-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra |OT12| The Moscow Project
- Thread starter Deleted member 2083
- Start date
- Status
Iran deserves it because ayatollah said death to America and Israel. Oh, and thank you Pres - T for protecting the world from Iran's nukes! #MAGA
How I choose to interpret it:
Just Garrison-label the nitrous booster "Subpoenas", Sweet JP's car "Checks and Balances", and Sweet JP as "Angry Democrat Committee Heads."
Am I the only one that thinks anyone who refers to themself in the third person should be tarred, feathered, and then made to wear a sign that says 'I'm a moron' for eternity?
The Dems will likely seek the personal emails and try to see if there are any bombshells in them. If yes, then greater attention will be placed on them. If there isn't anything too bad then we a low-key approval to the email nonsense is better than having it fizzle out to be a big fat nothing after "hyping" it up.
How do we get from congressional investigations to actual indictments anyway?
Let's say the various House Comittees issue a shitload of subpoenas come next year. What if those Trump cronies just go "Lol, nope"? Wouldn't it be up to the DoJ to actually enforce them and/or pursue those contempt of Congress charges? What happens if Whitaker just goes "Lol, nope" (which he definitely will)?
And let's say those congressional investigations manage to uncover a shitload of corruption (to the surprise of absolutely no one). Wouldn't it again be up to the DoJ to indict those people then? What happens if Whitaker then just goes "Lol, nope" as well (which he will)?
Let's say the various House Comittees issue a shitload of subpoenas come next year. What if those Trump cronies just go "Lol, nope"? Wouldn't it be up to the DoJ to actually enforce them and/or pursue those contempt of Congress charges? What happens if Whitaker just goes "Lol, nope" (which he definitely will)?
And let's say those congressional investigations manage to uncover a shitload of corruption (to the surprise of absolutely no one). Wouldn't it again be up to the DoJ to indict those people then? What happens if Whitaker then just goes "Lol, nope" as well (which he will)?
http://bostonreview.net/politics/helena-rosenblatt-what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-liberalism
I think this is a fantastic piece. Sharing this because as you look around the globe, it's hard to see anything but a global challenge to (or collapse of, depending how you see it) the neoliberal order.
Really interested to see what the Dems look like in the next decade. The party needs a significant tectonic shift to address the changing global landscape - it needs to rebuild its coalition with the workers fundamentally.
I think this is a fantastic piece. Sharing this because as you look around the globe, it's hard to see anything but a global challenge to (or collapse of, depending how you see it) the neoliberal order.
Really interested to see what the Dems look like in the next decade. The party needs a significant tectonic shift to address the changing global landscape - it needs to rebuild its coalition with the workers fundamentally.
Just wait until they invest the State's pension into Doge Coin. Shit's gon get wild
That's not at all what he is saying. Not sure how you can look at the global landscape and think this either.
Only the white workers seem reluctant to vote for Democrats. I wonder why.
Racism.
The party has abandoned labor though. Quite frankly I think we're still experiencing fallout from the financial crisis that we won't fully understand for years to come.
Like 98% of the Black "Working Class" supports Democrats so when disingenuous political pundits say that the Dems need to do more to appeal to the "Working Class" they mean White racists.
I might be reading the wrong tweet - but I don't see that.
My point was a broader one about neoliberalism - the NYT piece isn't really about this. Read the Boston review piece I posted.
The party has not abandoned labor, it has mostly just stopped prioritizing white male labor over the actual labor force. The fact that some people are interpreting that as a move away from labor is telling.
That doesn't matter.
The Democrats have abandoned labor. They totally championed right-to-work laws. They refused to offer solutions and help to people affected by offshoring and free trade, except all those times they offered retraining and talked about improving infrastructure and telecommuting opportunities in those areas, talked about expanding the safety net and tackling the drug crisis, etc. But apart from that, nothing.
We're a party of neoliberal cosmopolitan corporatist centrists and all those other words that basically mean "racist white people don't like us," and we have to be better because the mark of true virtue is appealing to salt-of-the-earth factory workers who haven't voted Democratic in fifty years.
EDIT: Blast said it far more concisely.
It's difficult to look at the world right now and not come to the conlusion that yes, liberalism is in decline. The problem is the working class, specifically, the working class of whatever local group counts as an equivalent to US whites. Confronted with information overload, they have regressed into strongman politics.
The solution is to crush them, and remove their political influence, not abandon cosmopolitan democracy. Fuck that.
The solution is to crush them, and remove their political influence, not abandon cosmopolitan democracy. Fuck that.
I mean, I don't think this is true. The Democrats have had some failures on economic policy and we need to recognize that in order to grow. It doesn't mean our intersectional efforts aren't also necessary.
the whole point of the nate Silver thing is that democrats who tried to appeal to racist white workers did just as poorly in rural areas
The Dems are of course far superior to the ghouls on the right. My point is this - if you look around the globe and see the rise of far right populism - the Dems need a sweeping change in economic thought. It needs to be comprehensive Wall Street reform, anti monopoly efforts, re kindle unionization, etc.
Just like it looks like we're slowly ambling towards a climate future that requires major shifts in policy thought - the coalescing of capital at the top requires radical change.
As the country got more partisan it is significant more difficult to pass any progressive legislation. The Democrats would need complete control over congress and the courts to sufficiently show that their economic policies are beneficial. However, even if they have complete control over Congress, the more conservative members will likely weaken the legislation.
To add insult to injury, the carbon tax system won't even hurt the economy that much of at all. It just won't grow as fast by a negligible amount at the beggining of its implementation but actually end up accelerating it in the medium term because it's pretty much a wealth redistribution system. Consumers usually end up with more money than what they started with as they change thier behaviors to be more carbon neutral.
This little fucker.
This little fucker.
Is he confusing "big D Democratic" liberalism with "small d democratic" liberalism? Because I'm not aware of any popular arguments suggesting society is becoming less cosmopolitan.
Do people make arguments that geographic changes against the current electoral systems might create a decline in big D Democratic liberal political power? Yeah.
Do people make arguments that we're becoming more illiberal, more anti-democratic as we destroy norms and corrode our ability to govern? Yeah.
Do people make arguments that society is leaving big cities, moving to rural areas, and becoming more conservative in their ideology? Uh, no.
Last edited:
Another of the Never Nancys says he'll vote for her on the floor if there's no other viable candidate.
So he's voting for Pelosi.
Pure theater.
Dude seems more like an overdone Saints Row character than a real politician. It was funny to watch him and Nunes handle themselves with such contrasting but disingenuous styles. Gowdy was crispy dried hair gel and personal gain and Nunes was senpai sweat and open panic. But two sides of the same coin.
Oh no people are reading Nate's political opinions again. This happens after every good run of math.
Democrats do need to go further than they have before on plenty of issues. But, I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. There's a big assumption that the reason that a significant portion of the population is moving rightward is solely or mostly due to the country not appropriately targeting the financial elites' and corporations' wealth - that the grievances of the the working class is the 1% .
The problem is that a lot of the population does not see it that way. If they did then the right-wing populists around the world would be doing just, but for many of them they are doing the opposite. The main grievances of the WWC in this country and the supporters of them from other countries has more to do with culture and social liberalism, than anything else ; studies have consistently demonstrated that. A matter of fact that is lost on many is that a lot of WWC still support right-wing economic policies and social policies(while at the same time supporting some left-wing economic policies as well.). The suspicion I have for the reason that they do back government welfare is because of entitlement( they deserve the benefits for their years of hard work), but they don't think others should deserve it because the others are lazy.
Justin - this might help explain it.
https://medium.com/@ebruenig/understanding-liberals-versus-the-left-5cff7ea41fd8
https://medium.com/@ebruenig/understanding-liberals-versus-the-left-5cff7ea41fd8
Hes talking about positions of punditry, not the actual facts.
And ranting against "elites" has been super in vogue for decades upon decades.
100% guaranteed they're instantly converting it into cash. It's really stupid to treat bitcoin any other way.
At this very moment in 2018 - do you believe neoliberalism is succeeding in the world?
Actually curious - because I know you're a capitalist / believe neoliberalism can be harnessed to fix society.
I don't actually know that it cannot, I am just increasingly suspicious as economic power becomes more concentrated and increasingly tied to our political system.
That isn't really a new argument. "Doing it for grant money" has been an argument against climate change for 25+ years.
If only the oil and natural gas industry could compete with Big Gofundme Seaweed Biofuel experiment.
The worst part is that they believe scientists on literally everything else, its just this one thing they're lying about.
do they? all environmental issues, evolution, quantitative economics research on austerity and trickle-down econ not working, race being a social construct, sexual orientation and gender identity not being choices.....
yeup. conservative thought has a pretty strong dislike of fact-checking that played smoothly into trumpism's rebellion against the concept of being good at things.
Granted I don't think it matters but they've amplified this story in a way it would not have been if they simply accepted Pelosi quietly. This reminds me of the initial anti-Boehner plots from republicans. Disorganized and half assed. If you come at the king or queen you can't miss.
- Status