|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1709340207206551851 Hahahaha oh gently caress me, the only way this whole thing was even remotely in the realm of sanity was is if the Leopard Caucas made him eat poo poo, got some concessions, and then voted McCarthy back in, if he isn't down for the humiliation then it all falls apart. The House is about to enter the Cool Zone.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Wait, McCarthy's back in the mix? I thought he did a "a pox on both your houses" to his conference and refused to run to get the speakership back again. He did, so I'm not entirely sure what's going on? I guess some Rs are trying to draft him regardless of his wishes (and to try and soothe his wounded pride by saying "Look we won't accept a 'no' here we NEED you, nobody else could do what you do") but an infinitely funnier option is that the Ds are doing it behind the scenes because Chaos
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:There's only one total loving idiot with a proven track record of barely getting enough votes. However everyone else has to first prove they are incapable of making it through the gauntlet of humiliation. He managed it once, but after all this can even he do it again? Like the same things that made Matt 'Schoolgirl Enthusiast' Gaetz and company kick him out once still prevail, and it'd be less humiliated to be led around on all fours on a leash than give the Detached From Reality Caucus enough to win them back (to say nothing of any sane Republicans he might lose in so doing). I can't stop laughing at how badly the Republicans have hosed this all up Q: If we make the assumption that a new Speaker gets to do the rules setup thing even if it's not a new Congress, is that something that can be forced in ahead of anything else? Because if not I'm imagining someone finally manages to get the magic number, plans to get rid of the rule that let them boot out McCarthy, and then find that Gaetz has done some kind of procedural fuckery to kick out the new guy before the changes can be made 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah this is smart. Keeps the lights on while letting Republicans continue to twist themselves up. Definitely. Lets them say "Hey look we're trying to offer a lifeline here, and keep government working while the Republicans sort out their mess." which either succeeds and gives them some leverage over the stuff in question, or fails and has them reinforce that they're being grown ups about it while the Republicans are very much not. Bugsy posted:They arent going to even try today. So the week between McCarthy being kicked out and the vote for a new guy was well spent, clearly
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean it is funny but you're also watching in real time as Republicans yet again rebel because their guy didn't want to use his frankly slim amount of procedural authority to completely upend American governance for an indeterminate amount of time. 'Don't bring a budget to the floor, slow roll all bills for weeks or years to bring the government to its knees' may not be as blatant as 'make Pence overturn the election' but it's still trying to find ways to weaponize procedure. I'm not sure what the solution to that is. Ultimately, some of the people in Congress are bad faith actors; they vary from wanting something that they don't have anything remotely close to the power needed to enact, to not caring if it all burns down, to actively seeking the destruction of Federal power. If there's a system which can overcome this kind of rot among the people elected to it, I'm certainly not aware of it. Once they have some power, zealots and lunatics can always find procedural means to screw things up to some degree if they really want to, and the remedy has typically been that the central mass of a given party knows how to handle the kooks and never let them near anything important in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
lmfao no new Speaker, Jim Jordan got 200 votes exactly, far short of what he needed
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Do any of those dudes aside from Sessions have any juice at all? That could be a list of 7th round NFL draft picks for how anonymous they are. The name I've heard on the news shows and such is Tom Emmer; nobody is bullish about his chances, but of this list there seems to be agreement that he has at least a ghost of a chance. More in the style of "I don't see anyone here winning, but if anyone does manage it I guess Emmer makes the most sense" than "Yeah Emmer's the frontrunner for this gig".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
I believe I speak for the nation - nay, the world - when I say "Who in the blue gently caress is Mike Johnson?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
