Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 06 2023 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Should Democrats continue trying to tie Ukraine funding to aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign?
Should Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding?
Yes
Are there any Republican policy proposals (instead of immigration, like policing, abortion rights, etc.) that could turn that into a no for anyone that otherwise would say "yes" (yourself included)?
They won democratic elections. They have to be listened to and worked with in order for the government to function. The American people and the American constitution are the problem, deal with those and we’ll talk.
My first impression is that's a "no" (which obviously I find concerning), but I'm hoping that's just because nothing immediately came to mind and you didn't want to figure one out.
While I think you have at least wrestled with the implications of a "no" and rationalizations like "thems the rules", I don't think most people who are going to be part of the "vote blue or else" crowd really have. I can't speak to you really, but my impression is that many Dem supporters are overestimating how effective that threat will be on the "American people" you referenced (especially those giving Trump a lead in the polls currently).
You don't like deomcracy, we know. No need to constantly affirm it.
That is a silly criticism. The US has big issues with how its democracy works, which both results in popular, sensible policies (gun laws, abortion rights, universal health care) having a hard time, and also in a fascist-ish figure who attempted a coup after losing last election being the current betting favorite. I like democracy but there american version of it has a ton of major issues.
On December 06 2023 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Should Democrats continue trying to tie Ukraine funding to aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign?
Should Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding?
Yes
Are there any Republican policy proposals (instead of immigration, like policing, abortion rights, etc.) that could turn that into a no for anyone that otherwise would say "yes" (yourself included)?
They won democratic elections. They have to be listened to and worked with in order for the government to function. The American people and the American constitution are the problem, deal with those and we’ll talk.
My first impression is that's a "no" (which obviously I find concerning), but I'm hoping that's just because nothing immediately came to mind and you didn't want to figure one out.
While I think you have at least wrestled with the implications of a "no" and rationalizations like "thems the rules", I don't think most people who are going to be part of the "vote blue or else" crowd really have. I can't speak to you really, but my impression is that many Dem supporters are overestimating how effective that threat will be on the "American people" you referenced (especially those giving Trump a lead in the polls currently).
You don't like deomcracy, we know. No need to constantly affirm it.
That is a silly criticism. The US has big issues with how its democracy works, which both results in popular, sensible policies (gun laws, abortion rights, universal health care) having a hard time, and also in a fascist-ish figure who attempted a coup after losing last election being the current betting favorite. I like democracy but there american version of it has a ton of major issues.
Which has nothing to do with anything GH says.
GH is in a perpetual loop where he picks someone and expresses the following:
"I imagine you support X. Would you say that X will bring about a utopia? No? Well then how can you possibly support X if it won't bring about a utopia? Do you not know that the present is not utopian? Do you not support a utopia? Surely you do not for if you did then you would never support X which will not bring about a utopia. I find you wholly complicit in the failure to establish a utopia and I judge you for your sins. Now begone, I have important work to do."
Last time it was his criticism of anyone he judged as insufficiently anti Biden due to Biden's failure to enact radical fully automated gay space communism in response to the Hamas terror attacks. This time it is Biden's failure to push his legislation through a legislature he does not control. We must all answer for Biden's inability to pass Ukraine legislation without input from the elected representatives of the 51% of voters who voted Republican in 2022.
His posts are, at this point, indistinguishable from a parody of himself. I was generous in giving him a one word response. It's more than his posts deserve.
On December 06 2023 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Should Democrats continue trying to tie Ukraine funding to aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign?
Should Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding?
Yes
Are there any Republican policy proposals (instead of immigration, like policing, abortion rights, etc.) that could turn that into a no for anyone that otherwise would say "yes" (yourself included)?
They won democratic elections. They have to be listened to and worked with in order for the government to function. The American people and the American constitution are the problem, deal with those and we’ll talk.
My first impression is that's a "no" (which obviously I find concerning), but I'm hoping that's just because nothing immediately came to mind and you didn't want to figure one out.
While I think you have at least wrestled with the implications of a "no" and rationalizations like "thems the rules", I don't think most people who are going to be part of the "vote blue or else" crowd really have. I can't speak to you really, but my impression is that many Dem supporters are overestimating how effective that threat will be on the "American people" you referenced (especially those giving Trump a lead in the polls currently).
You don't like deomcracy, we know. No need to constantly affirm it.
That is a silly criticism. The US has big issues with how its democracy works, which both results in popular, sensible policies (gun laws, abortion rights, universal health care) having a hard time, and also in a fascist-ish figure who attempted a coup after losing last election being the current betting favorite. I like democracy but there american version of it has a ton of major issues.
Which has nothing to do with anything GH says.
GH is in a perpetual loop where he picks someone and expresses the following:
"I imagine you support X. Would you say that X will bring about a utopia? No? Well then how can you possibly support X if it won't bring about a utopia? Do you not know that the present is not utopian? Do you not support a utopia? Surely you do not for if you did then you would never support X which will not bring about a utopia. I find you wholly complicit in the failure to establish a utopia and I judge you for your sins. Now begone, I have important work to do."
Last time it was his criticism of anyone he judged as insufficiently anti Biden due to Biden's failure to enact radical fully automated gay space communism in response to the Hamas terror attacks. This time it is Biden's failure to push his legislation through a legislature he does not control. We must all answer for Biden's inability to pass Ukraine legislation without input from the elected representatives of the 51% of voters who voted Republican in 2022.
His posts are, at this point, indistinguishable from a parody of himself. I was generous in giving him a one word response. It's more than his posts deserve.
Eh, I think your first half here is kinda on point while the second is a parody of a kwark post. (not supposed to be insulting) My post was honestly more of a critique of the critique (that he doesn't like democracy, I think he's just a big a fan as most others who take part in this thread) than a defense of GH (I'm in agreement that there's been been too much of the same, and I think he should be more explicit in what he actually thinks about issues he posts about.) That said I believe all the examples from my post are actual points GH has made, even if they're buried under other stuff.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
This is generally a common problem. It is easy to unite people behind "Not X", but if you want them to actually all focus on one candidate, they won't agree on any other one, either. The whole Weimar republic in Germany was paralyzed by this problem.
People will agree on "someone but Biden", but they won't agree on "This person", because there are 15 different groups of people who all want their own favorite.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
Then the primary will solve the problem. Those 75% can vote for Dean Phillips. He’s a 54 year old congressman from Minnesota. He’s in the “Biden did a good job, but it’s time to move on” camp. His appearance on Bill Maher’s show wasn’t particularly impressive, but wasn’t awful either.
If voters just want a generic Democrat instead of Biden, he fits pretty darn well.
We also have Marianne Williamson. If the voters want to turn the US into a hippie commune, they can vote for her.
There will be very little vote splitting. It’ll be Biden, generic democrat, or self-help guru. Who wants to bet that those 75% that don’t want Biden mostly vote for Biden? They have every right to vote for someone else, but when things get real, they’ll go for what’s familiar.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
This is generally a common problem. It is easy to unite people behind "Not X", but if you want them to actually all focus on one candidate, they won't agree on any other one, either. The whole Weimar republic in Germany was paralyzed by this problem.
People will agree on "someone but Biden", but they won't agree on "This person", because there are 15 different groups of people who all want their own favorite.
Yes and no. I think as a phenomenon what you're describing is normal but it absolutely is not common as it applies to incumbent Presidents seeking a 2nd term within their own party.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
Then the primary will solve the problem. Those 75% can vote for Dean Phillips. He’s a 54 year old congressman from Minnesota. He’s in the “Biden did a good job, but it’s time to move on” camp. His appearance on Bill Maher’s show wasn’t particularly impressive, but wasn’t awful either.
If voters just want a generic Democrat instead of Biden, he fits pretty darn well.
