|
cat botherer posted:
False
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Crain posted:False
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Eh, it varies, but they could all use some genuine self-reflection. I try not to think too moralistically on a population scale, because on the whole everyone is just a product of their environment, and react in ways they have been conditioned to. It is very frustrating though, when clear explanations of the horrors and death that even a Dem president causes just seem to filtered out by their brains. Fine, they're either stupid or dishonest or already fascist themselves. That's more than enough shades of gray for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I don't buy that they both want the same thing beyond perhaps in the negative. Even conservatives and republicans don't perceive them as having identical goals hence all the yelling about RINOs and the like. If you go down the line issue by issue, generally there is not a substantive difference on how you can expect them to vote. The difference is mostly cosmetic. The RINO's are the ones who think QAnon is stupid and don't want to be just in your face, overtly racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Then post about her and not her dad. I thought I kind of did but allow me to clarify. It's really difficult to discuss Liz Cheney without her father coming up in the conversation and I only invoked his name in that sense. I was trying to frame my comment around the idea of anyone named Cheney somehow now being considered reasonable or moderate in any sense whatsoever as a way of demonstrating the Overton window shifts within the party itself and the modern perception of it. If Don Jr. becomes VP in 10 years or something, any conversation about him is likely to reference his dad. Similar to the segues into W Bush's father when he was in office or how often Bill Clinton would be mentioned in any discussion of Hillary. See also: the Kennedy's. These are generational political families with long legacies in government and none of them exist in a vacuum nor entirely stand on their own merits. And yeah, OK, maybe I should have been more clear that Liz is essentially as reprehensible as her old man (her intolerance for Trump's brand of GOP bullshit aside) and I pointed out examples a few posts down; but I mistakenly wrote as if the thread would automatically assume that and already knew a lot about her. My point was she loving sucks and just because she draws the line at violent insurrection and false claims of election fraud isn't enough to distinguish herself from the mountains of horrible bullshit her family has been responsible for over decades. Especially her horrible monster of a dad. Apple/Tree, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Youngkin was on Face the Nation today and people are big mad because he spent the whole time dodging questions like Darren Sproles and yucking it up about his complete ignorance of women's health all while dog whistling into an airhorn attached to a loudspeaker. https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1546161682921185280 That plus the following schaden-thread of liberal tears about him reversing the government WFH option means we have just arrived at our regularly scheduled very special Teachable Moment in the voter cycle, wherein voters experience the pangs of regret at once again voting for a Republican because [RememberingReaganComic.jpg]. https://twitter.com/ethanclynne/status/1545551298380152834 "NYT Virginia Voter Focus Group posted:One of the things you also said in the memo was that McAuliffe’s strategy of linking Mr. Youngkin to former President Donald Trump was ineffective. What in the conversations with your groups made that clear?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
So what's the Dems' upside to Biden's nomination of an American Enterprise Institute austerity hawk to the Social Security Advisory Board? Is this another McConnell trade, positioning for another Grand Bargain once Republicans take Congress, or something else? Because this guy really really wants Social Security retirement benefits limited to the very poor, and opposes raising the cap at which income is taxed for Medicare & Social Security. He also wants to make opt-out private retirement savings far broader than its current reach; to shift public pension plans to a privatized model; and argues that switching from SS to private retirement accounts would be in people's best interests. Biggs hates the idea of expanding Social Security benefits; argues that educators are paid well enough already; and defends the absurd proposal that paid leave should be offset with lower retirement income from Social Security. This is a repulsive nomination, period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Oh man, here's another golden idea from the austerity mastermind whom Biden nominated: Stimulus payments should have been loans collateralized with Social Security retirement income.quote:Next time Congress wishes to provide cash to households, it should offer voluntary loan checks of a chosen amount like $5,000. Those who choose to receive a check would have that balance carried forward at a specified and favorable government interest rate until the time they choose to claim Social Security. The loan would then be repaid out of the very first Social Security checks that individuals would otherwise receive, after which their full Social Security check would be restored. Those who choose to receive no check would keep their Social Security retirement benefits completely unchanged. The Social Security Works advocacy group is spearheading a campaign to call members of Congress to rightfully bury this guy's nomination. https://twitter.com/SSWorks/status/1544300429030342658
