your political approach you might as well default to the Sanders plan because all of them approach 0% probability of passage under any circumstances. We're going to need to settle in for a long hard slog to get anything done (and the winning argument, as so often is the case, will probably be the acute suffering of the public over time) so the progressive argument is simple: fight for the best achievable program.
Well, this is why I like Harris over Biden for the most part.Quote:
At least Harris is thinking about buying in insurance stakeholders, Biden doesn't even appear to be at the level of the original Obama plan. Bizarre too that Biden's team thinks his plan will cover 97% of the population - like, just add a kludge or two and call it universal, what is it with conservatives in the brain?
Ehh, Biden still seems to be outperforming the rest in head to head choices vs Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/Quote:
From polling I've seen Biden isn't the top poller because Democratic voters prefer him as a first choice - I recall when the question asks to the exclusion of perceived electability he plummets - but because they think (without evidence) that he is most "electable." The black caucus are especially are timid with respect to whitelash and so tend to look for "safe" options. I wouldn't bet against people realizing Biden isn't so golden by the time Iowa primary arrives.
Again, I think this is indicative of a 'shy Tory' effect even among America's liberals.
This I will agree with you on. I can't stand how some of the neoliberal establishment still seems to be trying to go it alone. Candidates like Delany, Hickenlooper and the gov. of Montana just shit all over Medicare for All without bringing anything of real excitement. "Minor changes to Obamacare for everyone! Why am I irrelevant?"Quote:
I think if the Democrats were more unified on single payer the public would respond. There's also a lot of misinformation out there. Did I share with you, or just with STFS, the polling that indicates Democrats simply genuinely believe that even Sanders' Medicare for All means a public option? And that Republicans have a more accurate understanding of Sanders' proposal than Democrats? At any rate, this is certainly something concerted messaging ought to move the needle on. If you don't believe messaging is possible in the current media environment - and hell, maybe it is so - then you can't believe any version of healthcare reform is going to pass so :shrug:
Obviously having $12K more a year would be quite useful to the majority of the population, but the lesson with UBI's is that 'if you can afford an effective one, you don't need it, and if you need it, you can't afford an effective one.' Yang's plan doesn't simply materialize cash into people's hands. The ideological flavor Yang imbues his design with creates fatal flaws. I linked you an article above. It would leave many people worse off by eliminating ("consolidating") welfare programs and instituting a VAT, while shelling out many billions for people in the top income quarter who do not need it, while not substantially raising taxes on the super-rich. (His non-VAT tax proposals are desirable in themselves, but without heavy increases in income, wealth, or corporate taxes - which to my search he hasn't proposed - they are only stopgaps: "By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.")Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The next problem is that a UBI does not address any current or incipient social problems, including automation. A sub-poverty UBI for expected non-workers is a method to arriving at the standard cyber-dystopian underclass. Yang's UBI seems tailored to entrench inequality, racism, social disintegration and oligarchy. Yet another problem is that it reduces fiscal flexibility by introducing massive new mandatory expenditures that certainly will not be adjusted up or down according to economic conditions (i.e. according to the need for reduced or increased government stimulus of demand).
Rather than appropriating trillions for a substandard UBI, let's appropriate the same amount for universal federal health coverage, which will prove more useful and efficient in improving people's lives. I reiterate my hierarchy of tax credit < cash transfer < public service. Once there is guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed housing, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed childcare, and revitalized public schooling through tertiary level we can talk about checking deposits. Don't get me wrong, if we magically had a Hobson's choice of (unfinanced) Yang UBI or nothing... but as it stands it only serves to undermine all the other much better and more impactful proposals working their way through the Democratic Party. If you really want to pursue something resembling a universal income, social wealth dividends are a more left-wing solution you might like to read about.