We also have Marianne Williamson. If the voters want to turn the US into a hippie commune, they can vote for her.
There will be very little vote splitting. It’ll be Biden, generic democrat, or self-help guru. Who wants to bet that those 75% that don’t want Biden mostly vote for Biden? They have every right to vote for someone else, but when things get real, they’ll go for what’s familiar.
Don't forget the anti-vaxxer RFK Jr.
But even if none of them were running you could still just make the argument "People can write-in Mickey Mouse on their primary ballot and if they don't it means they really want Biden."
It's just more reinforcement of the self-fulfilling prophecy where the serious contenders are sitting out because they don't want to draw the ire of the establishment and then you get to say "Yeah but there's nobody else."
On December 07 2023 05:49 KwarK wrote: Kerry deserves a second shot. He was robbed in 2004.
That's actually a pretty good idea. Had Democrats just held a primary (like with debates and such) between Biden, Kerry, and throw in a deferential next generation face, I'd be a lot more confident in Democrats chances come November even if I'd still not like their politics.
Regardless of who people prefer out of those three, I believe that would have set Democrats up much better for 2024 and beyond. Kerry could have run a clean campaign that wouldn't have hurt Biden if Kerry didn't convince people he was a better alternative and the next gen face would be there basically as a favor to their political future should they play nice and fall in line when the time comes.
They could still probably muster this up if they really wanted to, though it'd look far less sincere than if Biden/Dem supporters embraced and encouraged the invigoration of such a challenge when primary season was starting.
That said, if it's something Kerry wouldn't even be interested in if Biden and/or the Dem party requested it from him, not much that can be done there.
War hero with a very solid political background, served as Secretary of State, chaired foreign policy committee and so forth. Why not Kerry? He was qualified twenty years ago and he’s more qualified now.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
Then the primary will solve the problem. Those 75% can vote for Dean Phillips. He’s a 54 year old congressman from Minnesota. He’s in the “Biden did a good job, but it’s time to move on” camp. His appearance on Bill Maher’s show wasn’t particularly impressive, but wasn’t awful either.
If voters just want a generic Democrat instead of Biden, he fits pretty darn well.
We also have Marianne Williamson. If the voters want to turn the US into a hippie commune, they can vote for her.
There will be very little vote splitting. It’ll be Biden, generic democrat, or self-help guru. Who wants to bet that those 75% that don’t want Biden mostly vote for Biden? They have every right to vote for someone else, but when things get real, they’ll go for what’s familiar.
Don't forget the anti-vaxxer RFK Jr.
But even if none of them were running you could still just make the argument "People can write-in Mickey Mouse on their primary ballot and if they don't it means they really want Biden."
It's just more reinforcement of the self-fulfilling prophecy where the serious contenders are sitting out because they don't want to draw the ire of the establishment and then you get to say "Yeah but there's nobody else."
RFK Jr already dropped out and will run third party. And yes, people could do a write-in, it worked for Murkowsi, but it's a significant disadvantage. As a candidate on the ballot, Phillips gets his name on every ballot right next to Biden's. His check box will be the same size and it'll be just as easy to check his box as it would be for Biden. If people want "not Biden", he's a perfectly serviceable candidate.
It doesn't really matter to me because I'll gladly accept Biden or Phillips so I'll probably vote in the Republican primary this time around for some "non-Trump" candidate (in IL, you declare which ballot you want at the polling place on primary voting day). I did it in 2016 and then voted Clinton in the main and I'll do the same thing again in 2024. However, anyone who wants a non-Biden democrat can vote that way.
If John Kerry or Hillary Clinton wanted to run, they'd be able to. Just like Newsom or Wittmer could have run if they wanted to. They chose not to. It's a very odd criticism of the democrat party leadership to not force people to run who don't want to run. In cases like Newsom's (who's almost definitely eying the presidency), I'd suspect he thought it would look bad for him and decided not to take the risk of hurting his own brand. Still, that was his own choice.
