Hahaha well who knows. Well, as one user to another I can definitely say he's on one or or the other, though it can be hard to tell the difference between the two. He definitely isn't straight edge that's for certain.
Here in Iowa Ernst and various PAC have been barraging tv and YouTube with all kinds of ads saying Greenfield "is a puppet of Pelosi and the socialist's in Washington" so it's nice to hear it's out of desperation.
For everything else that's going on, I am enjoying the media-judo that Biden's ad team is leveraging these days.
TetraNitroCubane on
+55
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
For everything else that's going on, I am enjoying the media-judo that Biden's ad team is leveraging these days.
Alright, that's pretty good right there. I needed that levity right now.
Yeah I saw it on twitter and I was going to post it in here to bring some brightness. It was hilarious when I heard the original clip I was thinking "man that's a biden ad right there"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
President Donald Trump suggests, without cause, Joe Biden is using performance enhancing drugs, telling supporters in NC, "They give him a big fat shot in the ass, he comes out, and for two hours he’s better than ever before. The problem is, what happens after that?"
Omg. Our politics have really gotten this low? This man is an idiot and every person cheering for him is what's wrong with the country . I'm beyond words for this.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘left’ push. Sounds authoritarian for the other side. Sure the side that’s not doing the most active harm, and could possibly be forced into doing good, but enshrining one party dominance isn’t more ‘left’ if the better guys do it. Especially the party who’s last president bragged about making the US the leader in oil production. They’re absolutely warranted acts to prevent the looming fascist coup, and I 100% agree they should happen. But it’s not ‘left’. This situation isn’t great for anyone.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘left’ push. Sounds authoritarian for the other side. Sure the side that’s not doing the most active harm, and could possibly be forced into doing good, but enshrining one party dominance isn’t more ‘left’ if the better guys do it. Especially the party who’s last president bragged about making the US the leader in oil production. They’re absolutely warranted acts to prevent the looming fascist coup, and I 100% agree they should happen. But it’s not ‘left’. This situation isn’t great for anyone.
What's radicalizing moderates on the left is decades of hypocrisy and naked power grabs above all else.
What radicalized moderates on the right was a black man being elected president.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘left’ push. Sounds authoritarian for the other side. Sure the side that’s not doing the most active harm, and could possibly be forced into doing good, but enshrining one party dominance isn’t more ‘left’ if the better guys do it. Especially the party who’s last president bragged about making the US the leader in oil production. They’re absolutely warranted acts to prevent the looming fascist coup, and I 100% agree they should happen. But it’s not ‘left’. This situation isn’t great for anyone.
What's radicalizing moderates on the left is decades of hypocrisy and naked power grabs above all else.
What radicalized moderates on the right was a black man being elected president.
Further building up an imperial presidency isn’t a left thing though. Seeing a lot of warning signs among liberals towards authoritarianism when they’re scared.
The right’s been radicalized for decades, they’ve just recruited better.
Edit:or weren’t imprisoned/killed when they were radicalized on nearly the same scale as the right.
Our country is closet racist homophobes. In hindsight I'm not shocked Trump won 2016, and if he wins 2020, more proof I'm done trying in this fucked up world.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘left’ push. Sounds authoritarian for the other side. Sure the side that’s not doing the most active harm, and could possibly be forced into doing good, but enshrining one party dominance isn’t more ‘left’ if the better guys do it. Especially the party who’s last president bragged about making the US the leader in oil production. They’re absolutely warranted acts to prevent the looming fascist coup, and I 100% agree they should happen. But it’s not ‘left’. This situation isn’t great for anyone.
What's radicalizing moderates on the left is decades of hypocrisy and naked power grabs above all else.
What radicalized moderates on the right was a black man being elected president.
Further building up an imperial presidency isn’t a left thing though. Seeing a lot of warning signs among liberals towards authoritarianism when they’re scared.
The right’s been radicalized for decades, they’ve just recruited better.
Edit:or weren’t imprisoned/killed when they were radicalized on nearly the same scale as the right.
