Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:44 pm

Holman wrote:In Biden's fantasy, a fair and robust GOP contending with a fair and robust Democratic party would be a great thing for America.

While I agree the Republican party seems beyond redemption at this point, I don't know how we reduce tribalism in American politics by digging in on our positions. At some point something's got to give if we want to get out of this "cold Civil War" (as it has been described).

Biden does have the political experience and know-how to work with Republicans in a way Warren, Sanders, etc. don't have a chance in hell of doing. And while it's a bitter pill to swallow, that may be what the country needs to avoid completely ripping itself apart. Maybe that's why he's leading the pack. He's a safe bet in an election year when democracy is literally on the line like no other time in recent history - perhaps in all history.

That's not an endorsement of Biden, just an observation.

I couldn't disagree more. Biden isn't a safe bet at all. He is a huge risk due to his inadequacies which I think are well documented but I'll speak to further on. I do agree that tribalism is a major problem...maybe the biggest current issue..and there is no present mechanism to deal with it. The hope that some centrist will get enough support feels fantastical right now. In the end, we are facing years or decades of political gridlock/strife. The last ten years have born that out. Something isn't going to give most likely absent a collapse of our current form of government. And the chances of that rise dramatically in the event of another Trump electoral college win without a popular mandate that keeps the Senate and possibly flips the House back. The risk to this system is immense right now.

Just play out the next month or two: the House will impeach Trump before Christmas, this will flood the air waves with complete noise as the disinformation machine kicks into overdrive, and we will see a trial aimed for late January. They will time it to impact the Democratic primaries and pollute them. They will inflict as much damage as possible by dragging in Hunter Biden type "witnesses" on the road to quickly acquit Trump. I expect to see the "whistle blower" dragged in against his will. I also expect attacks on all the major centrists to be proxied via the trial. The more centrists damaged the better. During all this, the media and Russian disinformation campaigns will broadcast/distort all of this in a hundred fractured ways and further corrupt the electorate.

Meanwhile the Democrats will be playing out their process across Iowa/New Hampshire/etc. The number and general weakness of those candidates will be on full display. On top, they face a moderate risk that foreign or domestic agents will announce investigations to dirty up Democratic candidates. It might be too early and we'll see this in the summer when it'll be more effective and Trump is unchained by acquittal. We even see the outlines of Democrats dirtying up competing candidates. One example are the Bernie Bros waging war against Pete complaining about his work at McKinsey for instance.

Back to Biden, his campaigning mediocrity and general inability to face reality is going to be a factor here as well. The Democrats need a fighter who is realistic about how bad this year is going to be. Biden is not that person. His rose-colored glasses are from another era. The Democrats need a war chief. Someone who will survive the inevitable attacks on their character and also can build a big coalition. I don't see that person running right now. Ultimately, barring a miracle I think we will see that this is a weak field when we needed an Obama-type figure.

Anyway, it isn't hard to predict this is is going to be the ugliest election year ever. All bets are off and it is nearly impossible to look out beyond the trial now even except in the broadest sense. The level of chaos in this increasingly failing system is just too high and most of our institutions too battered to defend us.

I know this sounds very dark but I think it is an honest accounting of how bad it is. It isn't a fascist uprising for sure but instead it is the slow grinding death of an empire at a critical time in world history. We can't solve actual problems and instead are causing *more problems* for ourselves down the road. The only thing going for the United States is employment right now and it hasn't exactly been driving prosperity in a broad sense. In all this, I think it is safe to say life won't be affected for many of us near-term but if you are listening to the most vulnerable of us, they are terrified and have every right to be. Hope is in very short supply right now if you hope for good governance and justice.

YellowKing wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:44 pm

Holman wrote:In Biden's fantasy, a fair and robust GOP contending with a fair and robust Democratic party would be a great thing for America.

While I agree the Republican party seems beyond redemption at this point, I don't know how we reduce tribalism in American politics by digging in on our positions. At some point something's got to give if we want to get out of this "cold Civil War" (as it has been described).

One does not simply walk away from civil war. There is a clear bad guy here. If the GOP returns to its senses, we can open peace negotiations. Otherwise, this only ends with one side crushing the other. It's not looking great for the good guys right now, but that's how movies always go.

Politico: Biden is signalling to aides that he will only serve a single term.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he will serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicate that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

This would be ridiculous if there weren't so much at stake.

