|
>Nah. You came at me and read into things that weren't there.
>For instance, you once told me not to take OkayPlayer too
>seriously- or something like that. I post a few jokes and
>some things referencing a different conversation entirely (in
>a rush before a meeting, at that)...and I return to find your
>over-the-top reply.
Over the top? I said you hadn't thought a few things through. What a savage affront!
And now you're writing novels about how a guy who's been in politics for fifty years is naive enough to not understand the partisan obstruction that's been central to politics for the last 30 of those years.
>If all you wanted was clarification, you would have asked.
I did! When I so grievously insulted you by saying you didn't seem to have thought some things through, you could have said "No, what I actually meant was this..." In fact, that's what you did (taking a great deal of personal offense along the way), and that should have been the end of it.
>And when my very post clarified things (like when I made it
>clear I didn't think any Dem would investigate/pursue charges
>against Trump admin in very post you quoted)...you didn't
>backspace...you said "oh, so you realized you were wrong"...so
>even when things were "clarified", you came at me.
Jesus, you're still litigating this? Right after this supposed clarification you said you thought Biden would give Trump a medal. Then later on you said that was a joke. (Mike Birbiglia has a great bit about how whenever anyone says "I'm joking," they either aren't joking or they shouldn't have been. I think it's on the "Thank God for Jokes" special on Netflix. I recommend it to lighten the mood.)
Then, after you said it was a joke, you said you kinda believed it. So while I did let it drop, and I'm happy to still do that, I don't really believe it was completely a joke.
>In other words, seemed like you wanted a fight. It really
>does seem to happen when Nancy is brought up in a negative
>light, but maybe its my imagination.
What is it with you and "Nancy?" I don't even want to delve into all that right now.
>>>**sigh** Yeah, we will never agree here. Just accept it.
>
>>
>>
>>Wait, so do you ACTUALLY think Nancy Pelosi is
>philosophically
>>a centrist?! I honestly didn't think you or anyone actually
>>believed that.
>>
>>Forget any preconceptions you have about Nancy Pelosi for
>the
>>moment, and I will too. Treat it as an Occam's razor
>argument.
>>We have a perfectly simple explanation for why a Speaker of
>>the House would resist impeachment: the members who support
>it
>>are in safe districts, but the members who oppose it are in
>>unsafe districts. Do we need any more explanation than that?
>
>Yes. Because as we have debated in the past, maybe it
>shouldn't be about holding seats. Maybe its about doing what
>is right.
That's a deflection! I said there's a perfectly plausible and very simple reason that she would resist impeachment. You said "yeah but if she thinks about it this other way then that wouldn't make any sense." That's irrelevant.
>Maybe its about ensuring a precedent isn't set.
How about: the precedent that a president commits a crime, and the opposing party, in the name of "doing what's right," shoots themselves in the foot politically, leaving that president with even more political power, encouraging more criminality in the future. THAT is the precedent that would be set by pursuing any impeachment that's doomed to fail.
>Maybe I think the "GOP was hurt by impeaching Clinton"
>narrative is overblown,
A lot of people suddenly think that. Very conveniently. But for Pelosi it isn't about narratives. She knows her members, and they know their districts. They know what positions they can afford to take and still hold their seats.
I'm not even trying to argue that impeachment is a dangerous thing in general (though I think that's true as well). I'm saying that in this particular case Nancy knows precisely how many votes she'd be able to whip for this, and it isn't enough to even get it out of the house.
>especially since we have been living
>in a GOP controlled hellscape since then, outside of 08-10.
Don't forget the previous Clinton/Gingrich years. Or the GHW Bush years, or the Reagan years.
We've been living in a GOP controlled hellscape because we live in the United States.
>Also, I'm sure she is protecting her majority- weather or not
>that is the *right* thing to do is up for debate. I also
>think its up for debate how much her majority would really be
>threatened, because who knows what the inquiry would reveal.
Really? Really? Nobody has more respect for Jerry Nadler than me. But do you honestly think that just by bringing in people to testify (mostly just the ones who come voluntarily, BTW, because it takes years to enforce subpoenas), that they would uncover anything at all that wasn't discovered in the years-long FBI investigation?
