Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

You're quite generous.

 

Me, I don't see it, cuz I don't see Carlson moving behind the camera yet.  If ever.  Unless it's a combo gig somehow, but I think he is going to try hard to keep himself on camera.

 

It sounds like you're assuming "director" in this context as similar to the function of the director of a television show or movie, rather than as one who administers and sets overall policy. The "directors" of television news departments, for example, often also work on camera. I wouldn't expect Carlson to accept a purely behind-the-scenes role, since he obviously relishes the attention and influence he gets as an on-air personality. But telling everyone around him what to do? Reports suggest he also likes that very much.

[Cygnia]

And then there are the whispers of him now thinking about running for president...

[Lord Liaden]

I've thought for years that Carlson has political ambitions. But like Trump and DeSantis, I don't think what he spouts will play with enough  Americans to win nationally.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[unclevlad]

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

It sounds like you're assuming "director" in this context as similar to the function of the director of a television show or movie, rather than as one who administers and sets overall policy. The "directors" of television news departments, for example, often also work on camera. I wouldn't expect Carlson to accept a purely behind-the-scenes role, since he obviously relishes the attention and influence he gets as an on-air personality. But telling everyone around him what to do? Reports suggest he also likes that very much.

 

You're right, I just forgot that's the meaning of the title in TV news.

 

If Carlson tries for the Republican nomination,

a)  the late night types will have a field day

b)  oh my, the backstabbing at a Carlson / Trump / DeSantis debate would be most amusing...

c)  ...almost as entertaining as seeing how Fox News covers his candidacy 

 

Mind, neither rises to a level where I'd actually *watch*...

 

I think he'd find out that the spotlight intensity for a presidential candidate is orders of magnitude more than on a network talking head, and it's sounding like he's got way more than enough skeletons in his closet to cause big problems.

[Cancer]

I think it's been demonstrated that for the crowd that he envisions as his political base, the "skeletons" are irrelevant.  They certainly have been for Trump and his base.  For the rest of the population they matter, but hard-right game plan all along has been to prevent the opposed population from voting, decrease the weight that segment of the vote receives, and/or circumvent a real vote if the result isn't what they like.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Cancer

[unclevlad]

Not quite true.  There's one specific skeleton that matters:  the whole "I hate Trump with a passion" will get played up.  Do you stay loyal to Trump, or switch to Carlson when he's a Trump Betrayer?  To be sure, it's possible this'll hurt Trump most, and help leverage DeSantis...but I don't see how it'll help Carlson.  

 

Oh...man....

 

I was kinda thinking...it was gonna start being miserable in the next few months, as we see the campaigns ramp up in advance of the early primaries...

 

No.  It's getting miserable, for me, NOW.  A DeSantis SuperPAC called Never Back Down is airing ads...some were on MLB Network (had it on before the Braves game went into a multi-hour rain delay) and then on ESPN.   

 

And apparently there's other ads coming out, that I haven't seen...thankfully.  A two-way Trump/DeSantis race will be ugly;  I think a 3-way race with Carlson, if Carlson can actually gain traction, will be a total bloodbath.

[Old Man]

27 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Not quite true.  There's one specific skeleton that matters:  the whole "I hate Trump with a passion" will get played up.  Do you stay loyal to Trump, or switch to Carlson when he's a Trump Betrayer?  To be sure, it's possible this'll hurt Trump most, and help leverage DeSantis...but I don't see how it'll help Carlson. 

 

If I were Tucker Carlson, I'd downplay it during the primaries and run it 24/7 during the general.

 

(I typed "If I were Tucker Carlson" and threw up in my mouth a little.)

[unclevlad]

Sure, but the first consideration is getting through the primaries.  Or maybe second, as he'd need to build a structure capable of large-scale campaigning.

 

Side thought...if he gets trounced in the primaries...runs 3rd at best, losing to both Trump and DeSantis, this might damage his brand/credibility long term.

 

I lean to a '28 run, should the Republicans lose again, rather than a '24 run.  

[Cygnia]

The Red States Experimenting With Authoritarianism

Quote

In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis applauded the role of experimentation within the states, calling them “laboratories of democracy” that could inspire reforms at the national level. Today, that dynamic is inverted, as some red states have become laboratories of authoritarianism, experimenting with the autocratic playbook in ways that could filter up to the federal government. American states are now splintering, not just on partisan lines, but on their commitment to the principles of liberal democracy.

Democracy requires more than just holding elections. But at a bare minimum, two qualities are nonnegotiable. True democracies must allow voters to determine who governs through elections, and must respect the outcome of those elections. Many Republicans at the state level are undercutting those principles.

Democratic deterioration is not a new problem in red states. Jacob Grumbach, a political-science professor at the University of Washington and the author of Laboratories Against Democracy, measured the democratic quality of American states from 2000 to 2018. He used 51 indicators, including gerrymandering, whether politicians were responsive to public opinion, long wait times to vote, and the availability of postelection audits to verify that the count was accurate. States that had been dominated by Republicans over the previous two decades, Grumbach found, became substantially less democratic. States dominated by Democrats and those with a divided government saw no such drop-off.

 

[archer]

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

If I were Tucker Carlson, I'd downplay it during the primaries and run it 24/7 during the general.

 

(I typed "If I were Tucker Carlson" and threw up in my mouth a little.)

 

I know what you mean.

 

I started, as a joke, typing, "At least Tucker Carlson would be a better president than...."

 

I not only couldn't find a way to finish the sentence but I got nauseated and the room started spinning a little. Counterclockwise.

[Dr.Device]

On 4/26/2023 at 6:38 PM, unclevlad said:

 

On the Montana story...yeah, OK, maybe it's repressive Republicans, but from the story?  I'm not sure about that.  Granted that detail is lacking, it's plausible to infer she was at least stretching decorum.  Story gives this quote from her:

 

I'm curious, which things that she did might have "stretched decorum" to an extent that justifies barring her from doing the job she was elected to do?

 

 

[unclevlad]

13 minutes ago, Dr.Device said:

 

I'm curious, which things that she did might have "stretched decorum" to an extent that justifies barring her from doing the job she was elected to do?

 

 

 

Read the story.  The link again:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/politics/montana-house-bans-zooey-zephyr/index.html

 

There is a case there for abuse of privileges, IMO, due to the "blood on your hands" comment. It could have been phrased in a less inflammatory manner.  She was asked to apologize for that, but chose not to.  I'm not saying the Speaker was completely in the right, but neither was she, IMO. 

 

Flip the script.  Start from the premise that "blood on your hands" was, in fact, over the top, and considering it a violation of the chamber's rules of decorum is reasonable.  THEN, what do you want the Speaker to do?

 

The bill is offensive, sure.  I totally get that.  I totally get objecting to it.  But that doesn't mean she was right in how that objection was expressed, or in her characterizations about the apology. 

[csyphrett]

If she was throwing down like the silenced Marg Greene, I can see it. if she wasn't, then the speaker overstepped. The problem is we don't know from this story. We need to see what happened for ourselves like C-Span

CES  

[Lord Liaden]

I do empathize with how hard it's getting for progressive, liberal people to keep the lid of decorum on their emotions, when today's regressives so blatantly don't.

[Ternaugh]

I've received my first physical political advertising for the 2024 presidential race. It's a glossy, multi-page ad for Ron DeSantis from the Never Back Down people, trying to introduce me to 

Quote

 

A Leader.

A Fighter.

A Winner.

WHO NEVER BACKS DOWN.

 

 

Which immediately reminded me of the Dirty Harry quote from Magnum Force, "A man's got to know his limitations."

[Lord Liaden]

DeSantis "never backing down" seems to proceed from stubbornness and hubris, rather than principles. An ego-based response to whoever questions, challenges, or defies him. His conflict with Disney is the outstanding example. Every time they out-maneuver him, rather than cutting his losses he just digs his heels in harder. Another similarity to Trump, refusal to accept that anyone could be smarter than him.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Another similarity to Trump, refusal to accept that anyone could be smarter than him.

 

Reminds me of this (PDF link):

 

https://www.tamdistrict.org/cms/lib/CA01000875/Centricity/Domain/539/Presidential IQ scores.pdf

 

[Joe Walsh]

13 hours ago, Cygnia said:

The Red States Experimenting With Authoritarianism

 

It's really ugly. When the people of MO voted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, the legislature refused to abide by the lawfully passed ballot initiative.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996611586/missouri-will-not-expand-medicaid-despite-voters-wishes-governor-says

 

That kind of stuff happens because the gerrymandered super-majority legislatures know they can ignore the people's will with impunity. If voters waver, they just have to crank up the fear a little higher.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by GM Joe

[Dr.Device]

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

There is a case there for abuse of privileges, IMO, due to the "blood on your hands" comment. It could have been phrased in a less inflammatory manner.  She was asked to apologize for that, but chose not to.  I'm not saying the Speaker was completely in the right, but neither was she, IMO. 

 

 

I read the story before commenting. The phrase "blood on your hands," when it is true (and it is), is not "inflammatory". The flames were lit by those who are passing those laws that are going to kill children. If speaking the truth violates their rules of decorum, then their rules of decorum are garbage and should be ignored.

 

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Flip the script.  Start from the premise that "blood on your hands" was, in fact, over the top, and considering it a violation of the chamber's rules of decorum is reasonable.  THEN, what do you want the Speaker to do?

 

No, I'm not going to start form the premise that the phrase "blood on your hands" was over the top. It was part of a passionately made, true statement about the effects of this bill once it becomes law. Children will die. Many others will suffer needless trauma. The people passing these laws are reprehensible, and would rather silence the truth than face it. As for it violating the rules of decorum, I'd have to see their version of those rules to know if that's the case. If that phrase is specifically called out, then, sure, those rules were violated.

 

And what should the speaker do about it? Do you honestly think the rules of decorum aren't violated regularly by his own caucus? Do you think he would have applied the rules symmetrically? Members of his caucus intentionally misgendered her. They were not censured.

 

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The bill is offensive, sure.  I totally get that.  I totally get objecting to it.  But that doesn't mean she was right in how that objection was expressed, or in her characterizations about the apology. 

 

Tone policing always serves those in power. It is a much used method to quash dissent and silence minorities. 

[Old Man]

Just now, Dr.Device said:

 

And what should the speaker do about it? Do you honestly think the rules of decorum aren't violated regularly by his own caucus? Do you think he would have applied the rules symmetrically? Members of his caucus intentionally misgendered her. They were not censured.

 

Furthermore Ms. Zephyr wasn't just censured, she was banned from the statehouse completely.  It's not surprising--we've all seen the "uppity minorities better learn their place" response to discrimination complaints before.  It's a standard part of the conservative playbook.

 

But we know who the real snowflakes are now.

[Sociotard]

Montana bill sponsor: I prefer my transgender daughter commit suicide rather than allow her to transition

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Well. That's gross. 

[unclevlad]

You put that diplomatically, sir.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

I don't want to get banned. 

[unclevlad]

Considering what I was thinking, I figured that might've motivated your comment.