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.
On April 22 2017 11:27 zlefin wrote: complaining about dems being oblivious when you act as you do is rather off GH. can't think of the exact right word to describe it though. the not realizing you're describing yourself thing.
If you watched the interview with Bernie and Tom together on All-In and thought, "yeah the Democrats get it now" I'm sorry. I think even a lot of Hillary voters get that Democrats are flailing.
If not Bernie (since he's not a Democrat) who is the leader of the Democratic party in your view?
I haven't seen that interview, do you happen to have a link handy? which parts of the interview are most notable? Parties do not in general necessarily have a single leader, they have a number of notable individuals working at various levels and positions. I don't see any particular Dem at the moment as being the party leader.
Let me just start with this, do you consider yourself a Democrat?
you didn't answer my question as to which parts of the interview were most notable/informative. I'd like to know if one needs to see the entire thing to get the point you describe, or if certain parts are most relevant. How long is the interview?
At any rate, I'll answer your Q; I do not consider myself a Democrat (if we're going by self-identification); in practice I'm strongly Democrat (compared to R at least) aligned, so one could reasonably classify me as such. I'm not sure which sense you're looking for.
PS going to sleep soon-ish, so discussion may not finish tonight
On April 22 2017 11:27 zlefin wrote: complaining about dems being oblivious when you act as you do is rather off GH. can't think of the exact right word to describe it though. the not realizing you're describing yourself thing.
If you watched the interview with Bernie and Tom together on All-In and thought, "yeah the Democrats get it now" I'm sorry. I think even a lot of Hillary voters get that Democrats are flailing.
If not Bernie (since he's not a Democrat) who is the leader of the Democratic party in your view?
I haven't seen that interview, do you happen to have a link handy? which parts of the interview are most notable? Parties do not in general necessarily have a single leader, they have a number of notable individuals working at various levels and positions. I don't see any particular Dem at the moment as being the party leader.
Let me just start with this, do you consider yourself a Democrat?
you didn't answer my question as to which parts of the interview were most notable/informative. I'd like to know if one needs to see the entire thing to get the point you describe, or if certain parts are most relevant. How long is the interview?
At any rate, I'll answer your Q; I do not consider myself a Democrat (if we're going by self-identification); in practice I'm strongly Democrat (compared to R at least) aligned, so one could reasonably classify me as such. I'm not sure which sense you're looking for.
PS going to sleep soon-ish, so discussion may not finish tonight
If you haven't seen the video then you haven't seen the reaction from Hillary supporters that I'm referencing, so I'm not sure there's a point to discussing it with you.
Here's the interview if you want to cringe through it though. (It's all bad and it builds context upon itself and it's only 10 minutes, but if you need a highlight. Go from 4:10 till about 6:50
On April 22 2017 11:27 zlefin wrote: complaining about dems being oblivious when you act as you do is rather off GH. can't think of the exact right word to describe it though. the not realizing you're describing yourself thing.
If you watched the interview with Bernie and Tom together on All-In and thought, "yeah the Democrats get it now" I'm sorry. I think even a lot of Hillary voters get that Democrats are flailing.
If not Bernie (since he's not a Democrat) who is the leader of the Democratic party in your view?
I haven't seen that interview, do you happen to have a link handy? which parts of the interview are most notable? Parties do not in general necessarily have a single leader, they have a number of notable individuals working at various levels and positions. I don't see any particular Dem at the moment as being the party leader.
Let me just start with this, do you consider yourself a Democrat?
you didn't answer my question as to which parts of the interview were most notable/informative. I'd like to know if one needs to see the entire thing to get the point you describe, or if certain parts are most relevant. How long is the interview?
At any rate, I'll answer your Q; I do not consider myself a Democrat (if we're going by self-identification); in practice I'm strongly Democrat (compared to R at least) aligned, so one could reasonably classify me as such. I'm not sure which sense you're looking for.
PS going to sleep soon-ish, so discussion may not finish tonight
If you haven't seen the video then you haven't seen the reaction from Hillary supporters that I'm referencing, so I'm not sure there's a point to discussing it with you.
Here's the interview if you want to cringe through it though. (It's all bad and it builds context upon itself and it's only 10 minutes, but if you need a highlight. Go from 4:10 till about 6:50
Do you ... you're on this road trip now with the head of the DNC talking about reforming reviving tranforming the DNC do you consider yourself a Democrat?
