Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Better smileys.

Topic: Trumpocalypse (Read 85004 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • ksen
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8450
Yeah, of course. That's why Republicans are ditching Moore.

Republican's aren't really people you should be trying to emulate.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8451
Franken appears to have thought at the time that what he did was 'funny', or 'naughty'. Not defending him at all but for me it highlights the lack of respect for women's ownership of their own bodies that goes right along with women having been second-class humans for so long. It takes time to shift a cultural view from women's bodies as untouchable without permission because they belong to other men (fathers, husbands, even brothers) to their being untouchable without permission because women own their own bodies. While there have always been men who ignored cultural conventions and sexually harassed or assaulted women anyway, I think there may have been a period (60s to 90s, maybe?) in which that shift has happened, and there was a cultural failure to quickly respond to the change - a sort of wild west of sexist behaviours. Women are coming forward with these incidents now because if they'd complained at the time they wouldn't have been taken seriously even if they were believed.

I'm having trouble articulating this because behaviour like Franken's - and Moore's, and Trump's, and Clinton's - were so goddamned common a couple decades ago that most women just put up with it, got angry, felt humiliated, and were well aware that coming forward would not lead to anything happening to the men, not even loss of stature or the condemnation of other men, but could lead to the women being labelled as attention whores, whiny, getting upset over nothing.

So I don't know if that first paragraph is nonsense or has a grain of truth I'm not educated enough to express coherently.

this is interesting.

unironically, I haven't heard this before, but it fits in perfectly with my understanding of events.

at the risk of going way off on a tangent, I sometimes think things like this happen more generally with any change in social norms.  people see that the rules are open to revision and some misinterpret that to mean there are no rules.  as handwavey shitty examples in support of this, I think of how California in the 70s and Florida more recently were seemingly overrun with serial killers, serial rapists, cults, and other psychos and criminals.  both had recently been centers of enormous cultural change - California as the hub of the counterculture and then the destination of half the world's tech geeks;  Florida as a previously good old southern state, which saw a huge and diverse influx of outsiders from cuba, puerto rico, and long Island all in the span of a few decades.

I realize I am perilously close to sounding like some reactionary Trumpist.  of course I'm not.  I think social change is often necessary, and diversity is beautiful.  but I also think a lot of people aren't equipped to handle changing culture and norms.  some get scared.  others get this dizzy nihilist feeling.  and a few, like I say, decide there just are no rules and go full sociopath.  ....  it's not a reason to go fetal and demand a return to 1950s america, just maybe a side effect that has to be dealt with along the way.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8452
Republican's aren't really people you should be trying to emulate.
I dunno, they seem like decent role models if you actually want control of the government. Given their unfavorable electoral demographics and shitty ideas, they've done a fantastic job of getting elected (even if their internal problems mean they can't get many of their policies moving lately).

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8453
There you go girls, just lay there and take one or three for the team.
Pretty much what you're saying to the countless dead if you want compromise on a pro-war president, no?

No.
Why not? If you're willing to compromise your principles when it comes to life-and-death policy issues that affect thousands, then you should be willing to compromise on one sleazebag. I mean this completely generally--ditch Franken because he'll be replaced by somebody just as effective, so who cares. But we owe ourselves some account of when calculating political pragmatism (and its life-destroying consequences) are justified and not, and why.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8454
Yeah, of course. That's why Republicans are ditching Moore.

Republican's aren't really people you should be trying to emulate.


Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8455
anyway, the outing of sexual harassers etc. should not be reduced to a partisan game

Sure it should. Partisanship isn't just a petty dispute arising from being on different teams, its a life-and-death matter of competing interests. Republican control of healthcare policy will literally kill tens of thousands. Republican control of tax policy will lock untold millions in poverty (also sending many of them to an early grave due to the terrible consequences of being poor). Republican control of environmental policy is potentially world-ending (literally!). This stuff matters more than any single person's monstrous behavior. If you thought that anti-war democrats should hold their ethical objections and vote for Clinton as the lesser evil, then you already implicitly accept that.
Because turning this into a partisan issue will not be an advantage for the Democrats, except maybe in the short term (and given Franken and Clinton, maybe not even that). And because making it a partisan issue will make it so that issue simply doesn't matter to the people it isn't used against.

Which is what Moore is already trying to do.

ETA: which means that "should we make it partisan" really isn't the right question to be asking. It's "will". And the answer is yes.
  • Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 03:45:44 PM by uncool

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8456
on the one hand, it's hard to dismiss the ruthless realpolitik logic of quiz's argument

on the other,


Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8457
there are other approaches besides a kneejerk defense or full-on accepting the game the Republicans are trying to pull.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8458
anyway, the outing of sexual harassers etc. should not be reduced to a partisan game

Sure it should. Partisanship isn't just a petty dispute arising from being on different teams, its a life-and-death matter of competing interests. Republican control of healthcare policy will literally kill tens of thousands. Republican control of tax policy will lock untold millions in poverty (also sending many of them to an early grave due to the terrible consequences of being poor). Republican control of environmental policy is potentially world-ending (literally!). This stuff matters more than any single person's monstrous behavior. If you thought that anti-war democrats should hold their ethical objections and vote for Clinton as the lesser evil, then you already implicitly accept that.
Because turning this into a partisan issue will not be an advantage for the Democrats, except maybe in the short term (and given Franken and Clinton, maybe not even that). And because making it a partisan issue will make it so that issue simply doesn't matter to the people it isn't used against.

Which is what Moore is already trying to do.

ETA: which means that "should we make it partisan" really isn't the right question to be asking. It's "will". And the answer is yes.
It has always been a partisan issue. There's a reason why people like Gloria Steinem were propagandizing for Bill Clinton twenty years ago.

ETA: All issues are partisan issues.
  • Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 05:35:45 PM by Quizalufagus

  • ksen
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8459
There you go girls, just lay there and take one or three for the team.
Pretty much what you're saying to the countless dead if you want compromise on a pro-war president, no?

No.
Why not?
It's in the part you snipped out.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8460
anyway, the outing of sexual harassers etc. should not be reduced to a partisan game

Sure it should. Partisanship isn't just a petty dispute arising from being on different teams, its a life-and-death matter of competing interests. Republican control of healthcare policy will literally kill tens of thousands. Republican control of tax policy will lock untold millions in poverty (also sending many of them to an early grave due to the terrible consequences of being poor). Republican control of environmental policy is potentially world-ending (literally!). This stuff matters more than any single person's monstrous behavior. If you thought that anti-war democrats should hold their ethical objections and vote for Clinton as the lesser evil, then you already implicitly accept that.
Because turning this into a partisan issue will not be an advantage for the Democrats, except maybe in the short term (and given Franken and Clinton, maybe not even that). And because making it a partisan issue will make it so that issue simply doesn't matter to the people it isn't used against.

Which is what Moore is already trying to do.

ETA: which means that "should we make it partisan" really isn't the right question to be asking. It's "will". And the answer is yes.
It has always been a partisan issue. There's a reason why people like Gloria Steinem were propagandizing for Bill Clinton twenty years ago.

ETA: All issues are partisan issues.
But there is a matter of degree. I read jefe's post as arguing against making it entirely partisan (reducing it to an [entirely] partisan game, as I read it); your post seems to be generally supporting an increase in partisanship, no matter where we already are on the spectrum.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8461
There you go girls, just lay there and take one or three for the team.
Pretty much what you're saying to the countless dead if you want compromise on a pro-war president, no?

No.
Why not? If you're willing to compromise your principles when it comes to life-and-death policy issues that affect thousands, then you should be willing to compromise on one sleazebag. I mean this completely generally--ditch Franken because he'll be replaced by somebody just as effective, so who cares. But we owe ourselves some account of when calculating political pragmatism (and its life-destroying consequences) are justified and not, and why.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.c7c5b0e92387

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8462
i'd probably have a lot more respect for republicans if they just said, "yeah moore is a scumbag but we need the votes" instead of doing this  "but clinton!" and "court of public opinion!" shit tbh. at least that's an honest and pragmatic approach to power. anyone calling for him to drop out of the race probably just doesn't think he can win.

this is why i see quiz's point: there are actual stakes and actual power up for grabs here. most of the best responses implicitly acknowledge this by arguing that franken not resigning would be worse overall for democrats and resigning won't do much harm.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8463
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jamie-johnson-lazy-blacks-quits-homeland-security_us_5a0e2c00e4b045cf43708166
Quote
Homeland Security Official Who Blamed Slums On 'Lazy Blacks' Quits
Jamie Johnson apologizes for the "manner" in which his ideas were expressed in 2008.

A Homeland Security official in the Trump administration appointed to cultivate unity among community organizations has quit following publication of earlier comments in which he blamed slums on the "laziness, drug use and sexual promiscuity" of African-Americans.

CNN uncovered the statements the Rev. Jamie Johnson expressed while he was host of a radio program in Iowa and as a guest on other conservative shows. He made the comments about blacks and slums in 2008 on "The Right Balance" on Accent Radio Network, CNN reported.

Johnson also said during his radio appearances from 2008 to 2016 that Islam's only contribution to the world was oil and "dead bodies," and that terrorism represented the "true meaning" of Islam. "Jews do not want to cut our heads off; Muslims want to cut our heads off," he said in 2011.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Johnson's resignation within hours after the CNN story appeared Thursday.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8464
Another thing worth recognizing here is that the Republicans seem quite eager and willing to let this be a partisan issue. It's win-win for them. If the left doesn't act, then they can use that as ammo in their anti-woman initiatives. If the left demands resignations at the first hint of sexual misbehavior without a fact-finding effort, then it becomes easy for right-wing operatives to accuse high-level Dems of sexual harassment and eliminate them from politics.

Establishing a binding fact-finding process that applies equally to both Republicans and Democrats regardless of politics is absolutely necessary if we don't want to see this turned into a tool to purge opposition to Republican political objectives.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8465
Absolutely.

But the shakeup on the Senate Judiciary Committee may allow Sessions to get away with his shit.

Not saying one should take precedence over the other. Just pointing out that the pattern of events unfolding has the potential to weaken resistance to Trump undermining of the judicial system.
I'm worried about it too, but the governor of Minnesota is a democrat, so would appoint a democrat to replace him.  and in the ensuing special election, Minnesota would likely elect another democrat.

The latter I'm less convinced of. Additionally, this creates a gap on the senate committees that are digging deepest into the Trump-Russia connections. This gives the Repubs the opportunity to pull another seat, which could be their path to passing full healthcare repeals and tax bills. You gotta think they'll go all-in on that.

the committees are completely useless as they're controlled by R's

all hope rests with Mueller

 :pisstape:

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8466
Absolutely.

But the shakeup on the Senate Judiciary Committee may allow Sessions to get away with his shit.

Not saying one should take precedence over the other. Just pointing out that the pattern of events unfolding has the potential to weaken resistance to Trump undermining of the judicial system.
I'm worried about it too, but the governor of Minnesota is a democrat, so would appoint a democrat to replace him.  and in the ensuing special election, Minnesota would likely elect another democrat.

The latter I'm less convinced of. Additionally, this creates a gap on the senate committees that are digging deepest into the Trump-Russia connections. This gives the Repubs the opportunity to pull another seat, which could be their path to passing full healthcare repeals and tax bills. You gotta think they'll go all-in on that.

the committees are completely useless as they're controlled by R's

all hope rests with Mueller

 :pisstape:
Obi wan Kenobi, you're our only hope.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8467
i can't help but think all the batshit crazy nonsense in the tax bill is genius. it's not like anyone really cares about subsidies for private jets. there's no real political mandate for that from anywhere. it's just the legislative equivalent of ablative armor. it will get blasted off in negotiations leaving behind a still putrid hard core of regressive tax policy.

this is what i think about every time democrats offer up sane, sensible, carefully calibrated and moderate policy in congress. who gives a shit? it's so stupid! you aren't dealing with a good faith opposition that is willing to work with you for the good of the nation. next time you're in power just go fucking nuts. subsidize people for robbing banks, abolish rent, whatever. let the actual progressive policy agenda be shielded by a thick coating of bullshit that's meant to be washed away in the inevitable haggling down phase.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8468
I think there's truth to your "ablative armor" opening bid theory, but I think the dynamics really are more complicated than that.  I'm guessing the private jet tax break benefits large donors, who are the ones calling gop office holders and saying "pass this bill or never call me again".  it also serves as indirect corporate welfare for Gulfstream or whoever makes these corporate jets, who I'm betting have assembly plants in the home districts of certain chairmen or members of leadership.  plus they can point to said corporate welfare and say "look, we're saving jobs!" which may ring true to people who are either incapable of critical thought or don't think quantitatively enough to see that the few hundred jobs they're saving are less than negligible in the grand scheme of things.

and I don't think these douche policies are without a PR cost.  giving a tax break for rich people buying corporate jets really does look bad, especially as part of a package that raises taxes on the middle class.  you put that in a bill, and the opposition can and will hammer you for it (as the democrats are doing), and you will pay some price at the polls. that is part of the cost of crap like that.

anyway, I don't think it's simply this one dimensional problem where you pick a ridiculous opening bid so that you can settle for something better than you'd get starting from a reasonable opening bid.  I think the bid/negotiation model is part of it.  but so are donors, pork barrel spending, optics, etc.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8469
I think there's truth to your "ablative armor" opening bid theory, but I think the dynamics really are more complicated than that.  I'm guessing the private jet tax break benefits large donors, who are the ones calling gop office holders and saying "pass this bill or never call me again".  it also serves as indirect corporate welfare for Gulfstream or whoever makes these corporate jets, who I'm betting have assembly plants in the home districts of certain chairmen or members of leadership.  plus they can point to said corporate welfare and say "look, we're saving jobs!" which may ring true to people who are either incapable of critical thought or don't think quantitatively enough to see that the few hundred jobs they're saving are less than negligible in the grand scheme of things.

i don't actually think the ablative quality of this shit is the only reason it's there and i'm not arguing that they actively do not want (e.g.) a private jet subsidy. i'm saying that it's the most useful quality of it and, counter-intuitively, actually a very good idea. like, unless their donors are threatening to cut them off unless their tax bill specifically includes a private jet subsidy, it's not actually a required mandate. it might be nice to have for reasons you list but ultimately its function (and remember, we can analyze the major function of something regardless of the intent of any individual backing it) will be to make it easier for the more important parts to pass.

Quote
and I don't think these douche policies are without a PR cost.  giving a tax break for rich people buying corporate jets really does look bad, especially as part of a package that raises taxes on the middle class.  you put that in a bill, and the opposition can and will hammer you for it (as the democrats are doing), and you will pay some price at the polls. that is part of the cost of crap like that.

but as you point out, they are facing a donor revolt. "some price at the polls" in the event that shit like private jet subsidies passes is worth the risk if it makes it easier for the core of the tax policy to go into effect. eta: and even if the GOP loses some power over this, having a lot of nonsense on the books still acts to defend the core should democrats be in a position try to roll it all back.

Quote
anyway, I don't think it's simply this one dimensional problem where you pick a ridiculous opening bid so that you can settle for something better than you'd get starting from a reasonable opening bid.  I think the bid/negotiation model is part of it.  but so are donors, pork barrel spending, optics, etc.

even if it's not one-dimensional, my point is less analytic and more prescriptive. i mean, i don't think it's one dimensional. i am just highlighting the most significant quality of garbage like this because there's a lesson to be learned here for a party that, in theory, stands for progressive policies that most americans actually want: bidding high with a bunch of crazy bullshit is the strong starting position. that is, assuming the dems really want all the things they claim to want.

ultimately though i think this is going to die in the senate because even the core of the bill is horrific. the GOP's reach has exceeded its grasp and their policies actually suck enough that "moderate" republican senators have to worry about the fallout at the polls even if there's no gratuitous bullshit. at least i hope that will happen. but i suppose it's always possible that there will be enough turncoat dems thirsting for bipartisanship to pretend that a "compromise" that gives the GOP almost everything they really want is a good idea. eta: the reason i think this is plausible and why i think the crazy bullshit is primarily ablative is because so much liberal attention is focused on the crazy bullshit that it will be harder to argue against a tax bill that doesn't have that stuff. clearly, in that case the GOP has "compromised" by agreeing not to utterly destroy higher education to give rich people more jets, so we should meet them halfway.
  • Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 06:42:22 AM by the idea of Harambe

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8470
There's coverage of the more ridiculous stuff, like maintaining tax breaks for private jets and golf courses, but there's also coverage of the more meat-and-potatoes bullshit like eliminating the estate tax or how companies aren't going to actually hire anyone or give our raises and they openly admit this.

I still wonder how much is bad faith arguments in favor of a bill they know does nothing but shovel money to the wealthy and how much is really their brains being so broken by their garbage ideology that they really believe anyone but the wealthy would benefit.

I dunno. Flake hinted at being a "no" today, so that brings us up to 4. My guess is still that we get Bush Tax Cuts 3.0, i.e. a big break for the wealthy and a pittance for everyone else that expires in 10 years.

  • Pandora
  • Resurrected Robot
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8471
i can't help but think all the batshit crazy nonsense in the tax bill is genius. it's not like anyone really cares about subsidies for private jets. there's no real political mandate for that from anywhere. it's just the legislative equivalent of ablative armor. it will get blasted off in negotiations leaving behind a still putrid hard core of regressive tax policy.
Anchoring
Just because you're unique doesn't mean you're useful.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8472
There's coverage of the more ridiculous stuff, like maintaining tax breaks for private jets and golf courses, but there's also coverage of the more meat-and-potatoes bullshit like eliminating the estate tax or how companies aren't going to actually hire anyone or give our raises and they openly admit this.

I still wonder how much is bad faith arguments in favor of a bill they know does nothing but shovel money to the wealthy and how much is really their brains being so broken by their garbage ideology that they really believe anyone but the wealthy would benefit.

I dunno. Flake hinted at being a "no" today, so that brings us up to 4. My guess is still that we get Bush Tax Cuts 3.0, i.e. a big break for the wealthy and a pittance for everyone else that expires in 10 years.
I think some of them still honestly believe in reaganomics.  Orrin hatch gave the impression of sincere belief in his testy exchange with Sherrod Brown the other day.

Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8473
ultimately though i think this is going to die in the senate because even the core of the bill is horrific. the GOP's reach has exceeded its grasp and their policies actually suck enough that "moderate" republican senators have to worry about the fallout at the polls even if there's no gratuitous bullshit. at least i hope that will happen. but i suppose it's always possible that there will be enough turncoat dems thirsting for bipartisanship to pretend that a "compromise" that gives the GOP almost everything they really want is a good idea. eta: the reason i think this is plausible and why i think the crazy bullshit is primarily ablative is because so much liberal attention is focused on the crazy bullshit that it will be harder to argue against a tax bill that doesn't have that stuff. clearly, in that case the GOP has "compromised" by agreeing not to utterly destroy higher education to give rich people more jets, so we should meet them halfway.

To an extent I don't think this is even ablative so much as signaling to their donors that they could and would make their wildest dreams come true if only they primary the fuck out of the few people like Flake or McCain who won't get on board. The Republicans aren't trying to actually get substantive tax reform enacted. They are trying to say "don't cut me off, cut this other guy off." Repubs still think they'll win big in 2018 and the biggest threat to any individual republican senator is being successfully primaried from the right, not being beaten by a democrat in the general.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #8474
one thing I disagree with there ^^ is that I don't think they expect to win in 2018.  I think they expect mixed results; losing seats in the house (though whether it flips control is an open question) while gaining in the senate (though possibly not many).  but yeah, they are more worried about primary challenges than they are about the general.  and that goes for both house and senate.