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:01 amBack to Biden, his campaigning mediocrity and general inability to face reality is going to be a factor here as well. The Democrats need a fighter who is realistic about how bad this year is going to be. Biden is not that person. His rose-colored glasses are from another era. The Democrats need a war chief. Someone who will survive the inevitable attacks on their character and also can build a big coalition. I don't see that person running right now. Ultimately, barring a miracle I think we will see that this is a weak field when we needed an Obama-type figure.

Anyway, it isn't hard to predict this is is going to be the ugliest election year ever. All bets are off and it is nearly impossible to look out beyond the trial now even except in the broadest sense. The level of chaos in this increasingly failing system is just too high and most of our institutions too battered to defend us.

I know this sounds very dark but I think it is an honest accounting of how bad it is. It isn't a fascist uprising for sure but instead it is the slow grinding death of an empire at a critical time in world history. We can't solve actual problems and instead are causing *more problems* for ourselves down the road. The only thing going for the United States is employment right now and it hasn't exactly been driving prosperity in a broad sense. In all this, I think it is safe to say life won't be affected for many of us near-term but if you are listening to the most vulnerable of us, they are terrified and have every right to be. Hope is in very short supply right now if you hope for good governance and justice.

You paint such a realistic scenario and bleak picture it makes me want to crawl into a shell and hide from reality lol. Or maybe move to Canada.

But instead, I'm going to try to hold onto a glimmer of hope and try to maintain a positive mindset by continuing to support Pete. He's the closest thing to an "Obama-type" figure in the race, and although he may not have the same level of charisma, etc. I'd say in other ways he is just as strong if not stronger. What he might lack in political experience he makes up for with raw intelligence and strategic decision-making, plus he knows how to surround himself with strong people in areas he isn't as good at. But most importantly for me, setting the other things aside, you can tell he is just a really good person with a really big, service-oriented heart, who believes in helping people. I like the last sentence you wrote, "Hope is in very short supply right now if you hope for good governance and justice" - when I read it the first thing I thought was this is what Pete is campaigning for and what some of us are still (maybe naively) dreaming of.

Just to throw another potentially Republic slaying element into the nation's ugliest election the SCOTUS has wisely decided to hear all 3 pending Trump investigation cases in March. So sometime around May/June we will find out if we have a 'king' or not. Honestly these are too black and white. If Trump wins, then its truly over. I'm obviously negative about our future but I think it is slow, grinding versus quick and a Trump victory would be a quick death. Trump unbound and unaccountable would mean the election wouldn't be free or untampered with.

Edit: On the flip side, if Trump loses all his financials spill out right at the beginning of the summer and I expect a lot of bad in there. Even if it is just twisted it is going to be a mess for him. There is a lot to unpack on the SCOTUS' action here because not granting cert would have been tantamount to ruling against him anyway. You have to wonder if they are going to get all tactical in the ruling. There are many possibilties right now. One other take is that this gives Trump another 6 month delay which validates his stonewall strategy. In that aspect I think this is just another system failure playing out.

Edit 2: Ugh. Popehat just said this feels ominous.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Popehat/stat ... 3228324864

It is ominous, especially because both the constitution and precedent are pretty clearly not in Trump's favor.

It strikes me as a very activist potential ruling.

Almost every non right-wing pundit says the issues are clear. So yes it would be incredibly activist to step on all the lower courts on this. It just is astonishing how much risk this system is experiencing and still most people do not get it.

I wish Popehat would say more about how it seems ominous. It makes me nervous given the stakes, but the Supreme Court taking cert here I am inclined to see mainly as a factor of the importance of the cases (e.g., the President is involved). So I don't think that them taking it means that they're necessarily planning on going full MAGA on this. So I still think it's probable that they uphold the rulings, though I wouldn't be shocked if they knocked some part of the subpoenas out in one of the cases.

The consequences of the SCOTUS going activist here are so jarring though that the possibility of that makes me extremely nervous, though.

I gamed it and it feels ominous. They could have denied cert alone on 1 of the 3 as a sign that some of the issues were clear. Instead they took on all 3. That is a sign. Maybe they will slam them all down but there are a lot of different ways this plays out.

For example, Trump may have 4 votes sewn up already. In that case Roberts is in an incredibly bad position. He will be a swing vote and it'll be his legacy case almost certainly. And he has several really bad ones that have badly distorted the system already.

In the best case, he would have to play defense and an another consequential Constitutional question would go down in a partisan 5-4 vote. If he sides with Trump, it will likely smash the court's last defense on impartiality. It would the last in the string of 21st cases that ruined the nation. If he sides with the country, it will do damage too as 40% of the country will blame it on the deep state (which is just code for rule of law anyway). It'll be his call how much damage is done. Not a great spot to be in.