With everything else going on in the world, I kind of forgot that sometimes a person in America will just pick up a gun and shoot a bunch of people. Nothing much to say though, it loving sucks, dozens of lives and families just got ended/irrevocably broken, the GOP are going to dodecadown on gun ownership and nothing will change. Turning to the House, I agree with the assessment that the Dems made the smart plays throughout. I am a bit surprised the GOP actually got someone, anyone, in the role before a shutdown hit, but the Democrats let the Republicans flounder for weeks while major international events occurred, and now an unknown neophyte with a bunch of baggage is in the chair. Yeah, he's probably going to screw around trying to prove Hunter Biden did 9/11 or whatever the gently caress, but he's worse placed to get anything done than Kev was and the Democrats can still just keep saying "The Republicans have a majority, why do they need us for anything? Can't they keep their house in order?" E; oh and thread title, neat 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:It seems the only correct moral stance to take is pacifist isolationism and just ignore anything that happens. Doing anything inevitably makes you responsible. Supporting Israel is supporting genocide. Opposing the Taliban is opposing Afghani civilians. Trading with a murderous regime supports murder. Not trading with them punishes civilians. I mean, America could try something like spending all the effort and money currently put to the military on some kind of massive global relief corps-cum-development agency. Imagine how popular and beloved the US would be if they were spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on building infrastructure, providing clean water, running hospitals, clearing up after earthquakes, and so on. Or hell even if the military stays as it is, deploy it to idk enforce a no-fly zone over populated areas being indiscriminately bombed. Establish actual defended humanitarian aid corridors. Protect refugee columns. Physically liberate concentration camps. Keep two sides physically separated and use economic pressures and inducements to bring them to the table to hash out a peace deal. It's not like most of this is stuff America doesn't do to some extent. But much of that is ad hoc, threadbare, or so blatantly favors one side that the gains are seriously hampered. Even so it's not like the only two options are Current US Policy and Hermit Kingdom.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:We would be popular and beloved for the 18 months until the next election, when our extremely morally flawed populace brutally punished the administration responsible for spending money on Americans' most hated expenditure, foreign aid. People hate foreign aid when it's less than 1% of the budget; imagine if we were spending a quarter of our defense budget on it - a psychotic strongman promising to use that military capacity for conquest would be elected almost immediately. It's sad, and I loving hate it, but that really is how it is, and my not voting would have absolutely no effect towards changing it. Which is why it goes back to changing minds - activism, yes, but also the creation of art, and interactions and thought exchange between individual people. Oh I am well aware, everything you say here is true; when I was referring to America though, it was less as if there was a sudden massive change in political leaders's thinking and more if the populace itself made the decision to take the country in a different direction entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm pretty sure that wasn't my question, and very obviously so. "How does this relate to what is being said/argued?" WHO is doing nothing, what is the evidence that nothing is happening? Pretty obvious that the contention is the Dems are doing nothing to rein in Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't agree that it was obvious since that wasn't what I was specifically addressing in my original post, which would mean that it's a bit of a non-sequitor to reply to me with that. Sorry, it did seem obvious to me but perhaps it was because I was reading several pages to catch up with the thread rather than being in it posting, gave me a different perspective. Bodyholes posted:I always find it interesting that right wingers don't have the same cadre of people who believe electoralism doesn't work. The hard right has voted ceaselessly since 1992 to turn the US into a fascist nation. They vote every drat election and every drat primary, and they have succeeded in getting closer to what they want over time. We're about to do away with these electoral formalities entirely. You'd think if voting didn't matter, and all Democrats were as terrible as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that Republicans wouldn't be so committed to the project of gerrymandering, kicking voters off the rolls, felony disenfranchisement, and taking over all election boards and stuffing them with sycophants. What are they afraid of? I think the perceived difference is not in the efficacy of voting per se (even though many would frame it as such) but that, in the eyes of many, there is a tremendous difference in the willingness to utilize power when they win it. GOP voters turning out reliably is only part of the equation - the other part is that when it results in Republican legislatures and executives, they absolutely use it to do anything they think they can get away with. Dems meanwhile are taken by the left of their base to be either in hock to interests who don't want a bunch of stuff to change, or simply operating on a cowardly inside-the-beltway mentality where they're so afraid of wasting political capital or losing swing voters that they never actually get anything done. There are definitely plenty on the left who won't be happy with the Democrats because they want actual overturning of the social and economic order (And for transparency's sake, I'm among this group) but there are also a lot who would be far more ready to hold their nose if they believed they saw the Dems actually fighting, like willing to throw out executive orders to do Good Thing and fight about it in the courts, or the starting point for legislation being a full wish-list rather than starting out already striking half the contents on the assumption other legislators would appreciate this and meet them halfway. Just look at how enthusiastic a lot of the left was about Bernie (and with a similar story, Corbyn in the UK, where both got ratfucked by their own party's right) even though many of us are far more radical than him and considered him to be the reasonable compromise; being willing to actually call it like he saw it, and projecting the idea he would be willing to direct his administration to fight for his policies, made up a hell of a lot of the distance between the far left and where he was.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