Trillions in cash transfers in in our control, but economy-wide adaptation and decarbonization isn't? Families buying electric cars - you're thinking far too individualistically, another ideological hallmark of neoliberalism. We can't simply replace the private automobile fleet with electrics; better to also redesign our transit for fewer single vehicles overall.Quote:
and I wouldn't dismiss it as "die in your own way" but as a tool to help you adapt to what is beyond out control at the moment (severe weather phenomenon). At the least an extra thousand a month would help the lower middle class and upper middle class invest in their own solar panels or buy an electric car and help with decentralizing out power sources and increase renewables.
You don't understand, insurance companies are not the only stakeholders in consideration. I also specifically named the providers (hospitals and physicians) and pharmaceuticals. Every major Democratic healthcare plan is subject to pledged holy war by all three. Biden's plan has several measures to reduce drug prices, including the consensus position on enabling Medicare to negotiate prices. Moreover the public option administration will, according o Biden, negotiate lower prices from providers. Can you show that the opposition to Biden's plan would be much less fierce than to Harris's or to Sanders'?Quote:
Hold the phone, like I said, the polling shows strong support for a public option. It's what we are going towards politically, because it motivates too many people for politicians to not rally around it and the insurance industry knows they can't hold it off forever. What helps the insurance companies kill the public option is to force a configuration that they simply don't want, that is, a sole public option with no private choices.
I could be wrong on this, and I comment without verification, but to my knowledge the ACA did not introduce any changes that would significantly affect provider fees, drug prices, or the business model of providers and pharmaceuticals more generally. Insofar as I am correct, Obama's one major stakeholder hurdle was the insurance industry, and his market-oriented legislation explicitly went out of its way to gain the insurance companies' neutrality or even approval. Every fight before us today is much harder, not least because of the limitations in electoral representation.
Assuming that something polls highly and must therefore be taken up by the Congress is like the caricature of Bernie Sanders that some Democrats use to criticize him. As to people not wanting the elimination of employer-based private insurance, it fluctuates wildly throughout polls and is clearly something that can be affected by public engagement. The polling can be driven in either direction by the players involved. Again though, you make the mistake of thinking polling is deterministic. I don't want to be too strident here, but for now undertake the exercise of forgetting about polling and analyzing only in terms of stakeholders. Remember, you already know this to be true - popular sentiments about legislation are very rarely either a barrier or an impetus to passage. The experience of your lifetime should furnish sufficient examples. If we can't get single payer through it won't be because half the population on average doesn't like the sound of it, it will be because the three stakeholders I named (plus the fourth column, the business community at large) will mount too much resistance.
Most concretely, we might constitute this question as a scenario of "would 5_ Democratic senators eliminate the filibuster to pass this legislation?" That's a much more relevant metric than highly-volatile and confused (and manipulable) public opinion.
The <Dem nominee>-Trump matchups are usually two different questions, (1) who would <respondent> vote for between <Dem> and Trump, and (2) which Democrat is capable of beating Trump. In both cases the responses tend to show the same trend: Biden has the highest rank, then the 1st/2nd tier candidates have similar scores to each other, then the rest of the contenders have similar scores below the previous. Clearly respondents are influenced by media narratives of candidate rankings and (esp. among Democrats) not their own preferences for candidate. Not their first-order preferences at least. I think we can be confident these numbers will last exactly as long as Joe Biden is perceived to be the frontrunner. That's not to say Biden's star will definitely fade as the race goes on, but there's a lot of highly-contingent circular reasoning going into treatment of his polling.Quote:
Ehh, Biden still seems to be outperforming the rest in head to head choices vs Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/
Again, I think this is indicative of a 'shy Tory' effect even among America's liberals.
I'm not sure how the polling we've seen up to now, including in this or recent posts, supports attribution of more genuine conservative sentiment among Democrats than is explicitly reported. Dig into polling yourself and show your theory in action, given the balance of: voter political lean; voter issue knowledge; voter candidate awareness; voter candidate approval; voter candidate ranking; voter ranking on criterion of electability; and whether primary voters have made up their minds on their vote. I assume I've missed some factors too.
While half or fewer of the public watch the debates, here's some interesting polling. I suppose we can both be happy that our candidates did well. Well, not Biden and Harris, but...Quote:
This I will agree with you on. I can't stand how some of the neoliberal establishment still seems to be trying to go it alone. Candidates like Delany, Hickenlooper and the gov. of Montana just shit all over Medicare for All without bringing anything of real excitement. "Minor changes to Obamacare for everyone! Why am I irrelevant?"
Well, the report rules out the last sentence, but what I'm trying to convey is that the major source of carbon reduction was in the electricity sector, due to increases in non-fossil fuel generation and usage, and that these changes came about not merely due to market forces or market responses to carbon pricing but directly due to California's bevy of regulations, tax nudges, and capital investments. The contrast between command-and-controlvs. market, in other words the difference between telling companies what to do or not to do, or throwing money around, and letting them figure it out for themselves under a generic rubric. I'm bringing this to your attention not because I'm claiming that California's cap and trade policy is a waste of time or a failure (though the carbon price is many times too low and the buildup of allowances looms as a medium-term concern), nor because I'm opposed to market activity in principle, but because market solutions are continuously demonstrably inadequate to the task and I believe we need more command-based solutions - fast. Indeed, to demonstrate my tolerance of the market here's an informative article about the New-Deal-era Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other programs that facilitated private investment parallel to public works and spending; I'm sure we'll need something like that. Crucially however, it was acknowledged that the government should have such industrial policy to allocate or discipline private spending and investment in directions that the government determined were needed.Quote:
The argument does not follow the link. Cap and Trade has not impacted emmissions because according to the study emissions are already below what the market limit. Market forces are what is keeping them below the limit because industry is transitioning to gas powered generation and solar due to better economic return (gas is cheaper than coal, solar's return over the 5-10 year period is increasing every year). in addition, they admit they may not be taking full advantage of the market allowances because California being California, they could drastically lower the limit at any moment.
Quote:
Under Jones, the RFC worked across economic scales, from local construction contractors to giant corporations. It did not try to fulfill a particular utopian vision of how the economy “ought to be” but worked within the system to fix the system. It relied not on abstract economic ideas like socialism or capitalism, but on practical business methods. And it worked. There was no single magic bullet, but a portfolio of opportunities. Under Jones, the RFC did not ask Congress for money. It could borrow billions from capital markets or banks. And borrow it did. But with Jones at the helm, overall, it made money. The RFC developed different projects that turned cutting-edge technology into self-sustaining commercial enterprises.
Some more about Biden, one I knew and one I didn't:
This on the virtue of cutting Medicare and Social Security.
He repeatedly has an impulse to refer to Theresa May as "Margaret Thatcher".
We need to eliminate all of these Reagan-era throwbacks. Let's move on.
So the ICE raids in MS are pretty much par for the course. Underpay and work these guys to the bone, call ICE, Rinse and Repeat.
Which Democrat will hold these businesses responsible? Who will criminalize the actual wrongdoer here?
Sanders and Warren probably would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I think the non-VAT tax proposals could carry the UBI proposal most of the way there, minimizing the level of VAT needed.
It would not leave people worse off, because as Yang himself says, it is opt-in. Everyone has the choice to either give up their current welfare programs and take the UBI or remain on the current programs which still require qualifications to receive.
Social wealth dividends is interesting, but I'd like to see these left wing proposals get vetted by actual economists. My preference is a negative income tax for that reason, but Yang is literally the only guy on stage talking about it, so it is his plan by default.
It's a matter of physics. What do you propose for baseline electrical demand at night right now? You can't write off the downsides of renewables intermittency with 'batteries', or 'nuclear', when the former is simply not there yet to even match ICE ranges in cars and the latter is politically dead. Meantime, we are guaranteed to live in a world 1 to 1.5 degrees hotter throughout our lives, unless we make efforts to geoengineer our climate, this is the new scenario which we will need to adapt to, and yes people will need assistance to adapt to this new environment on an individual level. The easiest way to provide said assistance is simply cutting them a check to use as they wish.Quote:
Trillions in cash transfers in in our control, but economy-wide adaptation and decarbonization isn't? Families buying electric cars - you're thinking far too individualistically, another ideological hallmark of neoliberalism. We can't simply replace the private automobile fleet with electrics; better to also redesign our transit for fewer single vehicles overall.