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If you go down the line issue by issue, generally there is not a substantive difference on how you can expect them to vote. The difference is mostly cosmetic. The RINO's are the ones who think QAnon is stupid and don't want to be just in your face, overtly racist. the difference isn't really in policies, it's that one's goal is to tear down institutions, eliminate the peaceful transfer of power, pursue a race and gender and sexuality based war against the american people and the other wants to tear down the trumpist wing of the republican party. I don't really have anything good to say about Cheney, but I don't think there's any way to make the case that she and the broader republican party have identical goals without just getting so reductive that no distinctions could possibly exist. Cheney is very clearly at war with the trump wing of the gop and the very public reasons why are a clear accounting of their differences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's because the board has to be bipartisan and the Senate majority leaders each nominate candidates for their side. So the president has no power in accepting or rejecting McConnell's pick? Seems kind of weird that the announcement would name Biggs as Biden's nomination rather than McConnell's, if that's the case, or not mention that Biden is somehow beholden to sponsoring Biggs bc he was McConnell's pick, rather than Biden's own choice. The announcement by the Biden administration in its entirety: quote:Washington, DC – Today, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Andrew G. Biggs to serve on the Social Security Advisory Board, an independent agency with a seven-member bipartisan board that advises the president, Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on policies related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs. The position is subject to Senate confirmation. https://www.ssab.gov/announcements/president-biden-to-nominate-retirement-expert-andrew-biggs-to-ssab/ If the nomination is just the way that the SSAB is set up, why are advocacy groups urging senators to vote against Biggs' nomination?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:So the president has no power in accepting or rejecting McConnell's pick? That's literally how it works. It is a literal legal requirement to make it bipartisan. It has worked this way ever since it was created. https://www.linkedin.com/in/marsha-katz-b86610b "Guys, George W. Bush would never try to privatize Social Security! He appointed a woman to the advisory board who wants to eliminate the cap on the social security payroll tax, double benefits for disabled people, wants to lower the retirement age, and said that even partial privatization of social security would destroy the program!" You can even go to the board website and see that they literally label the members nominated by which party and whether they were nominated by the President, House, or the Senate on the former member page: https://www.ssab.gov/board-members/    Biden has two pending nominees to the board. One was chosen by him to fill a Democratic vacancy - Sharon Lewis https://www.ssab.gov/announcements/president-biden-to-nominate-disability-policy-expert-sharon-lewis-to-ssab/ The other to fill a Republican vacancy recommended by Mitch McConnell - Andrew G. Biggs. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's literally how it works. It is a literal legal requirement to make it bipartisan. It has worked this way ever since it was created. What is this link supposed to illustrate? It just takes me to the linkedin login page. What were you trying to say there? Regardless, saying "that's literally how it works, it's a legal requirement" explains the how, sure, but does nothing to illustrate the why. Is Biden required to accept the nomination of absolute psychos and just wave them through? Is he putting forward any plans to challenge that? I'm aware that "is Biden going to do anything about this" is basically a rhetorical question but still, it seems like advocacy groups seem to think he can? some plague rats fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
So, Biden could have chosen someone other than Biggs to fill the spot, Leon? Are you saying that McConnell chose Biggs & Biden has no choice but to put forth the nomination? I guess I still don't understand why advocacy groups are urging senators to vote no on the nomination if Biden had no choice in the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
From the legislative act for the SSAB:quote:Structure And Membership Of The Board So if Biggs was one of Biden's three appointments, he could've picked someone else for the spot as long as he was a Republican, correct? (Also, jesus, it's a six-year term, lol.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:What is this link supposed to illustrate? It just takes me to the linkedin login page. What were you trying to say there? George W. Bush appointed famous disability advocate and fierce opponent of Social Security privatization Marsha Katz to the board. George W. Bush also has some slight experience with the idea of Social Security privatization. If you look at the Board Member page also linked, you can see that even though she was technically nominated by George W. Bush, she was chosen by the Democratic Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
From Jacobin:quote:While the seat on the bipartisan board is by tradition assigned to a Republican, Biden could have chosen a moderate candidate — or even leaned on precedent to avoid the nomination process altogether. Former president Donald Trump routinely refused to nominate Democrats for seats on boards and commissions. Furthermore, Biden could use the efforts of Senate Republicans to block speedy confirmation of many of his nominees as justification for holding the seat open, said Jeff Hauser, director at the Revolving Door Project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's because the board has to be bipartisan and the Senate majority leaders each nominate candidates for their side. So did Turtleman nominate him, because if it was Biden he's gonna be destroyed by noted far-left group the AARP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:So, Biden could have chosen someone other than Biggs to fill the spot, Leon? Are you saying that McConnell chose Biggs & Biden has no choice but to put forth the nomination? He was nominated so his name has to be put forward, the senate can still tell him to get hosed though, which is why groups are advocating to pressure senators to tell him to get hosed