And here you are ranting about Biden supposedly expecting something unrealistic?
>But putting that aside- I don't think that's the only reason.
>Reeq made a point that "electability" seems like it is being
>built up by certain groups- maybe, specifically to slow the
>progressive take over of the party.
>
>I made the connection of Democrats wanting- not just saying to
>win elections, but actually wanting- to just go back to
>'normal'.
You have this weird obsession with "normal." I still don't know what you're getting at. All the horrific, ugly, terrible things that are going on right now in politics are perfectly normal. We should have seen them all coming in the Bush years, the Reagan years, the Nixon years. Trump just says the quiet stuff loud, but the shit he believes isn't fundamentally any different than what the average Republican believes.
>Weather that is ignorance or playing dumb or whatever- seems
>like certain folks, like Nancy, want to just pretend Trump is
>somewhat normal so that they can go back to the way things
>were eventually.
Or maybe they just understand that the situation is even more hopeless than you think it is.
>To me, this resistance to start impeachment hearings comes
>from the same place in Dems that leads them to think they can
>negotiate with the GOP.
>
>This fantasy of the GOP and Dems having lunch together,
>compromising, working together, etc. This idea that Trump is
>an anomaly and if we can just hang on another 2 years....we
>can go back to McConnel obstructing anything and everything
>Pres Biden is trying to accomplish....my perception is that is
>a more acceptable end result to some of these folks, than
>actually labeling the GOP for what they are/have become.
So should we give up political power just to "label" things that are blatantly obvious to anyone willing to see them?
As Shakespeare said, "A shit by any other name still smells like shit."
>Elections aside. I'm talking about how they actually want gov
>to operate when/if they get power back.
>
>Point being folks like this would essentially rather give 2
>inches to the GOP than 1 inch to the progressives.
If giving 1 inch to the 'progressives' means also giving 3 inches to the GOP, then they should probably do neither.
>Not to win elections, but to protect other interests. Of
>their donors, etc. Or just because they like to look like the
>reasonable ones. Or maybe they really are more comfortable
>being/acting like a minority party.
>
>Either way
>
>
>We won't agree on the motivations behind wanting things to "go
>back to normal" but what I'm surprised you won't fully admit
>to is that it never will go back, if that even truly existed
>in the first place.
Really? *I* won't admit that it will never go back? As far as I remember, I was the one who first informed you that the Democrats probably won't win back the Senate in this race and probably for the rest of our lifetimes.
That's central to my view that electability is the *only* thing that matters. No Democrat will be passing any laws of any substance whatsoever.
We will have to fight for every single fucking step. And sometimes we'll even be fighting with our own ranks, if they haven't fully thought things through.
>So, yeah Nancy isn't pursuing impeachment because she thinks
>she is protecting her majority. I just don't think thats the
>only reason. I also think that she- and other Dems like
>Chuck- really can't accept that things aren't normal, and are
>just itching to go back to 2014. As if that is something to
>aspire to.
***************************************************************
Let's pause, right here.
Going back to a Democratic president, who still can't pass any laws but who at least isn't putting children in cages and encouraging nuclear war, is most definitely something to aspire to.
***************************************************************
>This is the same party that refused to nuke the fillibuster to
>get a public option.
Nuking the filibuster does us more harm than good. The filibuster protects the minority party in the Senate. WE are the party with an inherent and constitutionally-imposed disadvantage in the Senate.
We could also get into a discussion (long and heated, I'm sure) about how ending the filibuster specifically to pass Obamacare would have made the law even more unpopular in the years after it passed, and immediately adding the public option (the right thing to do) would have opened the law up to even more legal challenges, in which case it might not have survived even to the end of Obama's term. The law we got just barely survived the Supreme Court, after all.
>The GOP is sitting justices with a
>fucking tie breaker.
Yes they are. It's pretty fucked up.
>You don't think the GOP would have impeached a Dem by now?
Here's that false equivalence again. You realize that the two parties have different political imperatives, right?
>Impeaching a president isn't "normal" to the Dems. So my
>point in my initial post that sparked this - If there is a
>group of Dems/donors/etc- like Reeq said- who are trying to
>build up electability as a reason to build up Biden- I think
>those same people would be against impeaching a President.
And that thought also involves a whole lot of make-believe about people's motives. Happy to have that clarification.
>>I'll let the thing about the medal drop. Like I said, the
>>whole point was about clarifying. I hope you can at least
>see,
>>though, how your history of knee-jerk rage against Biden
>(and
>>pragmatic politicians in general) would cause me to miss
>your
>>(pretty obscure) joke.
>
>I honestly don't. Because, well, it was a joke.
Yeah, if you have to say that it was a joke...
>I was a dumb kid (relatively speaking) who thought the Obama
>admin would go after folks in the W admin. To me, the idea
>that Dems would ever go after Trump or his admin was
>laughable.
>
>I went extra on smirking Joe, because of his kind words for W
>and the irony of the W praise lately.
It seems that W has rehabilitated himself a bit in recent years by becoming another Trump target. It's disgusting, I agree.
>But either way, it was a joke. My rage against Biden isn't
>knee jerk. I don't like him.
Yeah, but you still can't explain why without writing a novel filled with dubious assumptions about people's motives.
>Worse than that, I think he is
>90% likely to miss the dunk here.
>
>If anything, you have a knee jerk urge to defend him.
Oooooooohhh! Ouch!!
(I'm joking!)
>>What? What is he ignoring? Are you expecting him to just
>>volunteer a statement that if he's president things would go
>>basically the same as they would with any of the other
>>candidates? Now that would be a gaffe I'd be surprised by
>even
>>from Biden.
>
>Since you asked, I would expect him to stop insulting
>everyone's intelligence.
As H L Mencken said, "No politician ever lost a vote by insulting the intelligence of the American voter."
>Putting aside the fact that I think Biden really believes they
>will work with him. Lets assume he knows that.
>
>
>I think his message of "they will work with me, because the
>fog will be lifted" or whatever is awful. I get he should
>stay above the fray, but there is no reason to put objectively
>untrue statements out.
But it was okay when Barack Obama said it even though it was just as obviously untrue then?
>Use it as an excuse to advocate for voting in Senate and House
>races. Yes run against Trump, but run against the entire
>party.
> You can do that without attacking them. Etc.
>
>
>The other thing it does, to me and others, is say "Look, they
>wouldn't work with Obama, but they'll work with me" wink
>wink.
Yeah, this is a huge leap. Again, Barack Obama said exactly the same thing! Both before his election (paraphrasing: "Bill Clinton couldn't find a way to persuade the opposition, so he didn't become a transformative president like Ronald Reagan"), and well after the GOP took over the Congress ("the fever will break.").
>I can't believe you're okay with it, honestly.
And I can't believe you expect anyone to take your highly-stacked premises seriously.
>>>Stop.
>>>
>>>You know my point, and you know the difference.
>>
>>*IF* I know your point, then your point is nonsense. So
>>because I actually do respect you I'm hoping I still don't
>>follow you.
>
>See, how in the world is what I'm saying nonsense?
Because it doesn't make sense.
>I get your point that Biden can't be out there saying the GOP
>are all white supremacist devils. I get it.
>
>But are you really saying there isn't room for improvement on
>his part?
Oh, OF COURSE there's room for improvement. He should be hiding in an even deeper bunker and whenever he comes up for air he should limit his statements to criticism of progressives.
I'm joking!
>Are you really saying he couldn't operate in a space where he
>attacked Trump head on, urged people to vote in all races to
>put pressure on the GOP, and avoided shitting on Democrat
>VOTERS?
Democratic voters are still gonna vote for Democrats. This goes back to another flaw in the Constitution: majority-rule first-past-the-post voting. The people who don't care much about politics, or who could be persuaded to go either way (you might not think such people exist, but they're showing up in polls as much as ever) will always matter more than the base. I'm not saying that's how it "should" be. It's just how it is as a matter of game theory.
>My point wasn't that he is condescending to his competition,
>its that he talks down to people he needs to vote for him in
>the general.
Progressives will vote against Trump. A ham sandwich, with GMO high-gluten wheat flour and American cheese, can convince progressives to show up and vote against Donald Trump. Unfortunate for those of us who would like radical government action (a group of which I'm very much a member), but it's not gonna change.
Remember when Hillary complained about the "basket of deplorables"? She said that specifically to please the progressives in the room, and we all cheered when we heard the tape. But it hung over the campaign for the rest of the race, infuriated millions of people who might have been off the ranch on just one out of the many issues she listed, and it was one of many things that may have cost her those crucial states. To this day, people are selling "Proudly Deplorable" T-shirts at Trump rallies.
>Hillary made the mistake of insulting Trump voters. So
>Biden's plan is to insult...his own voters? (please note:
>this is a joke)
You're joking (I think), but strategically, yeah, it does more harm to insult persuadable voters than to insult your base. In fact, if you can ingratiate yourself to persuadable voters by insulting your base, then that's the strategically correct thing to do.
>My point is that Biden is some combination of entitled,
>arrogant, old, and lacking self- awareness.
None of this is news. And none of it is relevant.
>Dem voters are coming off voting for the first black president
>twice, and the first female candidate. Three straight
>national elections of excitement.
>
>Now, also consider that the black president is extremely
>popular and was stopped in his tracks by the very people Biden
>is saying he can work with.
(And Obama was also saying he could work with them, even while they were opposing him, and after.)
>And, I'll even use your point against you- you claim Hillary
>ran on the most progressive agenda ever.
>
>So go from the last 3 elections to...Joe Biden.
Well, and I'll bring up something that you take every chance to remind me about: Hillary LOST!
>Obviously, Biden and his people have to realize that if he
>wins the nom there will be an enthusiasm gap.
Oh, absolutely! The progressives will enthusiastically oppose Trump. The persuadable voters will enthusiastically oppose Trump (as long as the nominee plays their cards right and doesn't get hung up over their base). And the Trump voters will enthusiastically support Trump.
If you think ANY of these candidates, or even worse, ANY of these issues people are talking about, can make enough noise to be heard over the walking id in the Oval Office, then your expectations are way too high.
>I don't think shitting on the lefties who hate the GOP in the
>primary is the way to fix that.
It is.
>I don't think insulting the intelligence of said lefties, and
>any passionate (and informed) Obama fans is the way to do
>that, either.
It is.
>So, I refuse to believe that him constantly saying
By the way, when I asked you to tell me what he's been saying, I was kinda hoping you'd come with quotes and links. I think if you made a list of the terrible things Biden has been "constantly" saying, you'd find that they were actually a handful of offhand remarks, scattered over the past year, many of them with questionable context. I'm not saying offhand remarks don't matter ("deplorables," after all), but you're acting as if the campaign slogan was something like "Biden: Basically a Republican."
> the GOP are
>decent people, etc is strategy...because its a terrible
>strategy.
Really, no it isn't.
>Unless he/they are just banking that the left hates Trump so
>much they would vote for an avocado over Trump...
Well, yeah. Or the GMO ham sandwich above.
>so 'lets
>coast through this'
It's not about coasting, it's about winning. A lot of this stuff you call "shitting on the left" is really the better political strategy. And that's how it's always been. Remember the "Sister Souljah moment"? It infuriated me as much as any PE fan. But it's literally textbook political science. As was Barack Obama's unwillingness to defend Jeremiah Wright, Jack Kennedy's vehement anti-communism.
You name me a successful progressive president since the advent of widespread news coverage, and we can find instances of that president "shitting on the left."
>Again, I'm not saying he should call them devils. And I
>certainly don't think he should insult GOP voters.
>
>But there is a middle ground.
Maybe the middle ground is reality, as opposed to the world where you think he's "constantly" shitting on the left.
>>>Next time, just gloss over my Nancy criticism so we can
>have
>>a
>>>real conversation.
>>
>>I'm just bemused by your Nancy criticism. I honestly thought
>>you just hadn't thought it through.
>>
>
>Not writing an essay is not proof I didn't think it through.
Oh God, you thought I wanted another one of these long fucking posts?
>I was in a rush, and figured anyone who has interacted with me
>before knew my basic point- that the donors Reeq referred to,
>Nancy, etc could all potentially be considered a group of
>people who just want things normal again.
I've seen you rant about this "normal" thing many, many times. But like I said, I still don't know what you're trying to say with it.
>So propping up electability, slow walking any impeachment
>talk, lets go back to the good ole days of working with Strom
>Thurmond, etc....would all be appealing to the same group.
>
>
>>
>>>>>Why else does Joe think they'll work with him, when they
>>>>>didn't work with O?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe he doesn't, but again, he knows that's the case that
>>>the
>>>>voters want him to make. And so far it's been working for
>>>him
>>>>despite your exasperation.
>
>Because he's up in the polls? Biden has made some gaffes,
>correct?
>
>Does his standing in the polls mean his current supporters
>agree that "poor kids are as smart as white kids" ...or that
>they forgive his gaffes? ...Or are unaware of them?
>
>The last two, right?
Mostly B. Some amount of C. And I'm sure there are some nitwits who think A as well. Fuck them, but they're still welcome to for for us.
>I imagine most polled don't even know the shit he's said, or
>just chalk it up to Joe being Joe. As I've said before, that
>might carry him through the primary but I don't see it winning
>the GE.
People said precisely the same thing about Trump. Throughout that entire primary people said "Once the voters engage and see the kinds of things he says, they'll come home and vote Rubio. At least they'd better, because he sure as hell couldn't win a general election making such crazy comments!"
>Or at the very least, I think it will be a
>liability.
Oh, definitely! But there are bigger liabilities to be had. Judging by the state of this primary, there are MUCH bigger liabilities to be had.
>>>That said, I think he truly believes they will work with
>>him.
>>
>>See?
>
>See what?
>
>Him calling the GOP decent, well meaning people that will work
>with him is insulting to anyone with half a brain who has paid
>attention the past 10 years
You're repeating yourself, so I'll repeat myself. THIS DIDN'T START 10 YEARS AGO.
>, is objectively untrue,
Irrelevant.
>and
>hurtful to any Dem voter who has been impacted by the past 2+
>years.
What? Where did that come into it? Given that most of the voters seem to agree with standard political science, that it's the right thing to say in order to finally rebuke Trump and remove him from office, it seems more obvious to say it's a ray of hope to those who've been impacted by the past 2+ years.
>I don't think its just strategy, because it would be terrible
>strategy to discourage so many potential GE voters.
Again, no it's not.
>Its also awful strategy because it can be objectively called
>out in the primary process, specifically a debate. He's
>leaving his nose open. Hopefully someone jumps on it.
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will go full Bernie before too long if Biden's numbers hold up. And yeah, it might force him to shore up his base and anger everyone else. That won't help any Democrat. The only person it will help is Trump.
>I also don't think that the polls are necessarily proof that
>this is what voters want to hear, because...by that
>logic...anything he says could be deemed what voters want to
>hear.
Well, yeah. What are you saying here?
Are you saying that he could say he likes eating puppies and I'd say that's popular because the guy who said it has plurality support? If that's what you're saying (I'm honestly asking), then it's nonsense because he wouldn't sustain support if he said that kind of thing.
He IS sustaining support, though, despite supposedly "constantly" saying things you find beyond the pale.
But again, I'm not saying his "shitting on the base" is what voters want to hear because he's ahead in the race. I'm arguing that a certain amount of "shitting on the base" is good strategy for Democratic candidates, as a matter of standard political science and game theory, and that this helps explain why it hasn't hurt his position in the polls.
>To sum up-
>
>You think it is political strategy, like his public option and
>other stances. That voters know this, and want it.
>
>
>I think its more Joe being Joe, saying what he really thinks
>and voters (his current supporters) either aren't aware of it
>or forgive it.
>
>But he's going to need more than just his forgiving supporters
>to vote for him.
That's right! He also needs unaffiliated voters and even some Republicans! That's why he needs to be shitting on the base more.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
(6 votes)
(19 votes)
(53 votes)
(4 votes)
(4 votes)
(6 votes)
. Do the same for Julián Castro.