No. I'm an independent and I think if the Democratic party is going to succeed, and I want to see it succeed, it's going to have to open its doors to independents.
The reform dynamic duo, only half of whom are actually in the party. Good luck. I'd rather see a vibrant opposition than a crippled opposition with the state of my party.
It's going to have to open its doors to independents. But not independents that think like Republicans or would vote for Manchin in a Democratic primary. They're evil.
On April 22 2017 13:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's going to have to open its doors to independents. But not independents that think like Republicans or would vote for Manchin in a Democratic primary. They're evil.
I don't think that's what Bernie is saying. I think he's literally saying opening up their processes to independents. Like letting them vote in their primaries.
Which from a strategic perspective has some obvious strengths. Namely, that you get the person most strongly supported by everyone other than Republicans instead of just who Democrats (~25% of the country) like the best.
But again, the idea that you have to be Trump light to appeal to people who don't like Democrats is just flat out wrong.
If you are 0.1mm to the left of Trump then all people left of that on the political spectrum will beat a path to your door to vote for you as the candidate of the two who most strongly reflects their own political beliefs. Maybe that's how Trump is to be defeated: by siphoning his slightly-less-than-right-wing base? The lefties will of course fall in line even if they get nothing for it.
I mean, I agree that both parties need to attract independents-it's necessary since everyone hates both parties at this point more than ever. But it makes it difficult to attract any moderate independents when you have an increasingly large wing of "liberals" that vocally disavow the Democratic party screaming to primary any Democrat who who casts a vote "for the other side" in any way or threatens their sacred cows.
I kind of see Trump's victory is a testament for this because he is totally devoid of any ideological conviction and says whatever he pleases so transparently that the ideologues on the right fell apart completely and utterly.
If you want to try to primary someone I suggest Feinstein (although its top two run off so it might be a little more difficult). She needs to retire anyway. iIt would be hilarious if the California senate race turned into Lieu versus Schiff which is an actual posibility at this point if Feinstein just retires. Although I'd rather have one of them run for governor cause I'm not a big Newsome fan.
On April 22 2017 14:17 TheTenthDoc wrote: I mean, I agree that both parties need to attract independents-it's necessary since everyone hates both parties at this point more than ever. But it makes it difficult to attract any moderate independents when you have an increasingly large wing of "liberals" that vocally disavow the Democratic party screaming to primary any Democrat who who casts a vote "for the other side" in any way or threatens their sacred cows.
I kind of see Trump's victory is a testament for this because he is totally devoid of any ideological conviction and says whatever he pleases so transparently that the ideologues on the right fell apart completely and utterly.
Couple things.
The people your describing aren't "liberals" those are more your Farv's, we're more your "leftists", "dem socialists", etc, not "liberals" though.
Also, we're not screaming to primary "any democrat who casts a vote "for the other side" in any way or threatens their sacred cows."
It's more that primary's are a tool of last resort since they are ignoring us or flat out telling us to go fuck ourselves in Manchin's case.
It makes perfect sense to attempt to remove your so-called "representative" who claims to represent your side of the political spectrum but in reality does nothing of the sort. This strategy of "be so far right that anyone to the right of you is unelectable" is both popular and dangerously negligent of left-leaning voters; such people should be killed off in the primaries.
I've never understood the Franken love that exists on the left, is this because of SNL? Every time he speaks he displays his breathtaking shallowness and ignorance. I didn't listen to much of the Gorsuch hearing, but by coincidence both segments I heard were from Franken's time (both days). He was terrible, his questions were terrible, his ignorance was astounding. Why was he even on that committee?
I know Trump has demonstrated that a detailed grasp of issues or an appearance of competence is not needed, but I think you have to do better than that (unless Trump is really unpopular).
I didn't watch any of the Gorsuch stuff but Franken was slaying it on other hearings. He was trash on SNL so that has zero bearing on me and he's my senator. He doesn't take any shit which can be a blessing and curse. He often comes off as a dick because of it, but also he goes after people beating around bushes.
On April 22 2017 15:17 Introvert wrote: I've never understood the Franken love that exists on the left, is this because of SNL? Every time he speaks he displays his breathtaking shallowness and ignorance. I didn't listen to much of the Gorsuch hearing, but by coincidence both segments I heard were from Franken's time (both days). He was terrible, his questions were terrible, his ignorance was astounding. Why was he even on that committee?
I know Trump has demonstrated that a detailed grasp of issues or an appearance of competence is not needed, but I think you have to do better than that (unless Trump is really unpopular).
I just like franken because he sticks to issues I like. Internet privacy, tech jobs, single payer, lowering drug prices, financial regulation. He won Minnesota by 10 percent in a year that the Dems didn't do that well (and Min barely went dem in 2016). A lot of people talk about how smart he is (think Letterman said he was one of like the 3 smartest people he ever had on the show.) Considering his background I'm assuming that he's a decent speaker although I could be wrong. He's also not super establishment. He's actually be pretty quiet as a senator which I like. he's also a member of the minnesota Democratic-farm-Labour sub division so he probably knows about rural areas also.
So basically he seems smart and does stuff his state likes and I tend to agree with. He also seems to understand technology and its importance.
plus he wrote a book called Rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot. (which honestly might be one of the reasons he's avoided the spotlight).
I tend to be more policy focused. I'd probably like him just as much if he'd never been on SNL.
Hancock County, Tennessee, lies on the Virginia border, not far from where Daniel Boone crossed into the American West. For decades it was home to small farmers who carved out a living growing burley tobacco. Greg Marion, the former county mayor, remembers locals buying cars from his father’s dealership on credit. They’d pay in full when their tobacco check came in each season. Those farms started disappearing after the surgeon general released his warning against tobacco products in 1964.
Ten years ago, Hancock County still had 500 manufacturing jobs, according to Marion. Now there are fewer than 50. Most of the factories have decamped—the local electric motor plant departed for China. Almost all the coal jobs just across the border in southern Virginia are gone too. “We lost tobacco, we lost manufacturing, we lost coal,” Marion says. “Strike one, strike two, and strike three.” On Election Day, almost 83 percent of Hancock voted for Donald Trump, the highest proportion of any county in Tennessee.
Like much of rural Appalachia, Hancock—one of the poorest counties in the nation, and the second-poorest in Tennessee—relies on federal funding for even the most basic services. Almost a third of the population lives in poverty, and Marion estimates that up to 90 percent receive some form of government assistance, from school lunches to health care. Hancock, he says, owes its sewage system, hospital, even its sidewalk maintenance to a little-known federal agency called the Appalachian Regional Commission, or ARC.
ARC is on the chopping block in the skinny budget President Trump released on March 16. In the coming months, Congress will haggle over the $120 million ARC has requested from the federal government this fiscal year, money that funds development projects scattered across 420 counties, from Missouri to New York. Trump had campaigned on an upstart populism, promising a government that can “take care of everybody,” but has since embraced a more traditional austerity conservatism. Mick Mulvaney, his budget director, recently bragged, “He probably didn’t know what the Appalachian Regional Commission did. I was able to convince him, ‘Mr. President, this is not an efficient use of the taxpayer dollars.’”
ARC is an example of big government at its best. It is responsive to local needs, and it achieves demonstrable results with a miniscule portion of the federal budget. Its success—and uncertain future—provides an opportunity for Democrats to make inroads in a region that has taken a hard turn toward the Republican Party in the past few decades....
gh -> ok, I watched the interview. I don't think I'm seeing what you're seeing. I don't see anyone other than the sanders, perez, and the interviewer, so I'm not sure what hillary supporters you're talking about. what am I supposed to be seeing or not seeing here?
On April 22 2017 11:27 zlefin wrote: complaining about dems being oblivious when you act as you do is rather off GH. can't think of the exact right word to describe it though. the not realizing you're describing yourself thing.
If you watched the interview with Bernie and Tom together on All-In and thought, "yeah the Democrats get it now" I'm sorry. I think even a lot of Hillary voters get that Democrats are flailing.
If not Bernie (since he's not a Democrat) who is the leader of the Democratic party in your view?
I think the democrats don't have a credibly leader at the moment who could possibly win an election. Clinton:no chance. Franken:i don't see it but maybe. Bernie could be it but I doubt he will get the chance,he is also getting older though he still seems to have more then enough energy. Warren would be good I think,but she is probably equally controversial amongst the democratic establishment as Bernie. Chelsea Clinton:i am not sure if she is into politics that much,ivanka trump probably has a better chance at some point in the future. Perez could be reasonable but i don't see how he could appeal to a very large audience. Maybe an outsider for the next election,just like trump was an outsider for the republican party. Someone like oprah maybe,i can see her get a lot of support but she doesn't have any experience in politics and would heavily depend on the team around her,which might be a plus for the democratic establishment. There are probably more credible outsiders but I don't know the usa well enough to name one. It does seem unlikely to me that the democratic establishment would want to go with an outsider though,at least not now but a lot can change in 4 years.