On December 08 2023 11:56 KwarK wrote: War hero with a very solid political background, served as Secretary of State, chaired foreign policy committee and so forth. Why not Kerry? He was qualified twenty years ago and he’s more qualified now.
He is 79 and Biden's biggest problem is his age. Maybe theres no decline for kerry but appearance wise that is an issue.
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead.
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president.
Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular.
But.. but.. incumbent advantage...
His own party wants someone else? Damm that's crazy someone should let the party know so they don't nominate him again. It would be crazy if they operated in reality and in their own self interest acknowledged that he's the best candidate they have.
Then the primary will solve the problem. Those 75% can vote for Dean Phillips. He’s a 54 year old congressman from Minnesota. He’s in the “Biden did a good job, but it’s time to move on” camp. His appearance on Bill Maher’s show wasn’t particularly impressive, but wasn’t awful either.
If voters just want a generic Democrat instead of Biden, he fits pretty darn well.
We also have Marianne Williamson. If the voters want to turn the US into a hippie commune, they can vote for her.
There will be very little vote splitting. It’ll be Biden, generic democrat, or self-help guru. Who wants to bet that those 75% that don’t want Biden mostly vote for Biden? They have every right to vote for someone else, but when things get real, they’ll go for what’s familiar.
Don't forget the anti-vaxxer RFK Jr.
But even if none of them were running you could still just make the argument "People can write-in Mickey Mouse on their primary ballot and if they don't it means they really want Biden."
It's just more reinforcement of the self-fulfilling prophecy where the serious contenders are sitting out because they don't want to draw the ire of the establishment and then you get to say "Yeah but there's nobody else."
RFK Jr already dropped out and will run third party. And yes, people could do a write-in, it worked for Murkowsi, but it's a significant disadvantage. As a candidate on the ballot, Phillips gets his name on every ballot right next to Biden's. His check box will be the same size and it'll be just as easy to check his box as it would be for Biden. If people want "not Biden", he's a perfectly serviceable candidate.
It doesn't really matter to me because I'll gladly accept Biden or Phillips so I'll probably vote in the Republican primary this time around for some "non-Trump" candidate (in IL, you declare which ballot you want at the polling place on primary voting day). I did it in 2016 and then voted Clinton in the main and I'll do the same thing again in 2024. However, anyone who wants a non-Biden democrat can vote that way.
If John Kerry or Hillary Clinton wanted to run, they'd be able to. Just like Newsom or Wittmer could have run if they wanted to. They chose not to. It's a very odd criticism of the democrat party leadership to not force people to run who don't want to run. In cases like Newsom's (who's almost definitely eying the presidency), I'd suspect he thought it would look bad for him and decided not to take the risk of hurting his own brand. Still, that was his own choice.
I believe my criticism was mainly of Biden for simply not doing the decent thing and stepping aside for someone more capable.
I just watched the fourth and final Republican primary debate. The very short summary is that DeSantis and Ramaswamy relentlessly attacked Haley, Haley defended decently well, none of those three did a consistent job of answering moderator questions, and Christie focused on actually telling the truth about Trump and criticizing the other three for dodging questions and acting like children. Nothing will change; Trump will still become the Republican nominee, unless he drops out, is forced to step down, or dies.
On December 09 2023 07:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This appears to be the "end of the runway" scenario in sight for the IDF, despite the US running defense at the UN.
and polls like this are related (or at least we can hope in an ostensible democracy).
Biden Middle East Approval Versus Overall Job Approval
President Joe Biden’s 32% approval rating for his handling of the Israel-Hamas situation is lower than his already-anemic 37% overall job approval rating in the new poll.
This approval deficit is especially pronounced among the groups who are most opposed to Israel’s military action in Gaza: Democrats, people of color, women and young adults. These groups express significantly less approval for the job Biden is doing on the Middle East situation than they offer for his job performance overall.
EPT
