EPTpolitical genius sanders at work. pack it up
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3617
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
political genius sanders at work. pack it up | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On April 16 2016 01:38 oneofthem wrote: lol krugman basically made a shitpost against sanders. he mad Yeah, but this paragraph here is hot fire: "In each case the story runs into big trouble if you do a bit of homework; if not completely wrong, it needs a lot of qualification. But the all-purpose response to anyone who raises questions is that she or he is a member of the establishment, personally corrupt, etc.. Ad hominem attacks aren’t a final line of defense, they’re argument #1." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/why-i-havent-felt-the-bern/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0 Right on my point last night. When challenged on substance, Berners instantly respond to personal attacks about Corruption and Establishment loving. If you challenge the Political Revolution, that is just because you are invested in the system. Questions about costs and how you will get Republicans to accept Social Democracy are waved away because Hillary did some speeches at Goldman Sachs. // I am JW_DTLA, I just keep forgetting to dig up my old passwords | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On April 16 2016 02:55 oneofthem wrote: https://twitter.com/nytnickc/status/721027240163680258 political genius sanders at work. pack it up I mean if either Sanders or Hillary DO become president and it didn't go through at that point the nomination will be changed to something more on the left. | ||
KwarK
United States42673 Posts
On April 16 2016 02:55 oneofthem wrote: https://twitter.com/nytnickc/status/721027240163680258 political genius sanders at work. pack it up You do understand that the compromise candidate in the face of uncertainty is designed to be withdrawn if the uncertainty ends, right? That that's literally the purpose? Because it seems a lot like you don't. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and it is just not true that garland is literally only the bait and switch. obama has committed to the possibility of justice garland IF gop breaks and votes for him. it would be fairly disastrous for him to withdraw when it looks like the republicans would vote for garland. On April 16 2016 03:02 Toadesstern wrote: I mean if either Sanders or Hillary DO become president and it didn't go through at that point the nomination will be changed to something more on the left. i doubt it with hillary. garland hits the right points on empowering regulators and this is really the key strategic issue for getting effective reform. the legislature is a bit of a lost cause in the short term. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On April 16 2016 03:20 KwarK wrote: You do understand that the compromise candidate in the face of uncertainty is designed to be withdrawn if the uncertainty ends, right? That that's literally the purpose? Because it seems a lot like you don't. But do you really openly defy your own party's president's nomination? No, that's ridiculous. Sanders was a complete fool to say that last night. It served no purpose other than to say "YOU THINK I'M LIBERAL? YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW LIBERAL I CAN BE" | ||
|
KwarK
United States42673 Posts
On April 16 2016 03:45 oneofthem wrote: whether obama withdraws garland or not is largely irrelevant. it leaves the president open to the republican argument. simple message unity. and it is just not true that garland is literally only the bait and switch. obama has committed to the possibility of justice garland IF gop breaks and votes for him. it would be fairly disastrous for him to withdraw when it looks like the republicans would vote for garland. i doubt it with hillary. garland hits the right points on empowering regulators and this is really the key strategic issue for getting effective reform. the legislature is a bit of a lost cause in the short term. I really don't think you're getting it. Garland isn't a bait and switch for Obama. He's a compromise candidate in the face of uncertainty for Obama. The switch happens if the compromise candidate is rejected with the intent of going allin on getting what you want. If the Republicans refuse Garland in the hope of winning the White House and they lose the White House the Dem candidate should absolutely withdraw him. Think of it this way. I owe you $5. I offer to pay you $5 but you refuse and instead insist that we flip a coin, if it's heads I give you $10, if it's tails I give you $0. We flip the coin. It's tails. You ask if you can still get the $5. All Bernie has said is that if they won't take the deal, bet on winning the election and then lose then the deal shouldn't still be on the table. Saying that it will be completely undermines the deal, the threat of who Sanders would appoint is what makes the Garland nomination credible. If Sanders say "don't worry, I'll give you $5 either way" then there is no reason not to try and flip the coin and win $10. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the point is that sanders is being politically dumb, damaging the administration's message. even if you think of garland as just a settlement proposal, you are still making it insincere as fuck by opening up the very possibility of a withdraw or putting off the thing until next year. it's a rather trivial incident but serves as another reminder of sanders' political genius. he has no sense of danger or strategy. republicans will obviously take this statement and use it in a variety of ways. this includes painting garland nomination as the sort of insincere political gambit you've described. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 16 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote: I really don't think you're getting it. Garland isn't a bait and switch for Obama. He's a compromise candidate in the face of uncertainty for Obama. The switch happens if the compromise candidate is rejected with the intent of going allin on getting what you want. If the Republicans refuse Garland in the hope of winning the White House and they lose the White House the Dem candidate should absolutely withdraw him. Think of it this way. I owe you $5. I offer to pay you $5 but you refuse and instead insist that we flip a coin, if it's heads I give you $10, if it's tails I give you $0. We flip the coin. It's tails. You ask if you can still get the $5. All Bernie has said is that if they won't take the deal, bet on winning the election and then lose then the deal shouldn't still be on the table. Saying that it will be completely undermines the deal, the threat of who Sanders would appoint is what makes the Garland nomination credible. If Sanders say "don't worry, I'll give you $5 either way" then there is no reason not to try and flip the coin and win $10. You're missing the point. The fact that Bernie is saying that Obama should withdraw his nominee once the election is over completely undermines the Democrats' current case against Republicans and for confirming him now. Republicans are going to be using this (well, apparently they already are) to argue that the Democrats themselves think that Republicans are right that it should be the next president who decides the nominee. The entire foundation of the pressure that is currently being put on Republicans by the Dems is the idea that Garland's nomination should be voted on now. Seeing one of the two Democrats still running take for granted that nothing's going to happen now and that the next president should be the one picking the nominee helps Republicans avoid that pressure. It's stupid as hell for Sanders to be making a statement like that now. Let that be a known possibility so that Republicans possibly end up confirming him in fear of getting a worse deal later on, but don't make public statements about it that can be used by Republicans to argue "see? Democrats agree with us it should be the next president who decides". | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:01 oneofthem wrote: your logic works only if garland is purely the settlement offered to make the other side look bad. it's a very real nomination with the possibility of getting on the court. the point is that sanders is being politically dumb, damaging the administration's message. even if you think of garland as just a settlement proposal, you are still making it insincere as fuck by opening up the very possibility of a withdraw or putting off the thing until next year. it's a rather trivial incident but serves as another reminder of sanders' political genius. he has no sense of danger or strategy. republicans will obviously take this statement and use it in a variety of ways. this includes painting garland nomination as the sort of insincere political gambit you've described. So you've changed your mind and admitted that republicans will listen to and respect a socialist president? Good on you m8. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42673 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:01 oneofthem wrote: your logic works only if garland is purely the settlement offered to make the other side look bad. it's a very real nomination with the possibility of getting on the court. the point is that sanders is being politically dumb, damaging the administration's message. even if you think of garland as just a settlement proposal, you are still making it insincere as fuck by opening up the very possibility of a withdraw or putting off the thing until next year. it's a rather trivial incident but serves as another reminder of sanders' political genius. Not at all. Garland isn't at all offered to make the other side look bad. That'd be an offer of paying $1. Garland is a compromise candidate to acknowledge that the Republicans have a possibility of getting a better deal in the future which will make them not want to accept an awful deal today. Likewise they're afraid of a very bad deal in the future. Garland is a moderate conservative which gives them someone they like and the left someone they can work with. He's a legitimate candidate that represents the uncertainty of the situation in the same way that the $5 offer did. You're really not understanding the game theory of this at all. Republicans will get someone they love if they win. Democrats will put in someone the Republicans hate if they win. Obama sacrificed the maximum possible gain in order to avoid the maximum possible loss by offering a compromise candidate, not with any ulterior motive but because it was a good deal to both sides. However the offer only carries weight if you have Bernie standing behind Obama with the stick, promising to appoint the zombie corpse of Karl Marx to the Supreme Court if they go allin on the election and lose. If Bernie promises that Garland will still be on the table then he completely illegitimizes the compromise. Honestly I don't know how you're not understanding the concepts here. The value of Garland is that he is a moderate in the face of uncertainty. If Bernie takes away the uncertainty then Obama's nomination is completely toothless. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in order, 1. you are acting like it is news that garland is a compromise candidate. that's not even the issue, the issue is whether sanders statement undermines the president's strategy and allow republicans to reframe the situation to escape political pressure. 2. no shit obama can't nominate a flaming liberal but to say the point of the candidate is that he can be withdrawn, and thus bernie's statement is harmless is not true. it completely trivializes the real commitment obama is making in nominating a moderate guy. had he really wanted to stick it to the republicans, i.e. valuing the nominating opportunity less, he would have picked a more liberal guy (just suppose this is true). 3. problem with this argument is that bernie saying this DOES NOT change the gop's knowledge of the situation at all. for your defense to work GOP understanding of bernie's position would be something less than what he said, and his statement revised this threat higher. it did no such thing, because everyone knows what bernie will do. but his statement is a politcally costly one so you have no real game theory here, just nonsense. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:05 Jormundr wrote: So you've changed your mind and admitted that republicans will listen to and respect a socialist president? Good on you m8. they are not respecting him. they are laughing and then using his dumb shit to attack obama. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:07 KwarK wrote: Not at all. Garland isn't at all offered to make the other side look bad. That'd be an offer of paying $1. Garland is a compromise candidate to acknowledge that the Republicans have a possibility of getting a better deal in the future which will make them not want to accept an awful deal today. Likewise they're afraid of a very bad deal in the future. Garland is a moderate conservative which gives them someone they like and the left someone they can work with. He's a legitimate candidate that represents the uncertainty of the situation in the same way that the $5 offer did. You're really not understanding the game theory of this at all. Republicans will get someone they love if they win. Democrats will put in someone the Republicans hate if they win. Obama sacrificed the maximum possible gain in order to avoid the maximum possible loss by offering a compromise candidate, not with any ulterior motive but because it was a good deal to both sides. However the offer only carries weight if you have Bernie standing behind Obama with the stick, promising to appoint the zombie corpse of Karl Marx to the Supreme Court if they go allin on the election and lose. If Bernie promises that Garland will still be on the table then he completely illegitimizes the compromise. Honestly I don't know how you're not understanding the concepts here. The value of Garland is that he is a moderate in the face of uncertainty. If Bernie takes away the uncertainty then Obama's nomination is completely toothless. I agree that that is the game theory behind Garland's nomination. The problem is that the execution is pretty far off. If you look at the last decade's major decisions like Heller, Citizens, Parents, Fisher, Jones, and NFIB, Garland projects to vote with the progressive wing every time. Perhaps there is an issue that he "swings" on but it would be a minor issue, so this isn't throwing a bone to Republicans at all. Maybe if he nominated someone like Posner who is all over the place that would be a compromise candidate. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
Every (competent) politician is well aware of what you explained which makes it twice as weird that Sanders would say it. Those he "threatens" already know full well how the game is. EDIT: I'm too slow - this was to Kwark. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:07 KwarK wrote: Not at all. Garland isn't at all offered to make the other side look bad. That'd be an offer of paying $1. Garland is a compromise candidate to acknowledge that the Republicans have a possibility of getting a better deal in the future which will make them not want to accept an awful deal today. Likewise they're afraid of a very bad deal in the future. Garland is a moderate conservative which gives them someone they like and the left someone they can work with. He's a legitimate candidate that represents the uncertainty of the situation in the same way that the $5 offer did. You're really not understanding the game theory of this at all. Republicans will get someone they love if they win. Democrats will put in someone the Republicans hate if they win. Obama sacrificed the maximum possible gain in order to avoid the maximum possible loss by offering a compromise candidate, not with any ulterior motive but because it was a good deal to both sides. However the offer only carries weight if you have Bernie standing behind Obama with the stick, promising to appoint the zombie corpse of Karl Marx to the Supreme Court if they go allin on the election and lose. If Bernie promises that Garland will still be on the table then he completely illegitimizes the compromise. Honestly I don't know how you're not understanding the concepts here. The value of Garland is that he is a moderate in the face of uncertainty. If Bernie takes away the uncertainty then Obama's nomination is completely toothless. I get what you are saying and you are right. The problem as has been pointed out is the stick Bernie is holding is decidedly anti-establishment and while the threat is a good kick to the Republicans its also a fair bit of a kick to his own party because if one of their possible representatives doesn't agree with it, then there is an excuse. The reasons couldnt be more further apart but no ones going to dig that deep. Heck the spin could even be as vague as, "even senior dems dont want this present to nominate a judge. so why should we?" Depending on the timing this comment may be useful. I think the timing is off personally. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42673 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:18 cLutZ wrote: I agree that that is the game theory behind Garland's nomination. The problem is that the execution is pretty far off. If you look at the last decade's major decisions like Heller, Citizens, Parents, Fisher, Jones, and NFIB, Garland projects to vote with the progressive wing every time. Perhaps there is an issue that he "swings" on but it would be a minor issue, so this isn't throwing a bone to Republicans at all. Maybe if he nominated someone like Posner who is all over the place that would be a compromise candidate. Do you think the coming election is a 50/50? if you think a Democratic victory considerably more likely (and I do) then the Dems are sacrificing more in the compromise (they're losing a big chance of appointing zombie Marx whereas the Republicans are losing only the small chance of their planned zombie Ayn Rand nomination). From what I understand Garland is a respectable compromise candidate that both parties could live with. Sure, he's not who the Republicans would have chosen but in order to choose they first need to get Trump in the White House. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A bill to outlaw abortions based on sex or race that Democratic lawmakers and advocates have called a “nightmare” made its way to the US House of Representatives committee floor late on Thursday, where Republicans invoked Frederick Douglass, the Book of Matthew and Thomas Jefferson in arguing that abortions they believe to be discriminatory should be criminalized. “It took the civil war to make the state-sanctioned practice of human slavery come to an end,” said Representative Trent Franks, the bill’s sponsor, at a House judiciary subcommittee hearing on Thursday. He said that while the US has “made great progress” in the advancement of civil rights and bringing an end to racial discrimination, “one glaring exception is life itself, the most foundational civil right of all”. The Prenatal Discrimination Act (Prenda) seeks to make it illegal to have an abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus. But advocates argued the proposal would force physicians to report on patients they suspect of having an abortion for those reasons without having any real way of knowing. They warn it would also effectively institutionalize racial profiling on the part of doctors and violate the physician-patient relationship. “This bill is so horrendous that I could not believe it when it was first brought up,” said Representative Judy Chu of California. “It is a nightmare. This is a piece of legislation that would impose criminal penalties on providers and limit the reproductive choices of women of color and all women.” She said providers facing the possibility of jail time for failing to report on minority women having abortions as a catch-all, and worried that it could also further discourage physicians from serving underrepresented communities. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
| ||
