USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Boon posted:

Who is doing this? Like, in this thread or in the media?

I skipped some pages earlier

you. you've been advocating for pandering to racists

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 11:37

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Instant Sunrise posted:

Also here's a good comparison for Manchin. Jon Tester is a democratic Senator from Montana, a state that went for Trump by 20 points last year. And he's up for reelection in 2018.

And yet (close or key votes bolded):

Disaster relief for Puerto Rico and other areas�(82-17)

Raising debt limit/extending government funding/Hurricane Harvey relief�(80-17)

Nomination of Christopher A. Wray to be director of the FBI�(92-5)

Nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be United States trade representative�(82-14)

The 2017 fiscal year appropriations bill�(79-18)

Nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to be secretary of labor�(60-38)

Nomination of Sonny Perdue to be secretary of agriculture�(87-11)

Nomination of Daniel Coats to be director of national intelligence�(85-12)

Repeal of a Department of Education rule on teacher preparation programs�(59-40)

Nomination of Rick Perry to be secretary of energy�(62-37)

Nomination of Ben Carson to be secretary of housing and urban development�(58-41)

Nomination of Ryan Zinke to be secretary of the interior�(68-31)

Nomination of Wilbur L. Ross Jr. to be secretary of commerce�(72-27)

Repeal of a rule requiring the Social Security Administration to submit information to the national background-check system�(57-43)

Nomination of Linda E. McMahon to be administrator of the Small Business Administration�(81-19)

Nomination of David J. Shulkin to be secretary of veterans affairs�(100-0)

Nomination of Elaine L. Chao to be secretary of transportation�(93-6)

Nomination of Nikki R. Haley to be ambassador to the United Nations�(96-4)

Nomination of John F. Kelly to be secretary of homeland security�(88-11)

Nomination of James Mattis to be secretary of defense�(98-1)

And yet he didn't vote for Jeff Sessions.

obviously he's not pragmatic enough

VitalSigns posted:

It's weird to see centrists defending establishment Dems for supporting segregationists to tout their racist segregationist cred to the voters.

I thought centrists were minorities' only hope and it was the dirtbag left and the BernieBros who are secretly planning to pander to racists. I guess that was all projection.

no no it's fine cause it's just pretend racism

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:06

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Ogmius815 posted:

Have you considered that the WV dems should run candidates that seem like they can win in WV rather than trying to communicate abstract messages to god only knows who?

That would explain Manchin being anti gun control and anti choice.

It doesn't explain Manchin being pro bankers and payday lenders stealing from everyone because there's no constituency for that outside of the banksters themselves.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:07

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Throwing these out there, with a wacky belief that none of them are mutually exclusive.

Manchin's votes on all of the items Instant Sunrise bolded had zero practical impact on the content of the bills/character of the nominees, or if they passed.
Notwithstanding #1, many of those votes (Sessions, most obviously) were reprehensible and Manchin should absolutely face pressure from the left, up to and including a legitimate primary challenge.
Many of those votes may help Manchin win reelection in the general in 50 weeks and may not reflect his character or beliefs (but would, then, reflect his willingness to vote against his conscience for political expediency)
For a variety of reasons that are breathtakingly obvious, it's better that Manchin's seat be held by a D than an R. Especially when the most likely outcomes have control of the chamber determined by a seat or two either way.
There are serious risk to underperforming in a primary challenge and convincing a senator he or she is safe from the party's flank (see: AK, ME, the junior senator from WV)

The odds are fairly indefensible, since the counterfactuals required range from ludicrous to plausible and there's no tangible evidence on either side. I'm happy to elaborate if anyone likes, but the history of this thread and its predecessor (in spirit, if not name) suggest we'll find more heat than light.

I will note that 5 makes 4 a hell of a lot more interesting. Murkowski and Collins have already demonstrated a willingness to kill McConnell's bills in the face of some pretty extreme pressure, and more importantly (as with Manchin's record above), a willingness to be the deciding vote. Even if the Rs end up hanging on to the chamber by a thread (51/49, 50/50), those two would have a control over the party's agenda that makes Lieberman look like a backbencher. If the nightmare comes to pass and we lose someone on SCOTUS, those two would represent the only path to rescuing Roe (and the GOP failing to overturn despite the sacrifices (Mitt! Trump!) made by the white evangelicals would result in the most delicious drama).