I was very much trying to present those as arguments made by the left to explore the differences that were being talked about, rather than pushing them as an actual position to be debated on their own merits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2023 10:58
|
|
|
Trazz posted:I know it's easy to doomsay over the polls and the approval rating and such, but the GOP is absolutely going to get trounced in the next election because they have only gotten crazier in the last 4 years I mean, I do think the Republicans still have a major uphill battle to climb in a year, but "Of course the GOP is going to lose they're acting like lunatics" didn't go great in 2016
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Jesus Christ. You literally describe a mental health crisis then blame guns. Unreal cognitive dissonance. You all wish death on depressed folks with this attitude. It’s disgusting. I have had mental health issues my entire life, including suicidal ideation. How do you think my actual attempt would have gone if I had access to a gun? I didn't, so I just ended up in the hospital for a few days and was lucky enough to get away with no permanent effects. That's not what would have happened if I had been able to use a firearm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:One of my best friends from high school, pulled over on the side of the road, put a gun in his mouth and killed himself last year. Condolences 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Except Congress doesn't generally pick and choose who the military promotes. Only a few top named positions. Holding back current confirmations for every flag position does nothing but piss off anyone looking to tack on a star someday which does them zero favors. If there's one thing guaranteed to help you succeed in your coup, it's loudly and publicly demonstrating your comtempt for the military. Making sure that you have pissed off an officer corps who have already shown that they are extremely serious about the oaths they have taken is great preparation for your next effort to tear it up!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
'Electric buses' well yeah no wonder the US has a problem with mass transit when nobody remembers the real solution is trams.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 09:30
|
|
|
Seems like growing cities are the perfect place for laying rail then, still a lot easier to acquire the land than an existing metropolis, you can guide long-term development of the city so that it fits well with the rail, and a boom town will have an abundance of labor available. I'm not convinced that it would be prohibitively expensive, I mean it absolutely would if it was done under the current status quo, but a government able to implement such a sea-change in the first place would be capable of creating a state-run corporation or similar to do it efficiently and which could leverage massive economies of scale. As for some lines being unprofitable, I mean, maybe? I don't think that matters given that efficient and accessible public transportation is an essential public good. The whole point is to make it serves as many people as possible, as well as possible, not to run the largest profit possible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 13:38
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Many of the cities aren't growing and the few that are have been getting marginal growth for a long time now. Some are shrinking in population. I was just taking what BUUNNI said a couple posts above mine and responding, but what you say definitely makes sense. quote:Its not a maybe. Its a majority of them. At least with current population densities in the US. Sure, but that's why I implied doing it at all would require such a sea change in policy that we can pretty much bake in the assumption that it's being done for reasons other than corporate profit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
I just feel like it's uniquely pointless to be paying any mind to polling when there is absolutely no way to predict how the multiple criminal and civil proceedings against one of the candidates will shake out over the next year. Hell Trump might not even be on the ballot in some states, though I personally regard that as highly unlikely because I am almost certain his SCOTUS will make sure he is, it's not totally impossible. Colorado doesn't matter because it's blue and Trump taking Minnesota is a long shot, but if he's not on the ballot in even a single battleground state his job gets immeasurably harder. Again I emphasize that I regard this as incredibly unlikely and I am almost certain he'll be running in 50 states, but I am trying to illustrate that we sure do live in times.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:The only part of this that will hurt him is actually not being on the ballot in multiple swing states. Otherwise it’s in his favor That seems like a bold claim. It'll definitely help keep his supporters fired up but every bit of evidence of wrongdoing is going to help fire up everyone else and remind them that even if they hate Biden, there's a very convincing argument to hold their nose and vote for him. To say nothing of the general impediment to campaigning that multiple criminal trials will pose (Sure he'll still be able to make some rallies, but will it be as many? Will he be as effective at them, when we can already see he's faltering?) and also to say nothing of the possible outcomes - and possible sentences - that may result before the next election. It's totally possible that the whole thing ends up helping him. It's also totally possible that he ends up getting his teeth kicked in so bad that Mondale rises from the grave to personally thank him. We're in totally uncharted territory in this regard and it's pretty premature to declare that anything will definitely help or hinder over the coming year. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
I was cautiously optimistic that tonight would be a pretty good night, but we (As in the general community of people who are sane) are doing a lot better than even I optimistically hoped for. Also we had the most incredible wrong thread post I can remember, which is just  I do wish we had Governor Elvis but, I mean, Mississippi even being within ten points is uhhh not a super sign for the GOP nationwide.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
I almost wonder if we'll not see some sort of weird inversion of a Presidential candidate helping out downballot next year, if Biden's polling remains lovely. Like people will turn out to vote to secure abortion rights and get dems into state houses and governor's mansions, and vote for Biden too when if it was just Joe they wouldn't have bothered. Or they're not really eager for Biden but realize they've voted straight ticket Dem so gently caress it, might as well, at least he's not the other son of a bitch.FLIPADELPHIA posted:Yeah absolutely - those 1 or 2 points can/will make all the difference. It will be an wild to watch 45% of voters cast a ballot for someone convicted of attempting to overthrow the US government but it's almost certainly going to happen. Agreed on all counts. I can see Trump winning next year but I sure can't see it happening if he loses 2% of the country over a felony conviction, it's not like his win in '16 was by generous margins in the battleground states. It depends on if you mean 2% of his voters stay home, 2% of them switch to Clinton, or 2% of the total number of voters turn against him, but even the best of those assumptions for him (2% of just his stay home) would have moved Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin into Hillary's column and resulted in Trump 258 - Clinton 273. Now obviously we're just throwing around numbers like 2% for the sake of discussion rather than because we have hard evidence of the sort of real losses he'd suffer, and it would never be so neat and tidy, but I highlight it to demonstrate just how little he can afford to lose. If even a tiny number of people decide a felony conviction is a deal breaker, it could sink him in an otherwise winnable contest. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 08:32
|
|
|
Asling why right-wingers apparently vote against their own interests is a longstanding puzzle to Dems, but the answers are extremely simple. 1) They generally don't think they are doing that. They are bombarded with constant lies that economic problems are actually caused by the other side, and the Republicans are the ones trying to make sure things run efficiently and fairly. There are also very strong dogwhistles here where the implications and inferences are that unemployment or disability will be cut for *those people* - the lazy minorities getting a free ride, the illegals who just show up and get generous benefits. 2) There are also plenty of occasions where people do think that a certain vote will hurt them economically, but they are willing to take that hit because they think another matter is more important. Zealots who care more about controlling women, fascists who would gladly turn the economy radioactive as long as it hurt minorities even 1% more than them, whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
selec posted:Hell of a gamble. Hell of a huge gamble, considering what’s been lost on this exact gamble before. I don’t get the focus on needing to retain any given specific justice over the allure of a forty year old reliable Dem Agreed, we're already in a serious enough situation with the SCOTUS that we really can't be taking chances. I think Sotomayor is in good enough shape to hold out for and couple of terms pretty safely, but given the costs if that calculus is wrong, is even the small chance worth taking? On the other hand I guess you have arguments of seniority and experience to consider, if we start having our justices retire at like the 70-75 range we may be losing out on some institutional knowledge or control that is not explicit or formal in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
I don't think "I respect the troops and that other fucker doesn't" really constitutes trying to outflank from the right, not in America, where support for the troops is taken to be an axiomatic good. Also yes a lot of fascists and conservatives don't care one whit about their hypocrisy but this is clearly aimed elsewhere, and trying to dampen support for him among those who might be on the fence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2023 10:26
|
|
|
More leftist generation, senior officers taking their oaths particularly seriously, vanishingly few people at any rank wanting to use force on American civilians, and the dumbest, most annoying, disruptive orders anyone has ever received surely all play some part in the Santorum of Trump's military polling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2023 09:29
|
|
|
I get it if you feel "blowout" is too strong a term but in the lead up to 2022 the GOP and their outriders were touting the coming red wave - red tsunami, even - to high heaven, and then they seriously underperformed on basically every level. That they've done the same on every occasion post-16 is finally starting to scare some of them, especially because Dobbs has totally upended any hope of at least benefiting from the usual political cycle and exchange of one party for the other. Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for Biden, dems, and the online peanut gallery like us who love to hoot and holler at political fuckups) they've allowed the craziest people on the far right to have enough influence and power that course correction is nigh impossible and that's not going to change until Trump is dead or in prison.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2023 11:18
|
|
|
I feel like one thing that makes home births seem appealing is that in the modern age we've forgotten how bad things can go during a birth. I recall an article a few years ago where the writer was an expectant mother who attended a class on giving birth (the article may have actually been about home births but I don't recall for sure) and the instructor asked what people regarded as the biggest dangers. A couple of people said stuff like "It'll take a long time" "It'll be very painful" and then someone busts out "Both I and my baby die in childbirth."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 10:52
|
|
|
I can't believe how much bandwidth was expended fighting about "Death to America" when all it really is is an ironic way to express annoyance at things as mundane as running into too many red lights on your drive to work. It's the Middle Eastern version of saying "Thanks, Obama."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2023 08:37
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I've said "Ok, boomer" my share of times as a terminally online person, but in all actuality, boomers aren't some unique evil. They inherited a hell of a leg up and made sure to pull the ladder up behind them every chance they got, but them dying off isn't going to solve as much of the problem as you may hope. There are going to be plenty of failchildren who are just as lovely and entitled who will be ready to take the boomer's place. Hell, you already see it with opportunistic craven pieces of poo poo like Sinema who will easily throw anyone under the bus if they think it'll benefit them or their grift. "Self made" millionaires who turned their $300 paycheck into a cool million with nothing more than hard work and a $999,700 loan from their parents and absolutely never needed any help and neither should you. And hell, unfortunate souls who just couldn't get away from their lovely upbringing and end up becoming equally lovely in turn. Eh, we've already got an immense body of evidence that each subsequent generation is less sympathetic to right-wing ideology and more progressive, to the point where zoomers have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism. If you take the view that political beliefs are largely set in young adulthood, then it's already too late for anything like the current right to sustain itself nationally under democracy beyond maybe 2030. And if you take the view that it is the gaining of personal wealth that shifts people rightward - that you grow conservative because you have something to conserve - well, the right loses there too. The jobs market is hosed, housing is worse, and an extraordinary quantity of wealth which would be passed along in inheritance is instead being spent on exorbitantly priced elder care to the point kids won't be inheriting the houses that might otherwise drive them rightward. Also I am always beating this drum but if indeed boomers dying will change the results of elections and policies, this is only something we're going to start seeing in the coming decade. The first boomers are about 77 years old this year, so just shy of the life expectancy. But the youngest boomers are almost 20 years younger and only hitting 60 next year. At SOME point in the next 20-odd years the demographic effects will start having a major effect but when, and to what extent, is a very hard thing to predict. Though I would say thanks to the quirks of the EC system it's got the potential to matter as soon as next year, I'd expect 2030 to be when it really starts to make itself known. By no meansis any kind of political shift a fait accompli. In fact regarding demographics as destiny and assuming nothing else is needed would be the surest way to undo any such process. It does however open a very powerful route to stamping out the political power of, at least, the far right. And hopefully the right more generally. If we do dodge the fascist bullet next year the right will still have a lot of power and a lot of ways to gently caress with democracy, but I do see some merit in the idea that it's their last gasp at national power under current circumstances. Trump defeated again and old as all gently caress in '28 would neuter him and the right have indeed cored themselves out pretty badly in the last decade (and hosed themselves to an impressive degree with abortion, there's no way out of that corner they painted themselves into; pushing abortion bans loses so badly they can't even gerrymander their way out of the hole, but retreating gets them branded RINOs and traitors.), but fascists have never needed a majority and it's always possible someone else will emerge, or other unforseen events could occur.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 11:02