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:From Jacobin: The author is either talking about other appointments or is confusing his appointments. Half of the current board members are Democrats appointed under Trump. Trump never refused to nominate any candidates recommended by the Democrats to the advisory board; no President ever has, so there isn't precedent there. The reason is that it is an advisory board that has no power, so he never bothered to block Democratic appointments to it because they can't do anything. Trump did refuse to nominate Democrats to other boards that had actual power (most notably, the FDIC). That might be what they are referencing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Going forward if Trump were elected I can't imagine a democrat's choice would be nominated ever again to any committee or board. Let's be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Why do we pay a permanent advisory board with no power? Especially when the topic is so politically dicey that only politicians and Senate-confirmed appointees will ever decide anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Why do we pay a permanent advisory board with no power? Especially when the topic is so politically dicey that only politicians and Senate-confirmed appointees will ever decide anything? They don't get a salary. They get paid for a few days per year when they attend meetings. Not sure what the rate is for those days, though. They probably get a per diem too. The board was formed when they made the Social Security Administration it's own independent agency in the 90's. The idea was that there was supposed to be some kind of semi-official advisory board that wasn't just whoever the President appointed at Treasury. Congress didn't want whoever was President to be the only person appointing "official" advisors. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:the difference isn't really in policies, it's that one's goal is to tear down institutions, eliminate the peaceful transfer of power, pursue a race and gender and sexuality based war against the american people and the other wants to tear down the trumpist wing of the republican party. I don't really have anything good to say about Cheney, but I don't think there's any way to make the case that she and the broader republican party have identical goals without just getting so reductive that no distinctions could possibly exist. Cheney is very clearly at war with the trump wing of the gop and the very public reasons why are a clear accounting of their differences. tearing down institutions, eliminating the peaceful transfer of power, and pursuing a race, gender, and sexuality based war against the american people are all policy goals, and on them the two factions you name are fully aligned. that is their end-goal, and they are closer to accomplishing it than they have been since the Business Plot failed to assassinate and replace FDR. the war between Cheney and the Trump wing of the GOP is not a new thing. this is a fight that has been happening since Trump called Jeb! low energy, and just like every other time the old establishment candidates have tried to make a public power play against the Trump wing they have eaten poo poo. in a strange echo of Trump himself launching a half-assed attempt to seize power that wasn't ready for prime time, Cheney has launched a half-assed attempt at reclaiming the reins of the Republican Party for Team "The Iraq War Kept Us Safe," and is being utterly humiliated as a result. and the sickest part of both stories is that at no point did either party need to bother: they were going to get what they wanted anyway. from where we sit right now, Trump is currently set to cruise to reelection, and on reelection he will face the same problem he faced the first time: there are a lot of government positions to fill, and you can count on one hand the list of people he has an idea of where to put in his administration. the republican establishment will fill out all Trump's positions for him again, and if another supreme court vacancy opens up, it is going to be the Cheney wing that hands Trump his list of candidates to pick from. from a long-term strategic perspective, they have already won. the Cheney/Trump split changes nothing about what the next administration is going to do. it's just squabbling over who on the victorious team gets to accept the trophy for locking in republican rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
I think you're making a point that no one is really contesting or trying to discuss. I'm simply saying that they're different and it's patently absurd to suggest that they have identical goals without getting pointlessly reductive about their aims and preferred methods of achieving those aims.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I think you're making a point that no one is really contesting or trying to discuss. I'm simply saying that they're different and it's patently absurd to suggest that they have identical goals without getting pointlessly reductive about their aims and preferred methods of achieving those aims. if the assertion they have identical goals is 'patently absurd,' please describe on which detail Cheney differs from the mainstream of her party, regarding 1. tearing down institutions 2. eliminating the peaceful transfer of power 3. pursuing a race and gender and sexuality based war against the american people in any sense beyond preferring it was her wing of the party doing them, and not Trump's
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