Manchin currently appears to have an unexpectedly strong shot at reelection. Winding up with a Sharron Angle who costs control of the chamber-or who weakens the influence wielded by the women mentioned above-would be an awful missed opportunity with potentially ruinous consequences.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:08

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Paracaidas posted:

Throwing these out there, with a wacky belief that none of them are mutually exclusive.

Manchin's votes on all of the items Instant Sunrise bolded had zero practical impact on the content of the bills/character of the nominees, or if they passed.

Notwithstanding #1, many of those votes (Sessions, most obviously) were reprehensible and Manchin should absolutely face pressure from the left, up to and including a legitimate primary challenge.

Many of those votes may help Manchin win reelection in the general in 50 weeks and may not reflect his character or beliefs (but would, then, reflect his willingness to vote against his conscience for political expediency)

For a variety of reasons that are breathtakingly obvious, it's better that Manchin's seat be held by a D than an R. Especially when the most likely outcomes have control of the chamber determined by a seat or two either way.

There are serious risk to underperforming in a primary challenge and convincing a senator he or she is safe from the party's flank (see: AK, ME, the junior senator from WV)

The odds are fairly indefensible, since the counterfactuals required range from ludicrous to plausible and there's no tangible evidence on either side. I'm happy to elaborate if anyone likes, but the history of this thread and its predecessor (in spirit, if not name) suggest we'll find more heat than light.

I will note that 5 makes 4 a hell of a lot more interesting. Murkowski and Collins have already demonstrated a willingness to kill McConnell's bills in the face of some pretty extreme pressure, and more importantly (as with Manchin's record above), a willingness to be the deciding vote. Even if the Rs end up hanging on to the chamber by a thread (51/49, 50/50), those two would have a control over the party's agenda that makes Lieberman look like a backbencher. If the nightmare comes to pass and we lose someone on SCOTUS, those two would represent the only path to rescuing Roe (and the GOP failing to overturn despite the sacrifices (Mitt! Trump!) made by the white evangelicals would result in the most delicious drama).

Manchin currently appears to have an unexpectedly strong shot at reelection. Winding up with a Sharron Angle who costs control of the chamber-or who weakens the influence wielded by the women mentioned above-would be an awful missed opportunity with potentially ruinous consequences.

hmm yes voting for racists doesn't reflect manchin's character. not at all...

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:10

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Given that not one single senate Republican voted against his confirmation, Sessions could have been confirmed with a party line vote of 51-48. They wouldn't have even needed the horsefucker to cast the tie breaking vote.

If all Manchin is going to do is vote with the republicans when it really matters, is he really worth keeping in office?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:32

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Instant Sunrise posted:

Given that not one single senate Republican voted against his confirmation, Sessions could have been confirmed with a party line vote of 51-48. They wouldn't have even needed the horsefucker to cast the tie breaking vote.

If all Manchin is going to do is vote with the republicans when it really matters, is he really worth keeping in office?

The premise of your question seems odd when
a) it didn't matter
b) he hasn't voted with the GOP when it has mattered

But to answer, that depends on the alternative. Is the alternative progressive? Then no. Is the alternative Republican? Then yes. Is the alternative an unknown or similar? Hard to say.

It's gonna get weird in this thread when Iron Stache gets more play on the campaign trail and says something insensitive. Given Wisconsin, I'm putting it at like 60% odds that it happens.

Boon fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 16, 2017

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:41

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

It matters because if Moore looses the special election, and next year Flake and Heller's seats go blue, that gives dems a 51 seat majority in the senate.

That means that Manchin is in a position to turbofuck the senate democrats if his voting patterns continue.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:50

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Yes, that's true, but it's speculation without support of the past because your premise is false. You're saying that if his voting pattern continues he'd be likely to flip when it matters, but his voting pattern (again, outside of the larger body of his votes) is only when it didn't matter.

Meanwhile, the answer to your actual question is, again, it depends on the alternative.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:53

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Boon posted:

Yes, that's true, but it's speculation without support of the past. Meanwhile, the answer to your actual question is, again, it depends on the alternative.

Do you honestly not remember Joe Lieberman?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:55

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

WampaLord posted:

Do you honestly not remember Joe Lieberman?

or even just manchin? http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news...2443a4c159.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W10i3o_IpA

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:57

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

Do you honestly not remember Joe Lieberman?

Yes, I remember Joe Lieberman, the man who was primaried in Conneticut and went ahead and ran as an independent, won, then spoke on behalf of McCain at the RNCC before loving the Senate's UHC chances on the basis of a personal grudge.

