[EmperorMagus]

Gnaw, on 11 February 2016 - 04:21 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 11 February 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

Because I was thinking of who Bernie Sanders reminded me of while trying to do more important things.
His campaign strategy (and his opponents) seem so similar to the book "Politician" (Bio of a space tyrant no. 3) that I can't believe I never thought of it.

PS. The first book of that series is horrible, but the rest of the series if worse.

Oh gawd, I had forgotten that particular piece of crap.

That and "Battlefield Earth" compete for the title of worst SF ever written.

It's basically "Make America Great Again!" in space, and a little bit stupider. Also more pedo than Jared.
I've never read Battlefield Earth, I guess I should. (it's like a train wreck.)

[worry]

That's pretty true. Fiorina and Carson have literally nothing to say about anything. I guess the issue with Christie is that he caught so much flack for hugging Obama that he swung all the way right toward generic Republican (I'm not actually sure how Bridgegate played to people who already liked him). In a way, he was "supposed" to have the Trump position -- outspoken, blunt, outsider -- and either he changed into a generic lump or he's been that way and the curtain got pulled away. Either way, he got steamrolled. Right wing media had some role in that, but he should have been better at what he does, too. He rose to the occasion in the last debate, but didn't seem to get a boost from it.

[Gnaw]

EmperorMagus, on 11 February 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

I've never read Battlefield Earth, I guess I should. (it's like a train wreck.)

No. Seriously, no. It's a lot like "Atlas Shrugged" where the 'hero' is given 90 pages to rant.

But worse. The only reason I finished it is because I kept waiting for it get "good".

L. Ron Hubbard was the hottest thing around when "Battlefield Earth" was published. But that's because Scientologists were being told to buy every copy they saw. This guy had intestinal fortitude by the boatload. He lived on a yacht for 7 years because his second wife wire-tapped the IRS. Not the California branch. The Washington, DC offices. Not even Nixon had the balls to do that

[Gnaw]

Dumbledude, on 11 February 2016 - 05:59 AM, said:

He rose to the occasion in the last debate, but didn't seem to get a boost from it.

Too little, too late.

And, which has nothing to do with anything, too fat. We don't elect politicians based on their positions; we do it based upon their Nielsen ratings. Admiral James Stockdale's treatment was simply a pre-cursor to Kerry's swiftboating and Trump's comments on McCain.

[worry]

You know, I was young enough still to not be particularly tuned into politics at that time except in broad strokes, and even then I recognized Stockdale was being transformed into a caricature by people who were supposed to be taking the election seriously. I dunno, my memory, as hazy as it is, is that he was treated so badly when he wasn't being ignored, for what seemed like sport.

[Gnaw]

As much as I despise Dennis Miller* I have to get him credit for his defense of Stockdale. He (Stockdale) didn't perform well on television. The man lost a debate against Dan Quayle. That's a bit like ... I really have no analogy for that. Decorated war hero who publicly called bullshit on the Gulf of Tonkin, spent 7 years in the Hanoi Hiltion, and was promoted to the third highest position in the naval branch versus a man who couldn't spell "potato" and was the foregone front runner for stupidest politician ever until Bachmann and Palin blew that category all to hell.




*He turned from active liberal to outspoken conservative after 9/11. I can see the dichotomy between those positions, but you simply cannot believe the classical liberalism one day and fascism the next. "The courage of you convictions" be damned. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler had their convictions. That's over 100 million lives ended pre-maturely.

[Terez]

Gnaw, on 10 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

I'm so fucking pissed at Elizabeth Warren for not running.

I am massively disappointed but it's hard to be mad at her because she's in a very tough position. Probably every other woman in the Senate would have taken it as some kind of betrayal. They think it's Hillary's "turn". That actually makes sense to people in the Senate, and that's a huge part of the Establishment problem. Furthermore, they might have taken it as personal, since Warren is on video in 2004 challenging Hillary. (You might say Warren helped to keep Hillary on her toes during the rest of her Senate tenure.)

Gnaw, on 10 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

President Trump. Let the roll off your tongue a few times. Because it is currently the most likely scenario in my not so humble opinion*.

I don't think that Trump, even given the conditions at the beginning of this race, is any real match for Bernie. He's not untalented at what he does, but he likes to speak in word salad and doesn't have any real message beyond a faux anti-elite populism and a (probably also faux) xenophobic populism. He's taking advantage of voters' presumed stupidity and there's a real opportunity for either Hillary or Bernie to expose him Christie-style. It's very obvious; it just needs to be pointed out in the right way. Only 48% of Republican voters in NH said they would be happy with him as the nominee. His favorability numbers nationwide are much worse.

Gnaw, on 10 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

*Opinions subject to change solely based upon Terez's commentary. I've decided that she is on par with Christopher Hitchens and TNC; while I may disagree with her on some point or another I do so knowing that it is at my peril.

On the one hand, I'm flattered and a little embarrassed. On the other hand, most of my posts here are just talking out of my ass and I'm surprised they're coherent sometimes, so I have to question your judgment. On the third hand, I've never liked Christopher Hitchens much; he's kind of an asshole, and in the speeches of his I've seen he looks drunk. I've never read any of his books or even been tempted to do so until about a week ago, when I started reading his Clinton polemic, No One Left To Lie To. I'm only a few chapters in but I've kind of grudgingly come to admire his literary and argumentative talents. The book is at the same time incredibly informative and incredibly frustrating because he assumes the reader is familiar with many relatively obscure events of the Clinton era.

Edit:

Gnaw, on 11 February 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

[Dennis Miller] turned from active liberal to outspoken conservative after 9/11. I can see the dichotomy between those positions, but you simply cannot believe the classical liberalism one day and fascism the next. "The courage of you convictions" be damned. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler had their convictions. That's over 100 million lives ended pre-maturely.

Not that it's exactly the same, but this is part of why I had a hard time warming to Hitchens. His support for the Iraq War. I can kind of understand it from the perspective of someone who finds religion doing more harm than good in this world, but that doesn't mean the Iraq War was good foreign policy.

This post has been edited by Terez: 11 February 2016 - 09:54 AM

[Gnaw]

Terez, on 11 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Gnaw, on 10 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

I'm so fucking pissed at Elizabeth Warren for not running.

I am massively disappointed but it's hard to be mad at her because she's in a very tough position. Probably every other woman in the Senate would have taken it as some kind of betrayal. They think it's Hillary's "turn".

Olympia Snow. Susan Collins.

Too soon. But I'd have put either one of them ahead of Hillary as first female president. That visceral, passionate hatred of all things Clinton.

[bubba]

Gnaw, on 11 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Terez, on 11 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Gnaw, on 10 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

I'm so fucking pissed at Elizabeth Warren for not running.

I am massively disappointed but it's hard to be mad at her because she's in a very tough position. Probably every other woman in the Senate would have taken it as some kind of betrayal. They think it's Hillary's "turn".

Olympia Snow. Susan Collins.

Too soon. But I'd have put either one of them ahead of Hillary as first female president. That visceral, passionate hatred of all things Clinton.

I'm hoping That Elizabeth Warren ends up as Bernie's running mate.

[Gorefest]

Sooooo...Do the Republicans have superdelegates as well? Judging by the utter panic among the party establishment in the wake of Trump's success, I gather not?

[Terez]

Bubba, on 11 February 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 11 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Terez, on 11 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Gnaw, on 10 February 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

I'm so fucking pissed at Elizabeth Warren for not running.

I am massively disappointed but it's hard to be mad at her because she's in a very tough position. Probably every other woman in the Senate would have taken it as some kind of betrayal. They think it's Hillary's "turn".

Olympia Snow. Susan Collins.

Too soon. But I'd have put either one of them ahead of Hillary as first female president. That visceral, passionate hatred of all things Clinton.

I'm hoping That Elizabeth Warren ends up as Bernie's running mate.

Now I am wondering if you were one of those "maybe Trump, maybe Bernie" voters.

Gorefest, on 11 February 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

Sooooo...Do the Republicans have superdelegates as well? Judging by the utter panic among the party establishment in the wake of Trump's success, I gather not?

They have them, but it's not really clear whether it will make much difference in their race yet, so no one is really talking about it. Many of the Democratic superdelegates have already pledged to Hillary (though they can change their minds) but the Republicans don't have a clear Establishment front-runner yet. It comes up more in the D conversation because Hillary has a real Establishment advantage.