I'm 100% in agreement about redesigning our transit, LA is constantly expanding the metro. If only Orange County could stop being assholes and approve a metro stop next to Disneyland, we could be a lot better about transportation emissions.
ACA significantly impacted the business model by prohibiting policy refusals based on pre-existing conditions. This was huge to the industry and even with the mandate, it meant that insurance companies were now on the hook for more expenses.Quote:
You don't understand, insurance companies are not the only stakeholders in consideration. I also specifically named the providers (hospitals and physicians) and pharmaceuticals. Every major Democratic healthcare plan is subject to pledged holy war by all three. Biden's plan has several measures to reduce drug prices, including the consensus position on enabling Medicare to negotiate prices. Moreover the public option administration will, according o Biden, negotiate lower prices from providers. Can you show that the opposition to Biden's plan would be much less fierce than to Harris's or to Sanders'?
I could be wrong on this, and I comment without verification, but to my knowledge the ACA did not introduce any changes that would significantly affect provider fees, drug prices, or the business model of providers and pharmaceuticals more generally. Insofar as I am correct, Obama's one major stakeholder hurdle was the insurance industry, and his market-oriented legislation explicitly went out of its way to gain the insurance companies' neutrality or even approval. Every fight before us today is much harder, not least because of the limitations in electoral representation.
Assuming that something polls highly and must therefore be taken up by the Congress is like the caricature of Bernie Sanders that some Democrats use to criticize him. As to people not wanting the elimination of employer-based private insurance, it fluctuates wildly throughout polls and is clearly something that can be affected by public engagement. The polling can be driven in either direction by the players involved. Again though, you make the mistake of thinking polling is deterministic. I don't want to be too strident here, but for now undertake the exercise of forgetting about polling and analyzing only in terms of stakeholders. Remember, you already know this to be true - popular sentiments about legislation are very rarely either a barrier or an impetus to passage. The experience of your lifetime should furnish sufficient examples. If we can't get single payer through it won't be because half the population on average doesn't like the sound of it, it will be because the three stakeholders I named (plus the fourth column, the business community at large) will mount too much resistance.
Most concretely, we might constitute this question as a scenario of "would 5_ Democratic senators eliminate the filibuster to pass this legislation?" That's a much more relevant metric than highly-volatile and confused (and manipulable) public opinion.
Funny enough, Republicans killed the mandate because it was the only thing about the ACA that was politically acceptable to voters to remove. Preexisting conditions are still covered. I would be pissed if I was the CEO of an insurance company.
Nah, it's completely opposite. Big money interests wield their power by the ability to influence the verbiage of legislation and pushing for congressional stalemate/obstacles for bills they do not like. But this is all done in the shadows, in the one-on-one lunches and meetings. When the public gets energized, it doesn't matter how big the money payload is, they can't risk losing re-election and politicians play it very safe when it comes to that kind of thing.
How much money was there to be made by privatizing social security, but when Bush 43 pushed for it it didn't happen. We can't simultaneously pretend that we can rise up in some leftist political revolution and enact big structural changes while at the same time making it seems as if public opinion has no influence in policy decisions. Unless you are just advocating for violent revolution.
Why is it that I always need to prove to you that the numbers reported are factual 'on the ground' statements of reality, where you can simply dismiss all of it as trickery in the questions but you know in your heart that this instead is what they must be feeling.Quote:
The <Dem nominee>-Trump matchups are usually two different questions, (1) who would <respondent> vote for between <Dem> and Trump, and (2) which Democrat is capable of beating Trump. In both cases the responses tend to show the same trend: Biden has the highest rank, then the 1st/2nd tier candidates have similar scores to each other, then the rest of the contenders have similar scores below the previous. Clearly respondents are influenced by media narratives of candidate rankings and (esp. among Democrats) not their own preferences for candidate. Not their first-order preferences at least. I think we can be confident these numbers will last exactly as long as Joe Biden is perceived to be the frontrunner. That's not to say Biden's star will definitely fade as the race goes on, but there's a lot of highly-contingent circular reasoning going into treatment of his polling.
I'm not sure how the polling we've seen up to now, including in this or recent posts, supports attribution of more genuine conservative sentiment among Democrats than is explicitly reported. Dig into polling yourself and show your theory in action, given the balance of: voter political lean; voter issue knowledge; voter candidate awareness; voter candidate approval; voter candidate ranking; voter ranking on criterion of electability; and whether primary voters have made up their minds on their vote. I assume I've missed some factors too.
One debate doesn't make or break a candidate. Obama did poorly in the first debate against Romney. I want to hear more from Pete.Quote:
While half or fewer of the public watch the debates, here's some interesting polling. I suppose we can both be happy that our candidates did well. Well, not Biden and Harris, but...
California is no where near command and control. California leads the nation in implementing incentives, regulations, and mandates to correct for inadequacies in the market to handle certain problems which is why it has had the success we have seen, but that does not mean that California is not using market based policies or that market based policies are not the most effective way of facilitating change. To be honest, the report notes most of the increase in carbon-zero electrical generation was from hydro, and you can't be telling me this is not misleading when California just came out of a long drought. Climate change is only going to depress hydro in the long run as my state gets hotter, and the rate of non-hydro renewable increase was not very impressive.Quote:
Well, the report rules out the last sentence, but what I'm trying to convey is that the major source of carbon reduction was in the electricity sector, due to increases in non-fossil fuel generation and usage, and that these changes came about not merely due to market forces or market responses to carbon pricing but directly due to California's bevy of regulations, tax nudges, and capital investments. The contrast between command-and-controlvs. market, in other words the difference between telling companies what to do or not to do, or throwing money around, and letting them figure it out for themselves under a generic rubric. I'm bringing this to your attention not because I'm claiming that California's cap and trade policy is a waste of time or a failure (though the carbon price is many times too low and the buildup of allowances looms as a medium-term concern), nor because I'm opposed to market activity in principle, but because market solutions are continuously demonstrably inadequate to the task and I believe we need more command-based solutions - fast. Indeed, to demonstrate my tolerance of the market here's an informative article about the New-Deal-era Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other programs that facilitated private investment parallel to public works and spending; I'm sure we'll need something like that. Crucially however, it was acknowledged that the government should have such industrial policy to allocate or discipline private spending and investment in directions that the government determined were needed.
Encouraging more fossil fuel divestment and removing subsidies on those sources (while boosting subsidies on local solar and smart grid infrastructure development) will do more than a return of soviet style management.
The idea that the main limiting factor of progress is the degree to which the force of government is applied is historically wrong and dangerous on many levels.
You're spot on: ICE raids followed a massive sexual harassment settlement at Mississippi plantsQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
While this line of thinking is understandable, I worry that actually pursuing employers under the current immigration system would have the byproduct of pushing unauthorized workers deeper into the black market, into conditions of outright slavery, as well as intensifying as far as possible the conservative/corporate attacks on renascent labor activism and legislation.Quote:
Which Democrat will hold these businesses responsible? Who will criminalize the actual wrongdoer here?
The more I learn about American immigration the more I see the only solution both humane and practical as involving some sort of codified freedom of movement across the Americas. Besides laws and enforcement to secure union rights and labor standards I mean. @SeamusFermanagh
A compromise in the meantime may be not to prioritize penalties for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, but to penalize knowingly hiring unauthorized workers and subsequently denouncing them to immigration authorities. You want to call ICE about all those "illegals" you hired?The workers now have an offer to buy out your business as a co-op, subsidized with federally-backed loansBig fine for employers, carceral penalties.