She’s politically self-immolating to protect both institutions and the peaceful transfer of power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if the assertion they have identical goals is 'patently absurd,' please describe on which detail Cheney differs from the mainstream of her party, regarding You know that there are hearings going on that she is taking the lead on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:You know that there are hearings going on that she is taking the lead on? What are the honest chances that those hearing will prevent the GOP from enacting the agenda that YMB was talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:You know that there are hearings going on that she is taking the lead on? in which her role is to weep bitter tears about how dare Trump use the infrastructure her wing of the party built, for what it was designed to do, but no longer for that particular wing's benefit. Cheney is fully on board with the subversion of democracy and open war on all those deemed insufficiently white. her complaints have been carefully limited to Trump in specific, because how dare this upstart take credit for their hard work in making democracy irrelevant. this is not a civil war. this is the side that lost whining about how if they were still in charge, they'd be doing the same things, but less crudely. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:What are the honest chances that those hearing will prevent the GOP from enacting the agenda that YMB was talking about? The question was how Cheney differed from the mainstream of her party of 3 items, including "eliminating the peaceful transfer of power". Whether her efforts are sufficient to prevent the rest of the GOP from enacting their agenda (probably not) is immaterial to answering YMB's question. She pretty clearly differs from the mainstream of her party given: 1. It appears to have gravely damaged her chances of re-election 2. Party leadership has also turned against her due to this issue If you or YMB have something that supports Cheney wanting to move away from the peaceful transfer of power, and that she's just made it isn't her wing, please post it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
There's been a massive leak of internal documents from Uber executives. Among other things, they show the executives deliberately setting up uber drivers to be attacked by taxi drivers to garner political leverage and press sympathy. The leak also documents a global system of failsafes used to hide information about things like market price manipulation or violation of court orders from regulators and investigators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
Is this serious enough to ruin uber?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Is this serious enough to ruin uber? I have no idea; some of this is from a CEO who was already ousted for similar or worse behavior, and a lot of it is from several years ago. Going purely off the article, Uber largely completed its "aggressively break all laws and burn money to take over markets" phase and is now in a combination of strategic retreat and consolidation in those jurisdictions where it has managed to choke everyone else out. edit: I stand corrected- having finished reading, this is pretty lethal, at least in countries where litigation is pending. This describes setting up puppet advocate groups and deliberations over planting false information about opposing parties, among other things. This also appears to just be the first set of headlines from the leak. edit 2: Here's a direct link to the ICIJ site for the files. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jul 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The question was how Cheney differed from the mainstream of her party of 3 items, including "eliminating the peaceful transfer of power". does she consider the Brooks Brothers Riot a violent and illegitimate interference with the peaceful transfer of power by the republican party, or was that one different because daddy signed off on it. she's willing to endorse the previous violent departure from peaceful power transfer, on the grounds that she and hers were in a position to profit from it, and that's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:does she consider the Brooks Brothers Riot a violent and illegitimate interference with the peaceful transfer of power by the republican party, or was that one different because daddy signed off on it. I don't know. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything one way or the other. Do you have something where she endorses the Brooks Brothers riot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I don't know. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything one way or the other. Do you have something where she endorses the Brooks Brothers riot? odd. you'd think it would have come up, what with all the serious defense of the soul of the nation from republican intransigence she's doing. but somehow, the time that daddy successfully pulled off the thing Trump half-assed hasn't ever been spoken of, by the champion of due process in presidential elections. in a world where she was a defender of the political process against those seeking to subvert it, the subject would have been raised as a precedent that must not be repeated. instead, it is tactically ignored. because Cheney does not object to subverting democracy, as long as it's being done by her people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:odd. you'd think it would have come up, what with all the serious defense of the soul of the nation from republican intransigence she's doing. but somehow, the time that daddy successfully pulled off the thing Trump half-assed hasn't ever been spoken of, by the champion of due process in presidential elections. I see, so you don't have any evidence of what you're claiming. Your argument is based instead of a lack of public comment on her part about an event that happened 17 years before she assumed office. I'd be interested to see how she answers if she's asked if January 6th was building on previous Republican efforts like the Brooks Brothers riot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
Anyone take a look at the 4chan Hunter Biden dump from tonight? It's all over twitter, but I don't give enough of a poo poo to sift through any of it. I'm just curious if there's anything icky that links back to the President.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Considering how eager Democrats are to worship the ground she walks on in exchange for the barest surface-level opposition to Trump I wouldn't say she's politically immolating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2022 06:19
|
|