[Gorefest]

Seems rather undemocratic. Why go through the whole process of determining front runners if behind the screens the party establishment can just shoot them down regardless? Make the whole thing a bit of a puppet show.

[Terez]

Gorefest, on 11 February 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Seems rather undemocratic. Why go through the whole process of determining front runners if behind the screens the party establishment can just shoot them down regardless? Make the whole thing a bit of a puppet show.

I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread* that the typical educated Republican response to this is that we were always intended to be a Republic rather than a true democracy; our founders believed in the principle of majority rule but they gave the Elite the power to make adjustments when the difference in the popular vote was small enough. In other words, the Establishment can't just override any election; they can just make the difference when the popular vote is divided, and for the most part they were themselves elected by some approximation of popular vote that is close enough to being actual democratic rule that it isn't inherently tyrannical.

This is arguably smart because it can prevent people like Donald Trump from coming to power. Most people aren't stupid and don't want him. His favorability numbers are bad even inside the party; they're worse nationally; the only way he can win is if the anti-Trump vote is divided. If the Elite can't stop him from winning the nomination, they have another chance to stop him if Bloomberg gets in and spoils the general election—but again, only if the vote is close enough. The electoral college is kind of an automatic check on the popular vote, but we saw it go even beyond the electoral college in Bush v. Gore 2000. Bush could have won Florida by a relatively small but clear margin and we would have had the check on the popular vote without the SCOTUS check.

*Not saying anyone should have necessarily read this; just apologizing for repeating myself.

This post has been edited by Terez: 11 February 2016 - 05:28 PM

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 07 February 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

Also Cruz's roommate Craig Mazin is awesome.

Tweet

Link to this post. I was actually kind of worried he would retweet it or quote the tweet, but fortunately he just liked it and didn't expose us to too much traffic. Smart guy. He probably has his own internet holes to hide in. (I would have probably deleted the tweet if he'd done that.)

[Terez]

As all eyes turn to South Carolina, the battle for the black vote is heating up. Yesterday, Ben Jealous (aforementioned former NAACP president and Bernie endorser) made the rounds on the politics shows, and early in the morning, Michelle Alexander expanded her argument from Facebook (which I linked and quoted earlier) into an article crossposted on The Nation and The Root.

Michelle Alexander said:

Black voters have been remarkably loyal to the Clintons for more than 25 years. It's true that we eventually lined up behind Barack Obama in 2008, but it's a measure of the Clinton allure that Hillary led Obama among black voters until he started winning caucuses and primaries. Now Hillary is running again. This time she's facing a democratic socialist who promises a political revolution that will bring universal health care, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed and the dismantling of the vast prison state—many of the same goals that Martin Luther King Jr. championed at the end of his life. Even so, black folks are sticking with the Clinton brand.

What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization and the disappearance of work?

No. Quite the opposite.

This came right after the Democracy Now! segment where TNC said he was voting for Bernie. He later posted a note at The Atlantic about how it wasn't an endorsement, that he doesn't believe in endorsements, and even if he did, he wouldn't necessarily think himself qualified as a "thought leader" on this topic. (If you'll notice, when I mentioned this earlier, I didn't use the word "endorse"; he didn't use it in the original DN segment so I figured he didn't see it that way.) But the subtext of his essay on endorsement is that he doesn't think anyone in this race should feel entitled to the black vote, and that in itself probably influenced his own decision to vote for Bernie. The other subtext is that he feels most qualified when it comes to matters of racial justice:

TNC said:

The idea that anyone would cast a vote because of how I am casting my vote makes my skin crawl. It misses the point of everything I've been trying to do in my time at The Atlantic. The point is to get people to question, not to recruit them into a religion. Citizens are not sheep. They do not need shepherds, and even if they did I would be poorly qualified. I have thought quite deeply about the problem of racism in American society. I have thought somewhat deeply about inequality and the social safety net. I have though only modestly about foreign policy and the environment. And I haven't thought much at all about net neutrality. I voted for the first time in 2008, following years of skepticism about electoral politics. Whatever. The point is that this is not the record of someone who should be telling other citizens how to vote.

[...] It is important to say this not just as a writer, but as a black writer. Too often individuals are appointed to speak for black people. I don't want any part of it. Black voters deserve to be addressed in all of their beautiful and wonderful complications, not through the lens of unelected "thought-leaders."

Today, all the headlines were about how the Congressional Black Caucus was endorsing Hillary. This is a big deal; it's basically composed of all the black members of Congress. But this morning, Democracy Now! interviewed Rep. Barbara Lee, who claims all the headlines are wrong: it's on the CBC PAC that is endorsing Hillary.

Democracy Now said:

AMY GOODMAN: And today, Hillary Clinton is expected to pick up a key endorsement from the PAC of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congress member Barbara Lee, you're a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which is announcing today its support for Hillary Clinton. Do you join in that endorsement?

REP. BARBARA LEE: Amy, first of all, I want to make it clear there's a clear distinction between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC. We actually have a Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. I don't want the viewers, your viewers, to believe that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC are one and the same.

I have not endorsed in the campaign. I think what is important is that the issues be addressed, as Reverend Al said. I think it's important that both candidates answer these questions in a forthright manner. And I believe that right now, for many of us, the importance of getting people to vote, the importance of getting people to the polls in November, to make sure that we do not have a Republican in the White House, that is high priority for me—voter registration, get out to vote—and really making sure that our young people, especially, are energized, mobilized and get to the polls in November. We cannot have a Republican president in the White House. I think we see now what the Republicans stand for, who they are, all of the candidates, the values. And so, it's absolutely essential that we get the vote out in November to win.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, this distinction you're making, I think, is lost on most people, so if you would explain it further. I mean, the big headlines today are that the Congressional Black Caucus is endorsing Hillary Clinton. Can you explain the difference between the Congressional Black Caucus PAC and the Congressional Black Caucus?

REP. BARBARA LEE: The Congressional Black Caucus, like the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the New Dems, the Blue Dogs, we have caucuses here in the House of Representatives which reflect points of views, political philosophy, the approach to our democracy, you know, and how we work within the policy framework of the House of Representatives. The Congressional Black Caucus PAC is a PAC that supports candidates. It raises money, and it helps candidates win elections. And there's a clear distinction between that—as I said earlier, we have a Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. That has nothing to do with the Congressional Black Caucus PAC.

AMY GOODMAN: Who is the PAC? Who decided to endorse Hillary Clinton?

REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, I am not a member of the CBC political action committee. And I think it's important to discuss that with the PAC members. Once again, there's a clear firewall. There's a clear distinction.

Lots of black Hillary surrogates are making the rounds on TV today, many of them making misleading arguments about Bernie—I saw Hakeem Jeffries on earlier—and the black journalists I follow on Twitter are all aflitter. It's fun to watch; some of them are starting to seriously consider Bernie (having only just now begun to see him as electable). MLK ally John Lewis got annoyed when he was questioned about Bernie, probably because he's tired of hearing about how Bernie marched with MLK. Bernie himself doesn't mention this very often any more (he mentioned it today); it's mostly his supporters who keep bringing it up.

Finally (if I'm not forgetting anyone important), Harry Belafonte just released this really nice Bernie endorsement:

This post has been edited by Terez: 11 February 2016 - 10:58 PM

[worry]

I'm kinda getting scared more about turnout than anything. I don't think Hillary inspires huge turnout, and that's only gonna be worse if it's a superdelegate issue. I also wonder though if a brokered convention for the GOP would do the same thing. There's so much potential for "shenanigans" on both sides this year. Still, it'll be interesting to see if Hillary and Trump inspire turnout in the people voting against the other candidate kind of way. That'd be a funny turn of events.

[worry]

Gnaw, on 11 February 2016 - 02:25 AM, said:

Dumbledude, on 11 February 2016 - 01:29 AM, said:

Speaking of white male dicks getting in the way of progress, Kasich signed the Ohio bill cutting off Planned Parenthood funding, sure to waste $ futilely defending that in court. Way to think of the long game, bozo.

The very sad part of that statement is: he's the sanest Republican.

What sane'll get you in the GOP:


http://mediamatters....in-had-w/208513

[Terez]

Dem debate happening tonight in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Next contest for Dems is a week from Saturday in Nevada; the next week is South Carolina. (Republicans hold their Nevada caucuses on the same day as the SC primary.)

[Terez]

The debate was not nearly as ugly as I expected it to be.

[worry]

I didn't get to see it, but I did watch a clip of Bernie bringing up Kissinger and it was righteous.

Also, this came out today, and it's really lovely: