Boon posted:

It doesn't matter. In one post Kingfish shows he is both ignorant of the situation but nonetheless posting smugly about it. It's telling.

Grapplejack posted:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/29/john-boehner-trump-house-republican-party-retirement-profile-feature-215741



What a wild loving piece this is.
e:

quote:

Republicans’ penchant for overpromising and underdelivering would ultimately enable the ascent of Donald Trump, who positioned himself as a results-oriented outsider who would deliver where politicians had failed. In the shorter term, it invited something less dramatic: a government shutdown. Eager to demonstrate that all options were being exhausted to defeat Obamacare, Ted Cruz in the Senate and conservatives in the House concocted a plan: Because the government needed new funding on October 1, the same day the exchanges would open, they would propose funding the rest of the federal government—while defunding Obamacare.


Boehner objected. Not only would Democrats never go for it; Republicans would be blamed for the resulting government shutdown. “I told them, ‘Don’t do this. It’s crazy. The president, the vice president, Reid, Pelosi, they’re all sitting there with the biggest poo poo-eating grins on their faces that you’ve ever seen, because they can’t believe we’re this loving stupid.’” (Boehner, at one point, surprises me by saying he’s proud of Cruz—whom he once called “Lucifer in the flesh”—for acting responsibly in 2017. Do you feel badly about calling him Lucifer, I ask? “No!” Boehner snorts. “He’s the most miserable son of a bitch I’ve ever had to work with.”)

After railing against the defund strategy, however, Boehner surveyed his conference and realized it was a fight many members wanted—and some needed. Yielding, he joined them in the trenches, abandoning his obligations of governance in hopes of strengthening his standing in the party. But the 17-day shutdown proved costly. Watching as Republicans got butchered in nationwide polling, the speaker finally called a meeting to inform members that they would vote to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. “I get a standing ovation,” Boehner says. “I’m thinking, ‘This place is irrational.’”

Lightning Knight posted:

The power of Facebook is terrifying in the hands of an ambitious kleptocrat, but we've got two things going for us with Zuckerberg: he's a loving nerdlinger and he doesn't have strong public speaking skills.

Domestic Amuse posted:

I wonder how long it's gonna take him to realize that real power doesn't lie with the presidency -- it lies with whoever plays kingmaker to future presidents.

A Zuckerberg who uses his billions and Facebook data to sway presidential elections in his favor is infinitely more dangerous than a Zuckerberg who actually runs for president, imho.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

If she isn't voting for Pelosi for speaker, who did she vote for for speaker? Voting for the Democrat for Speaker is almost definitionally what being a Democrat Party house member means. If she's not doing that, she's functionally a Republican, just I guess one who is cool on gay rights?

edit: ok, here she is: http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Kyrsten_Sinema.htm

Pro choice, pro stimulus spending, pro women's and gay rights, anti death penalty, for decriminalizing marijuana, supports the export-import bank, supports the DREAM act, against a same-sex marriage ban, supports an income tax increase, claims to have opposed the Iraq War in 2002.

If it's a choice between her and any Trumpist I know who I'd prefer but yeah I want an explanation on the benghazi and pelosi-as-speaker votes. Maybe she got a "hall pass" ?

quote:

Ms. Sinema began her political career as a progressive, working on Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign and joining “Women in Black,” an anti-war organization which held vigils and protests against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s “till there’s no more war,” as Ms. Sinema herself stated. When she ran unsuccessfully for the State Legislature as an independent in 2002 with the support of the local Green Party, for which she once served as a spokeswoman, she was dubbed “too extreme” by the Arizona Democratic Party.

Later electoral success saw Ms. Sinema race away from her past, and the more elections she won the further she “evolved” away from her progressive roots. In 2011, while serving in the Arizona State House of Representatives, Ms. Sinema went on television and expressed her adoration for Russell Pearce, Godfather of SB1070, the breathtakingly racist anti-immigrant bill that made Arizona the rightful focus of international scorn.

I’d love to see him run for congress…Actually, I love Russell. We get along very well, not always on policy matters, but on personal matters we do.”

Yet it was in 2012, after Ms. Sinema was first elected to Congress from Arizona’s 9th congressional district, when she shed all qualms about throwing disabled people, sick people, war refugees, consumers and immigrants under the bus for the sake of her naked political ambition. What follows is a list of some of her more egregious congressional votes.

Co-sponsor with Matt Salmon of H.R.4122 “Visa Waiver Program:” suspends the waiver program for individuals who in the last five years have traveled to Iran, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Nigeria. Allows the U.S. Secretary of State to add additional countries to the threat list at any time.
Co-sponsor of H.R.620 “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017:” removes incentives for businesses to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Co-sponsor of H.J.R.81: balanced budget constitutional amendment.
Yes on H.R.3004 “Kate’s Law:” toughens penalties for people repeatedly caught crossing the border without proper documentation.
Yes on H.R.3219 “Make America Secure Appropriations Act:” appropriates $1.6 billion for a border wall.
Yes on H.R.3697 “Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act:” increases federal agents’ ability to detain and deport non-citizens solely because they live in an immigrant neighborhood considered to be “gang-affiliated.”
Yes on H.R.3003 “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act:” strips federal grant money from sanctuary cities.
Yes on H.R.411: opposes the nuclear peace deal with Iran.
Yes on H.R.238 “Commodity End-User Relief Act:” weakens Dodd-Frank financial reforms and cuts $32 million from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau budget.
Yes on H.R.30 “Save American Workers Act:” guts the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act by defining full-time work at 40 hours a week, from the current 30 hour standard.
Yes on H.R.2997 “21st Century AIRR Act:” privatizes the United States Air Traffic Control system by removing it from the control of the Federal Aviation Administration and handing it over to private, for-profit industry.
Yes on H.R.2581 “Verify First Act:” prevents people from accessing health care through the Affordable Care Act until their citizenship status has been verified.
Yes on H.R.3350 “Keep Your Health Plan Act:” allows insurers to keep offering health plans that do not meet certain minimum requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
No on H.C.R.71: House Democratic Caucus substitute for the 2018 Republican budget proposal.

The Kingfish posted:

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/924661437062156291

The Kingfish posted:

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/924661437062156291

Boon posted:

It doesn't matter. In one post Kingfish shows he is both ignorant of the situation but nonetheless posting smugly about it. It's telling.

Lightning Knight posted:

I believe the proximate cause for its negotiation was the impending debt ceiling, was it not?

Neurolimal posted:

Democrats were in a position of power and let themselves get played by a false narrative (at best), or wormed out of actually doing what they promise the public (at worst).

Neurolimal posted:

The thing is that the debt ceiling is a wholly manufactured limit for the sole purpose of crippling large-scale change; any punishment for surpassing it is entirely artificial, and as we all saw the percieved fault for imposing the debt ceiling in the publics eye falls on Congress, not the government, rendering the whole Grand Bargain pointless.

Democrats were in a position of power and let themselves get played by a false narrative (at best), or wormed out of actually doing what they promise the public (at worst).

Domestic Amuse posted:

I wonder how long it's gonna take him to realize that real power doesn't lie with the presidency -- it lies with whoever plays kingmaker to future presidents.

A Zuckerberg who uses his billions and Facebook data to sway presidential elections in his favor is infinitely more dangerous than a Zuckerberg who actually runs for president, imho.

Neurolimal posted:

The thing is that the debt ceiling is a wholly manufactured limit for the sole purpose of crippling large-scale change; any punishment for surpassing it is entirely artificial, and as we all saw the percieved fault for imposing the debt ceiling in the publics eye falls on Congress, not the government, rendering the whole Grand Bargain pointless.

Democrats were in a position of power and let themselves get played by a false narrative (at best), or wormed out of actually doing what they promise the public (at worst).

Condiv posted:

Love how Bernie's putting to rest the myth that leftism is unworkable in today's America

JeffersonClay posted:

Why would people need to defend a grand bargain that Obama never actually agreed to?

BrandorKP posted:

He's restating:

"Are we not yet free?"

That has very wide appeal it is a question rooted in many historical and religious movements in this country. Hmm, I think we have question and answer.

Ze Pollack posted:

starting the long, honorable tradition of centrists hoping Ted Cruz will save them from the things they say they want to happen

turns out it didn't pan out, long term

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

"Democrats just want stuff for free, like freedom, which isn't free"

JeffersonClay posted:

Since when has expecting the incompetence of Republican leadership and their fractious party structure to stymie their political efforts stopped panning out?

call to action posted:

It's cool watching dumb people defend the Grand Bargain, it's a useful litmus test to see how real any given person's "resistance" is

Fraction Jackson posted:

The fortunate thing is that even a relatively centrist future Dem candidate would be unlikely to try something similar.

Like, the Grand Bargain was a stupid idea because it would have seriously damaged the social safety net, but the thinking that went into it was never that we should be slashing bedrock federal programs. The thinking - it seems to me - was predicated on the old style of politics where deals and compromises are made in good faith and that you usually have to give up something in order to get something you want. At the time of the Grand Bargain that philosophy was already outdated, of course, but it's blindingly obvious to even the most feckless in the Democratic party now. Not just because the Republicans during the Obama years utterly failed to negotiate in good faith, though of course that's part of it. But the beginning of the Trump era has also proven that playing hardball against the GOP Congress is possible (for example, the clean temporary appropriations/debt ceiling with no concessions by Dems).

The old dealmaking model of politics is essentially over, and everyone knows it. There's no real reason to negotiate with Republicans on any issue of substance, because playing hardball works, and trying to find a compromise that Republicans won't ultimately torpedo out of partisan spite is a fruitless exercise. So the likelihood of a future Grand Bargain attempt in a future Dem administration seems low.

Ardennes posted:

I think that argument is predicated on the fact that cuts were forced on Obama, when I think in all honesty he was fairly welcoming of them. He might have wanted fewer cuts, but the signaling was clear he was surprisingly open about wanting to be a fiscal conservative. If anything the GOP just didn't want to work with him out of spite more than anything else since they could have pushed a pretty sweet deal otherwise. I don't think any future Democratic administrative is beyond that either.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

IATSE Local 22. Stagehands of the DMV.

Fraction Jackson posted:

I'm optimistic that even a mediocre Dem, no matter how centrist they might be, can realize by now that chasing Republican votes as an end unto itself is a fool's errand.

Fraction Jackson posted:

RaySmuckles posted:

not bad observations, but it neglects the reality that the democratic donors want the democrats to be republican lite and the only way to sell that to the democratic base is as a great coming together of both parties under consensus ideas.

the dems are between a rock and a hard place; trying to sell republican legislation but unable to get actual republicans to support them. and why should the republicans? if the dems are headed right then the republicans are free to radicalize.

anyway, the point is, the real power behind the dems wants them to veer to the right but they can't sell that to the base unless its seen as a "victory" by finally coming together over "common sense solutions" and consensus. its a victory the republicans will never grant them, nor shouldn't (politically)

quote:

He doesn’t foresee this toxic political climate improving, ticking off potential fixes—term limits, redistricting reform—that he says won’t make a bit of difference. “It’s going to take an intervening event for Americans to realize that first, we are Americans,” he says. An intervening event? “Something cataclysmic,” he responds, gazing upward.

C. Everett Koop posted:

I agree, but even then it's a shot in the dark. This country refused to heal from 9/11, which was a minor blow compared to what happens to other countries on a regular basis, but we treated it as the apocalypse since it was the first time we'd been hit on American soil in modern history. Instead of learning lessons from it, we used the opportunity to throw away the veneer of civility and show just how ugly we are towards those less fortunate and with the wrong religious belief or skin color. Another 9/11-level event, or even worse, would probably break this country.

So, yeah.

C. Everett Koop posted:

Something towards the end of the Boehner profile caught my eye:


I agree, but even then it's a shot in the dark. This country refused to heal from 9/11, which was a minor blow compared to what happens to other countries on a regular basis, but we treated it as the apocalypse since it was the first time we'd been hit on American soil in modern history. Instead of learning lessons from it, we used the opportunity to throw away the veneer of civility and show just how ugly we are towards those less fortunate and with the wrong religious belief or skin color. Another 9/11-level event, or even worse, would probably break this country.

So, yeah.

Mustached Demon posted:

UFOs confirmed.

Or a meteor, inshallah.

Mustached Demon posted:

UFOs confirmed.

Or a meteor, inshallah.

C. Everett Koop posted:

i've been casting pk starstorm so loving hard and yet nothing

quote:

He doesn’t foresee this toxic political climate improving, ticking off potential fixes—term limits, redistricting reform—that he says won’t make a bit of difference. “It’s going to take an intervening event for Americans to realize that first, we are Americans,” he says. An intervening event? “Something cataclysmic,” he responds, gazing upward.

Inescapable Duck posted:

The Twin Towers were America's parents, and American proceeded to become the Batman.