|
FlamingLiberal posted:Since I was first able to vote in 2004, they have been telling us this They've been telling us this since before I was able to vote, and I'm old. 
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:They've been telling us this since before I was able to vote, and I'm old. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 is a hell of thing to read today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:So, looking at politifact, Obama kept about half of his promises (and partially kept another quarter), Trump about a fifth (partially keeping a quarter). Biden is less than halfway through his first term and has over half of his platform either enacted or in the works. Uh, he has 13% of his promises kept. Amongst those are: quote:Increase COVID-19 testing I think that one could perhaps use some updating. And this one: quote:Create a bipartisan commission to consider reforms to the Supreme Court Let's say this committee actually completes its work and makes sensible recommendations (I'm not holding my breath). If none of them actually come to pass, do we still call this a successfully implemented promise? It's not exactly a feather in your hat to campaign on. As for the 45% of promises in the works, several of them are in BBB and/or haven't seen progress in a year, so the distinction between that category and "Stalled" seems rather arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:So, looking at politifact, Obama kept about half of his promises (and partially kept another quarter), Trump about a fifth (partially keeping a quarter). Biden is less than halfway through his first term and has over half of his platform either enacted or in the works. So let's ground this in reality: are you expecting 100% of a platform to be enacted? If so, then you are setting an unreasonable standard based upon what we've seen happen in the past. Show me the last President that saw 100% of his party's platform get through the legislature to his desk. Beyond that, it is unreasonable to blame people for not doing things that they don't have the power to do. It is unreasonable to blame the yes votes on BBB, the filibuster, or whatever other good thing we want, for the intransigence of the no votes. edit: As has been repeatedly pointed out, many of us attach importance to actual results in material reality, and not just intentions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 is a hell of thing to read today. I picked it up during primary season after procrastinating on it for years and it was amazing. Encouraging in that our political landscape is not uniquely awful but discouraging in that there is little we can do to change how loving awful it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:They've been telling us this since before I was able to vote, and I'm old. If our democracy truly hangs in the balance you would think the Democratic Party would pull out all the stops regardless of decorum or archaic rules. Instead it is better to accept the Democratic Party is either complacent with our March towards fascism or there isn’t anything to worry about and this is all posturing. cat botherer posted:The bolded portion is doing some massively heavy lifting here, especially since BBB is almost certainly dead, and was already a pale shadow of what Biden originally promised. He sure pulled though on the defense budget though! Exactly. We now have more cases and higher hospitalizations than any time in the pandemic. The Biden administration is an objectively failing controlling the spread of covid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
A percentage based completion approach to a presidency is dumb bullshit that puts naming a post office on the same level as paid sick leave. The material impact of Biden has so far been the ending of rent control, the coming ending of student loan forgiveness, and a perminent substantial tax increase on irregular independent workers while the likes of Musk and Bezos will continue receiving unimaginable stimulus funding via preferential tax treatment. And a very short lived increase in the child tax credit. The idea that some retail worker out there that managed to secure just a few more dollars in the year selling nudes online is going to be nailed with 16% tax on it should be enough to make being a Democrat out in public a dangerous proposition. All against the backdrop of out of control covid death. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:The material impact of Biden has so far been the ending of rent control, the coming ending of student loan forgiveness, and a perminent substantial tax increase on irregular independent workers while the likes of Musk and Bezos will continue receiving unimaginable stimulus funding via preferential tax treatment. The idea that some retail worker out there that managed to secure just a few more dollars in the year selling nudes online is going to be nailed with 16% tax on it should be enough to make being a Democrat out in public a dangerous proposition. What "perminent" substantial tax increase are you talking about? And what legislation included a 16% nude tax that justifies killing Democrats in the streets?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:What "perminent" substantial tax increase are you talking about? And what legislation included a 16% nude tax that justifies killing Democrats in the streets? A new change to tax reporting for electronic payments. It's not a tax increase in the strictest sense, but it makes tax evasion on very tiny incomes more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:A percentage based completion approach to a presidency is dumb bullshit that puts naming a post office on the same level as paid sick leave. It's pretty funny that even this uselessly oversimplified metric is still pretty pathetic (13%), and to get it up to a number that can be presented as satisfactory and paint critics as having "unreasonable" standards, we have to throw in a bunch of stuff that is in serious danger of failing altogether in the senate, while also painting people as unreasonable for judging Biden on whether his agenda passes the senate. So we should expect everything that has been introduced in congress to pass and preemptively count them toward this singular metric of presidential performance and rate Biden higher than Obama, but also you're being unreasonable if you expect much if any of it to actually get done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:A new change to tax reporting for electronic payments. Paypal already voluntarily issued a 1099-K for commercial payments. This just makes it not optional. Seems like you probably shouldn't kill people in the street over that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Is this all building up to some dumb 'why don't you criticize the republicans' horseshit? No, it's me trying to understand why you seem to think there is more of a threat to those in the US affected by eugenics policies now than there has been in the recent past (i.e. ACA repeal efforts), based on your definition of it and your claim of: Nix Panicus posted:They're usually not quite so obvious about it. Its unsettling when the façade falls away for a moment, and worrisome because it might mean the wheels are about to completely come off. If you want to make it partisan and try to claim you only meant that about one party, you should probably be much clearer in your statements 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Paypal already voluntarily issued a 1099-K for commercial payments. This just makes it not optional. And who do you think was doing that before?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:So, looking at politifact, Obama kept about half of his promises (and partially kept another quarter), Trump about a fifth (partially keeping a quarter). Biden is less than halfway through his first term and has over half of his platform either enacted or in the works. So let's ground this in reality: are you expecting 100% of a platform to be enacted? If so, then you are setting an unreasonable standard based upon what we've seen happen in the past. Show me the last President that saw 100% of his party's platform get through the legislature to his desk. Beyond that, it is unreasonable to blame people for not doing things that they don't have the power to do. It is unreasonable to blame the yes votes on BBB, the filibuster, or whatever other good thing we want, for the intransigence of the no votes. So you're just going to drop the whole 'solving cancer is hard' metaphor when faced with having to explain the Cancer Parliamentarian, who can arbitrarily stop all cancer research but can also be dismissed whenever for any reason but nobody on the research team really wants to argue against this being an insane state of affairs E: Its an incredibly lovely metaphor but its the one they kept pushing as if its meaningful. Government is nothing like cancer research and its stupid to have ever tried to make a comparison. If you're getting tired of Cancer Parliamentarian comparisons though, try on researcher election season, when all researchers have to leave the lab to fly home and campaign, and if they don't get re-elected to their research position all their work is burned because thats just how cancer research works now. Government is not overcoming a series of challenges constrained by the complex laws of nature. Government is a completely made up institution where none of the laws are dictated by anything other than the whims of tradition or the rich. Its fake. We made it up. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:So you're just going to drop the whole 'solving cancer is hard' metaphor when faced with having to explain the Cancer Parliamentarian, who can arbitrarily stop all cancer research but can also be dismissed whenever for any reason but nobody on the research team really wants to argue against this being an insane state of affairs this analogy is known to the state of california to cause cancer
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Kalit posted:No, it's me trying to understand why you seem to think there is more of a threat to those in the US affected by eugenics policies now than there has been in the recent past (i.e. ACA repeal efforts), based on your definition of it and your claim of: I guess its alarming that the democrats are putting less and less effort into trying to pretend they arent indistinguishable from republicans
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:And who do you think was doing that before? Bishayler unless you've changed your mind about violence against DND posters, I don't think you are supposed to be posting here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:I guess its alarming that the democrats are putting less and less effort into trying to pretend they arent indistinguishable from republicans They said the change: quote:should be enough to make being a Democrat out in public a dangerous proposition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:I guess its alarming that the democrats are putting less and less effort into trying to pretend they arent indistinguishable from republicans So no reason why you seem to be using a new definition of eugenics now vs a few years ago? Way to be changing definitions of a word to own the libs 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Bishayler unless you've changed your mind about violence against DND posters, I don't think you are supposed to be posting here. Okay, queue up a forumban review for me alongside Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
Kalit posted:So no reason why you seem to be using a new definition of eugenics now vs a few years ago? Way to be changing definitions of a word to own the libs A few years ago I would have also defined the American health care system as eugenics in action. Thats why I consistently supported the guy who wanted to push for universal health care and said the candidates who didn't were monsters and the people that supported them were either idiot dupes or monsters themselves. I feel I've been pretty consistent that the democrats are trash people barely better than republicans who advocate for corporate serfdom and eugenics against the poor. I'm not sure who you think you're owning here E: vvv Thank heavens for that, because I don't know where you go from 'you only care about the vulnerable to own the libs' and I didn't care to see it Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Kalit and Nix, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere interesting, and would respectfully ask both of you to end it there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:They've been telling us this since before I was able to vote, and I'm old. Good news, after this and most definitely the 2024 election, you will never hear it again 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Let's say this committee actually completes its work and makes sensible recommendations (I'm not holding my breath). If none of them actually come to pass, do we still call this a successfully implemented promise? It's not exactly a feather in your hat to campaign on. Everybody knows that the powers of the President only extend so far as commissioning a committee. To do anything so drastic as reading the committee's report or even acting on it is the domain of the legislature, and wanting Biden to do anything more than that is tyranny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
I don't really understand how more federal legislation could get reasonably passed in the senate currently. How would someone enact positive change if they were to demonically possess Joe Biden (or the whole D-sided senate)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:I don't really understand how more federal legislation could get reasonably passed in the senate currently. How would someone enact positive change if they were to demonically possess Joe Biden (or the whole D-sided senate)? one could argue that that is already enacting a positive change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:I don't really understand how more federal legislation could get reasonably passed in the senate currently. How would someone enact positive change if they were to demonically possess Joe Biden (or the whole D-sided senate)? Well to the latter question change would be passed easily if you mind-controlled the whole D-sided senate because then they could nuke the filibuster on a party-line vote and pass everything the House sent them. As to the former question, Biden has tools to whip votes that he isn't using (which he did use on the CPC). Assuming cooperation from Schumer, he could have tied his agenda to legislation that Manchin and Sinema cannot afford to vote against, instead of doing the opposite and stripping out everything they asked him to so they could vote for only their own stuff and then tell him to go pound sand after they got what they wanted which is exactly what happened. He could threaten their very lucrative committee seats. It's possible that these things wouldn't work, and that the Democratic Party is incapable of governing no matter who is nominally president because it's just too cheap and easy for lobbyists to bribe a couple of senators to exercise a Liberum Veto and dumpster the party's agenda, but that's hardly a good sign for Democratic fortunes in future elections because even if they do successfully convince everyone in America that voting for them is pointless, that's not a good thing. Also in that case we should examine how we got here (blacklisting primary challengers to legislators who are currently dumpstering the party's agenda, for example)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well to the latter question change would be passed easily if you mind-controlled the whole D-sided senate because then they could nuke the filibuster on a party-line vote and pass everything the House sent them. What is the CPC? What are whip tools he could use? What is the lobbying+liberum veto referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:I am sincerely unfamiliar with the following, I would appreciate help! Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of left-leaning members of Congress. The whip tools are the next sentences. "Assuming cooperation from Schumer, he could have tied his agenda to legislation that Manchin and Sinema cannot afford to vote against, instead of doing the opposite and stripping out everything they asked him to so they could vote for only their own stuff and then tell him to go pound sand after they got what they wanted which is exactly what happened. He could threaten their very lucrative committee seats." Lobbying is lobbying. The Liberum Veto is a historical reference, to the absolute veto held in Poland's notoriously unstable proto-legislature, the Sejm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:I am sincerely unfamiliar with the following, I would appreciate help! CPC is the House Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of progressive lawmakers who attempted to get Biden's Build Back Better Bill through the Senate by holding out on passing the infrastructure bill until the Senate also fulfilled the promise they made to pass both bills together. See back last summer all the social spending Biden is trying to pass now was in one big bill, but infrastructure was originally stripped out and put into its own bill allegedly to attract Republican support so it could be messaged as bipartisan, but apparently in reality it was done because Manchin and Sinema never had any intention of voting for most of the BBB from the beginning and wanted a way to only vote for their stuff. Biden very infamously whipped the CPC into giving up and passing the infrastructure on its own by forcing a vote on it, threatening to blame them if it failed, and apparently lying to them that he had assurances from Manchin that he would still vote for BBB. Once that was done, Manchin lost interest in negotiations pretty quickly because Biden and Pelosi had already made herculean efforts to completely undermine their own negotiating position and no longer had anything to trade for his vote. The whip tools he could use are what I described: he could oppose and denounce them in public and threaten their careers like he did to get the CPC to cave, he could have kept everything in one bill so Manchin and Sinema had to vote for the whole package to get the parts of it that they wanted, he could threaten the very lucrative committee seats that are pretty much the only reason to be a senator because the better the committees you're on the better the bribes from lobbyists to insert stuff they want or strike stuff they don't want from legislation that committee writes. Liberum Veto was a historical reference sorry. What I meant by it is that there are so few senators and so much opportunity for obstruction and margins of control are typically thin, that it's cheap and easy to kill popular and good legislation because you just have to bribe a couple onesy-twosy members of the majority to side with the Republicans and kill anything. Like it's pretty obvious that Sinema's "evolution" to opposing drug price controls after she got elected has to do with the huge donations she started receiving from the drug industry while that provision was being debated. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:[Biden] could oppose and denounce [Manchin and Sinema] in public and threaten their careers like he did to get the CPC to cave In the tiniest shred of fairness to Biden, he did that. It was just ineffectual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:In the tiniest shred of fairness to Biden, he did that. It was just ineffectual. Eh not to the same extent. He hasn't forced a vote so far. But sure, I said in my op that the government may fundamentally broken and the senate due to its structure is too captured by business interests to govern no matter who the president is or which party is in the majority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eh not to the same extent. He hasn't forced a vote so far. I'm talking just about using the bully pulpit to make Manchin out into the villain of the whole BBB affair. Biden has definitely done that. I know this because it's why this entire conversation is framed this way. It just isn't really helping anyone or anything, so far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
Hey because AOC has the rona now are chuds gonna dunk on her for two weeks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
Dpulex posted:Hey because AOC has the rona now are chuds gonna dunk on her for two weeks? Chuds will dunk on her regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1480336410716557316?t=ssZENEbcBnnKTzCaQK0NHA&s=19 Not political, but here's a current event
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I agree that these definition debates generally aren't very interesting, and would like to cut down on them, but there were a few points raised during this one that I hadn't considered before, at least. I'm thinking the policy of when to move on from these discussions should be the same one used generally, which is when people start making the same points at each other repeatedly then we've probably got most of the meat from that bone. Do you have a word you prefer? People are trying to have a conversation and your banning the primary word they used to talk about it. What word would you prefer they use? This sort of linguistic regulation is incredibly tedious and bullshit and sucks all the air out of discussion of important events. Whether that's the goal or not is immaterial. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
the_steve posted:https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1480336410716557316?t=ssZENEbcBnnKTzCaQK0NHA&s=19 drat, that sucks. I don’t know if I actually had a high opinion of him or not, but it’s still sad at that age
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
the_steve posted:https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1480336410716557316?t=ssZENEbcBnnKTzCaQK0NHA&s=19 Goddamn, I just finished watching judd apatow's docu on garry shandling in which saget was featured talking about shandling's demons. eta: I'm also almost finished reading sheila weller's bio of carrie fisher, a depressing litany of another dead boomer (and her pals like belushi & robin williams) whose downfalls were drugs & depression. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jan 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2022 02:26
|
|