Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[Wizardspride]

Shocker!

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

Shocker!

Read on Twitter

?s=19

I wonder what a certain poster has to say about this? Wait I need Glenn Greenwald to tell me the truth of all this.

[dobrojim]

[huge snippage}

As for the SuperPacs, it is not a good look for Alexandria Oscacio Cortez to engage with them. Although I feel that democrats/republicans/Tea party engage in this behavior of using fear (and honestly terrible advertising that makes me glad that I have a DVR) of using them. Ultimately something like ranked voting would be ideal which prevents extreme candidates although there can also be cases where a moderate candidate uses super pacs and wins a primary but is not as electable (see Hillary Clinton).

Ranked voting is something we desperately need.

A thought on the Squad's SuperPac...to me it's not a bad thing that they would have one.
Or for any other candidate to have them. The issue is transparency and how does a pol
receiving oodles of money affect how strongly they advocate for what they truly believe
as opposed to what someone is paying them to believe in.

[dckingsfan]

Actually AOC's has pushed Trump to look even more foolish by her agenda with the "get out of my country if you are not with me". I am not sure if Pelosi's strategy of winning and compromising with the Republicans whose bill received more votes among house Republicans and Democrats is going to energize the same turnout. (Although Trump might do enough to do anger voters into action)

I would say that your last statement in that progressives have super pacs may put them in the same boat as Tea Party- but also mainstream Democrats and Republican candidates.

Yeah, so we fully disagree on this. I can see that it would make Trump look more foolish to you. But you and I aren't the ones we are trying to convince. And AOC lost that when she and her chief of staff went off the cliff.

Specifically on my point of that PAC and the Tea Party PAC is they are trying to push their party by using fear within their own party. Zards has a good point though - they are tiny in comparison.

And specifically, I am saying we need less of this and just focusing on the stupidity of this administration without all the drama.

I agree that people like you and me and Trump supporters are already entrenched in their positions. I think the big thing with this specific Trump rant is that it will encourage people who are related to immigrants or non white Americans to actually show up to the polls. African American and minority turnout was lower in 2016 than that of 2012. The trend in 2018 is looking like the Democrats could win the election unless they elect a poor choice for a president which is entirely possible.

Will the political infighting have an effect on the presidential elections? I right now think the hatred of Trump is at all time high in so far as that people who sat out the elections are volunteering (at least my family/relatives), probably because Trump keeps saying things. I think it becomes an issue if all parties are not backing the presidential candidate which seems unlikely. I think it is too early for anything to specifically matter but I agree name calling is never a good look. Then again Pelosi inciting the left isn't either saying telling the New York Times that Cortez etc don’t have “any following” outside of “their public whatever and their Twitter world.”

You are right that the political infighting could become problematic if both sides don't get behind whoever wins the presidential candidacy. And both sides are going to have to compromise more than Hillary Clinton did (ie picking someone like Tim Kaine instead of someone more liberal like Sanders/Warren).

I'm not sure if Alexandria, Pressley, etc can go back to there base saying that they do support the bill question. I think it is hypocritical for Pelosi to say that her party members cannot disagree with her, at least as far as a substantive debate goes, on social media, and at the same time take shots at the progressives in a New York Times article.

Alliances could be important for years to come as well. Even if the Democrats win, I'm uncertain they can maintain momentum, political apathy could take place again and they could lose the house in 2022 if they don't have an optimal strategy going forward that rallies more than 47% of the public to vote (which was the case in the 2018 election as opposed to 37.7% in 2014). Nancy Pelosi hasn't been a great strategist other than simply watching Republicans fail- otherwise the Democrats wouldn't have lost the House. It is ok for there to be some friction between progressives and more to the middle democrats especially if voter turnout is as high as it was in 2018 and hopefully leads to a higher turnout in 2020

As for the SuperPacs, it is not a good look for Alexandria Oscacio Cortez to engage with them. Although I feel that democrats/republicans/Tea party engage in this behavior of using fear (and honestly terrible advertising that makes me glad that I have a DVR) of using them. Ultimately something like ranked voting would be ideal which prevents extreme candidates although there can also be cases where a moderate candidate uses super pacs and wins a primary but is not as electable (see Hillary Clinton).

You make some great points above. And I think the other thing you are saying is that this is all razor thin margins that can go either way. And that is going to mean that if (hopefully) the Ds take control, they are going to need to be able to govern and move things forward. And that is going to be tough because (at a minimum):

1) They do have some infighting in terms of which way to go
2) As you point out - the DNC (and Pelosi to some degree) hasn't come up with very good strategies (just see the debate format)
3) They probably won't take the senate - and voters may see the Rs blocking as their inaction

I like your strategy of letting them talk first. In my poker group, I asked the question of what they didn't like about Trump and they went on and on (there really is a lot not to like about him)... I just nodded my head and said I could understand why Bush and Ryan couldn't vote for him.

I will say that in defense of Pelosi, she has a really hard job and for the most part has been the adult in the room. She is trying to keep her majority focused on what the majority in the house wants to do. In a way, AOC is great because the press is focusing on her constant rake to the head moments and it is giving Pelosi cover. So there is that... but I think she has done much greater damage to the reelection process than she has done good - and if you want Trump gone - that's a bad thing.

[dobrojim]

On a random tangent, talked to a friend who is a Trump supporter. I am taking a different approach with Republicans in just listening them talk without disagreeing with them because I'm not sure if even logic will work to try convince him unless I am firing a perfect game as far as argument goes and even those points could take a few years to settle in.

- He stated that Trump is the greatest businessman of all time because he used bankruptcy laws in his favor.
- Democrats want us to go to war with Russia.
- Social media is shutting out conservatives.
- America is eventually going to go bankrupt anyways
- He at least believes that going to war with Iran would be a huge mistake

I will eventually take the time to argue with my friend. I do think it is possible to change someone's mind especially since he's been slurping whatever Trump has been saying (except he did say one time that he didn't like Trump criticizing Muslims).

What a great rationalization to any question in one's mind about Trump's acumen as a businessman.
It was all part of his plan to go bankrupt.

[dckingsfan]

[huge snippage}

As for the SuperPacs, it is not a good look for Alexandria Oscacio Cortez to engage with them. Although I feel that democrats/republicans/Tea party engage in this behavior of using fear (and honestly terrible advertising that makes me glad that I have a DVR) of using them. Ultimately something like ranked voting would be ideal which prevents extreme candidates although there can also be cases where a moderate candidate uses super pacs and wins a primary but is not as electable (see Hillary Clinton).

Ranked voting is something we desperately need.

A thought on the Squad's SuperPac...to me it's not a bad thing that they would have one. Or for any other candidate to have them. The issue is transparency and how does a pol receiving oodles of money affect how strongly they advocate for what the truly believe
as opposed to what someone is paying them to believe in.

And what it is used for and in this case it's threatened use. In this "primarying" moderate candidates - which was the same for the Tea Party. The notion is to get rid of the middle.

[dobrojim]

I'm not sure they would describe their goal as 'getting rid of the middle'.
They're simply working to install reps who believe in the same things they do.
Or ones who at least won't actively block things that they want.

[dckingsfan]

I'm not sure they would describe their goal as 'getting rid of the middle'. They're simply working to install reps who believe in the same things they do. Or ones who at least won't actively block things that they want.

If they aren't it is an unintended consequence.

[FAH1223]

And what it is used for and in this case it's threatened use. In this "primarying" moderate candidates - which was the same for the Tea Party. The notion is to get rid of the middle.

In the Left's case, its about moving the middle in their direction.

The Overton Window in America has shifted right for the last 3-4 decades. We live in the Reagan paradigm. I thought in 2008 that Obama, with his historic majorities, could break us from the Reagan paradigm but unfortunately he was of the Rubin wing of the Dem party and an admirer of Reagan.

And the Obama administration (Obama himself, Geithner, etc) even lied about how FDR handled the Depression when he got elected and then inaugurated.

[dckingsfan]

And what it is used for and in this case it's threatened use. In this "primarying" moderate candidates - which was the same for the Tea Party. The notion is to get rid of the middle.

In the Left's case, its about moving the middle in their direction.

The Overton Window in America has shifted right for the last 3-4 decades. We live in the Reagan paradigm. I thought in 2008 that Obama, with his historic majorities, could break us from the Reagan paradigm but unfortunately he was of the Rubin wing of the Dem party and an admirer of Reagan.

And the Obama administration (Obama himself, Geithner, etc) even lied about how FDR handled the Depression when he got elected and then inaugurated.

I feel you. And in the Right's case it was about moving the middle in their direction. And in both cases it only moved their respective parties. And the outcome was less of a middle. And from the left's and right's perspective this is a good thing. They perceive the middle as the problem (I think we heard that oft repeated in this thread )

[dckingsfan]

re: talking to Trump supporters...

I was walking precincts and called on a Hispanic house. The father answered the door and let me know that he was a Trump supporter. I asked him if he had seen the discussions of other Hispanics having to defend themselves in court to prove that they are citizens. His wife and daughter (19-20) were listening in the background.

He said he wasn't concerned and was still going to vote for Trump. The daughter then spoke up and said the very thing had happened to her friends father. Then the mother spoke up and said she was going to cancel his vote and he was going to sleep on the couch

I asked the daughter if she had registered and was going to vote. She said that if her mom was canceling her dad's vote she would. Gave her the voter registration instructions... probably won't make a difference in Texas in 2020. But maybe 2028?

[DCZards]

I'm not sure they would describe their goal as 'getting rid of the middle'.
They're simply working to install reps who believe in the same things they do.
Or ones who at least won't actively block things that they want.

...which is pretty much what all PACs do.

[pancakes3]

So what are your guyses' opinion on Trump basically shutting down the USDA's Economic Research Service by moving it to Bumfukt Kansas?

I used to work at ERS and basically it is a big useless pile of crap. 300 economists devoted to studying 0.5% of the economy. When I worked at Commerce is was in an office of 17 people whose job it was to basically cover the other 99.5%. On the other hand I really feel for the economists who are basically getting shafted because it didn't occur to them to unionize (assuming a union is allowed to insist they get veto power over relocation decisions). Good for my organization I guess, we managed to poach one of the fleeing economists.

I dunno. There's an awful lot of government that, from my view on the inside, could easily be eliminated and it wouldn't affect much of anything. But it's such a small percentage of overall government spending also, I feel it's being penny wise and pound foolish to pursue petty little spending reductions like this.

they've shut down two EPA labs, and relocating a third from Houston to bumfukt Kansas.
they're also relocating the bureau of land management under DOI from DC to Colorado.

these decisions seem to be disjoint and piecewise to infer that the marching orders are coming from Trump directly. more likely it's the result of ppl that Trump's appointed with specific ties to whatever industry a particular agency is tasked to oversee, and then those appointees acting on their own to downsize whatever office they can get away with to better serve their private sector ties.

[Wizardspride]

dckingsfan, Can I FINALLY call Trump a racist and his supporters DEPLORABLES?

[dckingsfan]

dckingsfan, Can I FINALLY call Trump a racist and his supporters DEPLORABLES?

Hell yes!

Only if you wanted him reelected

[Pointgod]

dckingsfan, Can I FINALLY call Trump a racist and his supporters DEPLORABLES?

Read on Twitter

But we have to understand Trump supporters and Republicans aren’t racist

[pancakes3]

[Wizardspride]

Shocker!

Read on Twitter

?s=19

I wonder what a certain poster has to say about this? Wait I need Glenn Greenwald to tell me the truth of all this.

To be fair, that "certain poster" isn't the only Assange fan in this thread.

The others were just a little more low-key about their support.

More.

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[JWizmentality]

dckingsfan, Can I FINALLY call Trump a racist and his supporters DEPLORABLES?

Hell yes!

Only if you wanted him reelected

...because we failed so miserably in the midterms?

I call these people what they are and if Trump gets reelected, this is just what America is. A farce, a lie, and no moral standing in the world. American "Exceptionalism" was always a lie anyway.

[gtn130]

dckingsfan, Can I FINALLY call Trump a racist and his supporters DEPLORABLES?

Read on Twitter

But we have to understand Trump supporters and Republicans aren’t racist

Yeah but if you call them racist it will make all the moderates SO MAD that they'll go and vote for the racist guy!