Even enforcing the existing statutes of up to $3000 fine per employee and up to 6 months in jail (and $250 to $10000 per alien in civil penalties) would be a start, if predicated on employers' malicious recourse to enforcement in retaliation against workers. This could surely be accomplished just by shifting enforcement under executive authority. As long as we don't forget to factor in any possibility of further perverse incentives and adverse selections in the existing economy.
Well, Warren does have something to say about it. Not exactly truth and reconciliation, but in this country it counts as radical.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Tangentially, I'd like to hear Strike's comments on Sanders' and Warren's newly released criminal justice reform proposals (they're pretty similar at a glance). The two now appear definitively ahead of Booker et al. on the topic.Quote:
Ms. Warren also said she would create a task force in the Justice Department to investigate allegations of abuses of migrants detained by the Trump administration, including “medical neglect and physical and sexual assaults.”
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Read this, very apropos:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
My god, Biden's melt down was so....horrible to watch. Truly awkward.
He has always been prone to gaffes.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
He is part of the old school 'hale fellow and well met' grip-and-grin style of politics.
He wants incremental change toward the liberal agenda.
ALL of these qualities put him out-of-step with the hardcore Dem activist crowd that represents so much of the early-on participants in the Dem nomination process. He is probably, in terms of stance on the issues, much closer to the mainstream of the Dem membership overall.
But his gaffes, his age, and the passion for quasi-revolutionary change sought by the more ardent Dems will combine to push him out of the nom. The question is, how quickly.
So far, the Dems are still in 'circular-firing-squad' mode (inevitable at this point). We shall see how long it takes them to shift into a more orthodox nomination race.
You mean this stuff?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
When Biden says "make sure you have the record player on at night," I know enough to recognize what he is referring to.
But seriously, Biden has reportedly been increasingly incoherent all campaign.
More than that he seems tired and confused much of the time. If you can't stand speculation about a president's potential senescence, Biden is the last opponent you want facing Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Remember, the electorate is much more economically liberal than DC dogma has acknowledged, and the Democratic electorate to the left of that median. But I've grokked something interesting about Biden's disproportionate support among African Americans (without which he would be stuck in the high teens or low twenties):Quote:
He is probably, in terms of stance on the issues, much closer to the mainstream of the Dem membership overall.
1. Fear of Trump and his America (the estimate that white people are most comfortable with Biden)
2. African American Democrats are overall are more conservative than white Democrats, who have moved left considerably over the past decade (the gap closes between the youth demographics)
3. He's a racially backwards old white man, but a known quantity, and what more can one really expect of white folk?
4. Underappreciated but most critical of all, Biden was a man who put himself out before the nation as a vigorous and loyal subordinate to a black man - and not just any black man, the first black president!
What does this mean though? If you're referring to the size of the field, I agree; half the contestants should drop out tomorrow. But the contestants have treated each other gently up to now. The worst of it so far were Castro's snide implications that Biden is forgetful, for which he was widely panned by pundits. If this is the bloody conflict what gets the media in a huff, then I'm sure they would be beside themselves over Trump's treatment of the nominee. (Ed. They won't be.)Quote:
So far, the Dems are still in 'circular-firing-squad' mode (inevitable at this point).
He was caught unprepared. On the one hand, he doesn't want to alienate the moderate Democrats that oppose reparations and form the core of his supporters and on the other, he can't reject them openly, because that would reduce his chances to grab voters from the more radical candidates. Incoherence aside, I like Biden for his ability to trigger the Trump fanboys, still remember the hysteria over his allegedly ailing health and awkwardness in front of young women.
Biden vs Trump really does feel like two opposing versions of "The Man" down to the dodgy relationship with young women.
Surely the real standout moment in the debate was a politician saying live on national TV "Yes, we're going to take for AR-15, we're going to take your AK47", and getting a big cheer?
It means almost all of their effort is being spent on belittling and castigating one another, particularly those with the largest followings. The risk, of course, is that the eventual nominee is too battered (and too many weak points have been revealed) to defeat an incumbent Trump. The size of the field and the nature of early nomination process politics makes much of this inevitable, of course, and there is still plenty of time for the tone of the Democratic nomination process to shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In general is that a real phenomenon? It seems doubtful to me that there is anything the Democratic candidates will say about each other that will permanently weaken them against Trump that Trump wasn't going to deploy for himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Genuine question: Do you know of any historical examples where a contested primary produced a candidate who was fatally weakened by the process itself?
The candidates aren't even really belittling and castigating each other, or talking about each other (except to compliment Inslee for dropping out). The 2016 Republicans were rougher before counting Trump. This line of thinking strikes me as a manifestation of the media-favorite meta-narrative of "Democrats in disarray."
(Not to say that Democrats are never in disarray, just that 'existing within a primary race' isn't an example. The muddled and erratic nature of the impeachment process, rather, is one that reflects genuine division and confusion within the House caucus.)
In any election with two candidates and a group of "also ran" attacks from a candidate's own party can be very damaging. The Democratic nominee will get most of their votes from Democrats and swing voters, attacks from other Democrats are likely to erode that support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Trump is mostly preaching to Republicans.
Are there historical examples of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Let's say Biden will become the nominee. Trump has been calling Biden "Sleepy Joe" for months, among other things. He will campaign against Joe on race, on the economy, on foreign policy and the Middle East wars, on women's rights, on "toughness" and "energy" etc.
If some of the Democratic candidates emphasize their own youth in their separate campaigning, and once a month at the debates several make oblique references to Joe needing to hand in the keys, that's what undermines Biden's prospects?
It makes no conceptual sense to me, apart from the need to identify evidence.
EDIT: You're gonna love this one mate.
Romney 2012? (Though an incumbent Obama might have rendered and GOPer moot that time, Romney had been roughed up in the primary process by Santorum and other GOPers).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Dole 1996 (GOP self destruct letting Clinton win despite all the scandals etc. The GOP 'circular firing squad' was so damaging to all that Perot jumped back in and guaranteed their loss)
My vague recollection of the 2012 Republican primary is that even some Republicans criticized Romney for campaigning as being a representative of 'the people who sign the front of your checks' or some such formulation. "Even some." If the criticism is basically that Romney was an obvious plutocrat - and Obama used that against him - then I don't see the facial case for the Republican primary process per se hurting Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm not familiar with the 1996 Republican primary history. I can take your word for it that Ross Perot re-entered or could re-enter because of perceived Republican discord, but Clinton was a popular president and the scandals were essentially fabricated. Any analogue for 2020, such as Howard Schultz (who is no Ross Perot) has declined to run as third parties.
Maybe dedicated analyses would help here. But regardless, one would actually have to relate theory to practice. What are the specific events or performative trends or whatever that are evident in the Democratic primary that, based on general expectation and backed by historical correspondence, would hamper the ultimate nominee?
The last time the details of the primary process really seemed to matter was in the 19th century, when the parties were looser organizations and personal relationships and rivalries were much more salient (e.g. all the mutual ratf***ing between the antebellum Whigs). If Sanders were to do something like invest a million bucks in digging up previously-unseen dirt on Biden, you would definitely have a point.
Of course there's the anti-case of Trump (who was called racist and dangerous and many other things by fellow candidates and by high-ranking Republicans throughout the race, some of whom publicly refused to vote for him), but it's a bit of a special case in that it only fed into his appeal.
The one oblique way in which I could see an argument for the primary process hurting Democrats is in the "policy war." If one is of the opinion that candidates racing each other to the left will turn off the general electorate from the nominee and leave them vulnerable to Republican attacks, that is one way in which there could be a "circular firing squad" effect. But - unsurprisingly - I'm skeptical that these warnings identify a serious liability. :shrug:
Rommey 2012 was more of a "race to the bottom" in that Rommey swung away from the middle ground to get the Nomination. !996 is possibly more salient, but so is Hilary in 2016. The contest between Hilary and Sanders, the way is was conducted, the way they attacked each other, meant that more Dems didn't come out for her - they stayed home and voted for Trump. Had the fight been less acrimonious so that they could have run together this probably would not have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Having said that, the nature of the race today favours candidates who can't/won't run together - which is an issue in itself.
What chance does Andrew Wang have? He looks interesting with some of his views and some of his actions, ie: had a sit down talk with a racist who was calling him slurs in an exchange of ideas.
Probably nil for Andrew Yang but he has a chance to shake things up in the future with his Universal Basic Income idea - and since quite a lot of tech visionaries like it, he's poised to stay.
Yang's Universal Income would, over time, completely undercut the entire extant framework of the United States. Makes universal healthcare look minimalist by comparison.
I disagree because of the following differences in substantive implementation and social impact. The proposed programs have a similar price tag. Universal healthcare, with strident intervention in prices of services, drugs, and devices, would create social obligations and exercise institutional knowledge and competence. It is also extensible, something that could be expanded naturally in scope over time. A bare cash transfer is always just the cash for whatever it's worth and leaves citizens at the mercy of market forces. Without supporting programs it is liable to create a broad and permanent underclass under existing social conditions and trends. At least a welfare program has a defined purpose and it is comparatively difficult to argue (not that conservatives don't try) that existing welfare spending crowds out the possibility of additional commitments. A $3 trillion yearly mandatory program whose primary beneficiaries are the poor and working class would be a great excuse to foreclose on any manner of future government services and entitlements, while weakening solidarity for preserving Medicare and Social Security. A bare UBI does nothing to get citizens in the mindset that they could be furthering demands on the government for intervention; a fire-and-forget scheme, an automatic deposit with no bureaucratic interaction to develop secular mass consciousness, sounds like a dream for the libertarian-minded who want individuals convinced that there is no such thing as a wider society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Incidentally, Yang's UBI appears to be structured similarly to the proposals favored by Charles Murray and Milton Friedman. There's a reason welfare capitalism is lately being rediscovered among the Davos crowd, and why it was a superficial fad of sorts among the captains of industry in the Gilded Age: 'We'll throw you a few scraps as long as you never, ever do anything to build independent power.' Yuck.
Remember that Yang is the Democratic candidate who most dislikes unions and the minimum wage.
Saw this article on him from the BBC
https://bbc.in/2nwRiid
Bernie Sanders raised a record 23.5 million donation haul.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/u...ndraising.html
Bernie has been hospitalized and treated for an arterial blockage, his immediate public appearances have been cancelled.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49911035
Most of the frontrunner are too old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Bernie should withdraw with grace.
~:smoking:
Boomers just refuse to give up power.
And this differs from other generations how?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Boomers have done more to enrich themselves at the expense of other generations. That's just a historical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Boomers endorsed LBJ's big projects when they were poor and young. Then they turned around and pushed for tax cuts 20 years later when GenX arrived. They never question the need for SS in their old age, yet ask why young people need universal healthcare.
Boomers artificially limited local zoning laws and capped property taxes through Prop 13 in my state of California, causing the homeless crisis and turning my generation into renting surfs for the properties that Boomers own and they continue to push NIMBY policies in order that their housing prices go up as additional supply continues to get more restricted. All at the expense of Millenials who now can't find a starter home to raise a family.
It used to be in my state that if you were a CA resident, you didn't have to pay for higher education. The youngest three generations were now told they not only had to pay and pay big but they can never get rid of the debt even if they cant pay and go bankrupt.
There is one reason why LA can't build more than 4 stories tall and it has nothing to do with earthquakes. Boomers came in the 1960s and 1970s and decided no one else should come after them.
Boomers rigged the game heavily back when they were the only players at the table. Now Gen X, Y and Z have to find our political feet while suffering worse economic conditions than any generation before us beside the silent generation.
Do you never wonder why Millenials and Zoomers are so big on the socialism now?
Sanders and Biden are Silent if we're getting hung up on generations, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You'll be glad, per the midterms turnout chart you commented on a few months ago, that Gen X, Y, & Z now outnumber Boomers in the electorate.