On to top he will have to weigh his Senate trial role. That is also the good/bad news in a way because it could go split and hold up the lower court rulings without a precedent. It is a bit of his opportunity to punt but wont settle this issue.

Other risk factors would be in this scenario that the awful Rao dissent on the Mazars case will be something the increasingly Trumpist court system will use as the dot on the horizon for unabroggated (Republican) Presidential power.

In a dream scenario, this will be a 7-2 or 6-3 decision. I actually do think there is good chance Gorsuch is *not* going to side with Trump to be honest. If so, the only damage is the massive 6-month delay during a critical period.

If Trump and McConnell can replace Ginsburg before this comes up, it's all over.

A Washington Post interview with Pete Buttigieg

Long, but well worth a read. If it's too long for you, there's a highlights section of quotes.

After her two 'Present' votes on impeachment, does any one want to lay odd on when Tulsi announces an independent run for President?

malchior wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:12 am After her two 'Present' votes on impeachment, does any one want to lay odd on when Tulsi announces an independent run for President?

Do we have a time line for when the Russian's check will clear? I mean it does need to pass through a few people before reaching her so it could be a while.

More than 200 foreign policy and national security professionals, including dozens of veterans of the Obama administration, on Monday are endorsing Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg for president.

link

So apparently, Biden might consider putting Gabbard on the ticket as VP.

Joe Biden told voters in New Hampshire on Monday that he would consider choosing a Republican as a running mate, but added, "I can't think of one right now."

"Whoever I would pick for vice president, and there's a lot of qualified women, there's a lot of qualified African-Americans. There really truly are. There's a plethora of really qualified people. Whomever I would pick were I fortunate enough to be your nominee, I'd pick somebody who was simpatico with me, who knew what I, what my priorities were and knew what I wanted to," Biden said in Exeter on Monday. "We could disagree on tactic, but strategically we'd have to be in the exact same page."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/30/politics ... index.html

I wouldn't think a Republican could win the nomination process, though, unless the prospects of winning the election didn't look good at that point.

Defiant wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:38 pm So apparently, Biden might consider putting Gabbard on the ticket as VP.

Based on the article you shared?

Sorry, I forgot the rimshot.

Geez, man, I'm THIS CLOSE to hanging myself in the garage. Don't frighten me like that.

Biden said he'd nominate Obama to the Supreme Court if 'he'd take it'

He wouldn't be my choice - I'm not a fan of how Obama flouted the War Powers Act with regards to Libya. I also would expect that any president would probably lean towards expanding Presidential powers, not something I'm eager for.

Defiant wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:14 am Sorry, I forgot the rimshot.

I just came back here to say that it finally struck me what you were saying!



sigh... I too was pretty stressed out reading the article to see if it then went on to say something like that...

Defiant wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:31 am Biden said he'd nominate Obama to the Supreme Court if 'he'd take it'

He wouldn't be my choice - I'm not a fan of how Obama flouted the War Powers Act with regards to Libya. I also would expect that any president would probably lean towards expanding Presidential powers, not something I'm eager for.

I'm for it just to watch Trump's head explode.

4th Quarter fundraising numbers (that have been released so far):
Sanders $34.5m
Buttigieg $24.7m
Yang $16.5m

Trump $46m

Castro bows out.

https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status ... 3588511747

It's funny, I thought that he had dropped out a couple months ago.

With Castro gone, here's where I stand.

The remaining 2020 Democrats in my order of preference:

Presently Planning to Vote For In the Primary and Hopefully the General:
Warren*

Possibly Could Vote For in the Primary and Would Happily Support in the General:
Booker
Klobuchar
Bennet
Biden*

Would Not Vote For in the Primary but Would Unhappily Support in the General:
Buttigieg*
Patrick
Steyer
Bloomberg

Would Not Vote for in the Primary but Would With Great Difficulty Force Myself to Vote For in the General:
Sanders*
Yang
Delaney

No Way:
Williamson

Just Kill Me Now:
Gabbard

* - candidates who actually have a shot at the nomination, as it stands now.

So you're saying you support regime changes.

Fireball wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:18 pm With Castro gone, here's where I stand.

The remaining 2020 Democrats in my order of preference:

Presently Planning to Vote For In the Primary and Hopefully the General:
Warren*

Possibly Could Vote For in the Primary and Would Happily Support in the General:
Booker
Klobuchar
Bennet
Biden*

Would Not Vote For in the Primary but Would Unhappily Support in the General:
Buttigieg*
Patrick
Steyer
Bloomberg

Would Not Vote for in the Primary but Would With Great Difficulty Force Myself to Vote For in the General:
Sanders*
Yang
Delaney

No Way:
Williamson

Just Kill Me Now:
Gabbard

* - candidates who actually have a shot at the nomination, as it stands now.

Seems reasonable.

What are your specific thoughts on Buttigieg? He's one that I'm kind of on the fence about. He seems generally smart, sensible, and practical. My main concern is with his general lack of experience - would be nice if he had some experience in statewide office at least.

The closer elections loom the more I fear we'll be stuck with evil and corruption another 4 years...or more.

Buttigheg seems authentic but he’ll rally Trump’s evangelicals while being unable to motivate African-Americans to show up. He’s in the wrong time, wrong place for a “return to normality” campaign.

He does have an interesting “let’s talk midwestern, small town values and smart policy” approach. He’a a better VP candidate who could be paving the way for a later run. But I understand the internet activists hate his moderate campaign. Not sure if that’s just Bernie diehards, or something else.

Daehawk wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:01 pm The closer elections loom the more I fear we'll be stuck with evil and corruption another 4 years...or more.

This is inevitable unless we get a Watchmen style catastrophe to change a lot of American minds.

Anyone know anything about inter dimensional rips and how to create space squids?

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:39 pm Buttigheg seems authentic but he’ll rally Trump’s evangelicals while being unable to motivate African-Americans to show up. He’s in the wrong time, wrong place for a “return to normality” campaign.

Is he? I feel like "return to normality" is a winning bi-partisan position in the age of Trump. I think it's a big part of why Biden is doing so well, for one.

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:39 pm Buttigheg seems authentic but he’ll rally Trump’s evangelicals while being unable to motivate African-Americans to show up. He’s in the wrong time, wrong place for a “return to normality” campaign.

He does have an interesting “let’s talk midwestern, small town values and smart policy” approach. He’a a better VP candidate who could be paving the way for a later run. But I understand the internet activists hate his moderate campaign. Not sure if that’s just Bernie diehards, or something else.

I still know very very little about him but I don't dislike him, so that's good. I have no idea about electablity, but there's a gun to my head, so I'll pull the level for any D and hope for the best. I hate saying that. I really hate saying that, but that's where we are.

Buttigheg reminds me of so many public servants I've worked with. This isn't a bad thing, but I don't get "presidential" vibes from him. Same thing for Corey Booker. Dedicated public officials, but there's just *something* I can't quantify exactly. Might be gravitas or oratory skills. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were insanely good at public speaking. Joe Biden is also good (at times and when he needs to be), but I think he defaults into a more common-clay tone when in front of a crowd, I guess more like George W. Bush (to me). It's going to be an interesting year for sure but I do think we need someone that can inspire everyone both in action and in speech.

My list is very much like Fireball's, although mine is a bit nicer to Pete and Bernie than his.

I'm very very concerned about Pete's inexperience, his tacking with the wind, and his inability to get traction with minorities. (I do see the sincerity with which he is attempting to address that last point, though.) I don't believe South Bend is "The Midwest" any more than Ann Arbor is.

A year ago I despised Bernie for not doing enough to stop Trump in late 2016. I have since warmed to him a little, although I'm *very* concerned about some of the genuine assholes he has chosen to lead his campaign. (David Sirota strikes me as not too far short of being Bernie's Roger Stone.)

I also think Bernie's campaign is based on the pure fantasy that he could enact even 2% of the agenda he promises. Putting him at the top of the ticket actually poses a risk for down-ballot Dems, who will be constantly asked if they agree with XYZ aspect of BernieVision. Warren is much more realistic about this.

It’s called charisma. I’ve talked to people who met Clinton and Obama then found their wallets willingly emptied to the limit for the cause. And were grateful for the experience.

Biden has it, too.

Charisma is part of it, but I don't think it's charisma that speaks to crowds of people or the population overall. It might help at fund raising dinners and during interactions with a journalist, but I don't think it's the only X factor. But yes, I would consider Obama, Clinton and Biden all charismatic. One could likely make the argument that Trump has charisma as well.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:06 pm One could likely make the argument that Trump has charisma as well.

The 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide was quick to point out that Hitler and Napoleon had 18 charisma.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:50 am Hopefully not? Because I need some reason to be optimistic.

But seriously, it's way early, but I don't have a clue who might even be the possibilities at this point. Elizabeth Warren? Al Franken? Alec Baldwin???

Of course, all of this assumes that America still exists in 2020...

Hi Ralph, it's officially ok to start thinking about 2020 now