Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE (Read 2831796 times)

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #4020 on:** March 11, 2014, 08:47:51 AM »

If Obama has proven anything it's that a lifelong Democrat has no problem suddenly becoming a Republican or vote third party. It's because if the issues, you see.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #4021 on:** March 11, 2014, 09:18:15 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on March 11, 2014, 01:14:13 AM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on March 11, 2014, 01:05:21 AM
I often find myself sitting back and realizing that just a few years ago Shapiro, Breitbart and others were sitting pretty lampooning France, laughing at Olbermann, declaring gay marriage DOA, and killing Bush's immigration push.

And now Breitbart's dead! Just goes to show ya.

And his killers walk free.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #4022 on:** March 11, 2014, 09:26:34 AM »

The book should be called Ben Shapiro: Great Examples of the Rights Projection - How to use your racism and sexism to make it sound like your opponent is racist and sexist.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #4023 on:** March 11, 2014, 10:29:13 AM »

I rarely argue about any political issue, whoever when I do I just calmly prod. Most recently on healthcare. I know someone who tried to declare the law a failure because "there are 300 million people in the US and only 3 million have Obamacare LOL." Well after explaining the law is aimed at people without insurance I at least got her to move to the "there are 30 million people in the US without insurance and only 3 million have Obamacare LOL" goal post. Needless to say she didn't believe there are actually more than 30mil without insurance, and that more than 3 million people have Obamacare plans (private or Medicaid).

Isn't it like 10-12mil so far? Although I suppose one could argue that a lot of the Medicaid numbers are inflated due to people simply renewing existing Medicaid coverage. Still, the spike in Medicaid enrollees is no coincidence.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #4024 on:** March 11, 2014, 10:47:23 AM »

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #4025 on:** March 11, 2014, 11:58:49 AM »

Quote

CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson on Monday announced her decision to resign from the network before the end of her contract.

According to Politico, Attkisson had "grown frustrated with what she saw as the network's liberal bias."

Quote

Attkisson provided details on her forthcoming book about her struggles with the Obama administration, which she revealed hasn't been "written yet." At least now she finally knows how it ends.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #4026 on:** March 11, 2014, 12:51:58 PM »

Days after bragging about how Conservatives are an intellectual movement, now she's considering whether RICO charges can be filed against people that say mean things about the Koch Bros.

Quote

I just thank God that there’s a billionaire or two on our side. All the billionaires seem to be on the radical left, so I’m glad that we have a couple on ours. I hope we get a few more that are willing that come out but realize also this is an intimidation movement, I’m sure that the donors on our side don’t like to have their names vilified and that’s what this is about, intimidating people from giving money to our cause, that’s it. There’s something called the RICO statute, the racketeering law, that should be applied against them for doing this.

I can't imagine why billionaire donors don't want their names associated with people like Michelle Bachmann.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #4027 on:** March 11, 2014, 01:00:23 PM »

Quote

All the billionaires seem to be on the radical left

Brehvolution · « **Reply #4028 on:** March 11, 2014, 01:17:13 PM »

Goodyear should have been at CPAC. With the amount of hot air coming out of there, they would have all they need to fill their blimp for the next college football season.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4029 on:** March 11, 2014, 05:36:58 PM »

Well, it's certainly uplifting to learn a Congresswoman understands RICO so well.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #4030 on:** March 12, 2014, 08:57:14 AM »

Traditional media is catching MAD FEELS about Obama not just ignoring them, but doing an end run around them to more effectively communicate with people

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/11/barack-obama-the-worlds-most-famous-social-media-editor/

DAT SALT.

Hurry up and die, you irrelevant, self-important dinosaurs.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #4031 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:19:15 PM »

Quote from: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-inner-city-men-poverty

“We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with," he said on Bill Bennett's "Morning In America," as recorded by Think Progress.

In discussing inner city culture, Ryan referenced Charles Murray, a social scientist who has claimed that, "One reason that we still have poverty in the United States is that a lot of poor people are born lazy."

benjipwns · « **Reply #4032 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:49:34 PM »

Oblivion · « **Reply #4033 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:19:01 AM »

Jon Stewart's interview with Andrew Napolitano was awesome. According to Napolitano, basically:

- Having a war over taxes: good
- Having a war over slavery: bad*

*Unless you're on the side supporting slavery

DCharlieJP · « **Reply #4034 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:30:19 AM »

Quote

Now, compare those appearances to the number of times Obama has sat down with more "traditional" media outlets. The last time the Washington Post had an interview with Obama was in December 2009. The last time the New York Times had one was July 2013.
The conclusion?

... bid old media douche pools like the New York Times are now longer relevant?

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #4035 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:24:03 AM »

Quote from: DCharlieJP on March 13, 2014, 02:30:19 AM

Quote
Now, compare those appearances to the number of times Obama has sat down with more "traditional" media outlets. The last time the Washington Post had an interview with Obama was in December 2009. The last time the New York Times had one was July 2013.
The conclusion?

... bid old media douche pools like the New York Times are now longer relevant?

Broadcast television, 24-hour cable news, and print media are increasingly the haven of old people [i.e. the Republican base].

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #4036 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:32:45 AM »

Some nightmare fuel for breakfast:

McConnell is a hard man to look directly at. When you see him from the side it's not too bad, but when he stares into the camera and smiles creepily....

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #4037 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:36:37 AM »

I think there were only two non-white people in that entire ad and one of them was Mitch's wife.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #4038 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:17:14 PM »

benjipwns · « **Reply #4039 on:** March 13, 2014, 04:51:03 PM »

http://prospect.org/article/ezra-kleins-queer-new-hire
http://americablog.com/2014/03/hipster-homophobia-ezra-klein-hires-jerry-falwell-loving-gay-bashing-gay-vox.html

Quote

23-year-old graduate of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Ambrosino has earned his name as a journalist—and his coveted spot at Vox Media—by being the gay writer who comes to the defense of gay-rights antagonists. He most recently stirred up a storm by proclaiming, at The New Republic, that homosexuality is a choice and that he has chosen to be gay. Time magazine gave him space to call gays the real bigots for piling on Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, who had equated homosexuality with bestiality and said gays weren't going to heaven (still, Ambrosino says he wouldn't mind going fishing with the guy). At The Atlantic, Ambrosino threw his hat in the ring for the founder of his alma mater, who blamed September 11 on gays and accused them of trying to "recruit" children; Ambrosino says liberals like Bill Maher have slandered the Moral Majority founder and says, in Falwell's defense, that the guy with the "big fat smile" probably wouldn't have had him stoned to death if he'd known about Ambrosino's sexuality. Ambrosino also defends the views of ex-gay therapists and same-sex marriage opponents, whom he says aren't motivated by bigotry. In The Baltimore Sun, Ambrosino went after the guys in "butt-less chaps and high-heels" at gay-pride marches who earn society's prejudice with their "hypersexual antics": “I think there is a subversive power in living out my gay life in a way that seeks to emphasize the common ground I share with straight communities,” he wrote. “I don't want to participate in an event that seeks to highlight how countercultural I am.” Unsurprisingly, the religious right has been thrilled to find an acolyte among the fallen.

...

So the big question: Why has a string of editors, culminating with Klein, given this guy a platform? In an interview on Wednesday evening, Klein told me he hadn't read the pieces that had kicked up so much dust before bringing Ambrosino on but did so once he began facing criticism for the hire. “I don’t want to pretend that I have the context and the background to perfectly or authoritatively judge this debate," Klein said. "But when I read his pieces, I didn’t come away with the impression that he holds an iota of homophobia.” “Homophobia”—which activists too often use as shorthand to describe anti-gay views that don’t necessarily stem from fear—may be the wrong word for it. But even a cursory read through Ambrosino's writings should raise red flags. Klein, though, seems mystified by the blowback. He acknowledges that he is new to the process of staffing an enterprise like Vox. “I gotta be honest,” he said. “With a lot of this stuff, I’m trying to figure out what success means.”

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #4040 on:** March 13, 2014, 05:09:07 PM »

Klein should have hired Mandark to do google background checks for all potential employees.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4041 on:** March 13, 2014, 05:24:37 PM »

I really like how it's almost literally being Polygon: Politics Edition.

Just wish they had done a trailer for a documentary.

DCharlieJP · « **Reply #4042 on:** March 13, 2014, 11:59:46 PM »

Quote

most recently stirred up a storm by proclaiming, at The New Republic, that homosexuality is a choice and that he has chosen to be gay.

get
the
hell
out
of
here

Quote

“Homophobia”—which activists too often use as shorthand to describe anti-gay views

... lol

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #4043 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:43:01 AM »

Ezra Klein is, I'm sure, a nice guy... but he's obviously afflicted by the problem that so many "intellectual" types suffer from: they like "interesting" and "smart" people who have contrarian views. The worst example of this is obviously Andrew Sullivan, with too many examples to mention, really.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4044 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:37:24 AM »

Feel absolutely free to dismiss this for obvious reasons as uninformed and jealous bias but I've never understood why Ezra Klein even is a thing. Or why you would give him millions of dollars to run anything. Best I can tell about him, Yglesias, etc. is that they're highly considered merely because they write a lot. Klein seems to almost believe anything anybody with a certain authority tells him and is relentlessly positive about how everything is going to be great because of [X] with not even basic levels of skepticism. Yglesias somehow became a business and economics writer despite having barely any semblance of mainstream or Kenyesian economics understanding (let alone the 100% accurate Austrian model), and absolutely no knowledge about businesses or how they operate in any manner that he displayed quite regularly on Slate. (And I'm still convinced most of his entries there are just him bitching about his day but trying to connect it to something so he can post it.) Annie Lowrey is a secret favorite because when your background is in American literature it makes perfect sense to make you a lead economic policy reporter.

I mean, I get a similar vibe about Chris Hayes from his show, but he's at least been an actual editor for a while so he probably at least knows how to run/staff/organize a neo-newsmagazine.

To throw out some faux-fairness, I don't "get" Nick Gillespie or Meghan McArdle or like fifteen others either. I only read McArdle's blog when it was on The Atlantic because the comments were a semi-decent forum where basically her posts were just setting the "topic" to be discussed more or less. One of my favorites were a series where she basically argued that the Wall Street ballouts were necessary and needed and great because despite her mild-libertarian philosophy and all her supporting data her friends might lose their jobs so no price for the taxpayer was too high to save the firms.

Though I hear some of them, especially Ezra, are just fantastic at working the circuit.

And "wonk" is still the stupidest thing ever conceived. I take back my post from a couple pages ago because I do remember rising impotent rage when someone doing an IR undergrad degree described themselves as a "foreign policy wonk" in person. They looked like such a normal human being from a distance.

/getoffmylawn

Mandark · « **Reply #4045 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:44:00 AM »

Quote from: benjipwns on March 14, 2014, 03:37:24 AM

Feel absolutely free to dismiss this for obvious reasons as uninformed and jealous bias but I've never understood why Ezra Klein even is a thing.

The market.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4046 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:44:29 AM »

Actually, here's a better metaphor for how these "wonks" seem to me. You know when you're reading a forum argument and it's beyond obvious that the person has skimmed the wikipedia article and maybe the second result from a Google search and is just digging themselves deeper off that? The way I feel reading these "wonks" would be the journalist equivalent, only instead of just pulling up wikipedia they also fire off a message to somebody they know at a think tank or Senate office who sends them the stuff. (Or the ones without connections just pull up CAP or Cato or Heritage and type in "oil policy" or something.)

TL;DR version: I should have gotten in on this racket.

Mandark · « **Reply #4047 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:48:06 AM »

Quote from: benjipwns on March 14, 2014, 03:44:29 AM

Actually, here's a better metaphor for how these "wonks" seem to me. You know when you're reading a forum argument and it's beyond obvious that the person has skimmed the wikipedia article and maybe the second result from a Google search and is just digging themselves deeper off that?

And you wanted to know why I snarked when you were spouting off about certificates of need.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4048 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:12:25 AM »

You're more than welcome to know that or not and I encourage you to help keep up me honest and upright but certificates of need are one of those things that like asset forfeiture, licensing cartels, eminent domain, drug criminalization, etc. where I can't imagine someone not finding it more and more ludicrous the more and more they research it. Even if they are a huge fan of state backed monopolies. Though of that short list I'd probably put it third, it does have the advantage like asset forfeiture procedures of where if you talk about it people think you're making it up. "The government does not charge cars with crimes hundreds of times a year! You're nuts!"

As for Ezra and co's place in the market, I get why they're a thing in the broader pundit market but I don't get why they're a thing in the journalists circles.

Mandark · « **Reply #4049 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:16:34 AM »

The main reason Klein and Yglesias are fairly big in the online punditry game is that they got into it at the right time. Same as Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, McArdle, Glenn Reynolds, etc. Granted, some seem to have a better knack for building their brands than others (Marshall and Klein in particular), but they all got pretty lucky by becoming widely read back when you could build your name by just setting up a blogspot account and opining on shit three to fives times daily. That career path is pretty much done.

Yglesias and Klein were both pretty good at immediately spotting the flaws in really dumb arguments and explaining those flaws concisely. If you can't see for yourself why Kathryn Jean Lopez is wrong, that can be useful. But I didn't get much from either of them, and never read either regularly. My shit back in the day was Juan Cole, Brad DeLong, and The Poor Man.

I do think there's some value in the "wonk" blogging/journalism stuff. It's not that it's a truth being handed down from on high by our technocratic philosopher-kings, but it's a break from traditional political coverage in that it 1) actually focuses on how laws and policies are going to affect people's lives, and 2) it gives us a window into at least part of the thought process behind those policies. If someone's being too credulous about how miraculous some initiative or other is going to be, someone can just wonkblog 'em right back, and explain how it's all going to be a pottage of unintended consequences. There's always the danger of people just parroting Cass Sunstein and getting too TED talk-y, but it at least offers some possibilities that horse-race journalism didn't have.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4050 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:54:21 AM »

I can't even remember the last time I've seen anything from Kathryn Jean Lopez that wasn't about the destruction of our Christian society by gays/courts or how Mitt Romney is the greatest human being ever. I wonder if this is literally 100% of her content produced 2007-2013. Though I admittingly gave up on what little I read of The Corner when it seemed like 50% of their content had become about gay marriage and abortion and the rest was about how no no no no Johm McCain isn't a liberal RINO, he's a WAR HERO. REAGAN FOOTSOLDIER. WAR HERO. WAR HERRRRROOOOOOO.

Quote from: Mandark on March 14, 2014, 04:16:34 AM

1) actually focuses on how laws and policies are going to affect people's lives, and 2) it gives us a window into at least part of the thought process behind those policies

It's probably my viewpoint* but I guess I don't see it doing the former and doing the latter in an unintentional manner. "CBO says policy will create 3 billion jobs and increase productivity 3% while CAP report says it will lower taxi cab fares by $400 per solar cycle, FACTPWNED" and it's twisted and fit and rarely revisited because it's onto the next "hard data" that tells the readers what they wanted to hear about the next great thing.

I'm probably just butthurt about any of these people being considered experts on anything because it's so far outside my grasp of why anyone would consider them so after spending any time reading them. Everybody despises the old timey pundits but people actually seem to like this crop and phrases are used like "serious" and "thoughtful" and "context" and "explanatory journalism"

*Should fairly note here that I'm not speaking of just my anarchist-libertarian frothings, but also my academic political science experience. Which forms a particularly noxious brew regarding "wonkery."

Mandark · « **Reply #4051 on:** March 14, 2014, 05:17:10 AM »

Yeah, but you also like Mickey Kaus, so it's maybe just you have... unique tastes in punditry.

I don't read Wonkblog or whatever they're calling it, so I can't speak to how it's practiced over there, but I remember Elizabeth Warren's posts on the bankruptcy bill at TPM before she was a rock star, explaining (from a liberal perspective) the important features of the bill, the context of bankruptcy in America, and its likely effects. That was shit that traditional media wasn't even trying to do. The closest you'd get was a short op-ed, or a "straight" story with a couple quotes from both sides.

And yeah, it's pretty clear that you view all policy talk through the prism of a bunch of arrogant, pinheaded academics thinking they can rearrange the world to their liking, but that's similar to how I hear stuff about deregulation and privatization. Folks learn a bit of econ theory, maybe to the point where they can throw around terms like "price signals" and "deadweight loss" and suddenly they're comfortable applying a few basic rules based on some very stylized facts to industries and businesses in which they have absolutely no expertise or experience. I know, I know, deregulation isn't telling people what to do, it's letting people find their own solutions through the exchange of dispersed information, etc. but most of the folks pushing that stuff are as natural meddlers as anyone you'll find, and when someone says "it's ECON101" the buzzing sound in my ears gets louder.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4052 on:** March 14, 2014, 06:34:21 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on March 14, 2014, 05:17:10 AM

Yeah, but you also like Mickey Kaus, so it's maybe just you have... unique tastes in punditry.

Kaus is one of the few I'm realizing that I do like. And I don't really agree with him on anything politically.

Quote

And yeah, it's pretty clear that you view all policy talk through the prism of a bunch of arrogant, pinheaded academics thinking they can rearrange the world to their liking

Except I don't view it that way or at least I don't hope I do and impugn their motives. I'm sure there are some arrogant pinheads but I imagine most are simply caught up in the lucrative march to irrelevance that is inaccurately viewed as legitimacy as a science. The field as a collective has little to no interest in contemplating its data or accepting its goals most of the time. Reading APSR and co can be adorable with how much they like to play empirical pretend.

GIGO, sample sizes and time scales are real problems that just get hand waved away and float off into the aether.

But whatever, I don't have any business talking about others from my dishonest glass house.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #4053 on:** March 14, 2014, 08:57:12 AM »

Quote

South Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Dave Feliciano (R) said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is "ambiguously gay" at a candidate forum, according to The State.

Said Feliciano: "It's about time that South Carolina says hey, We're tired of the ambiguously gay senator from South Carolina. We're ready for a new leader to merge the Republican Party. We're done with this. This is what it's about, all of us coming together and saying, one way or the other, one of us is going to be on that ballot in November."

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #4054 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:02:34 AM »

Lindsey Graham & John McCain, the Ambiguously Gay Duo!

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #4055 on:** March 14, 2014, 12:11:47 PM »

is that because he's a dude named Lindsey, or is there something about him I don't know?

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #4056 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:11:31 PM »

He's Republican.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #4057 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/yellowstone-county-gop-turns-away-congressional-candidate-cites-racism/article_f8b482d0-aab5-11e3-bad8-0019bb2963f4.html

Quote

“We asked Mr. Turiano not to attend our event because we have no intention of allowing him a platform to spread hate and intolerance,” said Jennifer Owen, Yellowstone County Republican chairwoman. “There is simply no place for racism in this party.”

To which Turiano replied, "Shut up bitch! Get back in the kitchen!"

Quote

“There is simply no place for racism in this party.”

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #4058 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:26:04 PM »

Quote

“When white America is about 10 percent of the population in about 50 years, like the white population in South Africa is today, isn’t it possible for a Louis Farrakhan-type demagogue to not only easily become the leader of America, but then once in power, might he not also attempt to exterminate white America like the current black president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, is attempting to exterminate white South Africans according to the organization Genocide Watch?” Turiano asked.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #4059 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:34:16 PM »

At least America has avoided South Africa's fatal mistake and the #1 leading cause of having a 90% African population: Being in Africa.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #4060 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:48:22 PM »

Quote from: Joe Molotov on March 14, 2014, 03:34:16 PM

At least America has avoided South Africa's fatal mistake and the #1 leading cause of having a 90% African population: Being in Africa.

Plus, all the white people in American aren't suddenly going to flee back to Britain or wherever it is that white people come from.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #4061 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:58:39 PM »

Do we really need to exterminate the white race once they only make up 10% of the country? I'll settle for crossing the street whenever I see one walking towards me.

Rufus · « **Reply #4062 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:19:23 PM »

Best to be sure.

benjipwns · « **Reply #4063 on:** March 14, 2014, 04:25:19 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on March 14, 2014, 03:58:39 PM

Do we really need to exterminate the white race once they only make up 10% of the country? I'll settle for crossing the street whenever I see one walking towards me.

Jeez, even in power you people are lazy.