Printable View
Steely, do you understand that winning elections requires appealing to multiple groups and not just diehard partisans? Getting a few moderate Republicans in low profile positions improves Biden's standing with suburban voters while requiring no policy concessions
Oh, no. Being bashed, on Twitter. Truly the greatest oppression to ever happen on the American continent. Let us all stand in solitary with these brave warriors for free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
*In the distance, a police officer beats a BLM protester*
This position is not entirely unknown among the left, especially if you leave off the 'very' qualifier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
You literally just told me Biden has the election in the bag and that Trump has no path to victory that doesn't involve electoral fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In semi-quantitative terms, how much of an impact do you think this would have, on suburban voters in particular or voters in general? Compared to alternative of not appointing a Republican governor, but, instead, choosing someone ostensibly "apolitical" wrt their career (ie. not a prominent politician and not someone who has shaped & implemented conservative policies)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Appointing a Republican who's arguably just a right-leaning Democrat to some low profile position might not require any policy concessions, but it might have political repercussions. Biden has to build and maintain bridges within his party as well as between Democrats and Republicans, and it's possible the former bridges are more important atm; certainly, many in his party will think so, and many on the left will want to see compelling evidence of a desire for reconciliation that might assuage some of their fears about a Biden presidency. Not saying he should cave to their every demand, but he def. has to consider them, in every politically significant decision.
I should say that I have not seen that story get major play anywhere except Politico and it might be bullshit, hence my original question.
It might well be bullshit, but it feels like bullshit that someone on Team Biden thought might be helpful to release—an idea that is def. worth debating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I don't think something that had like one article on Politico is going to decide very much, especially at this late stage. If they're doing it, it's because they want to.
Steely Glint - playing down the use of racial slurs, what a great look for you. Tell me, how long have you been a racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Using racial slurs is bad. It does not represent an unprecedented upswell of oppression against conservatives, especially as 9 times out of 10 they're the ones using them and calling it free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Leaking this possible story might not change anything at all electorally, but if someone in their camp thinks it might—or just thinks it would be a good idea to do the thing—that might say something important about how Team Biden is thinking about their messaging, and which voices are the most influential right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Hey, Lewk, you're doing that really dumb thing again. As the forum's most obviously racist member, maybe consider owning yourself in a slightly more dignified manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
All I know is if these polls are even close to right we could be two weeks out from the biggest act of oppression against conservatives on American soil since the civil war.
The racial slurs were being used against a liberal campaigning for Biden by other liberals because she dared to speak well of a conservative co-worker. And you don't think that sort of racism is bad I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Yeah, if you think I'm going to express sympathy for those little "racial slurs are class solidarity, actually" edgelord fuckers you've got another think coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
For the record, this attempt is significantly dumber than that time Littlefuzzy tried to gotcha me by pointing out the accusations against Biden when I was attacking Bloomberg. By a factory of at least 12.
However, the main take away is that the use of racial slurs is in fact an act of oppression against the person or people targeted by those slurs, not some white dude. The fact that non-white people get it in the neck even when it's a white guy they're ostensibly angry at should tell you something.
Believe it or not, there are likely to be elections after 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Of course it was. But you were arguing that in reality, not the Ideal Steely Version of the American Democratic Party, the philosophical underpinnings of mainstream Democrats are not particularly distinct from mainstream Republicans (at least pre-Trump). So your comment about appointing someone with differing ideological views is silly when you yourself claim that their ideology is broadly the same. I actually take issue with your broader 'plague on both their houses' rhetoric here; I do think there are subtle distinctions between the governing philosophy of a Charlie Baker and a Joe Biden. But the differences are hardly so substantial so as to preclude them from working together productively. Would a Sanders administration want to employ Baker? Probably not, but a Trump administration wouldn't either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This doesn't have shit to do with what he's entitled to or not; I merely don't discount him from the running just because of a party affiliation (and for that matter, secretary of HHS is hardly 'one of the most powerful jobs in the country'). You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a monolithic Republican party and you can tar all of them with the same brush. Parties in the US are set up on a vaguely federal system, and Baker is an outgrowth of the unique brand of Republican that has grown in New England and produced people like Bill Weld and Jane Swift. It mostly happens because the states are generally so progressive leaning that you get statewide candidates from the Democratic primary process who are sometimes much more progressive than the general electorate, so a middle of the road politician's main route to the general election is through the state Republican party. It's actually much more complicated - for example, Congressional elections tend not to follow this formula as carefully - but the point is that it's no shame to be an MA Republican governor, and it doesn't say squat about whether you agree with the governor of a deep red state, the President, or Mitch McConnell.Quote:
It's truly shocking to you... perhaps because you've so internalized the assumption that R's are entitled to power that you somehow view not being given one of the most powerful jobs in the country by the opposition party after a (presumed, none of this has happened yet) crushing electoral defeat caused by four years of unprecedented GOP maleficence and naked power play, as a 'punishment' simply because the guy is one of the few remaining elected members of the GOP who actually understands that his job is to govern, not enrich his friends, sell off the state and ferment hatred? This really should be the bare minimum.
Frankly, if he's that out of touch with the rest of the Republican party, he can always stop being a Republican. Until then I do not think it's either shocking or unreasonable to expect him to content himself with the satisfaction of a job well done.
I want to be clear: I don't really care if Biden appoints Republicans to the cabinet or not. I think it's likely being floated now just as a ploy (of, admittedly, limited efficacy), though given Biden's known feelings on this issue I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few token Republicans in his cabinet. If Biden only appointed Democrats or apolitical bureaucrats to the positions, that would be fine too. What I object to is the absolute refusal to even contemplate a Republican - however innocuous and qualified - just because they have a specific political affiliation and We Don't Like All Republicans. Charlie Baker has done nothing to justify such treatment - just ask his heavily Democratic electorate that thinks he's pretty darned good at his job.
Obama appointed (or kept) Republicans in some important positions. I doubt there's a way to quantify the impact, but it will be used as another data point in Biden being bipartisan and having America's interests at heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Certainly, but something similar can be accomplished by appointing people who aren't overtly political in the same way that an elected politician is—or people who aren't Democrats but who have nevertheless publicly distanced themselves from the Republican party. Or by making overtures to reasonable Republican legislators in the next Congress. Obama was in a different situation, and his choices are working against Biden now. On the left, Obama's attempts to look bipartisan are often portrayed as examples of how he got played by Republicans and/or how he betrayed progressives. Because of this—and because the GOP has become so completely rotted through with hatred, stupidity and venality—Biden has much less wiggle-room. Baker hasn't endorsed Biden and is reportedly not interested in any cabinet position, so I'm just reflecting on the general issue of Biden possibly appointing a Republican politician to a cabinet post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So, this leaked article in Politico that most people haven't seen and isn't getting any major coverage is actually a ploy to influence '22, and '24, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I didn't say it was silly, I said it was bad. I know full well what Biden is. I was just hoping his instinct to do 'conservatism, but with a more professional gloss and less open bigotry' wouldn't kick in before he even wins the election. Like, we might get a bit of progressive ideas done in the beginning before normal service resumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I sometimes say "are you fucking kidding me" when bad things happen.
FYI I was using a criteria which would include all national governmental posts.Quote:
(and for that matter, secretary of HHS is hardly 'one of the most powerful jobs in the country')
Mate, no one's forcing them to continue to be Republicans, especially in today's modern times. I mean, I assume the affiliation goes a little deeper than just the name?Quote:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a monolithic Republican party and you can tar all of them with the same brush.[...]
I hear being an independent is popular with centrist folks and others who dislike 'partisanship'.
Did Bush have Democrats? I did a cursory look earlier but couldn't find any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_MinetaQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I don't know Biden's precise reason for this. But the move would have some benefit and no cost. It's not like he's appointing a Republican to the Supreme Court.
Generally speaking, the harder Biden beats him, the better the coat-tail effect and the better the Democrats (also the Left in general, since I realize those are two very different groups to you) will do in the Senate races. For myself, I think there is value in any move that makes things worse for any Republican running in this specific cycle, as a "rub their nose in their mess" type of corrective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
*shrugs* Well, this is where we're going to have to part ways. I don't see hiring a boring but capable technocrat for a boring but important bureaucratic job as some betrayal of the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm sure that Charlie Baker is proud to be a Republican in the mold of many previous New England Republicans who have generally been unobjectionable. I have no doubt that he's aghast at what the national party does (he's certainly not been shy about directly criticizing the President) but it frankly matters very little what the national picture is when he's running Massachusetts. Sure, he could run as an independent, but that only works in very small states like Maine or NH. There's 7 million people in MA, you generally need a party machine to build a viable campaign - especially when the Democratic candidate for an open seat probably has a guaranteed 40-45% of the vote, so an independent is likely just splitting the rest of the votes.Quote:
Mate, no one's forcing them to continue to be Republicans, especially in today's modern times. I mean, I assume the affiliation goes a little deeper than just the name?
I hear being an independent is popular with centrist folks and others who dislike 'partisanship'.
It's fine if you want to hate on anyone just because you think anyone who professes some sort of an identity as a Republican - even if it's at odds with the current bozos in Washington - is inherently evil. But it's a really shitty way to run a country, and I hope that a Biden administration would not adopt your attitude.
How about them rapist Mexicans? Lets build a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
In order to win you need some of the other parties voters. Biden knows this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Biden currently has the election in the bag precisely because he has been working with Republicans and appealing to their voters.
Trump is losing because he has spent his time "owning" Democrats and not appealing to any of them so he can't win over any to replace the Republicans he has lost.
Hillary lost in part because she made little effort to appeal to Republicans and dismissed people as deplorable.
Obama won appealing to people as not being red or blue but being Americans.
Why would you want Biden to move away from a working tactic and morph into a blue Trump?
The fact is he never claimed all Mexicans are rapists. The fact is several illegal immigrants have gone on to rape people. Next you'll tell me he's never condemned white supremacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
You're doing that dumb thing again.
https://wjla.com/news/local/ice-undo...nder-stairwellQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
"WHEATON, Md. (ABC7) — An undocumented immigrant, twice deported from the United States, had to be pried off a half-naked, semiconscious woman he was raping, Montgomery County Police allege in court documents obtained by 7 On Your Side.
Around 9:30 p.m. last Thursday, dispatchers put out a priority call for a man raping a woman below a stairwell along the 11200 block of Grandview Avenue in Downtown Wheaton. The woman could be heard shouting, "No!""
I know you don't care about this woman but these are the facts. There are many more instances like this.
You're doing that dumb thing where you act like you genuinely believe that Trump reluctantly paying lip service to those norms of decency violated by xenophobia, racism and white supremacy means anything while he constantly amplifies white supremacists, equivocates on matters of white supremacist violence, and uses racist and xenophobic rhetoric in an obviously racist way. It's dumb because it's like a particularly dull child lying that he didn't eat the cake batter his face is covered in. It also shows a lack of character.
Your use of that article is also extremely dumb, because the vast overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico—illegal or otherwise—are not rapists; Trump's—and your—attempts to associate Mexican immigrants with rape are disgusting, and very clearly motivated by a desire to exploit racism and xenophobia. Just like the dehumanizing remarks that portrayed them as vermin. You know this, and it's only because you've carefully and very thoroughly shoved your head up your own ass that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge what pretty much any decent adult can see. Thank you, by the way, for once again demonstrating that you don't care about women or rape except as props for your racist politics. I'm afraid you failed to make the point you thought you were making, and instead just exposed your bigotry. We know you don't care about women, but can you at least stop trying to exploit abuses against them in this sleazy manner?
Blah blah blah blah blah, all I hear is someone saying that because it isn't "a lot" (by the way define how many women being raped from illegal immigrants would be too much for you, is it 10? 100? 1000? 10000? Where's your cut off?) of rapes happening from illegal immigrants you don't care.
Yes, because you're illiterate and dumb, in addition to being both a racist and a creepy misogynist. That, however, is not my responsibility. It's not my fault your parents didn't do a good job turning their useless shithead kid into a decent human being with a functioning brain. All I can do is point out that compulsively trying to associate Mexican immigrants with rapists when the vast overwhelming majority of them are not rapists is weird, creepy and racist; that trying to pretend it isn't is dumb; that only caring about rapes when it can be used in service of a racist and xenophobic political agenda—as is the case with you—is probably an indicator of misogyny; that pretending there's something laudable about Trump reluctantly paying lip service to basic norms of decency while actively amplifying racists and employing racist rhetoric is pathetic—and that desperately trying to deflect attention away from the stench of your shit-stained personal politics in this sad, boomer-like manner is just embarrassing. Jfc do you have no dignity left whatsoever? How the fuck do you manage to get yourself to leave your house and look good people in the eye, knowing what an utterly unworthy person you've become?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
In more interesting news, conservative dudes are mad because Hunter's dad loves him?
Twitter Link
Let's face it, not being loved by their dads probably explains a lot about conservative dudes.
It's been a bad media cycle for Biden, esp. after this clip resurfaced:
Twitter Link
Devastating. I dunno how he'll recover from this. Esp. not with the punishing follow-up of Trump whining about how mean Lesley Stahl was to him.