The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

33 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Biden Says He’s Ending the Yemen War—But It's Too Soon to Celebrate

Quote

 We should know in a matter of weeks what the details of Biden’s plans for Yemen are. The job in the meantime is to maintain pressure, to ensure the Biden administration brings about a real end to the war that the president helped start — and says he wants to bring to a close.

And that's the bottom line. Progressives are going to have to hold Biden and Pelosi's feet to the fire if they want things like Medicare for All and a peaceful foreign policy.

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Dazey said:

To think that you'd get sacked for calling for the boss to be executed eh? I'm shocked to the core I tell y'all!  

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/04/us/joe-biden-trump-impeachment 

I loved how she suggested she was deluded by some of the stuff she read, but couldn't be bothered to apologize.

What a train wreck of a human being.

At least now Democrats have on record who supports her.  Good fodder come re-election time in 2022.  

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And that's the bottom line. Progressives are going to have to hold Biden and Pelosi's feet to the fire if they want things like Medicare for All and a peaceful foreign policy.

Progressives aren't going to get Medicare for All.  Had Sanders or Warren won the nomination and then the general election then maybe.  But not with Biden, who rejected the policy both in the primaries and in the general.  

But I wholly expect Democrats to pass similar legislation they passed a few years ago (with Republican support) should Biden slow walks the military's involvement in Yemen.  

[downzy]

😂

 

[downzy]

 

[downzy]

Good thread on why going bigger than smaller (overshooting) with the covid economic response is the better politics...

 

[downzy]

By not forcing her off committees themselves, Republicans have ensured that Greene is the face of the party until at least 2022.

 

[RussTCB]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

By not forcing her off committees themselves, Republicans have ensured that Greene is the face of the party until at least 2022.

 

I really don't see what the big deal is about this woman. 

It's not like she's ever said anything outrageo........oh....."jewish space laser"? Nevermind. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Hopefully a new stimulus will be coming soon. People are in trouble all over the US and the government needs to move their ass.

This whole impeachment trial is another waste of time because those Republicans won't vote against Trump.

Trump isn't going to run for President in another 4 years, he'll be lucky to be alive.

Let's move on to more important business.

[downzy]

 

[Dazey]

This is amazing.  

 

 

[downzy]

 

[Padme]

48 minutes ago, downzy said:

 

I've seen polls showing that many Republicans also support the stimulus.

 This one for instance https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/stimulus-check-polls.html

And that's why I don't understand why there are pundists out there saying that Republicans need the QAnon people and the far right 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

4 hours ago, Padme said:

I've seen polls showing that many Republicans also support the stimulus.

 This one for instance https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/us/stimulus-check-polls.html

And that's why I don't understand why there are pundists out there saying that Republicans need the QAnon people and the far right 

One can be considered 'far right' by the establishment and still support the stimulus or big government in general. Far right doesn't just mean economic libertarian (and that belief seems to be going away as the boomers start to die off).

True Qanon people are more rare. But there are many that are Q adjacents that believe in some crazy Clinton conspiracies or something. Also that depends on what your definition of far right is. The beliefs of the average rural Republican may be considered far right to you. Without them, that party is done. There simply aren't enough suburban Republican moderates for them to win the Presidency or majorities in Congress or the House. Even with the rurals, that still might not be enough anymore.

[downzy]

4 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

One can be considered 'far right' by the establishment and still support the stimulus or big government in general. Far right doesn't just mean economic libertarian (and that belief seems to be going away as the boomers start to die off).

True Qanon people are more rare. But there are many that are Q adjacents that believe in some crazy Clinton conspiracies or something. Also that depends on what your definition of far right is. The beliefs of the average rural Republican may be considered far right to you. Without them, that party is done. There simply aren't enough suburban Republican moderates for them to win the Presidency or majorities in Congress or the House. Even with the rurals, that still might not be enough anymore.

Agreed.

Populism doesn't necessarily have one particular home party.  Trumpers would support anything Trump supported, which in this case, was $2k cash to every American. 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

Agreed.

Populism doesn't necessarily have one particular home party.  Trumpers would support anything Trump supported, which in this case, was $2k cash to every American. 

True, there's a lot of voters out there who aren't ideological, and will just vote for the person who they think will give them the most economic benefits. Trump actually managed to turn some of those voters with his populist talk in 2016, but he lost a lot of those same people in 2020 after 4 years of producing a whole lotta nothing.

[downzy]

I'm 80 pages short of finishing Obama's political biography "Promised Land."

What I find incredible is how much Congress got done the first two years of Obama's presidency.  Particularly, the lame duck session after Democrats got blown out in the 2010, with one-quarter of all laws passed during this seven week window.  You can tell Obama regrets not asking Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to do away with the legislative filibuster.  It's a shame Manchin and Simena aren't on board to rid the Senate body of the mechanism that stokes more cynicism in US federal politics.  It will likely be gone eventually; might as well get it over with.  

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

I'm 80 pages short of finishing Obama's political biography "Promised Land."

What I find incredible is how much Congress got done the first two years of Obama's presidency.  Particularly, the lame duck session after Democrats got blown out in the 2010, with one-quarter of all laws passed during this seven week window.  You can tell Obama regrets not asking Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to do away with the legislative filibuster.  It's a shame Manchin and Simena aren't on board to rid the Senate body of the mechanism that stokes more cynicism in US federal politics.  It will likely be gone eventually; might as well get it over with.  

I know it's still somewhat early but where do you rank Obama in terms of "overall presidents"?

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

I know it's still somewhat early but where do you rank Obama in terms of "overall presidents"?

That’s a good question. Where would you rank him?

[Ace Nova]

52 minutes ago, downzy said:

That’s a good question. Where would you rank him?

I don't follow politics enough to have a "historical" response.  But he's been among the better presidents in my lifetime, imo.

[downzy]

42 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't follow politics enough to have a "historical" response.  But he's been among the better presidents in my lifetime, imo.

It's a really difficult question that lacks any real objective answers.

I will say that America generally celebrates and lionizes former Presidents who spoke to the best of America and was able to push the country forward in that direction.  Washington, LIncoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, and arguably Reagan - all of them believed heavily in America as an ideal that could be better realized by appealing (again, to a certain degree) to Americans better selves.  I think Obama certainly fits in that mould.  

There are so many metrics by which Presidents are evaluated.  I do think in some respects Trump will be a more impactful President in the short to medium run but Obama will be celebrated in 100 years in the same way that Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy are celebrated now (while Trump will be considered one of the worst, in line with Nixon, Hoover, Harding, Buchanan).  That isn't to say Obama isn't without his faults. 

One of the interesting things about reading his own summary and analysis of his Presidency (though, his book only covers the events leading up to it and the first two years), is how critical and deferential Obama is concerning the decisions he made as President.  You could throw some of the most common criticisms levelled against him and in most cases he would likely agree with you. 

I do think the effectiveness of his presidency won't be gauged for decades for many, but two particular, reasons.  First, he notes in his book that one of the primary rationales he had for running was to change the way all Americans, but particularly brown and black Americans, look at how and what power can look like.  There were little brown and black kids who probably had their outlooks changed by simply having a person that looks like them become the most powerful man in the world.  I think that means something, but ultimately isn't something that's measurable or will be felt for years to come.  

Second, Obama was a slightly left of centre politician and helped push back the ideological pendulum that had been swinging the other way, ushered in by Reagan.  The pragmatic progressivism that was part of his political orientation will continue to be felt as the country moves back to the centre after 30+ years of conservative dogma ruling political discourse.  There's a democratic/progressive tsunami that's likely coming in American politics that can be sourced back to conservatism's failures but also Obama's appeal in the late 2000s.  Obama was the first real response to Reaganism that was missing from the Clinton years (that papered over and made worse much of what ails America today).  

It's hard for me to objectively put a ranking on it today since, as you said, it's still so early.  It's also difficult for me to be impartial at this particular moment since I'm nearly done his 700 page defence of his Presidency and have a difficult time finding fault with much of his thinking during his time as President.  That isn't to say I think he was perfect, but that it's difficult for me at present to be a bit more objective considering having spent the last six weeks reading his own account.  

[Ace Nova]

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

It's a really difficult question that lacks any real objective answers.

I will say that America generally celebrates and lionizes former Presidents who spoke to the best of America and was able to push the country forward in that direction.  Washington, LIncoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, and arguably Reagan - all of them believed heavily in America as an ideal that could be better realized by appealing (again, to a certain degree) to Americans better selves.  I think Obama certainly fits in that mould.  

There are so many metrics by which Presidents are evaluated.  I do think in some respects Trump will be a more impactful President in the short to medium run but Obama will be celebrated in 100 years in the same way that Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy are celebrated now (while Trump will be considered one of the worst, in line with Nixon, Hoover, Harding, Buchanan).  That isn't to say Obama isn't without his faults. 

One of the interesting things about reading his own summary and analysis of his Presidency (though, his book only covers the events leading up to it and the first two years), is how critical and deferential Obama is concerning the decisions he made as President.  You could throw some of the most common criticisms levelled against him and in most cases he would likely agree with you. 

I do think the effectiveness of his presidency won't be gauged for decades for many, but two particular, reasons.  First, he notes in his book that one of the primary rationales he had for running was to change the way all Americans, but particularly brown and black Americans, look at how and what power can look like.  There were little brown and black kids who probably had their outlooks changed by simply having a person that looks like them become the most powerful man in the world.  I think that means something, but ultimately isn't something that's measurable or will be felt for years to come.  

Second, Obama was a slightly left of centre politician and helped push back the ideological pendulum that had been swinging the other way, ushered in by Reagan.  The pragmatic progressivism that was part of his political orientation will continue to be felt as the country moves back to the centre after 30+ years of conservative dogma ruling political discourse.  There's a democratic/progressive tsunami that's likely coming in American politics that can be sourced back to conservatism's failures but also Obama's appeal in the late 2000s.  Obama was the first real response to Reaganism that was missing from the Clinton years (that papered over and made worse much of what ails America today).  

It's hard for me to objectively put a ranking on it today since, as you said, it's still so early.  It's also difficult for me to be impartial at this particular moment since I'm nearly done his 700 page defence of his Presidency and have a difficult time finding fault with much of his thinking during his time as President.  That isn't to say I think he was perfect, but that it's difficult for me at present to be a bit more objective considering having spent the last six weeks reading his own account.  

That's a great response, one in which I wouldn't of been "qualified" to make given my limited knowledge of what most past presidents accomplished, other than the "Super Stars" like Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy,  Eisenhower etc accomplished. 

This part of your post caught my eye, "The pragmatic progressivism that was part of his political orientation will continue to be felt as the country moves back to the centre after 30+ years of conservative dogma ruling political discourse."

The irony behind the "Make America Great Again" movement is that "most" in that movement wanted an America similar to what it was in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, etc.  What most in the MAGA movement seemed to forget (or not understand) is that the U.S. was much more "socialistic" during those years than it has been over the past 30 years, EVEN during the Obama years (which most seem to think was the beginning of communism in the U.S. LOL).   

The top tax rate in those years was 90% then lowered to 70%.  The idea that we were a "free (er)" country back then is comical.  The difference between now and then isn't the form of government or who's president, it's the people of the U.S., specifically far right conservatives who no longer have the "Do not ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" attitude.  It's quite the opposite mentality now.  They seem to have adopted the, "It's not what I do for my country, it's what they do for me and I refuse to pay taxes if my country doesn't do exactly what I want them to do ." 

How many "MAGA" supporters would agree to a 70% top tax rate if life could go back to being what it was in the 1960's?  

[-W.A.R-]

Biden administration plans to continue to seek extradition of WikiLeaks' Assange

Not what i want to hear. Obviously this is an interim DOJ and i expect the definitive decision to be made once Merrick Garland is confirmed. However they could just not pursue the appeal at this point.

[Ratam]

8 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Biden administration plans to continue to seek extradition of WikiLeaks' Assange

Not what i want to hear. Obviously this is an interim DOJ and i expect the definitive decision to be made once Merrick Garland is confirmed. However they could just not pursue the appeal at this point.

Very sad 😧

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

On 2/4/2021 at 9:26 PM, downzy said:

😂

 

Is this the Lincoln Project?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/politics/john-weaver-lincoln-project-harassment.html

Quote

21 Men Accuse Lincoln Project Co-Founder of Online Harassment

John Weaver, a longtime G.O.P. operative who advised John McCain and John Kasich, made sexual overtures to young men, sometimes offering to help them get work in politics.