You'd think it would be better....

[nobby]

No. real conservatism has nothing to do with fascism, which is about social repression.

American conservatives who identify as social conservatives, and whom everyone else with the possible exception of you considers to be
social conservatives SPECIALIZE in social repression.

First, I'm not a conservative, by any means. (Technically a case could be made that I'm, still a member of SDS, since I never actually quit...)

I never thought you were. Why would you think I would? Do you think that I jump to irrational conclusions? (moron that later)

I identify as a Radical Centrist - I pick and choose based on issues and history, not propaganda.

Radical Centrist

Second, you've been deeply affected by noxious propaganda from the so-called "left"

I could have sworn I just registered my displeasure regarding your utterly clueless patronizing attitude, you fucking overweening asshole. I'll continue to call you out on it every fucking time. Besides which, you are absolutely wrong. I know what the radical propaganda is on both sides and disregard it.

I'm not sure what the correct term would be

There's a pattern forming...

My lawyer friend up in Maine

I don't give a a rat's ass about your cherry-picked anecdote.

He is, unfortunately, something of a sheep (as are YOU),

Fuck you, you goddamned asshole and be thankful for the 2000 miles between my fist and your face.

You have to start by discarding your assumption

I don't mean to be redundant, but go fuck yourself, you clueless asshole

If you are autistic in a way that effects personal interactions and you can't grasp the concept of condescension and why people find it offensive, I sincerely apologize for being insulting.

Otherwise, go fuck yourself

[John Eppstein]

No, conservatives are absolutely control freaks. Got gerrymandering? A minority of Americans ramming conservative judges down the throats of the majority so that social conservatives can make abortion and homosexuality illegal and the so-called fiscal conservatives want to control government to make it small. They don't want minimal gov't control, they need maximum gov't control in order to make our democracy small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Your history is weak. Gerrymandering has been used equally by both parties. It's not a partisan vice.

Oh, I though those leftist Communists were absolute control freaks!

Oh, wait - CONTROL FREAKS are control freaks, regardless of the dogma they use to dupe the masses.

The people in control who took over Congress with a minority are not real conservatives. They're dyed in the wool fascists, following Hitler's playbook for the takeover of a democracy. If you know much about history you should be aware that they've been plotting this since the days before WWII.

And you're right - they don't want minimal government control at all. That's just a smokescreen for the real agenda. Ergo, they're not real conservatives. They're fascists. They believe in a dictatorial form of government. That's the opposite of traditional conservatism (which, BTW, in its pure form is a totally unworkable political philosophy. We need checks and balances. The Founding Fathers got that part right, they just had no way of knowing how far off kilter things would go due to unforeseen technologies.)

And they only believe in minimal gov't control when the opposition is in power, just like they only believe in fiscal responsibility when the opposition is in power.

Again, those aren't conservatives. They're fascists and technocrats. Both of which are anything but conservative.

The problem is that real conservatism is probably an nonviable political philosophy in today's world - which, like many other outmoded ideas, does not stop people from clinging to it.

So, to recap and try to avoid a semantic quagmire, conservatives need maximum control over gov't in order to make it small so it has the minimum ability to control them through taxation and regulations that only benefit 99% of the people.

What you just said doesn't make sense.

And the only "semantic quagmire" is your insistence in misusing terms. Just because a pathological liar says" I'm your best friend" does not mean he's your friend at all. It just means that he's a pathological liar. Just because a Communist dictatorship calls itself "The Democratic Republic of (fill in the blank)" does not make it :democratic" or a real "republic". ("Republic" comes from the Latin "Res Publica" meaning "Thing of the People". Thanks, Dad, for the Latin lessons.)

So why in hell would you accept the crap that spews from the mouths of these people as being indicative of what they actually are? The correct terms are Fascist, Technocrat, and Oligarch. Oh, and "Gangster" but that pretty much goes with "Oligarch". doesn't it? Stop calling them "conservatives" The last real conservative (or close to it" who was active in American politics, died a couple months ago. His name was John McCain. It looked for a minute like Jeff Flake might have been another, but no, he's a sheep like all the rest. Same with Collins (who I actually never trusted to be anything else.)

and (wrongly, IMO) rely on the inherent goodness of humanity to prevent abuses.

I don't think they are all that naïve, judging from the large number of conservative criminals that make it to positions of high gov't. I'm not being metaphorical, I'm talking felony convictions and huge fines for fraud and a plurality of evil-gelicals will let them get away with almost anything if they claim they want to make abortion illegal.

C'mon, Nobby, you're not that dumb. I was talking about the voting public, not the Fascist gangsters who have seized control of the government through deception and criminality.

<boring rant redacted.>

There are self identifying conservatives who want to destroy the middle class for profit but want to avoid destroying our system off checks and balances and becoming a fascist state.

You're not making sense again. Are you reading what you write? What you wrote is self-contradicting. Avoid destroying our checks and balances and becoming a Fascist state? The WANT to destroy our checks and balances. A Fascist state has no checks and balances.

And there are self identifying conservatives -- millions of them, apparently -- who simply call themselves conservatives instead of fascists because the word fascism got its brand tarnished in the 20th century so people won't vote for a candidate that refers to himself as fascist.

You finally got something right. Congratulations.

I consider poisoning the land, water and air to be crimes. Defrauding consumers is a crime. Deregulating the financial industry is dangerous. That's a Democratic, liberal view.

Conservatives want to decriminalize all of those things because of greed and ignorance.

And I agree with all those things.

But not "conservatives". The correct terms are "Reactionaries", "Technocrats", and "Robber Barons".

The fact is, there are very few, if any, real conservatives active in US politics these days and have not been for a long time. As I just said, the last one may have recently died.

You DO understand that legislation against racial discrimination, thievery, and murder are actually social controls, right?

You DO understand that you take a condescending tone with me at your peril, right?

<chuckle>

Taking it a step father, conservatives believe that, sans interference, market forces will balance things out economically.

What makes you think they all actually believe that?

Because that's the basic tenet of fiscal conservative theory. The cornerstone. And, IMO, the fatal flaw.

What makes you so sure most of them care about any negative consequences of their sickeningly irresponsible tax cuts? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Again, that's not real conservatism. A true radical conservative would cut taxes for everybody to the same percentage. But these ersatz "conservatives" are not actually conservative at all they're nothing more than common thieves, hiding behind a banner of financial power and propagandist lies. They wave the "conservative" banner. They also claim that Democrats are all Communists who want to enslave the country. Why would you believe they're lying about the latter but not the former?

One of the core values of American conservatism is basic dishonesty. It goes so well with their other core values of greed, hypocrisy and ignorance.

Which goes to show that you have become so polarized that you can't think anymore.

Look, I personally thing that Conservatives, REAL Conservatives, are idiots, albeit in some cases very intelligent ones (the ones who write the textbooks on conservative economic theory. Which is a crock, but so are most other doctrinaire economic theories. The one constant of economics is that it's constantly changing in cycles and trying to cling to any one formalized theory is foolish. It (whatever "it" is) may seem to work now, but wait 20 or 30 years....)

The one true constant is the venality of human nature.

[John Eppstein]

No. real conservatism has nothing to do with fascism, which is about social repression.

American conservatives who identify as social conservatives, and whom everyone else with the possible exception of you considers to be
social conservatives SPECIALIZE in social repression.

First, I'm not a conservative, by any means. (Technically a case could be made that I'm, still a member of SDS, since I never actually quit...)

I never thought you were. Why would you? Do you think that I jump to irrational conclusions (moron that later)

I identify as a Radical Centrist - I pick and choose based on issues and history, not propaganda.

Radical Centrist

Second, you've been deeply affected by noxious propaganda from the so-called "left"

I could have sworn I just registered my displeasure against your utterly clueless patronizing attitude, you fucking overweening asshole. I'll continue to call you out on it every fucking time. Besides which, you are absolutely wrong. I know what the radical propaganda is on both sides and disregard it.

I'm not sure what the correct term would be

There's a pattern forming...

My lawyer friend up in Maine

I don't give a a rat's ass about your cherry-picked anecdote.

I'm using him as an example because (A) his outlook is fairly typical of many people in underdeveloped regions of the country and (B) because he;s intelligent and articulate enough to discuss this stuff with rationality without anybody flying off the handle. He's not "cherry-picked", he's representative. You forget that I spent every summer from the age of 4 to the age of 17 among Mainers. Mostly lobster fishermen.

He is, unfortunately, something of a sheep (as are YOU),

Fuck you, you goddamned asshole and be thankful for the 2000 miles between my fist and your face.

You have to start by discarding your assumption

I don't mean to be redundant, but go fuck yourself, you clueless asshole

So you're abandoning rational discussion?

Did I hit a nerve?

BTW, most people are sheep, regardless of the flock they run with.

Me, I prefer to be a goat.

A goat who, because of the environment I grew up in and who my father was, happen to know a great deal more about politics, history and basic economic theory than the vast majority of people, including, evidently, some people who make their livings in those professions.

[nobby]

So you're abandoning rational discussion?

The fact that you wrote 2 long posts about a post I was still editing is an indication that I may have to abandon ship, but how dare you call this a rational discussion?

Did I hit a nerve?

You're not my dentist, THANK GOD!!

BTW, most people are sheep, regardless of the flock they run with.

Me, I prefer to be a goat.

That isn't going to save you from farmers who rape their livestock...



who identify as conservative. The farmers, that is. Livestock can't vote unless they register as Republicans so they usually don't bother following politics.

A goat who, because of the environment I grew up in and who my father was, happen to know a great deal more about politics, history and basic economic theory than the vast majority of people, including, evidently, some people who make their livings in those professions.

Dunning-Kruger rears its ugly head. My father worked at the NYT and I started reading about politics when I was 10.

Now, are you going to honor my request? Do I have to repeat what you have to do to yourself? Need instructions?

[John Eppstein]

So you're abandoning rational discussion?

The fact that you wrote 2 long posts about a post I was still editing is an indication that I may have to abandon ship, but how dare you call this a rational discussion?

Did I hit a nerve?

You're not my dentist, THANK GOD!!

BTW, most people are sheep, regardless of the flock they run with.

Me, I prefer to be a goat.

That isn't going to save you from farmers who rape their livestock...

Ever been butted by a billy goat? I don't advise it.

who identify as conservative. The farmers, that is. Livestock can't vote unless they register as Republicans so they usually don't bother following politics.

A goat who, because of the environment I grew up in and who my father was, happen to know a great deal more about politics, history and basic economic theory than the vast majority of people, including, evidently, some people who make their livings in those professions.

Dunning-Kruger rears its ugly head. My father worked at the NYT and I started reading about politics when I was 10.

Now, are you going to honor my request? Do I have to repeat what you have to do to yourself? Need instructions?

Well, the NYT gives you better background than most. My dad was, at various times in his life, a student and professor of history and languages (with an active interest in the history of economics), a dairy farmer and politician in Pennsylvania in the '30s who helped FDR carry a formerly Republican state (although he did not win his own election for Congress, which wasn't the point of his running, anyway), a set carpenter in Hollywood in the '20s who got fired for union organizing, a volunteer for the Marines at the start of US involvement in WWII, despite having to get a waiver due to his age (40), a university chaplain (rabbi), who, while at Princeton, was friends with people like Einstein and Oppenheimer, a reviewer of translations of The Bible for a German theological publication (which is why I can't take any given translation of the Bible seriously - if you can't read it in Aramaic, ancient (not modern) Hebrew, and ancient Greek you don't know what it actually says). He knew enough about practical economics to successfully handle his own investments in the stock market (after nearly being bankrupted by an inept stockbroker at one of the big firms when he first started investing shortly after my birth). He had an active interest in all the sciences starting when he was a young boy. He was a skilled carpenter - our place in Maine was furnished in antiques he bought at farm auctions and restored himself.

There's a lot more, but that's enough. Let's just say that my dad would qualify for the term "polymath".

