|
Pickleball mania is a right wing plot astroturfed by coordinated reactionaries such as Michelle Malkin
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:The problem with liberal judges is that they're LIBERAL judges and not leftist justices. If we use the broad/european style/whatever definition of liberal, then Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are also liberals. That implies that liberal justices can come on either side of this issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
With regards to the debt ceiling, now that tax day has passed, we should get a better sense of the timing for when the treasury runs out of money after the treasury figures out how much money they collected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
That letter was only one of several reasons why the mainstream media clamped down on the story for a couple days. Remember- it came from rudy giuliani (lol), they got a huge amount of poo poo for the emails thing in 2016 from liberals, some of the post reporters didn't sign on, other outlets were denied access to the source material initially, etc. This is more an attempt to by partisan republicans to retroactively elevate the role of that letter at that time period. Here is a new york times article from October 20, 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20201022234605/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html The below excerpt is what it had to say about russian disinfo: NY Times posted:What about concerns over Russian disinformation? Certainty, the most partisan types were screaming about russian disinfo, but that was not the major thrust of the mainstream media at the time for holding off on the story for a couple days.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Fed raised interest rates again today. However, they raised it by a smaller amount than previously (0.25%). The fed has been hiking 0.25% per meeting for the past few meetings. The last 50 bps hike was in December i think.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
Yeah, for majority of monetary/macroeconomists/central bankers in prominent positions the 70s inflation and then volker shock to kill inflation is one of the pivotal moments of central banking history and volker is a great hero. Here's a recent article describing powell's relationship to volker https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonath...sh=c97e9284e14f for example.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
I think an irony about Nader's run was that he spent most of his career opposed to getting involved in electoral politics.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Here's a video from during the eisenhower years with Wright Patman (the guy that held Louie Gohmert's seat) complaining about how the debt ceiling is dumb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHdh55w9xt4&t=267s plogo fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Help, I rolled my eyes so hard that they went backwards and now I'm blind! The fed funds rate is above inflation, so many people would consider that monetary tightening even if rates are not raised further. For example, in a lot of new keynesian models one of the conditions for a determinate price level (i.e. not explosives inflation) is a central bank monetary rule that holds the short rate above inflation. Sorry for the jargon, but I would impress upon you that rates at this level are probably still contractionary. Also, powell said they plan to hike twice more before the year ends and the market consensus going into today was a pause today and a hike in July.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
The quotes in that article from the Jeff Connaughton are from his 2012 book, so covering his time as a staffer for biden, then as a staffer for ted kauffman from working on financial reform.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
I would prefer an aggregation of polls rather than just the yougov poll, but it seems to me that Biden is doing okay with younger voters relative to older voters. https://www.economist.com/president-joe-biden-polls
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:A big part of this is that the GOP is not a real alternative for most younger people Yeah I agree with that, but in the past few months Biden's approval with younger people has been skyrocketing while it is stagnant with older people. Given the larger share of the electorate and the higher turnout of older people, that seems to be the more important strategic question.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:They have been extremely aggressive in raising rates, to the point that I am inclined to think Powell kind of considers a recession to be a feature rather than a bug of lowering inflation. Mellow Seas posted:The June inflation report (Leon posted it yesterday) was good enough that it might force them to hold off on another rate increase. But they really seem to be enjoying the process of raising them, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they find some justification to keep going. They are absolutely raising rates more. I'd be shocked if they don't raise rates in the July meeting. The market implied probability of a hike is "95%". Take that with a grain of salt, but yesterdays CPI release did not budge the needle. I would also note that the inflation metric that the Fed cares most about is PCE while the inflation rate most cited by the media is CPI, which obscures central bank thinking.  https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:The plan is "voting harder" and "for blue no matter who". That's what the GOP did, they didn't have a 20 step plan to controlling the courts laid out in 1974. They just kept voting for their guys in specials, in midterms, on-cycle and off. They got lucky with vacancies, but they also helped to make their own luck there and the Dems had the opposite of that. I see it more as- conservatives that had entered into the republican party were extremely upset at Reagan and HW Bush's supreme court appointees so they created their own infrastructure. Both among elites, like the federalist society, and at the ground level in volunteer campaigns for state houses and stuff like that. It is not obvious to me that the abortion movement would have succeeded in the way it did if not for the "betrayal" by Reagan and Bush in supreme court appointments. And the while the strategy for the anti abortion movement might have included "vote harder", it was not "vote red no matter who", the movement has been extremely confrontational within the party and has been a contributor to the ongoing factional wars in the GOP.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah but these voters weren't voting for Democrats in general elections. Primary fights, go at it, that's what they're for. The anti abortion movement made hell or sat out the race for certain republicans in the general election as well. There were a lot of anti abortion democrats back in the day so they could be played off moderate republicans. Remember- conservative southern dems maintained power for a long time! Richard Shelby was the last senator to flip from democrats to republicans as part of the southern realignment and that was 1994! State houses could have conservative dems as the dominant faction even in 2008 (ok i don't have a source for this one, but I'll bet its true)! zoux posted:Can you elaborate on the Reagan and HW Bush picks as betrayals, I guess I could see how O'Connor and Souter might've been, but Reagan appointed Scalia and Bork, and HW Thomas. I mean its dumb but it's deep in the conservative movement mythos. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/08/Reagan-nomination-outrages-allies-pleases-critics/7676363412800/ Pick up a copy of your preferred history of the conservative movement since the 70s or the anti abortion movement and they will talk about conservative resentment of supreme court picks but I can't think of a single comprehensive narrative on this point. I think this is part of the reason rank and file republicans were more concerned about the supreme court vs rank and file dems until recently.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
zoux posted:Do you have particular examples of squishy-on-abortion Republicans who are thought to have lost races to conservative anti-abortion Dems? I mean in the 80s and 90s, a bunch. One example would be Bob Casey Sr. beating an anti abortion guy to get into the governor's mansion. However, for any individual race it would be hard for me to show that the specific tipping point was abortion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
I think its notable that Ronald Reagan used to go on and on about how FDR was his favorite president. I think now that the cohort of Reagan democrats who had a lived memory of the New Deal era who liked FDR but had become disillusioned with the democrats are dying off, the double game of "oh FDR was good but his dastardly advisors like Harry Hopkins sold us out to the soviets" is no longer necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
What do people think is most novel in the Brooks oped? (The way that i'm phrasing this seems snarky, but I'm genuinely curious.) Seems like the same safe class self criticism that is often his wheelhouse. Like isn't that what bobos in paradise was about? https://www.amazon.com/Bobos-Paradi...mcx_mr_hp_atf_m
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, he's so close to grasping that the answer to these issues is socialism, and people who can't get socialism, turn to fascism instead. . . . but he just can't get there, mentally. It's like watching a Renaissance astronomer derive calculus from first principles, just so he can figure out how many epicycles to add to make sure the planets all orbit correctly around Earth. Try this half formed argument on for size- In my opinion the reason this critique smells like socialism is because it is derived from ex trots that went to the national review like james burnham (see his managerial revolution and the machiavellians.) Someone like David Brooks draws more centrist end of the critique whereas someone like sam francis represented the racist right wing of the critique- The whole "the old bourgeois is gone and now we have a managerial elite." However, its origins are heavily intertwined with anti-communism so someone like David Brooks who came into the tradition from the right is unlikely to redirect this intellectual lineage back to its socialistic origins. Here's a quote from sam francis in 1996 making a case for the buchananite wing of the party (a movement that trump has cribbed tons from): "The significant polarization within American society is between the elites, increasingly unified as a ruling class that relies on the national state as its principal instrument of power, and Middle America itself, which lacks the technocratic and managerial skills that yield control of the machinery of power. Other polarities and conflicts within American society—between religious and secular, white and black, national and global, worker and management—are beginning to fit into this larger polarity of Middle American and Ruling Class. The Ruling Class uses and is used by secularist, globalist, anti-white, and anti-Western forces for its and their advantage." https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/from-household-to-nation/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 14:15
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:But Brooks isn't hard right, and if he ever was he hasn't been in a long time. It would be less weird if he was, because we're used to rhetoric akin to that coming from people like Tucker Carlson. Brooks being ardently pro biden fits with his whole out of touch elites thing. Biden doesn't have an elite degree and during the obama years the classic liberal elite smear was that biden was a gaffe prone dumbass. Biden has the whole middle class joe thing going on, taking the train and eating ice cream. Like buying into this vision of biden that thomas frank critiques: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/22/joe-biden-mystique-election-democrats
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Here's some class analysis in the atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/ I think there has been quite a bit of class analysis in recent years in mainstream publications. I mean the books brooks talks about on meritocracy are also mainstreamish- at least mainstream enough to find in a barnes and nobles. And, I think most of brooks class analysis has already been expressed going back to his much earlier writings. What new elements are in this recent op ed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Jimmy Carter wasn't that long ago yeah, im not sure there have been that many presidents without hosed family problems. liek there is also the reagan daughter that was alienated. plogo fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Yeah, none of the trumper base types like Tim Scott or Nikki Haley etc, but they do like RFK Jr. and Vivek, so going after Vivek makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What I’m saying in my earlier post is even the no-immunity option is better for him than a trial because his consequence is only two misdemeanors that won’t affect his life much and now he’s very likely going to end up with felony convictions because DOJ wins way more than they lose. Yes he only came to their attention because of politics but that’s out of his control and he’s probably underestimating the risk he’s now in. But this guy is no stranger to high risk behaviors. He just replaced his previous defense lawyer, who was cooperating with the DOJ closely, with a very prestigious and media savvy lawyer to take a more confrontational approach. We already know from the hearings with the IRS agents that there was some taint involved in the investigation process and we know that Hunter's prior lawyer will testify against the special counsel with regards to the pre trial agreement, which Hunter Biden is maintaining is still in effect. This is not to say that he is gonna beat the rap, but I don't think the logic of "the DoJ wins most of the cases it tries" is appropriate here and we are operating under much less information than the Hunter Biden defensive team so I'd be hesitant to say he is underestimating the risk he is in now. I do think people are underestimating the extent to which this story is going to take up more oxygen, for good or for ill.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
The guy that kept Menendez out of prison, Abbe Lowell, is Hunter Biden' s lawyer now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Name Change posted:I would love to rewrite Gore as a firebreathing leftist president in Alternate Earth, but I just don't buy it. You can leave a lot of left-right standardized platform behind as a fundraiser/philanthropist. Yeah, I think there is also an argument to be made that his presidential run represented the denouement of his movement. At the height of Nader's raiders strength in terms of pressuring the federal government in the 1970s, Nader was very much opposed to running for political office at his movements height and his decision to run in 2000 was a reversal of that policy. At least that is the approximately the argument Paul Sabin makes in Public Citizens.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:He's certainly a fellow traveler, but Tom Massie isn't actually a Freedom Caucus member. (e: or at least, he's publicly denied being one.) He was also bought in a way by McCarthy- after mccarthy's elevation to speaker he got a spot on the rules committee along with Chip Roy, and he got chair of the antitrust subcommittee when it should have gone to Ken Buck (who is now super pissed) by seniority.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:So like, businesses & rich people fund Republican campaigns because their policies are more immediately profitable than Democratic policies, right? At what point does antics like this and shutdowns start to cost them more than Democratic policies do? Wrecking the US's international credibility and interrupting basic government services that everyone depends on has to start impacting business bottom lines sometime, right? How bad does it have to get before they stop paying for Republican campaigns? So this is a general poll, rather than a poll of businesses & rich people, but I do not think much progress has been made in terms of convincing the country that the Republican are a threat to the economy. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4235353-gop-holds-edge-in-new-poll-on-safeguarding-prosperity-military-security/ (Polling from gallup) "Fifty-three percent of respondents said the GOP would do a better job at keeping the country prosperous over the next few years, compared to the Democrats’ 39 percent. The 14-point advantage is the widest gap on the question since mid-1991. It also is up from the 10-point gap last year. "
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
Kale posted:Isnt Ken Buck one of the big cowboy Trumpers or am I getting things mixed up? Also Lawler being no isnt surprising cause hes always on TV for a soundbite about how the Freedom Caucus sucks. Ken Buck is pissed because he was passed over, despite his seniority, for the subcommittee on antitrust gavel for Thomas Massie and has stated that Scalise and Jordan are unacceptable as speakers because of their 2020 election lies. However, he is/was a long standing member of the HFC. plogo fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Oct 17, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Jim Traficant voted for Denny Hastert in 2000, but he was a one of a kind congress critter, had his committee assignments removed by Gephardt and then he was expelled from congress for other stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Both of your examples kind of support the point of the economy mattering. Reagan was lucky to survive the economic contraction early in his term (1980 to 1982) and Democrats gained seats in the 1982 midterms. The US recovered from the recession by 1984 and was expanding again. In fact, the next recession didn't happen until... 1992 and that hurt Bush and helped Clinton. And carter had the gas crisis in 1979