I've seen you specifically mention him a lot lately as some sort of catchphrase and I'm wondering if you just learned of his exploits.

Boon fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Nov 16, 2017

# ? Nov 16, 2017 02:57

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Boon posted:

then hosed the Senate's UHC chances on the basis of a personal grudge.

And your view of Manchin is that he wouldn't do something similar because....

:shrug:

Boon posted:

I've seen you specifically mention him a lot lately as some sort of catchphrase and I'm wondering if you just learned of his exploits.

It's not a catchphrase, you're like Charlie Brown with the football and Lucy is "a shitheel Dem promising that he'll vote with you when it counts" and I'm trying to grasp if you have basic pattern recognition or not.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:00

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

It's not a catchphrase, you're like Charlie Brown with the football and Lucy is "a shitheel Dem promising that he'll vote with you when it counts" and I'm trying to grasp if you have basic pattern recognition or not.

No I'm incapable of higher order thought.

You ask me if I remember Lieberman after answering a question of whether Manchin should be in office with "it depends what the alternative is"

So you tell me.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:02

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

i guess that video was unfair of me. it's ok for manchin to be racist and side with trump against black people protesting the murder of black people cause that's just the sacrifices dems have to make to win in red states

and minorities should be glad dems are willing to sacrifice the needs of minorities to win. would they like a republican to win? didn't think so. so in fact it's perfectly fine for dems to be racist, just as long as they're a little bit less racist than republicans

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:03

Chilichimp: Oct 24, 2006; TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp; Grimey Drawer

VitalSigns posted:

Mm yes, well you'd better tell Senator Ed Market (D-MA) it will be news to him.
https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/851512692267405313

Guillotine.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:07

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I'm pretty sure liberals would support Donald Trump in the 2020 primary if he changed his affiliation to 'D'.

He's already proven he can win, unlike some Vermont Senators we know. And he'd have the theoretical ability to veto Republican legislation, which you leftists would know if you understood how politics works.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:08

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

VitalSigns posted:

I'm pretty sure liberals would support Donald Trump in the 2020 primary if he changed his affiliation to 'D'.

He's already proven he can win, unlike some Vermont Senators we know. And he'd have the theoretical ability to veto Republican legislation, which you leftists would know if you understood how politics works.

what do you have against donald trump (D) being pragmatically sexist vitalsigns? grabbing em by the pussy is just something you gotta do to win in new york. would you rather a republican win?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:11

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

I don't vote strategically, I vote for whom I like best of the candidates availible.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:12

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

WampaLord posted:

It's not a catchphrase, you're like Charlie Brown with the football and Lucy is "a shitheel Dem promising that he'll vote with you when it counts" and I'm trying to grasp if you have basic pattern recognition or not.

But it's not Lucy! Lucy has no mustache and doesn't wear glasses. And she doesn't have a nose nearly that large, or the bushy eyebrows. It's clearly a completely different person holding the football this time.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:15

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Manchin loving sucks and i'm all for primarying him but I would also vote for him in the general. There is nothing more important than taking the senate.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:27

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

mcmagic posted:

Manchin loving sucks and i'm all for primarying him but I would also vote for him in the general. There is nothing more important than taking the senate.

Manchin should be primaried tbh. And the DSCC shouldn�t be putting their thumb on the scales in his favor in the primary just because he�s incumbent.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:30

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

mcmagic posted:

Manchin loving sucks and i'm all for primarying him but I would also vote for him in the general. There is nothing more important than taking the senate.

If you take the Senate with 51 Dems, but have one Dem that you can't rely on, have you really taken the Senate?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:30

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

WampaLord posted:

If you take the Senate with 51 Dems, but have one Dem that you can't rely on, have you really taken the Senate?

Yes. You control what comes up for a vote.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:31

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

If you take the Senate with 51 Dems, but have one Dem that you can't rely on, have you really taken the Senate?

Is this good faith posting? I cannot tell.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:34

Grammarchist: Jan 28, 2013

A senate controlled by Democrats is one where none of Trump's desired nominees or legislation see the light of day without the Democrats' say so. Assuming Manchin/Donnelly or whoever caucus with the Dems, their fuckery will be relatively limited.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:34

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Boon posted:

Is this good faith posting? I cannot tell.

Yes. It's an honest question.

Grammarchist posted:

A senate controlled by Democrats is one where none of Trump's desired nominees or legislation see the light of day without the Democrats' say so. Assuming Manchin/Donnelly or whoever caucus with the Dems, their fuckery will be relatively limited.

