de bait

[John Eppstein]

Has anybody been watching the debates?

Any comments?

[upstairs]

I've been saying Harris is going to get the nomination for a while. She's the woman to beat at the moment. She's also the only one who didn't seem like she was acting, which was part of Trump's appeal.

[John Eppstein]

I've been saying Harris is going to get the nomination for a while. She's the woman to beat at the moment. She's also the only one who didn't seem like she was acting, which was part of Trump's appeal.

I like Harris. She's about the only SF Democrat that I do like. I still like Beto better - he's the only one with the experience to understand what the Russians are up to - but he definitely underperformed in the debate.

I like Warren as well but she's a bit on the strident side - might scare off voters who aren't already behind her.

This "Support Democratic Women" thing is starting to piss me off a bit. Not that I don't support Democratic women - I do - but I think they're handling the publicity aspect the wrong way, and the way they're going at it smacks of reverse sexism.

Rump is ALWAYS acting and he's not really very good at it. He runs the government like a third rate reality show.

[weedywet]

I think the pandering to the centre, and especially to imaginary convinceable Trump voters, is starting to fall apart; as the failed strategy that it always was.


Warren clearly won night one.
Harris clearly won night two.

Castro and Booker had reasonably strong showings.

the rest can go away now.
Except for Biden and Sanders who will hang in until their death is official.

[weedywet]

I might add that we didn't see Warren "against" Harris on the same stage.
Once we do, things could look quite different between them in the race.

[unitymusic]

I do care about politics, but at the same time I hate it, along with pretty much all of the politicians. It baffles me that we - as citizens - still entertain the notion of delegating important* decisions to people who are very clearly incompetent, unknowledgable and greedy, with the best interests in mind for no one but themselves and their elite peers.

It makes me sad that so many seemingly intelligent and well-intentioned people still buy into this bullshit, but it is what it is I guess. Good luck to you all, but in my honest opinion, there is no "winning" without a complete overhaul of the system, and some independency from the power and influence of the major political parties.

*We're destroying our planet at an alarming rate, and it won't stop until we break this divide that has festered into a constant "us vs. them" mentality, which has become the greatest weapon used against anyone who actually cares.

[weedywet]

the problem with that point of view is, in my opinion, that it veers dangerously close to a "both sides are the same so it doesn't matter' argument

which is demonstrably bullshit

Trump is proving how desperately it matters

[unitymusic]

I 100% agree with you there, one side is very obviously worse, but the problem is only having two "sides". Decisions are made out of loyalty and spite, rather than concern and regard for actual policy. Again, that is far more true for one particular party and it's supporters, but at this point everyone is kind of forced to play along with that game.

[nobby]

I 100% agree with you there, one side is very obviously worse, but the problem is only having two "sides". Decisions are made out of loyalty and spite, rather than concern and regard for actual policy.

No, that's wrong even as a generalization.

[John Eppstein]

I 100% agree with you there, one side is very obviously worse, but the problem is only having two "sides". Decisions are made out of loyalty and spite, rather than concern and regard for actual policy. Again, that is far more true for one particular party and it's supporters, but at this point everyone is kind of forced to play along with that game.

I strongly disagree with the idea that multiple parties are "better" and for a very good reason that should be blatantly, painfully obvious after 2016.

To wit, the third party will always act as a "spoiler" and will split the majority if the third party is strong enough to mean anything at all. If we were to have a third party in the upcoming election it would be tantamount to handing the election to Rump. Thank your favorite deity that we don't. Unless Sanders does something utterly idiotic and tries to run as an independent after he loses the Democratic primary.

[unitymusic]

"third party" still implies a two party centric system. Remove political affiliation from the ballots and see how the general population votes.. I'm surprised that this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

[nobby]

"third party" still implies a two party centric system. Remove political affiliation from the ballots and see how the general population votes.. I'm surprised that this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

"Remove political affiliation from the ballots"

Pretending for a moment that you have a point, what would be the process for that?

It's only a difficult thing to grasp if you know anything about politics.

[weedywet]

A multi party system works in a system where the winner needs to form a governing coalition (or at least ‘works’ more often)

In America’s winner take all Presidential system it’s a terrible idea.

[unitymusic]

The point that I was pretending to have is that we should elect people and candidates, not political parties.

[nobby]

The point that I was pretending to have is that we should elect people and candidates, not political parties.

You don't seem to understand the basics of how the American system works, making this discussion difficult.

Once you have this basic understanding, you may begin to see why you can't change it.

[John Eppstein]

The point that I was pretending to have is that we should elect people and candidates, not political parties.

That's why we have primary elections before the final election.

Are you from the US? This is basic high school civics.

[upstairs]

The point that I was pretending to have is that we should elect people and candidates, not political parties.

It would be nice!

[John Eppstein]

I think the pandering to the centre, and especially to imaginary convinceable Trump voters, is starting to fall apart; as the failed strategy that it always was.

"pandering to the center" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Even framing the question in those terms reveals a disturbingly great misunderstanding of what the actual issues are.

The issue is a basic difference in the reality of the lives of people in densely populated, middle class states versus the lives of people who live in underpopulated, poor, mostly working class, deeply rural states. states.

These States are low population and they don't show very deeply in the polls, but they are important far beyond their statistics for one very essential, very important reason - the very peculiar way that representation works differently between the houses of Congress.

The House gets representation based on population. OK, that seems a pretty obvious way to do things.

The Senate doesn't work that way.

In the Senate, each state gets TWO senators, regardless of population or anything else.

Think about that for a minute.

A state that is so underpopulated that it only gets one seat in the House gets as many senators as the most densely populated, urbanized Coastal states that get well over one hundred House seats.

That gives rural, sparsely populated a disproportionate degree of power in The Senate, and the Senate has the power to block and stonewall anything passed by the House, REGARDLESS OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE! The President might totally favor something, the House might pass it unanimously, but if it can't get out of The Senate it's done.

And who approves the appointment of judges? Not the House!

And in those states guns are widely regarded not as weapons of murder and war; they are more often seen as tools of survival. Lots of people hunt for food in those regions. They may not totally depend on it but it does provide a financially significant portion of their diet.

You might say, well, we can give them food stamps to make up for the shortfall, but they don't want your food stamps - they take pride in being self-sufficient.

These people aren't much interested in political platforms and planks. And they don't much care about what goes on in the cities except that they don't much care for it.

What they're interested in is being able to live their lives. They're mostly good, hardworking people, generally pretty reasonable, not inherently racist. But when such people are getting squeezed by outside forces they're ripe for exploitation bu demagogues who pretend populism but really only seek power for the sake of power. And facilitating lining their own pockets, of course....

It is my current belief that these shooting incidents are the result of efforts by Russian (and maybe other) hackers fooling with our media and stirring up escalating conflicts via false-flag posts to both sides. They provoke an attack and then promote an over-reaction.

The only effective response to this that I can see would be a total ban on reporting or publicizing this modern urban terrorism. Terrorism does not work without publicity.

I don't see this happening. Too many people on all sides are making too much hay.

[nobby]

I think the pandering to the centre, and especially to imaginary convinceable Trump voters, is starting to fall apart; as the failed strategy that it always was.

"pandering to the center" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Even framing the question in those terms reveals a disturbingly great misunderstanding of what the actual issues are.

The issue is a basic difference in the reality of the lives of people in densely populated, middle class states versus the lives of people who live in underpopulated, poor, mostly working class, deeply rural states. states.

These States are low population and they don't show very deeply in the polls, but they are important far beyond their statistics for one very essential, very important reason - the very peculiar way that representation works differently between the houses of Congress.

The House gets representation based on population. OK, that seems a pretty obvious way to do things.

The Senate doesn't work that way.

In the Senate, each state gets TWO senators, regardless of population or anything else.

Think about that for a minute.

A state that is so underpopulated that it only gets one seat in the House gets as many senators as the most densely populated, urbanized Coastal states that get well over one hundred House seats.

That gives rural, sparsely populated a disproportionate degree of power in The Senate, and the Senate has the power to block and stonewall anything passed by the House, REGARDLESS OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE! The President might totally favor something, the House might pass it unanimously, but if it can't get out of The Senate it's done.

And who approves the appointment of judges? Not the House!

Exactly.

[nobby]

And in those states guns are widely regarded not as weapons of murder and war; they are more often seen as tools of survival. Lots of people hunt for food in those regions. They may not totally depend on it but it does provide a financially significant portion of their diet.

As usual, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the gun issue.

Show me ANY legislation that inhibits the ability of people to obtain guns for hunting.

Is it 93% or 97%? I forget... the percentage of Americans who want background checks for gun purchases. Show me any hunting or sporting reason to have high capacity magazines. Deer don't shoot back

You might say, well, we can give them food stamps to make up for the shortfall, but they don't want your food stamps - they take pride in being self-sufficient.

Who the fuck doesn't? But statistically, poor white people in red states get most of the food stamps, hunting notwithstanding.

These people aren't much interested in political platforms and planks.

Exactly, which is what makes them so ignorant and gullible. Great for manipulation by the right wing propaganda machine.

And they don't much care about what goes on in the cities except that they don't much care for it.

Exactly, they are too selfish to care about most Americans. Their attitude in too many cases seems to be "We, the few, the simple, the pure white "Christian" rural types are the real Americans, fuck the vast majority of Americans."

Because the vast majority of Americans live in the cities and suburbs they disdain.[/quote]

[John Eppstein]

And in those states guns are widely regarded not as weapons of murder and war; they are more often seen as tools of survival. Lots of people hunt for food in those regions. They may not totally depend on it but it does provide a financially significant portion of their diet.

As usual, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the gun issue.

Show me ANY legislation that inhibits the ability of people to obtain guns for hunting.

Is it 93% or 97%? I forget... the percentage of Americans who want background checks for gun purchases.

No, not really.

You are pretty much correct as far as it goes. The problem is that you're not thinking it through, as far as it actually goes in reality.

The real problem is that we are giving the Right Wing a bountiful supply of ammunition for fearmongering.

And we're not keeping our eyes on the prize - which is winning The Senate.

Remember, the people we need to win over are for the most part under-educated and very susceptible to propagandizing by the same right wing network that "coincidentally" happens to control nearly all major league sports media in the US. Don't underestimate the power that goes with that. I would elaborate but right now I'm typing with a nasty attack of gout in my right hand and and going to at least attempt to keep it as brief as possible, which I'm afraid will probably be not very.

Show me any hunting or sporting reason to have high capacity magazines. Deer don't shoot back.

And I bet you've never been charged by an enraged 10 point buck that weighs half a ton. Which is what happens if you miss your first shot and fail to drop him. Or if he just happens to haves a couple of does around and is in rut.

I was, when I was a little kid maybe 4 or 5 years old and I wasn't even shooting at him - he was just really ornery and nearly knocked down the fence separating the animals from the kids at the outdoor zoo. Deer are not the helpless, peaceful animals that urbanites think they are, thanks to Disney. Deer are dangerous.

You might say, well, we can give them food stamps to make up for the shortfall, but they don't want your food stamps - they take pride in being self-sufficient.

Who the fuck doesn't? But statistically, poor white people in red states get most of the food stamps, hunting notwithstanding.

Remove the word "white" and you've got it. It's poor people regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin. However the ones with less pigment are vulnerable to being radicalized the wrong way, because they're afraid of losing their "status" (that's a pretty unfunny joke)

The right wing are masters of the tactics of divide and conquer. They're been working at it in a very organized way since at least 1930s Germany, if not long before.

Unfortunately Democrats make a herd of cats look organized and are themselves very vulnerable to manipulation via fear.

The right commits a violent act. The left responds by overreacting while bickering amongst themselves, which is counterproductive because (A) it increases fear on the right and (B) it doesn't accomplish anything substantive on the left. It just stirs up more shit and makes the people we're trying to convince more stubborn and intractable.

These people aren't much interested in political platforms and planks.

Exactly, which is what makes them so ignorant and gullible. Great for manipulation by the right wing propaganda machine.

As are people on the left. Having a formal education doesn't necessarily make one any smarter or less susceptible to manipulation. In fact I'd say that in many ways the "educated left" is at least as susceptible to right wing manipulation than those on the right. (Earlier today I was reminded of the Al Franken debacle, in which the Dems were adroitly manipulated into seriously wounding their already inadequate power in The Senate.)

The strategists behind the Right Wing (unlike their masses) are very smart and are astute students of history. The American Left has no real strategists and are, for the most part, sitting ducks.

We are also prone to vast overconfidence and hubris.

And they don't much care about what goes on in the cities except that they don't much care for it.

Exactly, they are too selfish to care about most Americans. Their attitude in too many cases seems to be "We, the few, the simple, the pure white "Christian" rural types are the real Americans, fuck the vast majority of Americans."

Because the vast majority of Americans live in the cities and suburbs they disdain.

[/quote]
But they hold the keys to The Senate.

This is not an accident; it was one of the intentions of The Founding Fathers to prevent a buildup of power by the "favored elite" similar to the situation in Britain around the time of the Revolution.

And you're overstating the power of the Christian Evangelicals, who are actually quite a small minority even among the rural poor. The are, however, a well organized and very loudmouthed minority with disproportionate political power.

Most of the rural poor just want to be left alone to work and live. Remove the influence or organized right wing propaganda and they're just like anybody else. Much the same as can be said for the urban left, except that the urban left think they're better than everybody else. Or act like they do.

My hand hurts. Enough for now. Apologies for any typos I missed.

(I really messed up the formatting of whose post was what, but I think I got it fixed. Now my hand REALLY hurts.)

[nobby]

And we're not keeping our eyes on the prize - which is winning The Senate.

[…]

But they hold the keys to The Senate.

This is not an accident; it was one of the intentions of The Founding Fathers to prevent a buildup of power by the "favored elite" similar to the situation in Britain around the time of the Revolution.

Who is the "we" in "we're"?

Not you or I. Unless we contribute money we don't have to politicians in states where we don't live, we don't have much say in winning back the Senate, and it isn't because "we're not keeping our eyes on the prize".

Your head hurts so you had to stop before the point where you tell me that I don't realize that the Dems' overwhelming House majority was achieved largely by Dem candidates eking out narrow victories without "radical left" agendas.

Probably.

[John Eppstein]

And we're not keeping our eyes on the prize - which is winning The Senate.

[…]

But they hold the keys to The Senate.

This is not an accident; it was one of the intentions of The Founding Fathers to prevent a buildup of power by the "favored elite" similar to the situation in Britain around the time of the Revolution.

Who is the "we" in "we're"?

Not you or I. Unless we contribute money we don't have to politicians in states where we don't live, we don't have much say in winning back the Senate, and it isn't because "we're not keeping our eyes on the prize".

Your head hurts so you had to stop before the point where you tell me that I don't realize that the Dems' overwhelming House majority was achieved largely by Dem candidates eking out narrow victories without "radical left" agendas.

Probably.

I contribute a bit. I have a periodic contribution in for Beto's campaign. When it gets closer to the election I'll probably donate to selected Senate campaigns,too.

And if Beto's presidential campaign doesn't catch fire soon there's talk of him running for the Senate in Texas, which he would probably win this time.

I don't see much point to contributing to CA candidates the state's Senate seats are pretty much in the bag.

My head doesn't hurt - it's my HAND. Gout is a joint disease, a form of periodic arthritis. Doc gave me a prescription for steroids - prednesone - to treat it and I have a regular script for codeine for the pain - I also have chronic arthritis in both hips.

[nobby]

Show me any hunting or sporting reason to have high capacity magazines. Deer don't shoot back.

And I bet you've never been charged by an enraged 10 point buck that weighs half a ton. Which is what happens if you miss your first shot and fail to drop him. Or if he just happens to haves a couple of does around and is in rut.

I was, when I was a little kid maybe 4 or 5 years old and I wasn't even shooting at him - he was just really ornery and nearly knocked down the fence separating the animals from the kids at the outdoor zoo. Deer are not the helpless, peaceful animals that urbanites think they are, thanks to Disney. Deer are dangerous.

Clearly, you don't know anything about hunting.

Guns are restricted to 5 rounds for deer hunting.

The .223/ 5.56 rounds in an AR-15 were designed for a man-sized target -- fine for coyotes and wild boar, not so much for getting a clean kill on deer.

A popular semi-auto deer gun is a Remington that holds one in the chamber and has a 4 round capacity magazine but it's chambered for .30-06 rounds, much more powerful than 5.56.

If you wound a large animal, it might charge you. If you miss, it will likely run away if it can. The 10 point buck may be big, but it isn't necessarily stupid.

Not only don't you need an assault-type rifle, you don't need a gun.

There are hunters who will take out your 10 point buck with an arrow. A high tech compound bow, probably, not your father's long bow. But still a bow and arrow.

If the hunter gets a clean shot, the buck stops here. Misses entirely, the critter may not realize there's a threat or may not be able to tell where it's coming from.

If the arrow wounds the critter, he won't be able to charge the hunter unless he magically develops the ability to climb a tree so he can get to the hunter's perch.

[nobby]

And if Beto's presidential campaign doesn't catch fire soon there's talk of him running for the Senate in Texas, which he would probably win this time.

That would be fantastic!

[nobby]

Remember, the people we need to win over are for the most part under-educated and very susceptible to propagandizing by the same right wing network that "coincidentally" happens to control nearly all major league sports media in the US. Don't underestimate the power that goes with that.

The sports media point is one that seems valid that I never hear anywhere else.

Maybe this gets too close to home for other news networks? Or it gets too far into the weeds for the public in general to not regard as just another conspiracy theory?
Maybe elaborate on that when your head stops hurting.

Another thing that people don't realize because almost no one ever says it out loud, is WHY Pelosi was walking a tightrope on impeachment.*

Some talking head explained pretty convincingly that Trump's popularity in red states made calling for impeachment in public a potentially risky thing to do if public opinion hasn't reached the tipping point in those areas.

Most of us liberals can't wait for Trump to be at least out of office if not hanging in a prison cell.

I have to say I'm outraged when I heard Dems saying that impeachment might help Trump get re-elected. Yeah, the Repubs in the Senate might not/ probably wouldn't remove him from office.

But there were only 2 previous impeachments in U.S. history, and both seem to be chickenshit nothing burgers compared to the endless litany of charges that could be brought against Trump.

Andrew Johnson:

"Some of the charges were petty, but most centered on the president’s alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 stated that Johnson ordered Stanton removed with the intent to violate the act. Articles 2, 3 and 8 alleged that the appointment of Thomas, to replace Stanton, without the advice and consent of the Senate was a further violation of the Constitution." **

And of course the anti-Clinton witch hunt which cost multiple times as much money and time as the current investigations yielded one count of lying under oath about an extramarital affair by Bill Clinton. Trump's lawyers won't let him testify because that would yield dozens, if not hundreds, of counts of lying under oath about things that are far more important.

What Clinton (who, as we know, was re-elected after being impeached) had that Trump doesn't is high approval ratings going into impeachment, and Larry Flynt exposing the extreme hypocrisy of philandering Republicans who were braying stupidly about how immoral Clinton was. ***

But Senate Republicans would be on record as exonerating an obviously treasonous criminal (which everyone knows except the 30% of Americans who have been thoroughly brainwashed) and a few might be voted out in the backlash.

All we need is a few more Dems in the Senate and it's a whole new ballgame.



* Impeachment proceedings are currently underway


**https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi ... ohnson.htm

*** https://www.moldea.com/Barr.html

[John Eppstein]

Remember, the people we need to win over are for the most part under-educated and very susceptible to propagandizing by the same right wing network that "coincidentally" happens to control nearly all major league sports media in the US. Don't underestimate the power that goes with that.

The sports media point is one that seems valid that I never hear anywhere else.

Maybe this gets too close to home for other news networks? Or it gets too far into the weeds for the public in general to not regard as just another conspiracy theory?
Maybe elaborate on that when your head stops hurting.

Another thing that people don't realize because almost no one ever says it out loud, is WHY Pelosi was walking a tightrope on impeachment.*

Some talking head explained pretty convincingly that Trump's popularity in red states made calling for impeachment in public a potentially risky thing to do if public opinion hasn't reached the tipping point in those areas.

Most of us liberals can't wait for Trump to be at least out of office if not hanging in a prison cell.

I have to say I'm outraged when I heard Dems saying that impeachment might help Trump get re-elected. Yeah, the Repubs in the Senate might not/ probably wouldn't remove him from office.

But there were only 2 previous impeachments in U.S. history, and both seem to be chickenshit nothing burgers compared to the endless litany of charges that could be brought against Trump.

Andrew Johnson:

"Some of the charges were petty, but most centered on the president’s alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 stated that Johnson ordered Stanton removed with the intent to violate the act. Articles 2, 3 and 8 alleged that the appointment of Thomas, to replace Stanton, without the advice and consent of the Senate was a further violation of the Constitution." **

And of course the anti-Clinton witch hunt which cost multiple times as much money and time as the current investigations yielded one count of lying under oath about an extramarital affair by Bill Clinton. Trump's lawyers won't let him testify because that would yield dozens, if not hundreds, of counts of lying under oath about things that are far more important.

What Clinton (who, as we know, was re-elected after being impeached) had that Trump doesn't is high approval ratings going into impeachment, and Larry Flynt exposing the extreme hypocrisy of philandering Republicans who were braying stupidly about how immoral Clinton was. ***

But Senate Republicans would be on record as exonerating an obviously treasonous criminal (which everyone knows except the 30% of Americans who have been thoroughly brainwashed) and a few might be voted out in the backlash.

All we need is a few more Dems in the Senate and it's a whole new ballgame.



* Impeachment proceedings are currently underway


**https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi ... ohnson.htm

*** https://www.moldea.com/Barr.html

I've held that idea about sports broadcasting as an inlet to the public opinion for quite some time now, but oddly enough few if any others seems to get it. To me it appears to be an obvious strategy for insinuating one's agenda into the public consciousness, given the pervasiveness of sports in US culture and the fact that historically Sports broadcasts has a very close affiliation with news broadcasting, it's just that before Rupert Murdock nobody had the idea of weaponizing it for political purposes. As to other networks, by this time Faux has a contractual lock on most major league broadcasting, and that gives then an inordinate amount of influence over public opinion, as most hard core sports fans will be getting their news from the same outlet as their sports. The general public probably doesn't want to hear about it because they don't want to see them selves as being so easily manipulated.

I don't understand why Democratic strategists don't recognize it more openly, although at this point I don't know what they could do about it.... They might not want to push it for fear of alienating sports fans.

As far as Pelosi goes, as you probably know I really don't like her much - she's a key member of the conservative fake "progressive" cabal of the Democratic party led by Dianne Feinstein (who is firmly in the pocket of Wall Street and the real estate lobby - and hates rock and roll) and I don't trust her at all. As to her rationale, I kinda understand what she says her position is, but I don't know about her analysis. It seems to me that she's just been stalling and that if she'd shown a bit more positive leadership we'd be a lot farther along. OTOH, at this point Rump does appear to be doing an even more effective job of hanging himself than usual, but I don't believe that Pelosi predicted that as part of her strategy.

I am, of course, firmly in favor of impeaching Rump as soon as effectively possible and convicting him of high treason and multiple business crimes.

I agree 100% that drawing comparisons between the Clinton proceedings and Rump is a false parallel - almost everybody loved Bill and a majority of people hate Rump - and he's been doing everything possible to alienate a large segment of his previous support.

I believe that public opinion is in fact changing. The question is how far and how fast.

[John Eppstein]

Anybody have any comments about the latest installment of the media circus?

[upstairs]

'Twas the worst yet. Looks like four more!