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:
Pay attention to the PCE if you want to know what Powell might be looking at. That is what the official inflation target is based on, not CPI.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Am I reading this right that inflation is at 1.9%? Isn't that pretty much the ideal rate for inflation according to the Fed, or is there a different inflation rate they look at? Seems like if inflation is down to 2% then the Fed is probably done raising interest rates. The Fed target is PCE, not core CPI. The PCE grew at 2.5% over the third quarter annualized, so a little bit above the long term target, but consistent with the Fed's "Flexible Average Inflation Targeting and Inflation Expectations" regime. As Morrow pointed out, the Fed is on pause for now as far as hiking goes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
In terms of housing prices and the CPI, bear in mind that the methodology used to estimate housing prices leads to a significant lag for the contribution of housing to the CPI. In comparison, the item that caused the greatest downward pressure on the M/M change in CPI, a 5% decline in gasoline prices, reflects something much closer to real time prices. Here is a dissertation arguing that this treatment of housing prices leads to suboptimal monetary policy. https://www.proquest.com/openview/172251dfc89cfb1872e67cb4a9bc9e3c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is all true with regards to getting up-to-the-minute data on housing prices and using that to base decisions on monetary policy, but the problem with real prices in housing is primarily a supply and demand one. I agree with much of what you are saying, housing prices are a big problem. However, I was making the point that the housing contribution to inflation, the largest contributor to inflation on a year-over-year basis, reflects increased prices in housing that ALREADY occurred ~6 months ago and reflects an underestimate of prior inflation, because those CPI numbers had housing inflation TOO LOW. In 6 months or so, we will know what the current contribution of housing to inflation is, in the data released today. Or you can try to impute the current contribution of housing prices to inflation using alternative data sources.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean i can actually get why the like him, he kinda gave china shot in the arm after the sino soviet split and led to trade opening up big once stuff calmed down post mao. poo poo talk either side but china and the US need each other on various levels for economy at least for right now. good news is at least Mao and Henry get to see each other again now. He also arguably helped instigate war between Pakistan and India, in his efforts to open a line to China, as described in this book https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Genocide/dp/0307700208
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Specifically for the contempt of Congress bit, is there any reasonable defense that would protect Hunter since Jim Jordan wasn't prosecuted? Selective prosecution, or something along those lines? IANAL, just wondering if that's relevant. I don't know if if it is reasonable but he is making a violation of the separation of powers argument.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
selec posted:Read your Luttwak, if you want to know what a reactionary who has studied this stuff thinks you need to do to have a successful coup. If there is anybody on the GOP seriously considering it, they are definitely familiar with that book, so if you think it’s a serious threat, you should read it too. If you reject him as a someone who could seriously threaten a coup or as a fascist, which I agree with, what about characterizing him as a bonapartist/caesarist figure, ala Marx or Lewis Namier and countless others? Or characterizing all US presidents as bonapartists as some people do? Or maybe just some like FDR or Lincoln? Do you think there is any mileage in thinking about american politics and Trump through that lens?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
The original fascists had many smart people affiliated with the movement. Carl Schmitt, George Sorels, Robert Michels, Warner Sombert, Heidegger, would be examples off the top of the head, that were involved in the fascist movement to varying degrees. Their ideas might have been wrongheaded but it was unequivocally not the case of mental laziness for the above.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Read the essay, it's more than a title. The argument is not that fascists don't have brains, it is that they do not use them (or if they do use them, it is not on the subjects of their fascism). I did read the article and I disagree because I think what is scary about fascism is how many intelligent people were taken in by the movement and the ways in which thinkers that were ardent left wingers or liberals became so disaffected that they contributed to the construction of a fascist ideology. I think historians like Zeev Sternhell do a good job of describing these strands. Xiahou Dun posted:Is your argument literally just that smart people can't do dumb or intellectually lazy things? Because that's what I'm reading and that argument is laughably false. Sure, but the article is a polemic that states "And he never could have been—because there’s just no such thing as a smart fascist. Not emotionally, not intellectually, not strategically or philosophically or practically" discounting all types of intelligence. There were smart fascist strategic thinkers, there were smart fascist philosophers, there were smart fascist political theorists, there were smart fascist military leaders. I named some in my prior post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 20:22
|
|