I think I made my position on the Democrat's tendency to cave to Republicans for no discernible reason abundantly clear in the Democrat nominations thread.Originally Posted by RandBlade
I think I made my position on the Democrat's tendency to cave to Republicans for no discernible reason abundantly clear in the Democrat nominations thread.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I say 'no discernible reason'... it's pretty damn obvious why they do it.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Working bi-partisanly is not a failure.
That Trump is the first President in decades not to do it is not something to be emulated or copied.
What possible reason could there be to work bi-partisanly with a group which a) will likely have nothing to offer in return b) would not honour any agreements made in any case c) has a set of policy objectives which are actively inimical to the interests of the people who elected you, as well as basic decency, reason and the commonweal of mankind generally?
I mean, sure if offering the GOP some position meant getting some crucial piece legislation through then by all means do it, but that's not gong to happen.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 10-20-2020 at 11:13 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Trump's political acumen in action:
Twitter Link
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe Fox can go back to reporting about Benghazi.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not sure you know who Charlie Baker is. Yes, he is technically a member of the Republican party. But he is also the governor of Massachusetts, one of the bluest states in the US. He has been elected - twice! - by a heavily Democratic state because he is a reasonable, technocratic guy who would be a moderate Democrat in nearly any other state of the Union. This is a man who routinely gets ~90% approval ratings among Democratic voters and a majority of said voters strongly approve of the job he's doing. He won two thirds of the general election vote when he was re-elected two years ago. He's more popular in the MA Democratic electorate than the MA Republican electorate. He - by design - has worked quite constructively with the heavily Democratic legislature in MA to make substantive improvements in the Commonwealth. He has publicly broken with Trump on pretty much every issue that matters (which in itself is enough to kill any national political aspirations) and is, well, reasonable.
I personally couldn't give a shit about whether the person being selected for a cabinet position is affiliated with one party or another, or whether they are affiliated with any party. I care about whether they have the executive and governing experience necessary to run a big part of the federal government competently, and whether they will faithfully and lawfully carry out their duties at the direction of the head of the executive branch. I don't know what part of the government Baker might be directed to run (my guess would be HHS since he was previously the head of a major not for profit healthcare system in New England, was the head of the state's HHS earlier in his career under Bill Weld, and the MA predecessor to Obamacare has worked out pretty well) - but if he has the necessary skillset and will do his job faithfully, I fail to see why an R after his name should disqualify him.
I have no doubt that there are other people a Biden administration could pick to do the job, likely ones who are apolitical or Democratic party members. And I have no doubt that this news was leaked intentionally to give the Biden campaign a boost for looking 'bipartisan'. But your knee-jerk response to disqualifying any candidate just because they have a political affiliation that you don't like - even when their actual behavior and positions make them eminently suited to the role - is, frankly, part of the problem.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Remember, being a moderate makes him even worse than a conservative, to Steely.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I guess if you think politics is just about being able competently implement policies on a technical level because the ideological, theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of said polices are basically all decided, you'd think that.
But, you know, it's not.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
He literally is a conservative.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Schhh... schhhh... there's no talking permitted under shadowboxing matches.
meanwhile, in less technical but more political news:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What makes him a "conservative" rather than "moderate" in your eyes?
I reviewed his policy positions and his clearly a fiscal conservative/social liberal and is frequently described as such.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I guess that's a Massachusetts Democrat
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Even when they lose, they win.
Seems weird!
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Think the politics of governorship is weird and interesting. 538 did a piece on Baker a couple of years ago: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethi...liticians/amp/
Not gonna say anything about good or bad, just acknowledge that it's different. What that difference means wrt appointing a Republican governor to a prominent post in a Democratic administration. I think, politically, it would be better for Biden if Baker were to remain governor, and an apolitical or Democratic person were appointed to whatever position he might have considered for Baker.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Local politics (which state politics kind of is) seems to sometimes live in an alternate universe to national politics. I know for a fact there are Tory MPs in the UK who will quite genuinely move heaven and earth to help their constituents with, for example, benefit problems that are placing them in extremely dire financial positions, then get on a train and go down to Westminster and vote for more of the same kind of vindictive legislation that's causing these kinds of problems for their constituents to begin with.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
You spent quite a bit of time a few weeks ago castigating the entire mainstream US political spectrum as underpinned by a common slavish adherence to your definition of 'neoliberalism' but now don't think that there's adequate agreement in political philosophy between an old school New England Republican and a mainstream Democrat for one to work for the other. It's just nonsensical.
Cabinet positions in the US aren't like ministers in parliamentary systems - they're appointed, not elected officials, and their job is to carry out the directives of the executive in implementing Congressional laws. Certainly styles may differ depending on the outlook of the person involved, but by and large these are apolitical. If your appointee is qualified and agrees with executing your policy, why do you care what party he comes from?
Is Baker budget minded? Sure he is, that's how he built his reputation saving Harvard Pilgrim from bankruptcy. But he's not a slash and burn kind of Republican like you saw in e.g. Kansas. He's charted a modest path to rebuild the state's financial position (which continues to be quite poor, especially wrt pension funding) while using the benefits of Massachusetts' unusually strong economy to improve public services. Part of the reason why the state has been doing surprisingly well in the pandemic (despite being hit hard early on and having some of the most restrictive lockdowns in the country) is because Baker worked with the D legislature to split budget surpluses between rebuilding the rainy day fund and increasing funding to public services. I should note that he's not alone in this - traditionally, the MA House has been much more cautious about embracing large and expensive changes, even though it's dominated by Democrats (the MA Senate is much more progressive).
I don't really care whether you call him a liberal, moderate, or conservative. I care about what he does, and that has been by and large quite positive in both his governing style and his policies. It's telling that there have been multiple problems that have cropped up in the Commonwealth - a state trooper overtime fraud scandal, an issue with the Registry of Motor Vehicles not doing their jobs contributing to some deadly crashes, substantial problems with the Boston-area public transit system that first came to light in 2015 - and Baker continues to have high approval ratings. It's because his response to these issues has been generally swift, thoughtful, and appropriate. He's far from perfect, but he just fundamentally does a decent job. I think he would be an excellent member of the administration. Your tribalism and desire to punish anyone with an R after their name - even if they have almost nothing in common with the national party - is truly shocking.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
You recognize that being socially liberal is not generally an attribute of conservatives, yes?
Is it shocking? Look at the Twitter brigade's reaction to Chris Pratt and how his co-workers came to his defense.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/enter...rnd/index.html
And of course what does the rabid left do? Doubles down and uses slurs against Zoe.
https://twitter.com/Emmyjewel/status...99311405158401
This is a global political movement to silence conservatives, to shame not only conservatives but anyone who befriends them or stands by them EVEN if the person is aligned with the left politically. Look at the liberals going berserk over a liberal California senator during the confirmation hearings for giving a Republican a hug. Wiggin stop being surprised by the intolerance of the left, you are smarter than that.
Spotted my first real life nazi today, at the polls of all places.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Really? Your first?
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Yeah, at least for one that made it known. Being Florida we have a lot of vocal Trump Boomers that are easy enough to write off as lazy self centered racists, but this is the first legit flag waving nazi that I was able to point out. I know they exist, hell the Daily Stormer is/was based in this area, but its never been this obvious.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Huh, I've met plenty over the years. Maybe I just bring out the best in people.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
If you recall, the point of that exchange was that I thought that that was a bad thing.
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.Your tribalism and desire to punish anyone with an R after their name - even if they have almost nothing in common with the national party - is truly shocking.
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.
But being a fiscal conservative is. Clues in the name, really.
Conservatives are such crybabies and are so used to the idea that they are entitled to power, success and fame, and such is the depth of their victim complex, that they interpret any and all criticism or push-back on their malignant shit as them being 'silenced'. Usually, without any self awareness, from their column in a major national newspaper, talk show on Fox, or book they got a huge advance from a publisher to write despite having no experience as an author and which is inevitably called something like "Triggered: why being owned on Twitter is violating my free speech".
Meanwhile, they feel perfectly entitled to throw all kinds of insults, abuse and increasingly absurd conspiracy theories in the direction of liberals and anyone to the left of them, again, usually from those same columns, talk shows etc.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it then have the gall to call others thin skinned snowflakes. It's honestly pitiful. The hypocrisy is fractal.
Like, not getting a hug or not being appointed Secret of State for Health is being "silenced" now? Come on.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 10-21-2020 at 06:41 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
When Conservatives Win: Ha ha, you lost, get over it, we can do what we like now. Triggered much, lol. Pwned *proceeds to make a cabinet out of the worst people in the world, passes a tax cut for oil barons only, strips healthcare from 50 million Americans on a drunken bender*
When the left wins: You mean, you're not going to make Rudy Giuliani Secretary of Health and Human Services? I... I'm being censored. Conservatives are being silenced across the globe! This must be what it felt like to be a slave.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think this is a misunderstanding of conservatism. Afaict, many conservatives—and conservative groups—move their positions forward, slowly, over time, as what was once radically progressive becomes thoroughly incorporated into a society's mores. Every generation of conservatives say, "Here—but no further; we know what we have, but we don't know what we'll get, and it's more likely to be worse than what we have." Conservatives across Northern/Western Europe, for example, are considerably more socially liberal than their American counterparts—but still often half a generation or so behind more progressive mainstream culture wrt attitudes and the discourses that dominate their political speech. In the US, I think there has been a change over the past generation, with many conservatives slowly moving away from socially conservative ideas with religious underpinnings (such as opposition to gay marriage), while maintaining their adherence to other conservative viewpoints both wrt social issues (eg. trans rights, feminism, education, etc) as well as fiscal ones (with a preference for analyses and tools/solutions that appeal to traditional American conservatives). To be frank, I think describing Baker as "socially liberal"—though understandble—is a bit misleading; in most of the west, he'd just be "socially normal" for his sociodemographic category.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
We are at the stage where liberals who are actively campaigning for Joe Biden are being bashed and the subject of racist attacks for the the 'evil' act of standing by their mostly apolitical co-star. That's the left for you.
So, in your book if someone was left leaning fiscally, but very socially conservative then they would be a liberal?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote