Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 2455 2456 [2457] 2458 2459 ... 3511

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 3534857 times)

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36840 on: May 16, 2020, 09:57:58 am »

The other half doesn't ACTUALLY care. They're perfectly willing to let Trump be the villain and get away with it up until election time when they can take advantage of it all. If they stopped him now, where would the outrage be in November when people actually need to be angry and go vote about it. Just about the only thing they get truly upset about are the federal court judges, because those can't be fixed. They're in there for life and there's basically nothing you can do to get rid of them.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36841 on: May 16, 2020, 10:11:19 am »

If they stopped him now, where would the outrage be in November when people actually need to be angry and go vote about it.
Yeah... If there wasn't so much outrage and fury directed at Trump, how the fuck else would they get Biden elected?

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36842 on: May 16, 2020, 11:09:14 am »

The other half doesn't ACTUALLY care. They're perfectly willing to let Trump be the villain and get away with it up until election time when they can take advantage of it all. If they stopped him now, where would the outrage be in November when people actually need to be angry and go vote about it. Just about the only thing they get truly upset about are the federal court judges, because those can't be fixed. They're in there for life and there's basically nothing you can do to get rid of them.

Out of curiosity, what else do you think 'they' can do to stop him? At least within the realm of legal activities I'm not sure what they haven't already tried.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36843 on: May 16, 2020, 11:14:09 am »

What the fuck happened to the USA
What went wrong?
Like really, what the fuck happened?
I am both appalled and confused.
Why?

Gradual eroding of the social fabric that holds things together. And that "gradual" eroding manifests itself in sudden catastrophic ways: as if there was a gradual eroding of the fabric of your pants until it's only held together by a few threads, and the one day you're down the street and bend over and there's a sudden tearing and your ass is hanging out for everyone to see. And that bare ass hanging out because of the eroding of the fabric has Trump's face.

You can ask why America and why not other nations. Well, America is pretty huge, population-wise, compared to most countries. That counts for a fair bit already. The entire Eurozone which is 19 different countries has almost exactly the same total population as the USA. So asking why America has internal friction is almost like asking why Europe has internal friction.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 11:20:25 am by Reelya »
Logged

Iduno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36844 on: May 16, 2020, 11:46:52 am »

I love how no one can really do anything about all the shit Trump is getting up to because half our legislative branch are stuck at cheering him on, hell or high water.  Even going as far as helping him cover it up.

There will be no reckoning.  Because too many of the people that have drank this kool-aid mix also take part in accepting/rejecting the laws.

Only half?


The other half doesn't ACTUALLY care. They're perfectly willing to let Trump be the villain and get away with it up until election time when they can take advantage of it all. If they stopped him now, where would the outrage be in November when people actually need to be angry and go vote about it. Just about the only thing they get truly upset about are the federal court judges, because those can't be fixed. They're in there for life and there's basically nothing you can do to get rid of them.

Out of curiosity, what else do you think 'they' can do to stop him? At least within the realm of legal activities I'm not sure what they haven't already tried.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 11:50:26 am by Iduno »
Logged

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36845 on: May 16, 2020, 11:55:33 am »

I mean, there was the whole impeachment thing. And lawsuits (which are generally still slogging through their way through the courts).

Granted, there aren't really a lot of legal options for ousting a president in the first place (absent elections).
Logged

Iduno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36846 on: May 16, 2020, 12:30:13 pm »

I mean, there was the whole impeachment thing. And lawsuits (which are generally still slogging through their way through the courts).

Granted, there aren't really a lot of legal options for ousting a president in the first place (absent elections).

That was the most obviously bullshit no-effort impeachment attempt just to appease the public and make it look like they tried something. It's like when a shitty spouse just pours bleach on the entire pile of laundry to show they shouldn't be given that chore again, because doing laundry is beneath them.
Logged

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36847 on: May 16, 2020, 01:00:29 pm »

It's like when a shitty spouse just pours bleach on the entire pile of laundry to show they shouldn't be given that chore again, because doing laundry is beneath them.
Ah, yes! Laundry gentrification!

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36848 on: May 16, 2020, 02:09:35 pm »

I mean, pouring bleach all over the clothes is appealing to your base, so.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36849 on: May 16, 2020, 05:05:01 pm »

That was the most obviously bullshit no-effort impeachment attempt just to appease the public and make it look like they tried something. It's like when a shitty spouse just pours bleach on the entire pile of laundry to show they shouldn't be given that chore again, because doing laundry is beneath them.

Eh, not sure what to tell you then aside from as far as I heard (and granted that while I 'know people who know people' it's not like I know any of them personally) that really was their best effort.

Edit: I should clarify that "best effort" is not the same as "best possible job." I do think they made some mistakes. But I also think they never really had a chance given the Trump cult of personality / revenge machine on the R side, which more or less ensured minimal 'defections' from Republicans.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 05:23:52 pm by Dostoevsky »
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36850 on: May 17, 2020, 06:41:02 am »

That was the most obviously bullshit no-effort impeachment attempt just to appease the public and make it look like they tried something. It's like when a shitty spouse just pours bleach on the entire pile of laundry to show they shouldn't be given that chore again, because doing laundry is beneath them.

Eh, not sure what to tell you then aside from as far as I heard (and granted that while I 'know people who know people' it's not like I know any of them personally) that really was their best effort.

Edit: I should clarify that "best effort" is not the same as "best possible job." I do think they made some mistakes. But I also think they never really had a chance given the Trump cult of personality / revenge machine on the R side, which more or less ensured minimal 'defections' from Republicans.

Nah, I don't believe it.  Democrats are perfectly capable of wielding power effectively, and you only need to look at how they respond to leftist insurgency for examples.

I believe the truth is Democrats hate being in power.  They don't want to win, or to deal any true damaging blows to Republican dominance.  They like to sell the underdog narrative to the public, rake in the extra "Defeat ___ at all costs!!!" hysteria fundraising, and fall back on voter-shaming (which is just a clever form of class warfare propaganda)/complaining that they have no power to do anything about it when Republicans fuck everyone over.  But what do Democrats do with their positions?  90% the same stuff, with some identity politics soothing balm thrown in.  Like requiring that debt collection agencies have 40% female representation on their executive boards or whatever.  Or they literally just promote legislation written by right-wing think tanks.

If there was one thing I liked about Obama, it's that he didn't even try to hide it.  He would openly state in interviews that he considers his positions to be moderate Republican by Reagan-era standards, and that his overlap with modern Republican positions is about 70%.  Actual words from his own mouth.

So in terms of public perception, when Democrats are the underdogs, they can simply fail to be an effective opposition to Republicans, and mostly get what they want out of that arrangement.  They can play up their public drama about how they're doing their best for the people but it's the left's fault that everything sucks because of their childish protest votes over ideological purity.  But when Democrats actually occupy positions of power and do things.... like, for example, writing a $3 Trillion bill that bails out debt collection agencies and lobbying firms and offers on average $100k worth of tax deductions to people worth more than $1 million but then mysteriously can't afford to offer more than $1200 in aid to the average person?... it exposes the lie behind the roleplay, and makes the party's role in defending the status quo more difficult.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36851 on: May 17, 2020, 07:35:36 pm »

But when Democrats actually occupy positions of power and do things.... like, for example, writing a $3 Trillion bill that bails out debt collection agencies and lobbying firms and offers on average $100k worth of tax deductions to people worth more than $1 million but then mysteriously can't afford to offer more than $1200 in aid to the average person?... it exposes the lie behind the roleplay, and makes the party's role in defending the status quo more difficult.

Not going to respond to everything (as I think it's an argument we're not going to persuade each other about), but just wanted to seek clarification: is the above referring to the big coronavirus package (CARES)? Because that's very much a Democratic minority position (D house, R Senate, R President). A single chamber doesn't get you much - heck, even two chambers doesn't get you much. (E.g.: 2015-2016 when Rs had both chambers and Obama was president. House Rs did get the Budget Control Act in 2011 when they were the lone R chamber, but that was a unique set of circumstances and has mostly been undone in the years since its passage.)

A more interesting example might be the ACA, where (if one sets aside the last few steps of its creation when the Ds lost their 60th Senate vote) Ds indeed had all three levers of power. I'm not at all an ACA expert, but if I remember right the House wanted to push much further left and the ultimate spoiler was a group of moderate Democratic Senators (since Ds would have needed 100% of them to break a filibuster).

And maybe Obama. Going back to my first paragraph, even if Dems had all three levers they did still have a pretty moderate president. While the president has to rely on congress to create law, they can use their power to block lawmaking to rather significant power (generally more subtly than just flinging around veto threats).

The Dems are definitely not very monolithic at all. Party leadership is more moderate/rightward, but within the membership of congress - the folks who ultimately vote - there's a pretty large breadth of political stance. Strong-arming does happen, but often enough they do still make their mark on things. (Even if it may be a small one.)
Logged

Iduno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36852 on: May 17, 2020, 07:49:12 pm »

But when Democrats actually occupy positions of power and do things.... like, for example, writing a $3 Trillion bill that bails out debt collection agencies and lobbying firms and offers on average $100k worth of tax deductions to people worth more than $1 million but then mysteriously can't afford to offer more than $1200 in aid to the average person?... it exposes the lie behind the roleplay, and makes the party's role in defending the status quo more difficult.

Not going to respond to everything (as I think it's an argument we're not going to persuade each other about), but just wanted to seek clarification: is the above referring to the big coronavirus package (CARES)? Because that's very much a Democratic minority position (D house, R Senate, R President). A single chamber doesn't get you much - heck, even two chambers doesn't get you much. (E.g.: 2015-2016 when Rs had both chambers and Obama was president. House Rs did get the Budget Control Act in 2011 when they were the lone R chamber, but that was a unique set of circumstances and has mostly been undone in the years since its passage.)

A more interesting example might be the ACA, where (if one sets aside the last few steps of its creation when the Ds lost their 60th Senate vote) Ds indeed had all three levers of power. I'm not at all an ACA expert, but if I remember right the House wanted to push much further left and the ultimate spoiler was a group of moderate Democratic Senators (since Ds would have needed 100% of them to break a filibuster).

And maybe Obama. Going back to my first paragraph, even if Dems had all three levers they did still have a pretty moderate president. While the president has to rely on congress to create law, they can use their power to block lawmaking to rather significant power (generally more subtly than just flinging around veto threats).

The Dems are definitely not very monolithic at all. Party leadership is more moderate/rightward, but within the membership of congress - the folks who ultimately vote - there's a pretty large breadth of political stance. Strong-arming does happen, but often enough they do still make their mark on things. (Even if it may be a small one.)

https://twitter.com/daveanthony/status/1252105483134988290

Edit: And you missed part of the wording when you call Obama a moderate (remember, he's comparing himself to Ronald Reagan): https://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 07:56:13 pm by Iduno »
Logged

ggamer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Reach Heaven through Violence
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36853 on: May 17, 2020, 07:53:18 pm »

If you elect Joe Biden we'll enact universal healthcare and pull our troops out of the middle east and close gitmo an- uh, why are you looking at me like that. What do you mean "2008 part 2??"

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #36854 on: May 17, 2020, 09:06:46 pm »

Thanks for the tweet info. Interesting. (As I said, I'm not at all an expert on ACA. Before my time working in the orbit of DC.) The HuffPo article linked in one of the replies seems to indicate there was some larger deal where Obama and a group of Senators made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Given pharma's track record in the years since (and heck, the years prior) probably not the savviest move.

Regarding Obama, America's still a pretty conservative place these days, so it is what it is. Though the quote there seems to be more of a defensive 'I'm totally not a socialist' than a 'see, I'm actually conservative.' Some of his policies were leftward, others were rightward, but regardless I'd view his presidency as a lot of lost opportunities to do better.

And, for whatever it's worth, I can't say I'm happy that Biden became the presumptive nominee.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 2455 2456 [2457] 2458 2459 ... 3511