US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[kingv]

Pelosi the master is digging deep into the polling and has identified this crucial 2020 demographic:

People who:
Hate socialism
Hate AOC
Might vote for Trump
Want their candidates to speak in an authentic black voice

[kingv]

Multiple officials resigning for the equivalent of the modern day IRC chat log is hilarious and an example of #latestagecapitalism and politics mixing.

I know it's passe to dunk on idealism at this point but the governor of Puerto Rico got a BS from MIT and has a doctorate. He was also a research scientist at a university. A scholar is not automatically a philosopher king.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Dem leadership aides didn't have a plan when they were attacking the new members.

It seems to me that they're falling back on the "punch left" playbook (which tbf has worked well for them over the years)

Has it though?

Democrats have been on an epic election loss streak and only one when the Republican President was a racist with Alzheimer’s.

None of their “center of the road” policies have been particularly popular, and haven’t drawn a single person from across the aisle.

Imo, the  Obama and then the 2016 primary effectively broke the party.

[agrajag]

https://twitter.com/danielradosh/status/1150412435943284739

 

[agrajag]

https://twitter.com/MonicaLewinsky/status/1150348061442551808

[Phoenix Dark]

2012 redux. Unruly extremists in the House making it impossible for the Speaker to craft a message. Presidential candidates lurching to further extremes to out-do each other. Political gridlock ensuring nothing gets done anyway.

How does this movie end again...oh, yea. The president wins.

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/IfNotNowOrg/status/1150392483467202560

 

[agrajag]

lol "extremists"

[team filler]

lol "extremists"

[Phoenix Dark]

Maybe I should have said dumbasses instead.

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1150441733806854149


 

[agrajag]

Maybe I should have said dumbasses instead.

"craft a message"

 


Madam Speaker has no clothes no message

[Kara]

Has it though?

Democrats have been on an epic election loss streak and only one when the Republican President was a racist with Alzheimer’s.

None of their “center of the road” policies have been particularly popular, and haven’t drawn a single person from across the aisle.

Imo, the  Obama and then the 2016 primary effectively broke the party.

I should have been clearer with my hedge; I meant over several decades, not in the last 10 years.

[Kara]

Peter Daou

Best face turn of late?

[Dickie Dee]

The Onion's parody twitter account is pretty amazing

https://twitter.com/walterowensgrpa/status/1150446916733456385

[agrajag]

Peter Daou

Best face turn of late?

Chairman Daou's redemption arc is my favorite plot line this season

[team filler]

Peter Daou

Best face turn of late?

https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1150469432919150593

 

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1150441733806854149


 

[agrajag]

Nintex exists outside the conventional political spectrum. He's from the dipshit dimension.

[benjipwns]

What's worse, that the House Dems are using twitter as a medium for their disciplining of the Gang of Four, or that they're using Maureen Dowd columns?

how else do you suggest they get their message out to their print edition newspaper subscribing op-ed reading base of primary voters

[Nintex]

Best face turn of late?

This is only mildly private but Glen has written the words "Fuck Dem leadership" to me at least three times.

This forum needs a counterbalance to all the Sanders stans and idealism.

[Mandark]

you're not a realpolitik cynic though, you're a gullible fash bitch

[curly]

2012 redux. Unruly extremists in the House making it impossible for the Speaker to craft a message. Presidential candidates lurching to further extremes to out-do each other. Political gridlock ensuring nothing gets done anyway.

How does this movie end again...oh, yea. The president wins.

Bruh it was the "Problem Solvers" that cucked Pelosi and killed the house version of the border funding bill, and it was Pelosi who decided to tell Maureen Dowd how little she thought of the party's left flank.  This is after months of gibes like "Green Dream or whatever", a glass of water could win that district, and AOC et al taking it.

[benjipwns]

I'm getting some kind of message from this weekends publications but I don't know what... 

Rahm Emanuel, formerly the chief of staff for President Barack Obama, chastised [AOC chief of staff] Chakrabarti in a follow-up column by Dowd on Saturday, calling him a “snot-nosed punk.”

[Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff] Hammill defended his retweet, saying he wasn’t defying Pelosi’s wishes because the speaker had been referring to public attacks on Democratic lawmakers, and this was about taking a fellow staffer to task. He said he retweeted the post by the House Democrats defending Davids, who is a lesbian, “in my personal capacity as a gay man who was bullied and beaten in high school.”

But I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders. As near as I can tell, CBP will be retasked away from patrolling the border looking for illegal crossings; if border officers happen to apprehend someone, they’ll be released almost immediately; if they bother to show up for their court date, they’ll have a lawyer appointed for them; and employers will have no particular reason to fear giving them a job.

Am I missing something here? Does Warren’s plan explicitly make it vanishingly unlikely that anyone crossing our border will ever be caught and sent back?

The first thing to be said about these convictions is that, apart from a miniscule number of transgender activists and postmodern theorists and scholars, no one would have affirmed any of them as recently as four years ago. There is almost no chance at all that the Farhad Manjoo of 2009 sat around pondering and lamenting the oppressiveness of his peers referring to "him" as "he." That's because (as far as I know) Manjoo is a man, with XY chromosomes, male reproductive organs, and typically male hormone levels, and a mere decade ago referring to such a person as "he" was considered to be merely descriptive of a rather mundane aspect of reality. His freedom was not infringed, or implicated, in any way by this convention. It wouldn't have occurred to him to think or feel otherwise. Freedom was something else and about other things.

The emergence and spread of the contrary idea — that "gender is a ubiquitous prison of the mind" — can be traced to a precise point in time: the six months following the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, which declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right. Almost immediately after that decision was handed down, progressive activists took up the cause of championing transgender rights as the next front in the culture war — and here we are, just four short years later, born free but everywhere in chains.

How should we understand this astonishingly radical and rapid shift in self-understanding among highly educated progressive members of the upper-middle class? (In addition to calling himself a "cisgender, middle-aged suburban dad" at the opening of his column, Manjoo confesses that he "covets my neighbor's Porsche," so it seems exactly right to describe him in this way.) I suspect Manjoo would say that his consciousness has been raised. Once he was blind, but now he sees. Once he slumbered, but now he's awake — or "woke."

Others have noted the religious connotations of the term. This has even been reflected in the prevalence of the formulation "Great Awokening" among sympathetic journalists seeking to explain the trend. It gets at something important. A kind of spiritual-moral madness periodically wells up and sweeps across vast swaths of the United States. In the 18th and 19th centuries, these Great Awakenings were decidedly "low church" affairs and invariably emerged from America's plethora of Protestant sects. Today, for perhaps the first time in American history, it is a nominally secular, progressive elite that finds itself swept up into a moral fervor and eager to overturn (linguistic and other) conventions in a surge of self-certainty and self-righteousness.

Yet the focus on religious antecedents can obscure as much as it clarifies about what's going on around us.

What is it, exactly, that Manjoo finds oppressive about the use of gendered pronouns?

...

But what is this freedom that Manjoo and so many others suddenly crave for themselves and their children? That's more than a little mysterious. Slaves everywhere presumably know that they are unfree, even if they accept the legitimacy of the system and the master that keeps them enslaved. But what is this bondage we couldn't even begin to perceive in 2009 that in under a decade has become a burden so onerous that it produces a demand for the overturning of well-settled rules and assumptions, some of which ("the gender binary") go all the way back to the earliest origins of human civilization?

The beginnings of an answer can be found in the writings of a number of thinkers who have analyzed, often critically but from a range of religious and political perspectives, the potential excesses of liberalism and democracy — and especially the antinomian logic of individualism. Alexis de Tocqueville, Robert Nisbet, Christopher Lasch, Walker Percy, Michel Houellebecq, and others have reflected deeply on what might be called the phenomenology of individualism — how a society devoted at the level of principle to the liberation of the individual from constraints can easily produce citizens who continually feel themselves to be newly enslaved and in need of ever new and more radical forms of liberation.

That's because all societies — as collectivities of individuals sharing a common culture as well as common laws, rules, and norms (including linguistic rules and norms) — invariably constrain individuals more than they would be if they lived in absolute isolation from others. Any one of those limits on the individual will can feel as if it's an intolerable constraint, and the principle of individual freedom can always be invoked in order to combat it.

This is how a progressive in 2014 can consider it an unacceptable limitation on individual freedom for gay couples to be denied the right to marry — and base that argument on the claim that a gay man's love and natural desire for another man, like a lesbian's love and natural desire for another woman, is irreducible and ineradicable — and then insist just five years later that it is an unacceptable limitation on individual freedom for anyone to be presumed a man or a woman at all.

As Andrew Sullivan has powerfully argued, the two positions are fundamentally incompatible. The first, which morally justifies same-sex marriage, presumes that biological sex and binary gender differences are real, that they matter, and that they can't just be erased at will. The second, which Manjoo and many transgender activists embrace and espouse, presumes the opposite — that those differences can and should be immediately dissolved. To affirm the truth of both positions is to embrace incoherence.

But that assumes that we're treating them as arguments. If, instead, we view them as expressions of what it can feel like at two different moments in a society devoted to the principle of individualism, they can be brought into a kind of alignment. Each is simply an expression of rebellion against a different but equally intolerable constraint on the individual. All that's changed is the object of rebellion.

Will Manjoo's call for liberation from the tyranny of the gender binary catch on in the way that the push for same-sex marriage did before it? I have no idea. What I do know is that, whatever happens, it's likely to be followed by another undoubtedly very different crusade in the name of individual freedom, and then another, and another, as our society (and others like it) continues to work through the logic of its devotion to the principle of individualism.

[team filler]

 

[benjipwns]

This forum needs a counterbalance to all the Sanders stans and idealism.

On it:

[Nintex]

 

[benjipwns]

Axis of Shevil :: Donald Trump

[team filler]

etiolate 

[Tasty]

Mission accomplished

[agrajag]

which presidential candidate would etiolate put his support behind?

[team filler]

which presidential candidate would etiolate put his support behind?

battle angel tulsi 

[Mandark]

which presidential candidate would etiolate put his support behind?

the short guy from that viral bagel shop rant

[agrajag]

what if he is the short bagel guy

[Mandark]

boss: pro capitalism
father: daddy p
god: stanning for intelligent design back in the 00's irc days

[Dickie Dee]

nvm

[agrajag]

god: stanning for intelligent design back in the 00's irc days

[Kara]

Best face turn of late?

This is only mildly private but Glen has written the words "Fuck Dem leadership" to me at least three times.

Glen and I don't agree on a lot of things, but he always had the right amount of bilious contempt for Republican politicians. I don't say that to diminish any present or future face turns, but it is still a relevant tie breaker.

Anyway, may we all revel in the end of the GOP someday in the forum where posts cast no shadow.

[Mandark]

Glen and I don't agree on a lot of things, but he always had the right amount of bilious contempt for Republican politicians. I don't say that to diminish any present or future face turns, but it is still a relevant tie breaker.

Anyway, may we all revel in the end of the GOP someday in the forum where posts cast no shadow.

This general sentiment is also why Trump inserting himself was the one thing most likely to restore some degree of comity among Dems. Which of course he did cause he's a dumbass.

[Phoenix Dark]

which presidential candidate would etiolate put his support behind?

the short guy from that viral bagel shop rant

peak etoilet energy

[agrajag]

it's awesome how his voice matches his stature 

[Tripon]

https://twitter.com/LittenRed/status/1108545610729304064


https://twitter.com/LittenRed/status/1098420804390404096

 

[Sausage]

 

[Cauliflower Of Love]

more dumbasses laying the blame on piece of shit potus on others feet.

"trump happened because of _______"

[Occam]

https://twitter.com/danielradosh/status/1150412435943284739

 

I like the replies to her tweet below, wonder if she actually reads them. How can she be that daft? Gotta love geriatric politicians.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1150408693021908992

Pelosi is such a disappointment. Along with most of the party of Democratic Weakness. They really don't get that people voted for them eight months ago specifically to impeach a criminal President and his party. It doesn't matter if they don't have the votes to actually remove Trump from office.
Their voters don't want them to cooperate with the Republicans but to fight them. Instead they are handing Trump a second term.
I feel like I'm the kid from The Sixth Sense, but instead of dead people I see morons. Everywhere.

[Mandark]

They really don't get that people voted for them eight months ago specifically to impeach a criminal President and his party.

lol no they didn't

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1150551704276000768


 

[kingv]

https://twitter.com/danielradosh/status/1150412435943284739

 

I like the replies to her tweet below, wonder if she actually reads them. How can she be that daft? Gotta love geriatric politicians.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1150408693021908992

Pelosi is such a disappointment. Along with most of the party of Democratic Weakness. They really don't get that people voted for them eight months ago specifically to impeach a criminal President and his party. It doesn't matter if they don't have the votes to actually remove Trump from office.
Their voters don't want them to cooperate with the Republicans but to fight them. Instead they are handing Trump a second term.
I feel like I'm the kid from The Sixth Sense, but instead of dead people I see morons. Everywhere.

Every election year when democrats are not in power: how the fuck do these guys lose to the Republicans?
Every time the democrats actually win: “oh yeah, now I remember”

[Kara]

They really don't get that people voted for them eight months ago specifically to impeach a criminal President and his party.

lol no they didn't

Healthcare was the #1 issue iirc? This was right around that farcical ACA repeal attempt.

[Mandark]

Healthcare was the #1 issue iirc? This was right around that farcical ACA repeal attempt.

Yup. All the republican state AGs signed on to the lawsuit then they all backpedaled like nuts the closer it got to November.

My armchair punditry take: Hillary ran a bunch of ads targeting Trump's character and lost, Dem Congressional candidates ran a bunch of ads about healthcare and won, and Dem leadership over-learned that lesson.

[Tripon]

Dems ran on healthcare, but they also ran on a check on Trump, which I guess you could argue Impeachment is part of it. Putting that aside, I don't get Dem leadership slow walking the oversight part of their congressional duties. If the claim is that the Trump administration and that Trump itself is one of the most corrupt ever in office, then there should be investigations into it.

[Occam]

Right, health care obviously was a more pressing matter at the time but I would say the desire for impeachment also played a role, at least indirectly.
Anyway, public opinion regarding impeachment has shifted recently:

"In May 2019, a NBC/WSJ poll with Republican pollster Bill McInturff found that 17% thought enough evidence existed for the House to begin impeachment hearings, 32% wanted Congress to continue investigating and decide on impeachment later, and 48% said that the House should not pursue impeachment.[193][194] A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken in the same month found 45% of Americans supported impeachment, while 42% opposed.[195]

On June 16, 2019, Trump tweeted, “Almost 70% in new Poll say don’t impeach.”[196] According to NBC News, Trump was apparently referring to their poll, according to which twenty-seven percent of Americans believe that there is now sufficient evidence to begin impeachment hearings.[197] Later that day, Fox News released a poll showing 50% of registered voters supported Trump's impeachment, while 48% opposed impeachment.[198]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Public_opinion_polling_on_impeachment

[Mandark]

good thing health care isn't a pressing matter anymore

[agrajag]

Dems ran on healthcare, but they also ran on a check on Trump, which I guess you could argue Impeachment is part of it. Putting that aside, I don't get Dem leadership slow walking the oversight part of their congressional duties. If the claim is that the Trump administration and that Trump itself is one of the most corrupt ever in office, then there should be investigations into it.

they just want to tweet at him, not actually do anything

[Occam]

good thing health care isn't a pressing matter anymore

Getting rid of the people who want to take it away from millions might help with the issue. Impeachment would play an important role in the process.

[Mandark]

Getting rid of the people who want to take it away from millions might help with the issue. Impeachment would play an important role in the process.

lol no it wouldn't

[Occam]

Dems ran on healthcare, but they also ran on a check on Trump, which I guess you could argue Impeachment is part of it. Putting that aside, I don't get Dem leadership slow walking the oversight part of their congressional duties. If the claim is that the Trump administration and that Trump itself is one of the most corrupt ever in office, then there should be investigations into it.

they just want to tweet at him, not actually do anything

Besides, there have been lots of investigations. Eventually you are expected to act on what you have learned.
The Mueller Report alone contains more than enough evidence.

[Occam]

Yeah, it's not the way of the Democrats.

[Trent Dole]

Comrade Daou
DNC "leadership"

[kingv]

Getting rid of the people who want to take it away from millions might help with the issue. Impeachment would play an important role in the process.

lol no it wouldn't

Honestly, let’s say this lawsuit just throws out the ACA completely. IMO, I’d rather deal with Pence.

Trump wouldn’t even understand exactly what he just fucked up, and how much shit we were all in. He would declare Victory and go have a nap, with little interest in fixing any of the problems he just created.

It would be a total disaster. While I’m sure this is good news for 2020 elections, it’s not exactly a good thing for people.

Side Note: it’s not exactly a new thing that Democrats have trash-tier messaging

[Mandark]

you realize that impeaching trump wouldn't get him out, right?