And there's a big difference between reading (or even reporting) about politics, albeit in as august a publication as the NYT and successfully devising a strategy for carrying ("flipping" in today's parlance) a hostile state in a crucial and hotly contested presidential election that changed history. Here's a clue - you emphasize the aspects of your platform that the people you're trying to convert will identify with and you STFU about any aspects that might piss them off. It's really not rocket science if you can resist the urge to get carried away by your own rhetoric. The Democrats could really use a strategist like my dad now, unfortunately we're stuck with Pelosi, who doesn't have sense enough to avoid poking the bear. She may be great as a tactician within Congress but she's not very good as a campaign strategist.

[nobby]

Your father seems like a wise, highly intelligent and effective person.

Sorry the acorn fell so far from the tree, but...

My father was more accomplished than I currently am, so I'm not going to belabor the point. I'm not doing his biography for this post.

And there's a difference between having a certain background and feeling that you know for certain that you have superior knowledge about the specifics of a certain subject without being able to read another person's mind -- that is pure arrogance coupled with ignorance.

I'm sure there are things that you know about politics that I don't know but none of them are in this thread, so far.

[nobby]

Eppstein:

The Democrats could really use a strategist like my dad now, unfortunately we're stuck with Pelosi, who doesn't have sense enough to avoid poking the bear.

I mostly focus on politician's policy positions, not strategy behind getting votes together and the other stuff that a House Speaker does, so maybe you can tell me what she's doing wrong and why she must be replaced.

I know that many on the far left who don't understand politics as well as the entire Republican party, which has been spending hundreds off millions of dollars in advertising and airplay as well as the usual memes and trolls on FB and Twitter over the past decade to vilify her, hate her.

But I'm kind of vague on what the House speaker's job, the details of it, are and why she is doing a bad job and needs to be replaced.

[upstairs]

Who was that on The Womb who had a sig that went "Rednecks call me a tree-hugger and tree-huggers call me a redneck. I must be doing something right!" We need more of that.

I feel like that was Sue Rarick? Not sure. But I agree.

[John Eppstein]

Who was that on The Womb who had a sig that went "Rednecks call me a tree-hugger and tree-huggers call me a redneck. I must be doing something right!" We need more of that.

I feel like that was Sue Rarick? Not sure. But I agree.

Yes, it was! Has anybody heard from her?

[nobby]

I've seen her pop up on FB from time to time.

I follow John Luongo on FB to see if I can learn anything from his music biz discussions and she weighs in from time to time. I think she had heart surgery recently.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

John is right; you need both understanding and strategy to win people over to your cause.

Just planting your ideological flag in the dirt and sneering at anyone who disagrees is what leads to the kind of divided societies we're living in, where no political group has enough of a mandate to get anything of note done.

[upstairs]

John is right; you need both understanding and strategy to win people over to your cause.

Just planting your ideological flag in the dirt and sneering at anyone who disagrees is what leads to the kind of divided societies we're living in, where no political group has enough of a mandate to get anything of note done.

Part of why I think the US constitution (or any similar system) is pretty smart is that when things get divided, you are forced to compromise to get anything done. It could be your side that manages to get power and enact sweeping changes, but it could also be your opponent. Deadlock is, to a degree, probably a good thing in times like these.

At least we have time to mull over it! <- half joking

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

John is right; you need both understanding and strategy to win people over to your cause.

Just planting your ideological flag in the dirt and sneering at anyone who disagrees is what leads to the kind of divided societies we're living in, where no political group has enough of a mandate to get anything of note done.

Part of why I think the US constitution (or any similar system) is pretty smart is that when things get divided, you are forced to compromise to get anything done. It could be your side that manages to get power and enact sweeping changes, but it could also be your opponent. Deadlock is, to a degree, probably a good thing in times like these.

Shame the Supreme Court is so unbalanced.

[upstairs]

Shame the Supreme Court is so unbalanced.

Well, if you're on the right, you'd probably think it was unbalanced in the "wrong" direction, and you'd be breathing a sigh of relief. My lefty friends have always said that the court has always been biased right, my righty friends say the opposite. Same with the "mainstream media".

"Stupid CNN watchers." "Stupid FOX watchers." Pretty funny really. But then I hear people say CNN is right wing. I have no fucking clue really.

[nobby]

Shame the Supreme Court is so unbalanced.

Well, if you're on the right, you'd probably think it was unbalanced in the "wrong" direction, and you'd be breathing a sigh of relief. My lefty friends have always said that the court has always been biased right, my righty friends say the opposite. Same with the "mainstream media".

"Stupid CNN watchers." "Stupid FOX watchers." Pretty funny really. But then I hear people say CNN is right wing. I have no fucking clue really.

American politics are complicated and more crap happens in a week of this administration than usually happens in a year with most presidents.

Things are happening so fast that what your friends "have always said" may have been true a couple of years ago and aren't now.

The Supreme Court had to have a right wing bias when the court legalized unlimited bribery by billionaires and corporations in the 2010 "Citizens United" (Billionaires United Against Democracy) decision, then went further right when Rape-ubliKKKans blocked Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice to replace corrupt far right wing political hack Scalia.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a moderate judge whom both Republicans and Democrats approved of. Then Senate Majority Leader and utterly venal, racist/ fascist lying scumbag Mitch McConnell told Republicans that if they could prevent Obama from appointing a nominee that democrats approved of for over a year and the next president was Republican, they could appoint an obviously heavily biased religious party hack that anyone who believed in democracy would hate, someone who would:

Try to erode the separation of church and state to pave the way for a KKKЯi$$tian theocracy;

Criminalize Abortion

Deregulate everything, allowing their corporate masters to pollute the land, water and air and allow workplaces to become dangerous hell holes for profit with impunity.

Prevent consumers from suing the conservative judges' KKKorporate ma$$ter$;

Make it as difficult as possible for minorities and people in universities to vote because they would statistically vote Democratic;

Sell off public lands for oil drilling, mining and fracking, increase the number of private prisons (closest thing to slavery with $1 a day labor) and private schools (closest thing to indoctrination camps);

Deregulate the financial sector so that banks don't have to keep a lot of capital on hand and can gamble with OPM and get bailed out by taxpayers like the last time (only worse)

Take away people's health care so insurance companies can profit from letting people suffer and die, unable to pay the highest health costs of any western nation or be slaves to the dwindling number of companies that offer decent health care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court tilted further right in April of 2017 with the installation of party hack Neill Gorsuch whose record as a judge jibes perfectly with the utterly unscrupulous and venal conservative values above.

Then it lurched further right with the ramming down the throats of the American people of obvious scumbag and lying weasel (under oath) Brett KKKavanaugh in October, 2018, another KKKorporate KKKЯi$$tian tool.

KKKavanaugh was installed to the highest court in the land rather than judges who had actually tried cases (other than cases of beer) because he expressed the opinion that he thought sitting presidents shouldn't be investigated, let alone prosecuted for their crimes. He was installed to be part of Trump's obvious ongoing criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

So you can see, things can happen quickly and as a farner you aren't required to follow American politics, though it can be hard to look away from a good train wreck.

[John Eppstein]

John is right; you need both understanding and strategy to win people over to your cause.

Just planting your ideological flag in the dirt and sneering at anyone who disagrees is what leads to the kind of divided societies we're living in, where no political group has enough of a mandate to get anything of note done.

Part of why I think the US constitution (or any similar system) is pretty smart is that when things get divided, you are forced to compromise to get anything done. It could be your side that manages to get power and enact sweeping changes, but it could also be your opponent. Deadlock is, to a degree, probably a good thing in times like these.

Shame the Supreme Court is so unbalanced.

That is a truly serious problem. And the only way to get rid of The Rapist is by an impeachment process and for that we need The Senate. The House can bring the impeachment charges (if that's the right word), but the trial is held in the senate. Same thing for the presidential Usurper.

Which is why I'm so hung up on flipping the Senate next time. For which we need to carry at least a few of those "hick states".

[John Eppstein]

Shame the Supreme Court is so unbalanced.

Well, if you're on the right, you'd probably think it was unbalanced in the "wrong" direction, and you'd be breathing a sigh of relief. My lefty friends have always said that the court has always been biased right, my righty friends say the opposite. Same with the "mainstream media".

"Stupid CNN watchers." "Stupid FOX watchers." Pretty funny really. But then I hear people say CNN is right wing. I have no fucking clue really.

MSNBC here. I'm a big fan of Maddow and Hardball.

[John Eppstein]

But I'm kind of vague on what the House speaker's job, the details of it, are and why she is doing a bad job and needs to be replaced.

The Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the United States House of Representatives. The office was established in 1789 by Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The Speaker is the political and parliamentary leader of the House of Representatives, and is simultaneously the House's presiding officer, de facto leader of the body's majority party, and the institution's administrative head. Speakers also perform various other administrative and procedural functions. Given these several roles and responsibilities, the Speaker usually does not personally preside over debates. That duty is instead delegated to members of the House from the majority party. Neither does the Speaker regularly participate in floor debates.

The Constitution does not require the Speaker to be an elected member of the House of Representatives, although every Speaker thus far has been.[3] The Speaker is second in the United States presidential line of succession, after the Vice President and ahead of the President pro tempore of the Senate.[

She actually does a pretty good job just as speaker of the house, where her job is to organize the dominant party and tactically handle getting the desired legislation through, plus overseeing the various committees. She's pretty good with her fellow politicians.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that she doesn't know when to keep her trap shut in public and has no feeling for people outside the urban areas of the West Coast, which presents a HUGE strategic problem when is comes to taking the Senate in the next election (and guaranteed that we didn't do it in the recent one.) And she is the De Facto face of the party right now.

As I've mentioned several times, the Senate's members are not determined by the amount of population in a state - every state gets TWO Senators. It doesn't matter if the state has a population of 40 million or 40 thousand - it still gets two senators. Which gives the underpopulated "hick" states disproportionate power in the Senate. Which means that if we're going to carry enough of those states to take the Senate we have to be VERY careful what we say about certain issues, namely gun control, because those states have a very high percentage of people who actually still hunt for a significant percentage of their food.

Yeah, it's very 19th century, but it's true.

I saw a speech by Beto O'Rourke in which I think he got it exactly right. Remember, he's campaigning in Texas...... When the topic comes up the first thing he says it "I absolutely support the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms!" (HUGE applause from the crowd) Then he says "That being said I also believe that we need a comprehensive national system of background checks in order to purchase firearms!" ( More huge applause - maybe not quite as loud but pretty damn close!)

See how he did that? If he'd hit 'em with "I think we need stronger gun laws" he would have lost a large portion of that crowd (it's Texas) - but he didn't and he posed his position in a way that the crowd could support.

That's a master strategist.

'And that's precisely what Pelosi is not. She lacks tact in dealing with the public. Her national public approval is actually even worse than Trump's. But since she's firmly ensconced in the Party Machine she's never had to run against a serious opponent.

DISCLAIMER: The reason that I personally dislike Pelosi and Feinstein has nothing to do with national politics and everything to do with local issues in San Francisco politics that have pretty much ruined The City and have resulted in the near total collapse of the formerly thriving music and art scenes. Both those two are firmly in the pocket of the Real Estate and Wall Street people (a lot like Trump, huh?) and wouldn't give a damn about "progressive issues" if they didn't care about getting elected in an area that demands it. And Feinstein has a gun paranoia because she was in with the faction that assassinated Moscone and Milk and she's scared to death that what goes around might come around. Pelosi likely does too, although she didn't become mayor by assassination, which Feinstein did.

I have, however voted for Pelosi every time she's run (no Democratic opposition) and voted for Feinstein every time except this recent election, when she had a Democratic opponent (California's weird election laws allow for two members of the same party to run for the same seat in a main election if they placed #1 and #2 in the primary.) I don't vote for Republicans or 3rd party spoilers.

[John Eppstein]

So you can see, things can happen quickly and as a farner you aren't required to follow American politics, though it can be hard to look away from a good train wreck.

I wasn't aware that Los Anjeleeze was a furrin country?

[John Eppstein]

John is right; you need both understanding and strategy to win people over to your cause.

Just planting your ideological flag in the dirt and sneering at anyone who disagrees is what leads to the kind of divided societies we're living in, where no political group has enough of a mandate to get anything of note done.

Part of why I think the US constitution (or any similar system) is pretty smart is that when things get divided, you are forced to compromise to get anything done. It could be your side that manages to get power and enact sweeping changes, but it could also be your opponent. Deadlock is, to a degree, probably a good thing in times like these.

At least we have time to mull over it! <- half joking

The problem is that by refusing to negotiate and compromise the Republicans have broken the system. We've been squeaking by dysfunctionally ever since they took both houses of Congress.

[upstairs]

I wasn't aware that Los Anjeleeze was a furrin country?

I think it's pronounced Los Anhelless now. Or just Doyoville.

[nobby]

Shame the Supreme Court is so unbalanced.

Well, if you're on the right, you'd probably think it was unbalanced in the "wrong" direction, and you'd be breathing a sigh of relief. My lefty friends have always said that the court has always been biased right, my righty friends say the opposite. Same with the "mainstream media".

"Stupid CNN watchers." "Stupid FOX watchers." Pretty funny really. But then I hear people say CNN is right wing. I have no fucking clue really.

MSNBC here. I'm a big fan of Maddow and Hardball.

Same here. And "Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell.

[nobby]

But I'm kind of vague on what the House speaker's job, the details of it, are and why she is doing a bad job and needs to be replaced.

Speakers also perform various other administrative and procedural functions.

So Wikipedia doesn't know, either.

She actually does a pretty good job just as speaker of the house, where her job is to organize the dominant party and tactically handle getting the desired legislation through, plus overseeing the various committees. She's pretty good with her fellow politicians.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that she doesn't know when to keep her trap shut in public and has no feeling for people outside the urban areas of the West Coast, which presents a HUGE strategic problem when is comes to taking the Senate in the next election (and guaranteed that we didn't do it in the recent one.) And she is the De Facto face of the party right now.

As I've mentioned several times, the Senate's members are not determined by the amount of population in a state - every state gets TWO Senators. It doesn't matter if the state has a population of 40 million or 40 thousand - it still gets two senators. Which gives the underpopulated "hick" states disproportionate power in the Senate. Which means that if we're going to carry enough of those states to take the Senate we have to be VERY careful what we say about certain issues, namely gun control, because those states have a very high percentage of people who actually still hunt for a significant percentage of their food.

Yeah, it's very 19th century, but it's true.

I saw a speech by Beto O'Rourke in which I think he got it exactly right. Remember, he's campaigning in Texas...... When the topic comes up the first thing he says it "I absolutely support the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms!" (HUGE applause from the crowd) Then he says "That being said I also believe that we need a comprehensive national system of background checks in order to purchase firearms!" ( More huge applause - maybe not quite as loud but pretty damn close!)

See how he did that? If he'd hit 'em with "I think we need stronger gun laws" he would have lost a large portion of that crowd (it's Texas) - but he didn't and he posed his position in a way that the crowd could support.

That's a master strategist.

'And that's precisely what Pelosi is not.

I see. But because of her position, she is being given credit for the historic win in the House. She should probably get some credit.

I think Trump & the Teabaggers should really get most of the credit for the Democratic win, for making their party appear so obviously vile and dangerous that even lifelong Republicans are jumping ship and changing sides.

DISCLAIMER: The reason that I personally dislike Pelosi and Feinstein has nothing to do with national politics and everything to do with local issues in San Francisco politics that have pretty much ruined The City and have resulted in the near total collapse of the formerly thriving music and art scenes.

Okay, well, screw her, figuratively speaking, and carry on. Gentrification of a similar flavor has been happening for years here in NY also. Storied venues that had thrived for decades have been, and are being replaced, by luxury condos, usually, forcing out and diminishing the local music and art scenes which were chased from lower Manhattan across the river to Williamsburg and then out of Williamsburg by gentrification. Meanwhile, Spotify moves into a super expensive suite in Manhattan.

I have, however voted for Pelosi every time she's run (no Democratic opposition) and voted for Feinstein every time except this recent election, when she had a Democratic opponent (California's weird election laws allow for two members of the same party to run for the same seat in a main election if they placed #1 and #2 in the primary.) I don't vote for Republicans or 3rd party spoilers.

Meanwhile, here in NY, I have to hold my nose when I vote for Chuck Schumer. It isn't personal or about local politics, though. I never vote for Republicans or 3rd party spoilers, either. Moderately evil is still better than pure evil.

[nobby]

I wasn't aware that Los Anjeleeze was a furrin country?

I think it's pronounced Los Anhelless now. Or just Doyoville.

California stopped being part of Mexico in 1850. I'm kind of surprised that Trump doesn't give California back to Mexico in return for Mexico paying for the wall. One less Blue State.

I thought Upstairs was in Canada? Not that I really care, but I think most of the people here aren't in the US.

[Bob Olhsson]

I want Pelosi to be Speaker because she won't be a distraction from the new voices!

[John Eppstein]

I see. But because of her position, she is being given credit for the historic win in the House. She should probably get some credit.

I think Trump & the Teabaggers should really get most of the credit for the Democratic win, for making their party appear so obviously vile and dangerous that even lifelong Republicans are jumping ship and changing sides.

Actually, I think the CANDIDATES deserve the credit for running campaigns tailored to their constituencies.

And, yes, Rump and his gang(s) deserve a lot of credit for being so relentlessly vile.

DISCLAIMER: The reason that I personally dislike Pelosi and Feinstein has nothing to do with national politics and everything to do with local issues in San Francisco politics that have pretty much ruined The City and have resulted in the near total collapse of the formerly thriving music and art scenes.

Okay, well, screw her, figuratively speaking, and carry on. Gentrification of a similar flavor has been happening for years here in NY also. Storied venues that had thrived for decades have been, and are being replaced, by luxury condos, usually, forcing out and diminishing the local music and art scenes which were chased from lower Manhattan across the river to Williamsburg and then out of Williamsburg by gentrification. Meanwhile, Spotify moves into a super expensive suite in Manhattan.

I have, however voted for Pelosi every time she's run (no Democratic opposition) and voted for Feinstein every time except this recent election, when she had a Democratic opponent (California's weird election laws allow for two members of the same party to run for the same seat in a main election if they placed #1 and #2 in the primary.) I don't vote for Republicans or 3rd party spoilers.

Almost as soon as she became mayor Feinstein declared open war on the live music clubs in SF. In the aftermath of the Moscone/Milk assassinations The Dead Kennedys put out a gig poster with a cartoon of her raping the Statue of Liberty and after that she ordered the police to crack down on every rock club in the City, especially those not associated with BGP (since Bill Graham was too politically connected to really touch. BGP wasn't all that connected to the local scene, anyway.) She didn't care if they were punk clubs of or middle of the road rock clubs, she was after everybody. This was about a decade before runaway gentrification set in. The full effects didn't happen until after her term as mayor was done, but by that time the Broadway Strip which had been home to maybe 15 clubs at its peak was a wasteland of strip clubs and cheap liquor stores, a large part of the SOMA (South of Market) entertainment district was razed and redeveloped as "live-work spaces" that, oddly enough would not rent to people who actually wanted live-work spaces, and all the rock clubs in Polk Gulch were gone. She effectively killed the local music scene - there were a few scattered clubs but no centralized neighborhood, plus a few venues featuring middle tier and better touring acts.

[nobby]

Actually, I think the CANDIDATES deserve the credit for running campaigns tailored to their constituencies.

Indeed, they should get most of it. There isn't a one-size-fits-all template that applies to all regions. I find it alarming that some people think that that would work.

I think conditions are supposed to be good for a Dem takeover of the Senate in 2020. I don't think we'll ever get the stench out of the White House, though.

[John Eppstein]

Actually, I think the CANDIDATES deserve the credit for running campaigns tailored to their constituencies.

Indeed, they should get most of it. There isn't a one-size-fits-all template that applies to all regions. I find it alarming that some people think that that would work.

I think conditions are supposed to be good for a Dem takeover of the Senate in 2020. I don't think we'll ever get the stench out of the White House, though.

One can hope, although with my health being what it isn't I may not see it.

[Bob Olhsson]

Di-Fi certainly is the embodiment of SF real estate and gentrification. Pelosi, not so much.

[John Eppstein]

Di-Fi certainly is the embodiment of SF real estate and gentrification. Pelosi, not so much.

Same machine.