BUT HE VOTED FOR ALL OF TRUMP'S NOMINEES!

Seriously, do you all have some weird faith in Manchin that he'll do the right thing if we somehow take the Senate? Does his record mean literally nothing to you?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:35

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

WampaLord posted:

Yes. It's an honest question.

BUT HE VOTED FOR ALL OF TRUMP'S NOMINEES!

Seriously, do you all have some weird faith in Manchin that he'll do the right thing if we somehow take the Senate? Does his record mean literally nothing to you?

but those were just fake votes you see. and when he decided to go on tv and poo poo talk black people protesting being murdered by kneeling during the pledge, he just had to do that you see? he really doesn't mean any of it! he's really our friend and he definitely wont side with the republicans against us!

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:38

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

WampaLord posted:

Yes. It's an honest question.

BUT HE VOTED FOR ALL OF TRUMP'S NOMINEES!

Seriously, do you all have some weird faith in Manchin that he'll do the right thing if we somehow take the Senate? Does his record mean literally nothing to you?

Do you understand what the difference between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:39

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

mcmagic posted:

Do you understand what the difference between Senate Majority Leaders Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is?

Remind me, which one was leader when they failed to pass the public option?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:40

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

Yes. It's an honest question.

Then yes. Absolutely.

A question like that begs the question of whether you understand how the Senate operates and what it means to hold the majority in a chamber.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:41

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

WampaLord posted:

Remind me, which one was leader when they failed to pass the public option?

Which one stole a SCOTUS seat for a fascist who is going to destroy progressive priorities for 30 years?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:41

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

Remind me, which one was leader when they failed to pass the public option?

Neither.

What the gently caress.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:42

Grammarchist: Jan 28, 2013

WampaLord posted:

Yes. It's an honest question.

BUT HE VOTED FOR ALL OF TRUMP'S NOMINEES!

Seriously, do you all have some weird faith in Manchin that he'll do the right thing if we somehow take the Senate? Does his record mean literally nothing to you?

If Schumer were in charge those nominees would never have received votes. Voting against the party on a nominee is one thing, handing control of the chamber to the Republicans is quite another. Also, Manchin's fuckery can be diluted in 2020 with further senate gains. 2018 to 2020 is all about damage control, and even that's a barely attainable dream.

By all means, primary bad dems if you're in a position to. But if I have to choose between Donnelly and another empty vote for GOP control, I'll crawl through broken glass to get that bastard back in.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:43

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

These fascist fucks like Don Mcgann have make their lives work to completely take over the federal judiciary and that is what they are doing. They are fast tracking mid 30s Richard Spencer clones onto the bench at the fastest pace in modern history who are going to be there for 50 years. This is the greatest disaster that the Trump presidency will leave, probably even if he starts a war with North Korea. The ONLY way to stop it is to take the senate.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:47

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

I don't really know what post 2018 election is going to be like if Trump is still in office and Dems take over. Like can you imagine him not completely losing his poo poo when someone even murmurs "no" to him?

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:50

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

RuanGacho posted:

I don't really know what post 2018 election is going to be like if Trump is still in office and Dems take over. Like can you imagine him not completely losing his poo poo when someone even murmurs "no" to him?

I suspect Schumer relishes the opportunity to play with fire while Pelosi relishes the opportunity to troll the ever-loving gently caress out of him.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:51

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Trump would probably get along better with Schumer than with McConnell honestly at least on a personal level.

Probably professionally as well since they could bond over deregulating Wall Street.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:53

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

RuanGacho posted:

I don't really know what post 2018 election is going to be like if Trump is still in office and Dems take over. Like can you imagine him not completely losing his poo poo when someone even murmurs "no" to him?

He doesn't care. He has no interest in policy and he knows nothing about the judicial terrorists he's unleashed on the country with these nominees. He couldn't pick them out of lineups.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 11:37

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Boon posted:

Neither.

What the gently caress.

Sorry, you're right, it was Harry Reid.

I get that there are advantages to the Ds holding the Senate, even with a Manchin, but I don't think those advantages are worth a potential massive betrayal down the line, because passing lovely bills that had to be extremely compromised to appease a Manchin/Lieberman leads to the Dems getting tossed out in the next election.

If Obamacare had a public option and it kicked rear end, I would bet the party of "Repeal Obamacare" wouldn't be able to do nearly as well running on that rhetoric.

# ? Nov 16, 2017 03:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »