All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

This article feels dubious to me.

I don't buy the idea that the KGB is some all-powerful psychologically insightful organization who predicted somehow from 1977 that Trump would become president 40 years later. After all if they were, the USSR wouldn't have fallen, Chernobyl wouldn't have become public knowledge.

Sure Trump visiting Moscow in 1987 during the Gorbachev years of Glasnost and Perestroika makes sense and they might have tried to inveigle Trump but it would be of the routine corruption and bribery level that exists in diplomacy in all times and all places. Barring special evidence, the best explanation for Trump being ********* by the Russians (and he is, that's for sure) is the one offered by NYT's Tax investigation where Trump after multiple bankruptices took a loan from Deutsche Bank which someone had to provide security for. Even then, I don't think it's a case that Putin backed Trump all along intending or expecting he'd win.

I think the whole Trump thing and the 2016 intervention was a gamble on Putin's part and somehow he drew a inside straight in a manner even he might have been surprised by.

He was a wealthy person which by itself gives him outsized influence in the US. That would be enough to make him worthy of recruitment by the KGB, him running for office later is a bonus.

[The Cool Thatguy]

He was a wealthy person which by itself gives him outsized influence in the US. That would be enough to make him worthy of recruitment by the KGB, him running for office later is a bonus.

Yeah, its not like Trump is a super deep guy, as we saw how many times? Flatter him, tell him how awesome he is and maybe play a note on his inferiority complex, and he'd be putty in your hands.

[TheDarman]

Again...

Sanders had the more realistic read on this and approach during the primary.

Probably time for Biden to have a discussion with Sanders on that approach.

I don't personally care for an attitude that is abrasive to start. And I do think the smarter move is to go to voters with the message that you want to change things and bring everyone to the table in good faith. Then, it is better to lay blame at the other person's feet for not acting in good faith. It may muddy the waters--and obviously opponents will attempt to say the same thing about you. But coming in with that swagger and lack of deference or civility is only going to allow them to blame you. And the only thing Democrats can say in response is, "Damn right we didn't reach out! [Expletive] you guys! We won!" Most voters, even Democrats, don't really want to see that you didn't even make a good faith attempt to reach out to the other side. Especially given our institutions give a ridiculous amount of deference to states with large rural contingencies and huge swaths of right-leaning voters, we have to be cognizant of that if we want to preserve the Senate--a minoritarian institution by design. You can't go to right-leaning voters and defend stances like that.

Personally, I think Biden had the better read on the situation. I honestly don't think he thought he could work in good faith with these goons that won't even hold a traitor who incited a riot to account. But I think he recognized that Americans, in general, were tired of Trump because of the elevated temperature of the rhetoric of politics. Biden won by being everything Trump wasn't. That isn't to say that Sanders was "the Trump of the left", but he promised to be the champion of leftist ideals in the same way that Trump was the champion of white supremacist ideals. The content isn't as important as it should be in American politics and I'm sure that there would've been a good degree of both-sidesism given that Sanders and Trump are a lot alike in their uncompromising personas.

[numberthirty]

I don't personally care for an attitude that is abrasive to start. And I do think the smarter move is to go to voters with the message that you want to change things and bring everyone to the table in good faith. Then, it is better to lay blame at the other person's feet for not acting in good faith. It may muddy the waters--and obviously opponents will attempt to say the same thing about you. But coming in with that swagger and lack of deference or civility is only going to allow them to blame you. And the only thing Democrats can say in response is, "Damn right we didn't reach out! [Expletive] you guys! We won!" Most voters, even Democrats, don't really want to see that you didn't even make a good faith attempt to reach out to the other side. Especially given our institutions give a ridiculous amount of deference to states with large rural contingencies and huge swaths of right-leaning voters, we have to be cognizant of that if we want to preserve the Senate--a minoritarian institution by design. You can't go to right-leaning voters and defend stances like that.

Personally, I think Biden had the better read on the situation. I honestly don't think he thought he could work in good faith with these goons that won't even hold a traitor who incited a riot to account. But I think he recognized that Americans, in general, were tired of Trump because of the elevated temperature of the rhetoric of politics. Biden won by being everything Trump wasn't. That isn't to say that Sanders was "the Trump of the left", but he promised to be the champion of leftist ideals in the same way that Trump was the champion of white supremacist ideals. The content isn't as important as it should be in American politics and I'm sure that there would've been a good degree of both-sidesism given that Sanders and Trump are a lot alike in their uncompromising personas.

How many times is the exact approach going to wind up with right around "Zilch..." to show for itself before people will get honest with themselves about it?

Never mind that quite a bit of what you have mentioned is a whole lot more like "What Someone Sees Sanders' Approach As..." than what Sanders actually said.

[TheDarman]

How many times is the exact approach going to wind up with right around "Zilch..." to show for itself before people will get honest with themselves about it?

It's not about you or me. It's about the constituents in these states, most of which are much redder than the country as a whole. This is not a winning national strategy.

Never mind that quite a bit of what you have mentioned is a whole lot more like "What Someone Sees Sanders' Approach As..." than what Sanders actually said.

Prove it then.

[numberthirty]

It's not about you or me. It's about the constituents in these states, most of which are much redder than the country as a whole. This is not a winning national strategy.

...

In a country where we have seen recent wildcat strikes in traditionally "Republican..." states?

I tend to suspect that it is not as "Black..."/"White..." as what you are laying out.

Never mind if the approach that Sanders has discussed actually gets results on something like a relief package or more affordable healthcare.

...

Prove it then.

There isn't really anything to prove when folks who saw/heard that what he laid out would know that it doesn't really have much to do with what you just laid out?

[numberthirty]

As for the old "Business As Usual..." approach...

There is already the potential for what traditionally happens midway through a first term to happen to Biden.

If anything like that does happen?

The result will most likely be wheels spinning in the mud until his first term ends.

The here and now is probably not the time for that.

If you have to break with the "Business As Usual..." approach to potentially get results that you can actually show the voters in a couple of years?

That might be the difference between a second half of a first term where some things get done versus nothing getting done and Biden taking the blame.

[TheDarman]

In a country where we have seen recent wildcat strikes in traditionally "Republican..." states?

I tend to suspect that it is not as "Black..."/"White..." as what you are laying out.

Never mind if the approach that Sanders has discussed actually gets results on something like a relief package or more affordable healthcare.

Politics is almost as much about optics as results, much to my chagrin.

If you are perceived as never reaching out to the other side, then you will lose in right-of-center districts and states. Just ask Obama after passing the ACA without a single Republican vote. And their salient arguments against the proposal were not "oh man, Democrats didn't go far enough". Their arguments were "Democrats succeeded in getting socialized health care passed and only we can stop him from going further--elect us!"

Democrats got destroyed in 2010. And Sanders' argument, at least as you seemed to frame it ("we can't work with Republicans; let's just go directly to seeing what our caucus can pass"), seems to be going even further with the argument that got Democrats destroyed in 2010 (and was a salient argument against Biden and Democrats in key states in 2020).

There isn't really anything to prove when folks who saw/heard that what he laid out would know that it doesn't really have much to do with what you just laid out?

I had presumed, given my argument was, "We can't work with Republicans, because they refuse to act in good faith, so let's see what our united caucus can pass", and you said that that was Sanders' argument throughout that you wouldn't turn around and say that that wasn't Sanders' argument. It's not my view of Sanders that I expressed. I was articulating an argument against what your view of Sanders' stoic consistency on the issue would've led to.

[TheDarman]

As for the old "Business As Usual..." approach...

There is already the potential for what traditionally happens midway through a first term to happen to Biden.

If anything like that does happen?

The result will most likely be wheels spinning in the mud until his first term ends.

The here and now is probably not the time for that.

If you have to break with the "Business As Usual..." approach to potentially get results that you can actually show the voters in a couple of years?

That might be the difference between a second half of a first term where some things get done versus nothing getting done and Biden taking the blame.

I'm sure this will surprise you, but I agree. And, frankly, it seems clear Biden agrees, given what initially everyone was responding to. Glad to see we are on the same page collectively.

[Tami]

People who talk about the dangers of socialism in America, who accuse all Democrats of being dangerous socialists, make me think of Chicken Little on Steroids.

It's more like they are running along the shore screaming "The Kaiju are coming!!" Meanwhile the winds are picking up and a hurricane is making landfall, and they are swept up into it.

[numberthirty]

I'm sure this will surprise you, but I agree. And, frankly, it seems clear Biden agrees, given what initially everyone was responding to. Glad to see we are on the same page collectively.

Don't really doubt that he agrees.

I doubt that he has much of a plan past where he gets a "Talk To The Hand..."

[numberthirty]

Politics is almost as much about optics as results, much to my chagrin.

If you are perceived as never reaching out to the other side, then you will lose in right-of-center districts and states. Just ask Obama after passing the ACA without a single Republican vote. And their salient arguments against the proposal were not "oh man, Democrats didn't go far enough". Their arguments were "Democrats succeeded in getting socialized health care passed and only we can stop him from going further--elect us!"

Democrats got destroyed in 2010. And Sanders' argument, at least as you seemed to frame it ("we can't work with Republicans; let's just go directly to seeing what our caucus can pass"), seems to be going even further with the argument that got Democrats destroyed in 2010 (and was a salient argument against Biden and Democrats in key states in 2020).

...

Politely...

No one has ever said anything even remotely like -

("we can't work with Republicans; let's just go directly to seeing what our caucus can pass")

More to the point, I can't see how anyone would get anything even remotely like that out of what Sanders has actually said.

[TheDarman]

Don't really doubt that he agrees.

I doubt that he has much of a plan past where he gets a "Talk To The Hand..."

The plan is to move forward without Republicans, like he said, and try to tell people in 2022 that, when it came down to choosing between the American people and taking an odd political stand to him, the Republicans chose politics.

I mean, it was in the story that sparked this conversation.

Politely...

No one has ever said anything even remotely like -

More to the point, I can't see how anyone would get anything even remotely like that out of what Sanders has actually said.

I didn't get that out of what Sanders was saying.

I said, given these circumstances, we can't work with Republicans. Let's just see what our caucus can pass with a majority vote.

You responded saying that Sanders has been saying that the whole time and was always going to engage that way.

That's not my opinion on what he said; that was what you articulated. Sorry if you misunderstood what I initially said in my post.

[Powerboy]

I was talking to a couple of Conservatives at work today. Note: Never get into politics at work though it didn't get bad or anything. But the gist was that Biden is an economic disaster, that trading is in the red across the board and that it's because of his environmental policies costing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

My counter was that not dealing with these environmental problems is already costing billions per year from increased natural disasters not even getting into the loss of life and that it's getting worse the more we pretend it isn't happening or that it will just go away of we ignore it. Also that not dealing with the reality of fossil fuels as a finite resource is going to be more costly in the long run.

That's when someone pulled out their phone, quoted the thing about trade going red and said, "And that's not anecdotal evidence. It's factual."

At that point, I knew it was pointless not that I didn't already know.

P.S. Trump's grab 'em by the ***** was just locker room talk and every guy has done it. Yeah, maybe, at 12-18 years old or 22 if in college. How many people are still doing it at 70 with grown children and grand-children?

[numberthirty]

The plan is to move forward without Republicans, like he said, and try to tell people in 2022 that, when it came down to choosing between the American people and taking an odd political stand to him, the Republicans chose politics.

I mean, it was in the story that sparked this conversation.

...

Which has been the "Business As Usual..." approach which has failed on quite a few occasions.

That's the entire reason Biden should be discussing the approach to dealing with Republicans in Congress who are intent on getting in the way of progress that Sanders has laid out.

...


I didn't get that out of what Sanders was saying.

I said, given these circumstances, we can't work with Republicans. Let's just see what our caucus can pass with a majority vote.

You responded saying that Sanders has been saying that the whole time and was always going to engage that way.

That's not my opinion on what he said; that was what you articulated. Sorry if you misunderstood what I initially said in my post.

Which is the problem.

If someone has pretty clearly said "Biden Needs To Talk To Sanders About The Approach He Laid Out For Dealing With Republicans In Congress Attempting To Bring Any Sort Or Progress To Screeching Halt..."?

Whatever you are on about what you believe the person was saying?

It's a non-issue.

It is about Sanders approach to an issue that will probably come to pass here shortly.