On April 22 2017 15:17 Introvert wrote: I've never understood the Franken love that exists on the left, is this because of SNL? Every time he speaks he displays his breathtaking shallowness and ignorance. I didn't listen to much of the Gorsuch hearing, but by coincidence both segments I heard were from Franken's time (both days). He was terrible, his questions were terrible, his ignorance was astounding. Why was he even on that committee?
I know Trump has demonstrated that a detailed grasp of issues or an appearance of competence is not needed, but I think you have to do better than that (unless Trump is really unpopular).
You think many Franken fans actually watched it? They'll watch him grill Sessions because in their ideology he's some big racist. They'll watch him give a great speech about Big Pharma. But to go suffer through his attempts to discredit someone immensely qualified with baseless attacks? I'd say they stick to the criticism from the historical perspective: The seat belonged to Garland and he doesn't represent a liberal activist judge willing be a judicial activist for minorities, women, oppressed gender identities, and the like.
It was a fitting end to the filibuster of nominees to a politicized court. If they'll filibuster Gorsuch based on the political atmosphere surrounding his nomination, they'll filibuster anyone regardless of merits. I only wonder how much longer the legislative filibuster will survive. My expectation is for it to fall not so long after Democrats retake the Senate, but there's a chance sufficient pressure is leveled at McConnell for something like an Obamacare repeal or tax plan if the greater number of Republicans can agree to a plan.
On April 22 2017 15:17 Introvert wrote: I've never understood the Franken love that exists on the left, is this because of SNL? Every time he speaks he displays his breathtaking shallowness and ignorance. I didn't listen to much of the Gorsuch hearing, but by coincidence both segments I heard were from Franken's time (both days). He was terrible, his questions were terrible, his ignorance was astounding. Why was he even on that committee?
I know Trump has demonstrated that a detailed grasp of issues or an appearance of competence is not needed, but I think you have to do better than that (unless Trump is really unpopular).
You think many Franken fans actually watched it? They'll watch him grill Sessions because in their ideology he's some big racist. They'll watch him give a great speech about Big Pharma. But to go suffer through his attempts to discredit someone immensely qualified with baseless attacks? I'd say they stick to the criticism from the historical perspective: The seat belonged to Garland and he doesn't represent a liberal activist judge willing be a judicial activist for minorities, women, oppressed gender identities, and the like.
It was a fitting end to the filibuster of nominees to a politicized court. If they'll filibuster Gorsuch based on the political atmosphere surrounding his nomination, they'll filibuster anyone regardless of merits. I only wonder how much longer the legislative filibuster will survive. My expectation is for it to fall not so long after Democrats retake the Senate, but there's a chance sufficient pressure is leveled at McConnell for something like an Obamacare repeal or tax plan if the greater number of Republicans can agree to a plan.
Right now there's no reason for Republicans to nuke the filibuster to get Obamacare repeal passed because they're using reconciliation to do it anyway (by the way, remember the ruckus Republicans raised when Dems talked about maybe possibly using reconciliation to pass the ACA?). A number of the reforms they want are quite evidently not budgetary, so reconciliation doesn't seem like it should apply - but there's no cause for outrage about their unscrupulousness just yet because so far it seems to be outstripped by their ineptitude.
On April 22 2017 15:34 OuchyDathurts wrote: I didn't watch any of the Gorsuch stuff but Franken was slaying it on other hearings. He was trash on SNL so that has zero bearing on me and he's my senator. He doesn't take any shit which can be a blessing and curse. He often comes off as a dick because of it, but also he goes after people beating around bushes.
During the Gorsusch hearing, it seemed the other way around as far as who was slaying it. Franken kept trying to bait Gorsuch into making political commentaries on current events, trying one tack then the other. Gorsuch quite tactfully (and in my opinion in a very classy way) refused to bite, reminding Franken that it is the duty of the judge to remain above the political fray. I went from being pretty dubious about the fellow to rather respectful of him.
Incidentally, I'm halfway through the Count of Monte Christo for the first time... why of all people did you choose to call yourself Danglars? Or is it not in reference to that story?
EPT
