Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - tyrannosaurus vex

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 272
1
Between gerrymandering and democrat fecklessness, the GOP will strengthen their hold in 2018. 

You saw it here first.  There is no series of events in view that allows the situation to get better.

Disagree. This outlook is not sufficiently sadistic to mesh well with the character of this century. I think 2018 will show a slight tick back in Democrats' favor, maybe even the House or the Senate will flip. This will mean nothing functionally, of course. We will continue to slip slowly downward. Then, in 2020, all the other shoes will drop, Trump will be re-elected in an actual landslide somehow, and nobody will even bother pretending there's a republic anymore by about March of 2021.

2
I know the JD are not a political party, though they are a little more organized and intentional than most of the Tea Party was in 2009/2010. I also know that there are serious corpocratic tendencies in the Democratic Party that are legitimate problems that need legitimate solutions. But the JD are an outgrowth of the "Never Hillary" Berniebots who sat out the last election or tossed their votes uselessly to a 3rd-party candidate knowing full well the result this would have. It isn't that there aren't enough resources or reasons to fight more than one fight at a time, it's that this fight is one whose outcome we have already seen and are already living with. It's also one more area that has been touched by the scourge of fanatical extremism, one more coalition threatened with extinction because it has become self-aware and self-loathing.

Democratic fractionalization isn't just a narrative, it's a reality that cost us an election that should have been easy. It illustrates that the Democratic Party's coalition is absolutely essential. It doesn't win elections without internal integrity and compromise. When it frays and falls apart, America still has a core of white nationalism big enough to pick up the pieces, of which I am sure you are more acutely aware than I am. Of course we have to keep having dialogue and even disagreement within the coalition, but we can't afford another election where we turn on each other and refuse to come together for the common good.

The kind of language employed by the Justice Democrats picks up where the sneering condescension left off in 2016 and will only get worse as we approach the midterms of 2018. I can't see that resulting in anything other than a whole ticket full of microcosmic reproductions of the Clinton/Sanders primary, splitting the Democrats' votes and in many cases allowing whatever passes for Republican after their next primary a clear shot at general elections. If the JD can manage to push the Democrats farther left, I'd be thrilled. But more likely, they'll just discourage moderates from bothering at all.

3
I know better than to try and continue a line of thought once you've declared it wrong, so I concede. I can settle for 3rd or 4th smartest guy in the room.

4
I also feel the need to point out that despite being the oldest continuously-existing political party in the world, it has also almost never been anything BUT fractious, and certainly not at all in the last 100 years. The Republican party has been hooting and gnashing about how little Democrats agree with each other for as long as it has existed. It's literally their one big dead horse that they won't stop beating. The reason for this is that the Democratic party, ie. the people who register Democrat, spans very different populations with very different priorities. That liberal white people and conservative black people agree on enough to register in the same party to begin with is nothing short of astonishing. So the nonstop wailing about how the Democratic party is "fractionalized" or "imploding" is basically occurring as individual people notice something that has never not been the case in their lifetimes.

Yeah, I know all of this. Of course it has been fractious and divided, like everything any group of humans do. I'm not commenting on that obvious fact. I'm commenting on the need to not only be fractured and exclusive but the need to more or less declare open war on the other half of the coalition as if they're a bigger enemy than the actual enemies. That it isn't enough to be a coalition (however fractious), that "coalitions" themselves are now insufficient for progress. There have always been differences of opinion and even strong disagreement under the Democratic roof, of course, and I'm not naive enough to think there hasn't been. It's the shift to a bridge-burning tone that I object to.

It's just another log on the fire that is currently consuming the republic. This anti-coalition, True-Believerism that says if you're not 100% on my side of all the lines, then you must be a mortal enemy. We are no longer interested in any kind of compromise. If you agree on everything but one issue, that one issue will become so important that it eclipses every other area where cooperation might have happened. It already ate up the GOP, but it took them 30 years to do it. The Democratic Party is probably going to take half that time and may not even survive. As naive as it would be to think that the Democrats have ever been homogeneous or entirely unified, it would be equally unobservant to think that those divisions are not growing deeper and faster in the last few years. I'm not talking about our differences, I'm talking about the rapidity with which they are expanding beyond any hope of reconciliation. The differences aren't new -- our complete abandonment of any hope of overcoming them is, or at least, we haven't seen it this bad for 150 years.

Do I really have to point out your error of assumption, here? It's literally the same one I already pointed out.

I have no particular desire to apologize for the occasional lingual shortcut through territory best by sniping pedants. The gist, I think, was clear enough. We have more pressing causes to fight for at the moment than insufficient dedication to Progressive-ism. Let's worry about the Nazi infestation that threatens the lives of people forst, then maybe if there are still enough of us standing, turn guns on the Corpocrats. But if it's not a position worthy of voicing out loud, or one that can be acknowledged without being picked apart because it wasn't phrased quite right, Ican keep it to myself.

5
I liked the look on Netanyahu's face during their little press statement. He had the same exasperated look that a kindergarten teacher has when she's trying to corral a particularly dense kid back into the lunch line.

6
The left hates each other more than they hate the alt-right.  Dress it up all you like, doesn't change the facts.

The two main factions of the left are now even more rabid with respect to each other than they were during the primaries, because they are - like all humans - dumb as fuck and possessing the survival instincts of a dodo.  I am honest puzzled as to how we survived the interval between "falling out of the trees" and "inventing the shotgun".

This is why the right is shitting the place up with very little actual opposition..."All that evil requires is for good people to act like dumbasses."

Clearly, we have collectively decided that surviving was a bad move. We have spent our entire history trying to undo that mistake.

7
So, this was a thing today:



What's the problem? He told reporters, not the Russians. Sheesh.

8
I also feel the need to point out that despite being the oldest continuously-existing political party in the world, it has also almost never been anything BUT fractious, and certainly not at all in the last 100 years. The Republican party has been hooting and gnashing about how little Democrats agree with each other for as long as it has existed. It's literally their one big dead horse that they won't stop beating. The reason for this is that the Democratic party, ie. the people who register Democrat, spans very different populations with very different priorities. That liberal white people and conservative black people agree on enough to register in the same party to begin with is nothing short of astonishing. So the nonstop wailing about how the Democratic party is "fractionalized" or "imploding" is basically occurring as individual people notice something that has never not been the case in their lifetimes.

Yeah, I know all of this. Of course it has been fractious and divided, like everything any group of humans do. I'm not commenting on that obvious fact. I'm commenting on the need to not only be fractured and exclusive but the need to more or less declare open war on the other half of the coalition as if they're a bigger enemy than the actual enemies. That it isn't enough to be a coalition (however fractious), that "coalitions" themselves are now insufficient for progress. There have always been differences of opinion and even strong disagreement under the Democratic roof, of course, and I'm not naive enough to think there hasn't been. It's the shift to a bridge-burning tone that I object to.

It's just another log on the fire that is currently consuming the republic. This anti-coalition, True-Believerism that says if you're not 100% on my side of all the lines, then you must be a mortal enemy. We are no longer interested in any kind of compromise. If you agree on everything but one issue, that one issue will become so important that it eclipses every other area where cooperation might have happened. It already ate up the GOP, but it took them 30 years to do it. The Democratic Party is probably going to take half that time and may not even survive. As naive as it would be to think that the Democrats have ever been homogeneous or entirely unified, it would be equally unobservant to think that those divisions are not growing deeper and faster in the last few years. I'm not talking about our differences, I'm talking about the rapidity with which they are expanding beyond any hope of reconciliation. The differences aren't new -- our complete abandonment of any hope of overcoming them is, or at least, we haven't seen it this bad for 150 years.

9
Can't we just get it over with and become a four party system? The Asshole Right, the GOP, the Dems, and the Fart-Huffers.


I mean, I'd probably be more politically aligned with the Huffers, but still.

Well, clearly we are working on that. Give it until maybe 2022 or so.

10
Aneristic Illusions / Democrats Decide to Just Go Ahead and Implode
« on: May 21, 2017, 09:59:31 am »
In true Democrat form, the Democratic Party has chosen this particular moment in history to have an existential crisis and turn inward to eat itself.

Meet the Justice Democrats, swooping in at just the wrong moment to save the American Left from any possibility of victory in 2018.

No doubt taking inspiration from the GOP's TEA Party conniption from 2010, the Justice Democrats are the spine the Democrats have never had, without all that messy connective tissue or muscular system that goes along with moving and doing things. Their website/manifesto declares war on "Corporate Democrats" who have "Allowed the Republicans to take control of most state legislatures" and whatever. Having convinced themselves that the only real antidote to American Fascism is a bout of hard-line socialism, they intend to attack unworthy and insufficiently true-believing Democrats in primaries across the country next year, and ... defeat them?

I'm all for taking a more progressive stance on issues. But this BernieBot Army is exactly the wrong way to do that. And, of course, since it is exactly the wrong way to go about making a political comeback, you can depend on the Democrats to pull it off -- flawlessly and spectacularly, in an inspiring display of self-immolation and utter collapse.

Seriously, though, maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but it's hard to see the chance of success in this. On the surface, it seems like all good intentions and warm fuzzy pep rallies. But as with any "goddammit you're moving too slow" political movement, it is sure to be overrun with increasingly fractious and myopic pet-project activists -- ultimately causing the disintegration of every last coalition in the Democratic Party's base. Their entire reason for existing is already because they're better/smarter/faster than Those Other Democrats, and only a fool would think that isn't going to translate downward to the membership of this group.

So yeah, go ahead and have fun with 2018, I guess. I'm just going to have a nightshade cocktail and sleep until this whole thing blows over.

11
It's actually a plane of existence.

My life's goal is to have this much free time. Seriously, what the fuck.

12
No no, not just any Italian guy. He has to be a mechanic. Plumbers are fine.

ETA: Maybe it isn't the Italian part, maybe it's the mechanic part. The guy just happened to be Italian this time. Is "mechanic" a race?

13
I realized today that I am somewhat racist against middle-aged Italian guys who have mustaches, if they also own a mechanic shop. I don't know how to feel about this other than ashamed and a little bit confused.

14
I was just reading a good article on that: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-james-comey-told-me-about-donald-trump

This disturbs me, not just because of the content and character of this kind of inappropriate contact, but because it still technically comes down to how Comey "felt" about it. There may be nothing overtly criminal in it. It's unusual, even inappropriate ethically, but not illegal. And even if it was illegal, there's a whole ocean full of ways for Trump loyalists to call it hearsay and speculation. Hopefully when Comey testifies later this/next month, or at least in private conversations with Mueller's investigation, he can bring something more than "he made me feel dirty". But Comey at least seems to be a person who is smart enough not to get himself into the situation he's in now with nothing to back himself up.

Nothing to hide...

The fact that this is already public knowledge is great, but I hope Rosenstein can come through on this waiver. Given Mueller's own history in the DOJ/FBI, I don't doubt his personal honesty or thoroughness just because he worked for a firm that represented Trump (unlike Lieberman who owns a firm that represents Trump and is apparently about to be nominated for the FBI directorship). But my paranoid half worries he was the one appointed as Special Counsel precisely because of this rule, in order to insulate Trump and his closest circle from the investigation.

15
So, today's roundup:

Someone whose named rhymes with Kared Jushner is being investigated by the FBI for their links to the ever-expanding Russia scandal.

The Special Counsel's team has been looking into the impeachment process "for research purposes".

The Israeli agent who was burned by Trump was not only an asset on ISIS, but also on Hezbollah.  Israeli intelligence is beyond outraged at this. 

And Russian officials bragged that they could use Michael Flynn to influence Trump.

Also I just saw another one of those "someone close to Comey" things, saying Comey is now convinced Trump was intentionally trying to sway him on the Russia investigation. Maybe a twig, but on the fire it goes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 272