US Politics XXXIII: Get Inoculated!

[Irvine511]

oh don't get me wrong - the republican party has devolved into the literal basket of deplorables - but for better or worse they're good at the game of politics.

it's easier to simply play the game when you've abandoned all of your ideals.

But they’re still treated as if they are a normal political party. They aren’t. They haven’t been since that black fella became President.

That really did cause many of them to break with reality.

 

[Bluer White]

Of course the GQP are blocking everything but the Dems can’t really out maneuver on messaging.

All that people will hear is that they control the House, Senate, and Presidency

.

 

[BEAL]

And that’s where the media fails us bigly. They’re so scared of the outrage LIBERAL BIAS!! And have to appear fair and balanced.

What is going on in DC is no where near that, and hasn’t been for a long time. Politics is a dirty game but we’re past that.

This is one party that doesn’t want to govern, in fact they want to burn it all down and so they can yell “see, government doesn’t work!!”

It’s all been building so they can have a Russian/Hungarian style government takeover.

The Dems are still playing like it’s a level playing field and i really can’t see anyone outside foxnews throwing a fit if they abolish the filibuster….or pass their agenda…that’s what we elected them to do. Not just be a stop gap between destruction

The Dems are not perfect with all their policies but at least they try to govern.

 

[Hewson]

i mean - there aren't many opportunities where you have a legitimate and explainable reason to peg Mo Brooks

 

[Bluer White]

And that’s where the media fails us bigly. They’re so scared of the outrage LIBERAL BIAS!! And have to appear fair and balanced.

What is going on in DC is no where near that, and hasn’t been for a long time. Politics is a dirty game but we’re past that.

This is one party that doesn’t want to govern, in fact they want to burn it all down and so they can yell “see, government doesn’t work!!”

It’s all been building so they can have a Russian/Hungarian style government takeover.

The Dems are still playing like it’s a level playing field and i really can’t see anyone outside foxnews throwing a fit if they abolish the filibuster….or pass their agenda…that’s what we elected them to do. Not just be a stop gap between destruction

The Dems are not perfect with all their policies but at least they try to govern.

It's fair for a record $3.5 trillion spending bill to be put through the wringer (and btw will be negotiated to much less than $3.5 trillion).

Even today Jen Psaki said this is how the sausage is made.

Enough with the hysterics man.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But they’re still treated as if they are a normal political party. They aren’t. They haven’t been since that black fella became President.

That really did cause many of them to break with reality.

Well, it's really been since like the 70s. It only became obvious in 08.

Alas.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Well, it's really been since like the 70s. It only became obvious in 08.

Alas.

Before the 90s and even into the early 2000s they literally were all the same, which is why Matt Groening so successfully proto-memed our politics.

2008 was the time to pick a side.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, it's really been since like the 70s. It only became obvious in 08.

Alas.

1954.

Brown vs Board of Ed is where the modern conservative movement began. All the way from there to Reagan to Trump.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

1954.

Brown vs Board of Ed is where the modern conservative movement began. All the way from there to Reagan to Trump.

that's fair - but i still point to the mid/late 70s and early 80s as the point where it really took off.

you had falwell start to establish himself as the head of the evangelical movement in the mid 70s, and then you had reagan come in with deregulation of the banks, significant tax rates to the wealthy and, perhaps the biggest trigger, the revocation of the fairness doctrine.

yes - you can certainly argue that pappy bush, clinton and dubya were "all the same." but the seeds were planted. even as early as 92 you had pat buchanan, a very trumpian candidate, challenging the incumbent HW. that he did better than expected got him a spot at the convention - where he delivered the "culture war" speech. this is kind of where the real fracture in the party began to take hold.

and you know what? if the republicans had done in 2016 what the democrats did in the lead up to 2020 and circle around one candidate sooner? trump wouldn't have happened, and it would still be in the background. but once trump won it was all over.

 

[BEAL]

https://twitter.com/maryltrump/status/1443949026039185452?s=21

Even a Trump gets it (she does come off much brighter than rest of her famous family)

 

[Irvine511]

that's fair - but i still point to the mid/late 70s and early 80s as the point where it really took off.



you had falwell start to establish himself as the head of the evangelical movement in the mid 70s, and then you had reagan come in with deregulation of the banks, significant tax rates to the wealthy and, perhaps the biggest trigger, the revocation of the fairness doctrine.



yes - you can certainly argue that pappy bush, clinton and dubya were "all the same." but the seeds were planted. even as early as 92 you had pat buchanan, a very trumpian candidate, challenging the incumbent HW. that he did better than expected got him a spot at the convention - where he delivered the "culture war" speech. this is kind of where the real fracture in the party began to take hold.



and you know what? if the republicans had done in 2016 what the democrats did in the lead up to 2020 and circle around one candidate sooner? trump wouldn't have happened, and it would still be in the background. but once trump won it was all over.

I don’t disagree with any of this analysis.

But when the government started treating black Americans as equals, many white Americans decided government was the enemy.

There’s a reason Reagan began his campaign in Mississippi.

 

[DaveC]

i know i've been posting a lot of this site's content lately but they're usually pretty on point for most US political topics (and have been for well over a decade). some folks here (can't remember who exactly) have brought up term limits recently, and i thought this was a pretty good argument as to why they won't work very well.

J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I just got into a debate with a friend (from Kentucky, who "can't stand McConnell. Or Trump. Or Biden. Or Pelosi.") about congressional term limits. After all, we have them for the president. I reminded him of the impracticality of expecting a Constitutional amendment from a bunch of folks essentially voting themselves out of a job, but he said it would still be a good idea if it were possible. Assuming it were, in fact, possible to limit the number of terms a senator or representative could serve in Congress, would such a thing be a good idea or a bad idea? And if a good idea, how many terms for a senator and how many for a representative?

It would be a bad idea. Full stop. Folks who advocate term limits generally have a vague sense that it would be "better," but usually struggle to articulate how, or why. And, in general, simplistic solutions (like term limits) to complex problems (make Congress work better) are silly and facile.

Let's start by considering presidential term limits. Only five men—Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—have ever been subject to the limits. Ike and Ronnie were too ill to serve a third term, and Bush was too unpopular to be reelected. So, the Twenty-Second Amendment has, at very most, forestalled a third Clinton term and a third Obama term (assuming they were interested, and could have been reelected). Many people do not like those two men, but did blocking them really benefit the country in any clear way? If the people wanted them for another four years, and they wanted to serve, why not have that option be on the table?

And that's just the first argument against term limits—that they are undemocratic, and place limits on voters. A second argument is that "fresh faces" are not always good, and "old, entrenched members" are not always bad. Consider, for example, that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Reps. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) are all in their first terms right now. Putting their politics aside, is Congress a more effective or responsible place because of their presence? Meanwhile, it actually takes time to learn how to be an effective member of Congress, particularly if someone is going to serve on an important and highly technical committee, like Foreign Relations or Armed Services. There are certainly members like Jim Traficant or Charles Rangel who become entrenched and corrupt. But there are also members who learn the ropes and then perform brilliant service for their constituents and/or for the country. Think Sam Rayburn, John C. Stennis, Robert Taft, J. William Fulbright, Henry Clay, Bob Dole, Carl Vinson, Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Mikulski.

Finally, remember the law of unintended consequences. If it was no longer viable for members of Congress to truly learn their jobs and to become experts, then that vacuum would be filled by bureaucrats and lobbyists, who would end up writing most of the legislation, since only they would have the necessary background. Further, if service in Congress was only a chapter in someone's career, and had a hard and fast expiration date, then many members would spend their time doing whatever needed to score a plum gig after leaving (yes, I can try to ram that bill through, Mr. Musk), and would be almost totally unaccountable to their constituents during their final, lame-duck term.

https://electoral-vote.com/

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I’m sorry but that argument piece is weak sauce. Many people did not like Clinton or Obama? Bill Clinton was wildly popular, at the time. Revisionist bullshit. Obama was the last time a president was at least somewhat popular.

Furthermore, there’s a hell of a lot of assumption going on there. Congressional term limits do not mean you can’t have a large limit whereby it ends with a revolving door of bureaucracy. Nobody said your term is limited to 1 term. You can easily say it’s a 10 year limit and wallah, that argument gets put to bed.

Further furthermore, that “fresh face isn’t always a good thing” argument is total and utter garbage. Trying to cite people who should not be elected to office as a reason is nonsense. Lauren Boebert being a “fresh face” has nothing to do with why term limits would be a bad thing. If anything, it’s the exact example of why they’re a good thing. When someone like her gets elected, you really don’t want them to get to stay around. What relevance does term limits have with people like her getting elected into office?

That was like reading a high school argumentative paper. Painful. “Full stop.”

 

[Hewson]

https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1444130224493445124

This dude is about 7 cans short of a six pack

 

[DaveC]

I’m sorry but that argument piece is weak sauce. Many people did not like Clinton or Obama? Bill Clinton was wildly popular, at the time. Revisionist bullshit. Obama was the last time a president was at least somewhat popular.

pretty sure you misread that portion - i did too at first. they're saying that despite some people disliking them (lots of people hated clinton and obama at the later part of their presidencies - we're seeing the same effect with trudeau here in canada), there isn't much of an argument to be made that a 3rd clinton term or a 3rd obama term would have been a bad thing.

Furthermore, there’s a hell of a lot of assumption going on there. Congressional term limits do not mean you can’t have a large limit whereby it ends with a revolving door of bureaucracy. Nobody said your term is limited to 1 term. You can easily say it’s a 10 year limit and wallah, that argument gets put to bed.

you lost me when you said "wallah" instead of voilà.

i think the authors were operating on the assumption that a congressional term limit would be something like the presidential term limits that we have now.

and i really don't think a 10 year limit means "that argument gets put to bed" versus a 4 or 6 or 8 year limit.

That was like reading a high school argumentative paper. Painful. “Full stop.”

it isn't perfect, but that was written by a UCLA political science and history professor so "high school paper, painful" is a bit silly.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

pretty sure you misread that portion - i did too at first. they're saying that despite some people disliking them (lots of people hated clinton and obama at the later part of their presidencies - we're seeing the same effect with trudeau here in canada), there isn't much of an argument to be made that a 3rd clinton term or a 3rd obama term would have been a bad thing.

I didn’t misread it. It flat out says they are not very liked. That statement about Clinton is 100% false. Bill Clinton was MOST popular in 1998 DESPITE scandal. First term 50%. Second term 61% with a high of 73%. He left office with a 66% approval rating. Revisionist history. Nobody likes him now. He was immensely popular then. So, false assertion by the author. Why is a third term from either of these presidents important or relevant? You can argue that a third term is not a problem. I don’t think three terms is a problem. Is president for life a problem though? Yes, and that’s the crux of the argument against allowing infinite presidencies. You open the door for consolidated power. The author lauds Ted Kennedy as an example of GOOD forever congresspeople. That’s a freaking joke. He’s an example of toxic legacy culture. His name alone kept him in dynastic power. The man freaking died in office. The same shit is going to happen to Dianne Feinstein and it’s a crying shame that that old geezer has not passed the torch for new life to support Californians from the perspective of a generation that has generations still to live. Is she a bad person? Probably not. Is she a bad senator? No. Does she need to retire? Absolutely. 30 years in office is too much. People like her develop brands and cannot be challenged due to the offensive power structure that exists in party politics. You are a democrat deviant and a problem-causing leftist or a meme blah blah blah if you challenge her, because she IS the Democratic Party of California.

you lost me when you said "wallah" instead of voilà.

i think the authors were operating on the assumption that a congressional term limit would be something like the presidential term limits that we have now.

and i really don't think a 10 year limit means "that argument gets put to bed" versus a 4 or 6 or 8 year limit.

8 years for a congressperson is not a short period of time. Most people probably do not spend more than 10 years at a job anyways. Many states have their own laws for their legislature and executive office limiting terms for congresspeople and governors and I don’t see any states crumbling to bureaucracy and lobbying in any measurable sense more than the federal government crumbles to bureaucracy and lobbying in its current state without limits. I digress, there was no stated assumption from the author. The author confidently dismissed the argument of term limits - if I may quote them again - “full stop.” Putrid arrogance.

There’s no nuance here whatsoever, just an OpEd that repeatedly begs questions. Did you not notice the part where the author fallaciously imply that, were term limits to be enacted, the unintended consequence would be that you would only have bureaucracy? That is textbook begging-the-question. The author states for fact that this will happen, but offers zero proof or reason for it to be the case. Because there’s no nuance. The author made it such that only their conclusion was possible as the very basis of their argument.

it isn't perfect, but that was written by a UCLA political science and history professor so "high school paper, painful" is a bit silly.

Why do I care who wrote it? I called it a high school argumentative paper because I believe the author wrote it to such a level. Don’t appeal to authority. The author is open to criticism for an opinion piece and is not afforded any level of elevated respect simply for holding a position of expertise. This is an opinion, not a piece of science (for which it would still only valid to judge the science in the article, not the namesake or institution written at the end). This is like saying I need to respect Clarence Thomas’s opinions in the Supreme Court because he’s a Supreme Court justice, even non-fanatics agree that he’s off the deep end.

 

[DaveC]

okay jeez it's saturday night i'm kinda wavy and i'm not refuting all of that.

the one counterpoint i will make is that 10 years is nowhere near long enough if you want to avoid the problem of people just using the job as a stepping stone. a huge portion of my signals unit when i was in the army was very open about how they only joined with the express purpose of serving 8-10 years, getting paid while gaining a "free" education and international experience in satellite communications, and how they were going to quit and get cushy six-figure civilian jobs in the private sector after they made it to the master corporal/sergeant level. judging by the people i knew in the military who i'm still in touch with on social media, that was a very successful career strategy.

certainly congresspeople limited to a 10 year term would see their time in office much the same way.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1444130224493445124

This dude is about 7 cans short of a six pack

I was wondering if/when we'd get to this point in the conspiracy cycle.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Bluer White]

It's ok to listen to the other side; I listen to Carvilles weekly Pod cast, don't agree with him a lot but he is a political genius.

I disagree with Maher on a lot of his positions especially on religion. However that doesn't mean he doesn't have valid points. I don't like Trump because I feel he was authoritarian but I liked his pro life position ( not sure if he really meant it, or it was just to run) and I liked his Supreme Court nominees. However I DO NOT want him to be President again; and if the left can't get over the Trump obsession and hold Biden accountable (it came out today he lied the American people about the Stan) guess who will be back.

Yeah, our top generals and the SecDef were particularly candid in the Senate Armed Services hearing, as in "we're not gonna be thrown under the bus" candid. It's fairly unusual for top military advisors to contradict their Commander in Chief like that in a public hearing.



The Wall Street Journal: The generals contradict Biden on Afghanistan
The Wall Street Journal: The generals contradict Biden on Afghanistan

The hearing underscored that the President acted against the advice of the military in yanking the residual U.S. force from the country. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie both made clear in their testimony that they recommended that about 2,500 U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan to delay a Taliban takeover.

That’s not what Mr. Biden said he was told. Asked in an ABC News interview days after the August fall of Kabul if his military advisers urged him to maintain America’s small footprint in the country, Mr. Biden said, “No one said that to me that I can recall.”

The scandal isn’t that the President ignored military advice—he’s the decision-maker. It’s his refusal to own his decision. Mr. Biden wants political credit for ending America’s involvement in Afghanistan, but he’s not willing to take the political risk of admitting he overruled the brass in the process.

The generals also undercut Mr. Biden’s spin about their advice as the chaotic withdrawal was underway. He said the generals unanimously supported his Aug. 31 deadline for the departure of U.S. troops. But as Gen. Milley confirmed in questioning by Sen. Tom Cotton, that advice was given on Aug. 25—10 days after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban.

Waiting that long essentially presented the generals with a fait accompli

 

[Bluer White]

Gen. Milley also gave a very strong answer on the two China phone calls. A lot of folks (including myself) had questions about his actions based on reporting from Woodward's "Peril" book. Milley put it all, imho, in complete context.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

WASHINGTON — Four major access points that Jan. 6 rioters used to break into and overtake the U.S. Capitol had something unusual in common: They were among a dozen or so ground-floor windows and glass-paned doors that had not been recently reinforced.

The majority of the Capitol’s 658 single-pane windows were quietly upgraded during a 2017-19 renovation of the historic building. The original wooden frames and glass were covered with a second metal frame containing bomb-resistant glass.

But planners skipped about a dozen ground-floor windows, including some located in doors, because they were deemed to be low risk in the event of implosion, largely due to their discreet or shielded location, or because the building couldn’t structurally handle the load of the heavier frames.

And whether by sheer luck, real-time trial and error, or advance knowledge by rioters, several of those vulnerable windows and two glass-paned doors — protected with only a thin Kevlar film added after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — became easy entry points for hundreds of Trump supporters who overran and ransacked the building on Jan. 6.

Video shows some of the first rioters to break through the police line running past 15 reinforced windows, making a beeline for a recessed area on the Senate side of the building, where two unreinforced windows and two doors with unreinforced glass were all that stood between them and hallways leading to lawmakers inside who had not begun to evacuate.

A rioter’s fist cracked the glass of one window, video posted to social media shows. A stolen police riot shield and a wooden pole finished the job. In seconds, the unreinforced glass gave way in a single sheet. Rioters poured through the window. Similar methods were used to break glass in at least three other locations.

“I couldn’t believe that they were able to breach those points as easily as they did,” said Scott Lilly, a former House Appropriations Committee Democratic staff director. “It certainly shows that all of the money and inconvenience that we’ve instituted on those buildings was not particularly well spent.”

Is it possible they just got lucky? Of course. But what are the odds that they happened to run right past the reinforced windows and pick the unreinforced windows on the first try?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, but hey, they were just tourists, so it's totally not a big deal, right?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

ton of fun here in DC

https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/1445405028668301314

 

[phanan]

I was in DC last week for a couple of days touring colleges with my daughter. Apparently we chose an uneventful week.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

oh, hey, thanks for saying hi to the three of us

 

[phanan]

I forgot to include the Headache residence on the tour.

Actually hadn't been down there in a long time. Was reminded of how much I like that area overall.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Interference either comes or goes from DC.

 

[Irvine511]

Interference either comes or goes from DC.

On this subject …

For the four people still in here who know/care, Memphis and I are actually leaving DC at the end of the month.

West Coast here we come.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Where west coast?

 

[Irvine511]

Where west coast?

Seattle. And probably a little bit LA.