It's a pretty simple choice at this juncture: the Democrats can hold onto their principles and integrity and do things the way they're ostensibly supposed to, or they can be a party that isn't marginalized by opposition that has no sense of integrity or shame.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘left’ push. Sounds authoritarian for the other side. Sure the side that’s not doing the most active harm, and could possibly be forced into doing good, but enshrining one party dominance isn’t more ‘left’ if the better guys do it. Especially the party who’s last president bragged about making the US the leader in oil production. They’re absolutely warranted acts to prevent the looming fascist coup, and I 100% agree they should happen. But it’s not ‘left’. This situation isn’t great for anyone.
What's radicalizing moderates on the left is decades of hypocrisy and naked power grabs above all else.
What radicalized moderates on the right was a black man being elected president.
Further building up an imperial presidency isn’t a left thing though. Seeing a lot of warning signs among liberals towards authoritarianism when they’re scared.
The right’s been radicalized for decades, they’ve just recruited better.
Edit:or weren’t imprisoned/killed when they were radicalized on nearly the same scale as the right.
It's not an imperial presidency if Congress is using its power.
There's a lot of radical talk on twitter and forums, but the people and the party aren't there, and this isn't an example of it. DC statehood is justified on its own merits as 705K citizens are denied self-governance and representation in the federal government. Puerto Rico deserves a say in whether it wants to remain a territory or be admitted as a state. The size of the Supreme Court has been changed nearly 10 times in US history and is explicitly detailed in the Constitution. There is nothing sacred about 9 (or 435 for that matter).
True comity among the parties is now a myth and has been for decades. Matching that intensity isn't authoritarianism or even truly radical politics - its actually how the House has functioned its entire existence.
In electoral terms, the public doesn't give too much of a shit about this stuff except when it is really obviously abusive. DC statehood is a split down the middle issue, PR statehood is popular, increasing the number of Justices is like 50 to 40 against. These aren't wildly unpopular, but offer little to gain for moderate voters. There's no reason to emphasize them (and potentially motivate some small amount of the GOP base), just to do them when you get power
Our country is closet racist homophobes. In hindsight I'm not shocked Trump won 2016, and if he wins 2020, more proof I'm done trying in this fucked up world.
We should be so lucky. We're not going to stop hearing from him until he's dead.
(And maybe not even then, depending on who ends up with control of his Twitter account - see Herman Cain.)
It's a pretty simple choice at this juncture: the Democrats can hold onto their principles and integrity and do things the way they're ostensibly supposed to, or they can be a party that isn't marginalized by opposition that has no sense of integrity or shame.
This is just “Radicalism is ok if it’s my side doing it”. My views are exceedingly radical, and would take a massive upheaval of terrifying proportions to enact. It’s worrying seeing cousins of them espoused here, a fairly calm center left forum.
The court is already packed from the right and territories of US citizens without proper voting rights because of where they live is bogus.
Sorry but fixing these wrongs is not authoritarian
Sure, and American Samoa and the USVI and the rest of the american colonies should get the same (laughable) protections as other US citizens. But planning to pack a court and guarantee power for your party as a response to political enemies holding power (despicable ones though they are) is still an authoritarian push. I don’t think any of these are bad ideas! They should’ve been enacted decades ago! But doing them as a reaction instead of an original move for justice is a vastly different thing. Road to hell, good intentions, etc. “They rigged the game, well so can we” is not a good statement!
It's not an imperial presidency if Congress is using its power.
There's a lot of radical talk on twitter and forums, but the people and the party aren't there, and this isn't an example of it. DC statehood is justified on its own merits as 705K citizens are denied self-governance and representation in the federal government. Puerto Rico deserves a say in whether it wants to remain a territory or be admitted as a state. The size of the Supreme Court has been changed nearly 10 times in US history and is explicitly detailed in the Constitution. There is nothing sacred about 9 (or 435 for that matter).
435 could be argued to be radical as it was used and meant to restrict representation but agreed. DC deserves to be a state way the fuck more than Wyoming, and PR and the rest of the colonies deserve to actually have a say in their own futures instead of being in an imperialist limbo. I hope the next Congress institutes a binding self determination law for all of them. The point about not being an imperial presidency with legislative assent stands and is a good point.
True comity among the parties is now a myth and has been for decades. Matching that intensity isn't authoritarianism or even truly radical politics - its actually how the House has functioned its entire existence.
Matching the intensity is a shift in politics as has been practiced in my lifetime, and definitely has the potential to be seen as an escalatory measure by shitheel RWers. Who, of course, already think Biden’s more of a socialist than Marx and Engel. But in my 20-ish years of political life, Dems matching GOP in intensity is extraordinarily radical and seems to hold across the post-WW2 era.
In electoral terms, the public doesn't give too much of a shit about this stuff except when it is really obviously abusive. DC statehood is a split down the middle issue, PR statehood is popular, increasing the number of Justices is like 50 to 40 against. These aren't wildly unpopular, but offer little to gain for moderate voters. There's no reason to emphasize them (and potentially motivate some small amount of the GOP base), just to do them when you get power
It would be great to gave political leadership on this issue, but our system is pretty captured by corporate interests so you’re right they’re unlikely to happen without a shock to it, that this situation could provide. It could also cause a retaliatory response in 4-12 years when the opposing party takes power.
TL;DR: my last three posts can be summed as do good things cause they’re good things, not to beat your opponent with them. That’s a bad road to join and I’m fuckawful scared of a spiral of intensity.
The counter argument to thst is you only have the political capital to do those things once your opponent has crossed the line
The American people would punish a party for a power grab like pecking the court. But probably not after the blatant hypocrisy of not allowing Obama’s pick in, then shoving a rapist in, then pushing this latest through
That gives you the argument to make to the people that this is necessary.
Which the Dems, where safe to do so, need to start making. They need to make it clear that if the GOP pushes this through they are going to respond by pecking the courts
This is just “Radicalism is ok if it’s my side doing it”. My views are exceedingly radical, and would take a massive upheaval of terrifying proportions to enact. It’s worrying seeing cousins of them espoused here, a fairly calm center left forum.
No, it’s not. Politics is similar to an indefinite prisoners dilemma game. Defecting isn’t radical if the other person already defected. It’s necessary in order to return to the better equilibrium path.
This is just “Radicalism is ok if it’s my side doing it”. My views are exceedingly radical, and would take a massive upheaval of terrifying proportions to enact. It’s worrying seeing cousins of them espoused here, a fairly calm center left forum.
No, it’s not. Politics is similar to an indefinite prisoners dilemma game. Defecting isn’t radical if the other person already defected. It’s necessary in order to return to the better equilibrium path.
If memory serves, once you think the other side is doing "always defect" as their strategy, the correct strategy is to respond in kind until they're willing to stop.
If you have different principles than your opponent, you'll find that adopting their strategies, whether or not they are effective, is easier said than done.
Packing the court works for damage control, but not if you want the Supreme Court to be functionally respected as an institution. If a politician can't give that part of their idealism up, they will have a hard time doing it regardless of public or party pressure.
At the bottom line, democrats have more things on their moral plate than owning the Republicans, which makes them less morally flexible. Trying to go against the foundations of your motivation will turn off the parts of your brain that are needed to stay one step ahead of the opposition. You won't be as good at it as someone who just thinks differently.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don’t respect the Supreme Court at all. It seems to be an exercise in reading tea leaves, where several Very Learned folks find that an ancient document astonishingly agrees with whatever present-day political views they have. Liberals find liberal principles in it, conservatives find conservative principles in it. Constitutional law should be taught in seminaries, not law schools.
If you have different principles than your opponent, you'll find that adopting their strategies, whether or not they are effective, is easier said than done.
Packing the court works for damage control, but not if you want the Supreme Court to be functionally respected as an institution. If a politician can't give that part of their idealism up, they will have a hard time doing it regardless of public or party pressure.
At the bottom line, democrats have more things on their moral plate than owning the Republicans, which makes them less morally flexible. Trying to go against the foundations of your motivation will turn off the parts of your brain that are needed to stay one step ahead of the opposition. You won't be as good at it as someone who just thinks differently.
that statement would work if you could show me examples of the Democrats staying one step ahead of their opposition.
It isn't reasonable to think of things like increasing the size of the court as a moral issue in that manner.
It's not wearing the One Ring. No corruptive magicks are going to seep into the Democratic party because they make procedural alterations to the government that are within their article 3 powers in order to prevent white supremacists from making it illegal to be gay.
The goal of the Republican Party is to be a minoritarian government that is able to harm the diverse majority of people who live in the US with impunity. The goal of the Democratic Party is to govern citizens in the US. Actions in pursuit of those goals take on moral dimensions, but not equal moral dimensions. Clever bending of the rules to make sure that people are able to get food stamps and healthcare is not in fact just as chilling as clever bending of the rules to make sure you can legally hunt any citizen making less than $100,000 a year.
The Biden's campaign platform and messaging re: court packing is dependent on what Trump and 'pubs do. I expect Trump to push for an appointment before the election, in which case going pro-packing seems like the correct course for Biden.
The Biden's campaign platform and messaging re: court packing is dependent on what Trump and 'pubs do. I expect Trump to push for an appointment before the election, in which case going pro-packing seems like the correct course for Biden.
This is what is going to happen. Everything Trump has done so far has been about ensuring he can cheat the election to victory. A friendly supreme court justice is exactly what he thinks he needs. Nothing's ever gone badly for him before, so why not this as well? And I mean really...is the country going to overthrow him if a blatently partisan ruling gives him 4 more years?
The Biden's campaign platform and messaging re: court packing is dependent on what Trump and 'pubs do. I expect Trump to push for an appointment before the election, in which case going pro-packing seems like the correct course for Biden.
This is what is going to happen. Everything Trump has done so far has been about ensuring he can cheat the election to victory. A friendly supreme court justice is exactly what he thinks he needs. Nothing's ever gone badly for him before, so why not this as well? And I mean really...is the country going to overthrow him if a blatently partisan ruling gives him 4 more years?
If it comes down to SCOTUS overruling a lower court decision that had ruled in favor of Biden, in a 5-4 decision because Trump installed a flunky who was allowed to rule on this?
The last four years are radicalizing a lot of moderate dems. The idea of abolishing ICE was crazy and now we’re openly talking about defunding the police
Nuke the fillerbuster? Pack the courts? These weren’t real options 4 years ago but they are now.
Dc and Puerto Rico? Sure sign me up for that too. We aren’t taking about a fascist one party system here, we’re talking about getting out from the current minority rule that we’ve suffered under
All these things do is simply put the power back in the majority hands.
2015: "That's a bit much, don't you think? Do we really have to...?"
2020: "Yeah, we really fuckin' have to."
+29
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
There are ways to do 100% legal complete takeovers of America, but adding DC and PR as states or increasing the number of court justices is just.. trying to restore some level of balance (the current senate breakdown is super fucked, fear of tyranny of a majority is legit, but the senate just trades it for a tyranny of even fewer).
(The fascist-but-legal way of doing a takeover involves admitting DC as two hundred states and then immediately passing a trillion constitutional amendments that you have three-quarters of the states support to cement power.)
This is just “Radicalism is ok if it’s my side doing it”. My views are exceedingly radical, and would take a massive upheaval of terrifying proportions to enact. It’s worrying seeing cousins of them espoused here, a fairly calm center left forum.
I'm comparatively moderate, but I'm also smart enough to understand that the democrats are functionally handicapped by virtue of having ethics and that the republicans are going to continue to engage in rank hypocrisy and borderline treason due to the fact that they aren't really facing any consequences for doing so, thus allowing them to continue to grab more and more power and making it harder and harder for any sort of progressive initiative to become cemented into government policy.
So fuck it. If throwing norms out the window is the cost of getting better representation for everyone, higher standards of living for the public and an economy not centered around funneling more money into the hands of people who don't need it then do it.
I mean, to even achieve balance we'd have to add DC and PR and add more states/split existing states. The GOP has a baked in, what, 5-seat advantage in the Senate?
I would have no problem with splitting California into 2-3 blue states and PA into 2 reliable blue states and 1 red state. I haven't heard anyone seriously talking about those kinds of plays as yet, but all options should be on the table.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
A+ pollster on 538, FYI.
Never, ever question Selzer in Iowa. Even the one time she was wrong.
Forbes reporter:
Here in Iowa Ernst and various PAC have been barraging tv and YouTube with all kinds of ads saying Greenfield "is a puppet of Pelosi and the socialist's in Washington" so it's nice to hear it's out of desperation.
Please do not make me think about Trump Butt
Don't get my hopes up, Joe.
For everything else that's going on, I am enjoying the media-judo that Biden's ad team is leveraging these days.
Alright, that's pretty good right there. I needed that levity right now.
Yeah I saw it on twitter and I was going to post it in here to bring some brightness. It was hilarious when I heard the original clip I was thinking "man that's a biden ad right there"
pleasepaypreacher.net
Like this government just doesn't work like this, but we have better examples to pull from
What's radicalizing moderates on the left is decades of hypocrisy and naked power grabs above all else.
What radicalized moderates on the right was a black man being elected president.
Further building up an imperial presidency isn’t a left thing though. Seeing a lot of warning signs among liberals towards authoritarianism when they’re scared.
The right’s been radicalized for decades, they’ve just recruited better.
Edit:or weren’t imprisoned/killed when they were radicalized on nearly the same scale as the right.
Sorry but fixing these wrongs is not authoritarian
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's a pretty simple choice at this juncture: the Democrats can hold onto their principles and integrity and do things the way they're ostensibly supposed to, or they can be a party that isn't marginalized by opposition that has no sense of integrity or shame.
It's not an imperial presidency if Congress is using its power.
There's a lot of radical talk on twitter and forums, but the people and the party aren't there, and this isn't an example of it. DC statehood is justified on its own merits as 705K citizens are denied self-governance and representation in the federal government. Puerto Rico deserves a say in whether it wants to remain a territory or be admitted as a state. The size of the Supreme Court has been changed nearly 10 times in US history and is explicitly detailed in the Constitution. There is nothing sacred about 9 (or 435 for that matter).
True comity among the parties is now a myth and has been for decades. Matching that intensity isn't authoritarianism or even truly radical politics - its actually how the House has functioned its entire existence.
In electoral terms, the public doesn't give too much of a shit about this stuff except when it is really obviously abusive. DC statehood is a split down the middle issue, PR statehood is popular, increasing the number of Justices is like 50 to 40 against. These aren't wildly unpopular, but offer little to gain for moderate voters. There's no reason to emphasize them (and potentially motivate some small amount of the GOP base), just to do them when you get power
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
...you think they're still in the closet?!
I may never stop laughing at this.
(And maybe not even then, depending on who ends up with control of his Twitter account - see Herman Cain.)
This is just “Radicalism is ok if it’s my side doing it”. My views are exceedingly radical, and would take a massive upheaval of terrifying proportions to enact. It’s worrying seeing cousins of them espoused here, a fairly calm center left forum.
Sure, and American Samoa and the USVI and the rest of the american colonies should get the same (laughable) protections as other US citizens. But planning to pack a court and guarantee power for your party as a response to political enemies holding power (despicable ones though they are) is still an authoritarian push. I don’t think any of these are bad ideas! They should’ve been enacted decades ago! But doing them as a reaction instead of an original move for justice is a vastly different thing. Road to hell, good intentions, etc. “They rigged the game, well so can we” is not a good statement!
435 could be argued to be radical as it was used and meant to restrict representation but agreed. DC deserves to be a state way the fuck more than Wyoming, and PR and the rest of the colonies deserve to actually have a say in their own futures instead of being in an imperialist limbo. I hope the next Congress institutes a binding self determination law for all of them. The point about not being an imperial presidency with legislative assent stands and is a good point.
Matching the intensity is a shift in politics as has been practiced in my lifetime, and definitely has the potential to be seen as an escalatory measure by shitheel RWers. Who, of course, already think Biden’s more of a socialist than Marx and Engel. But in my 20-ish years of political life, Dems matching GOP in intensity is extraordinarily radical and seems to hold across the post-WW2 era.
It would be great to gave political leadership on this issue, but our system is pretty captured by corporate interests so you’re right they’re unlikely to happen without a shock to it, that this situation could provide. It could also cause a retaliatory response in 4-12 years when the opposing party takes power.
TL;DR: my last three posts can be summed as do good things cause they’re good things, not to beat your opponent with them. That’s a bad road to join and I’m fuckawful scared of a spiral of intensity.
The American people would punish a party for a power grab like pecking the court. But probably not after the blatant hypocrisy of not allowing Obama’s pick in, then shoving a rapist in, then pushing this latest through
That gives you the argument to make to the people that this is necessary.
Which the Dems, where safe to do so, need to start making. They need to make it clear that if the GOP pushes this through they are going to respond by pecking the courts
So then when we do it we can say we warned them
No, it’s not. Politics is similar to an indefinite prisoners dilemma game. Defecting isn’t radical if the other person already defected. It’s necessary in order to return to the better equilibrium path.
If memory serves, once you think the other side is doing "always defect" as their strategy, the correct strategy is to respond in kind until they're willing to stop.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Packing the court works for damage control, but not if you want the Supreme Court to be functionally respected as an institution. If a politician can't give that part of their idealism up, they will have a hard time doing it regardless of public or party pressure.
At the bottom line, democrats have more things on their moral plate than owning the Republicans, which makes them less morally flexible. Trying to go against the foundations of your motivation will turn off the parts of your brain that are needed to stay one step ahead of the opposition. You won't be as good at it as someone who just thinks differently.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
that statement would work if you could show me examples of the Democrats staying one step ahead of their opposition.
It's not wearing the One Ring. No corruptive magicks are going to seep into the Democratic party because they make procedural alterations to the government that are within their article 3 powers in order to prevent white supremacists from making it illegal to be gay.
The goal of the Republican Party is to be a minoritarian government that is able to harm the diverse majority of people who live in the US with impunity. The goal of the Democratic Party is to govern citizens in the US. Actions in pursuit of those goals take on moral dimensions, but not equal moral dimensions. Clever bending of the rules to make sure that people are able to get food stamps and healthcare is not in fact just as chilling as clever bending of the rules to make sure you can legally hunt any citizen making less than $100,000 a year.
This is what is going to happen. Everything Trump has done so far has been about ensuring he can cheat the election to victory. A friendly supreme court justice is exactly what he thinks he needs. Nothing's ever gone badly for him before, so why not this as well? And I mean really...is the country going to overthrow him if a blatently partisan ruling gives him 4 more years?
If it comes down to SCOTUS overruling a lower court decision that had ruled in favor of Biden, in a 5-4 decision because Trump installed a flunky who was allowed to rule on this?
Then I hope so.
It absolutely does, but people on that side, or who haven't been paying attention, won't care.
(Fuck them.)
Nuke the fillerbuster? Pack the courts? These weren’t real options 4 years ago but they are now.
Dc and Puerto Rico? Sure sign me up for that too. We aren’t taking about a fascist one party system here, we’re talking about getting out from the current minority rule that we’ve suffered under
All these things do is simply put the power back in the majority hands.
2020: "Yeah, we really fuckin' have to."
(The fascist-but-legal way of doing a takeover involves admitting DC as two hundred states and then immediately passing a trillion constitutional amendments that you have three-quarters of the states support to cement power.)
I'm comparatively moderate, but I'm also smart enough to understand that the democrats are functionally handicapped by virtue of having ethics and that the republicans are going to continue to engage in rank hypocrisy and borderline treason due to the fact that they aren't really facing any consequences for doing so, thus allowing them to continue to grab more and more power and making it harder and harder for any sort of progressive initiative to become cemented into government policy.
So fuck it. If throwing norms out the window is the cost of getting better representation for everyone, higher standards of living for the public and an economy not centered around funneling more money into the hands of people who don't need it then do it.
I would have no problem with splitting California into 2-3 blue states and PA into 2 reliable blue states and 1 red state. I haven't heard anyone seriously talking about those kinds of plays as yet, but all options should be on the table.