|
|
|
The Internet definitely facilitates arguing and fighting because, well, it's a mass communication medium so it quite literally exists to facilitate communication. I'm not sure if we can say that something has changed in platforms used or social media trends have sharpened division, though, because that may be eliding the possibility things are more heated because things in the Middle East are way more serious than any previous incident while the Internet was widely available. October 7th was a tremendously destructive event that has clearly been traumatizing as gently caress to many Jews worldwide, and the IDF response is likewise far greater in scope than any previous actions. As horrible as eg Cast Lead was it lasted three weeks, displaced 50,000 people, and killed around 1100 to 1400. The current war is literally a full order of magnitude worse and there are no signs Israel is slowing down. Honestly from the article zoux posted it doesn't even seem that the disagreements are coming from seeing much different information (There is some, but it reads like things being brought up to support existing positions), it's that there are vastly different understandings of why various incidents have happened, and what it means to express any given opinion or raise any particular incident. Al-Shifa? Well, hostages. Music festival? Well, airstrikes on refugees. And just bringing things up is taken as proof of a fanatical apologia for one side or another, even though you could absolutely support one side as a whole but decry certain things it does as immoral or just counterproductive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
A couple of my best friends have two young kids (7 and 5) and they and their other parent friends seem pretty much united in the belief that some serious consequences are and will result from the Great Lockdown. To be clear they are a sane couple who think it had to be done and should have been done hard enough to extirpate the rona, and discuss it because they are interested in understanding the harm and how it might be repaired and overcome. But they are certain that there have been major effects, less in educational attainment per se and more in terms of general development, social understandings, things like that. Entertaining aside, the younger child literally did the "He thought school was only for one day! He mad!" meme, she declared after the first week that school had been kind of fun but she wouldn't be going back. There was great confusion and then despair when informed it didn't work like that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
Carew posted:About that "ceasefire" This does not contradict it being a ceasefire.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2023 09:56
|
|
|
There are a few Dems who I think would have a shot but they're not nationally placed for it currently, and as you say not being groomed for it. I'd rate Whitmer as likely their best current emergency option, Jon Tester might not be the worst choice either. (Not saying he's got great positions, but just that I could see him mounting a decent race. I guess there's some buzz around Josh Shapiro but I am not familiar enough to assess if he's got legs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
The Top G posted:I hear Whitmers name tossed around, what’s driving the buzz? She was vetted for running mate in 2020 (though largely because of gender and swing state), gave a speech at the DNC, and did an above average job with Covid. Is that about it? Looks like she is decent platform wise too, with some track record of getting results Yeah she's done a bunch of stuff, campaigned on fixing the drat roads and put major investment into infrastructure repairs, protected abortion rights, has been working on improving educational access and attainment (programs for free tuition for various degrees and professional skills programs, fixing up pre-k and early years education, and a real banger called Future for Frontliners that provides free college tuition for essential workers during COVID; definitely one of the more solid expressions of actual material gratitude to them around), expanded civil rights protections to cover us queers, and this year she got Right to Work repealed in Michigan. Misunderstood posted:There are probably a hundred Dems who would "have a shot." No, there aren't too many famous Dems right now where you'd say, "Hey, there's a president!" But you know what makes you a lot more famous? Being a top candidate for president! They're not exciting and the press doesn't talk about them, but even boring governors like Ned Lamont and Phil Murphy would do fine as presidential candidates. Besides Trump, a party base has only been actually happy with exactly one non-incumbent presidential candidate in my lifetime, I'm not sure why everybody is expecting JFK 2: Jackie's Revenge to pop up out of nowhere every four years. That's a fair point on the fact of running raising your national profile enough to win by definition. On the second: Hey don't gotta tell me, I think Whitmer really is one of the best candidates the Dems could choose!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
Well, surely the idea behind such criticism is that there should be such an operation in play?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2023 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
"Working for capital" is not remotely the same thing as "Working to get mega rich".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2023 00:38
|
|