Political Discussion

None of the Dems who potentially take office in 2021 better pull a spineless Ford move and issue pardons “for the good of the country.” Half the people who were involved in Watergate are still poisoning our politics today, and this is a much more threatening situation to the integrity of our country. This rot needs to be rooted out once and for all.

This morning's The Daily was discussing how Nixon may have survived impeachment hearings if he had just refused to go (the Billy Clint model). Those "Watergate People" you refer to specifically believe in that idea. Essentially, the model is deny deny deny, refuse to acknowledge, and you get to maintain power because no one in your party of choice will cross the aisle to cut off their nose... It's pretty much the Trump playbook.

Regardless of the evidence or facts, "alternative facts" are likely to win out. I hope that people can still surprise me, but I think it's extremely unlikely when it comes to those involved in our current two party system.

I wish that I could make that playbook work for me in everyday life. Like if I just keep denying over and over again maybe I can convince myself I'm a handsome go-getter, with endlesss energy and confidence. C'est la vie. I guess I chose a long time ago to not be that kind of butthead.
 

I don't know all of the details of this case and I don't care to get into it in the way many do to create some false narrative / conspiracy argument, but I do think this is an interesting case.

It seems obvious from afar that if this person was anyone other than a police officer this case would be open and shut Murder 3 manslaughter at minimum. Of course it's made more complicated because we allow cops to behave differently than other citizens. Interestingly enough, it seems that being a police officer and not calling for back-up / following protocol was a major part of the prosecution's argument. What I remain curious about is the officer's motivation. It seems ridiculous that she was just confused, but it's not clear what her motivation was from this brief report.

The conviction is significant, but there will be appeals and I'm wondering if that lack of clear motivation will eventually lead to the conviction being overturned.
 
This is the best articulation of the student crisis that I have ever seen:


Also a couple other worthwhile reads:





 
Also, the Trump impeachment stuff is a case study in catch-22isms. Democratic Senate candidates are leading in both Kansas and Arizona... and going for impeachment risks flipping momentum. Same time, Congress cannot continue to turn its eye to Trump's Orwellian corruption.
 
This is a best possible outcome for his role in this race, IMO. Mild, recoverable health issues that put him on the sidelines without acrimony, conspiracy theories, or debilitating events. It also centers the questions on not age, but overall health. This isn't a question of ageism, but whether a candidate is healthy enough to perform the duties of the most stressful job in the world for four years. The answer for Bernie today is, not at this time.
This is very true. It does somewhat unmuddy the waters. I just feel bad for him.
 
This is very true. It does somewhat unmuddy the waters. I just feel bad for him.

It's only a good thing if you think Warren is more electable. And considering Warren's base is 70% white and makes 100k a year while Bernie's base is only 50% white, makes 50k year and is made up of the working class, union members, youth and independents.... I think that's a highly questionable assertion.

I'd add that my dad had this same procedure 22 years ago, is still alive and was an avid skier and biker into his sixties. That said, optics matter and it's certainly bad optics for people weighing Warren vs. Bernie.

In the end, I'm mostly concerned with taking down Biden (whose mental decay worries me far more than Bernie's hear) and maybe this does help to consolidate support in a way that takes out Biden.
 
It's only a good thing if you think Warren is more electable. And considering Warren's base is 70% white and makes 100k a year while Bernie's base is only 50% white, makes 50k year and is made up of the working class, union members, youth and independents.... I think that's a highly questionable assertion.

Do you have a reference for this information?
Like how many people were a part of the survey that would've generated that data?

I am curious about how those stats was generated, but I'm not sure why it matters what the race, ethnicity, or salary of political supporters (Edit: is), particularly with reference to the discussion about how Bernie's health situation is perceived.

To me, that data doesn't say anything about the potential effectiveness of policies or the difference in policy between candidates. It might say something about whom advertising / political messaging is resonating with.

I'm also not so sure that Warren's base earning more money and being more white is a bad thing, as is implied. At least in the part of the country I live in, it tells me that suburban districts that can flip political gang colors are more likely to vote with the blue people. I think this is what we saw in the mid-terms and if that trend is continuing then it's a positive in my book. Those areas are very white and the potential red districts have high household incomes. The more fiscally diverse areas of the city are voting blue regardless; even with low voter turnout.


The union thing:
I've been a union member for about 10 years. To me (if the earnings statistics are true) that is further evidence about the weakness of unions. Some unions have more political power than others - Yes. Mine is fairly progressive (and fairly weak) while I support its existence it has actually done more to inhibit wage growth and personal security than if I were not in a collective bargaining situation (imo). I wish that wasn't true and would like to see the direction of unions get more in line with modern times, but it seems that most union leadership is caught up in the tactics of the 20th and not the 21st century. It isn't MAGA but similarly there seem to be a fair number of people wanting to make the union great again, but want to do so with a vision of the 1950's in mind.

This is a different discussion, but what I've observed is my union not understanding the value of education and professional positions and focusing negotiations on worker safety instead of wage and benefit security. I also feel that many unions sacrificed future members to protect those that were already there in the 80's and 90's as health care skyrocketed and various bubbles (stock gambling) were generating insecurity in retirement funds. All of this has contributed to lower membership and lower faith in unions. There are of course many other factors like the various political efforts, to destabilize unions as well.

Further, there are some unions, the police union for instance, that are so wholly corrupt that they should be disbanded, but they are such a political dookie-storm that no politician dare touch them (imo). Our local police union president sent out political flyers trying to smear the incoming black mayor last election cycle, which was an illegal use of funds. Just this week, in response to an uptick in gun violence, was quoted in our awful local newspapers as saying "...police protection for those that deserve it." I hope that the officers that are decent citizens find a way to take down their own, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:

Only in America would back yard sheds ever be converted to studio apartments that rent for more than $1,000 a month.

The cost of living is getting out of control around cities, where all the jobs are.
 
I've been a union member for about 10 years. To me (if the earnings statistics are true) that is further evidence about the weakness of unions. Some unions have more political power than others - Yes. Mine is fairly progressive (and fairly weak) while I support its existence it has actually done more to inhibit wage growth and personal security than if I were not in a collective bargaining situation (imo). I wish that wasn't true and would like to see the direction of unions get more in line with modern times, but it seems that most union leadership is caught up in the tactics of the 20th and not the 21st century. It isn't MAGA but similarly there seem to be a fair number of people wanting to make the union great again, but want to do so with a vision of the 1950's in mind.

This is a different discussion, but what I've observed is my union not understanding the value of education and professional positions and focusing negotiations on worker safety instead of wage and benefit security. I also feel that many unions sacrificed future members to protect those that were already there in the 80's and 90's as health care skyrocketed and various bubbles (stock gambling) were generating insecurity in retirement funds. All of this has contributed to lower membership and lower faith in unions. There are of course many other factors like the various political efforts, to destabilize unions as well.


Having gone through a strike last year and getting involved in the union after that (just went to a local meeting last month). The big push right now is affecting education policy. Since the strike they have been putting their weight behind getting people elected that favor investing in public education, holding privatizers accountable, and pushing for changes in local tax structure. The meeting last night mostly centered around who the endorsement for president will go to. It might be easy to guess who they are leaning towards since Bernie is the only person out with a through Ed policy.

Salary was an issue, but much of our strike last year had to do with conditions in the school teacher/student ratio and some additional services that schools get (nursing). I'm part of a small sections that felt hard done by (School Psychologists) since there were only minor concessions. There is a lot of resentment regarding that fact. However, there is some re-openers in the contract for negotiations with Special Ed that may cover our work load.
 

Only in America would back yard sheds ever be converted to studio apartments that rent for more than $1,000 a month.

The cost of living is getting out of control around cities, where all the jobs are.

lol. I responded to a craigslist ad in Portland, OR about 10 years ago where someone posted their shed apt., without running water, for $1K/ mo. It wasn't even in a super nice part of town. Basically, I told the dude this was part of the problem, and making it difficult for the residents of the predominantly African American neighborhood he was in to afford their rents. He predictably responded with some blah blah blah about "markets." I think I got a good burn in tho - wish I could remember the line.

Having gone through a strike last year and getting involved in the union after that (just went to a local meeting last month). The big push right now is affecting education policy. Since the strike they have been putting their weight behind getting people elected that favor investing in public education, holding privatizers accountable, and pushing for changes in local tax structure. The meeting last night mostly centered around who the endorsement for president will go to. It might be easy to guess who they are leaning towards since Bernie is the only person out with a through Ed policy.

Salary was an issue, but much of our strike last year had to do with conditions in the school teacher/student ratio and some additional services that schools get (nursing). I'm part of a small sections that felt hard done by (School Psychologists) since there were only minor concessions. There is a lot of resentment regarding that fact. However, there is some re-openers in the contract for negotiations with Special Ed that may cover our work load.

I think the teacher's unions have their house in order a lot more so than AFSCME.
 

Has this man learned anything?

His whole life he has doubled down on fighting everything, never admits that he is wrong and he is always the best. Don't expect him to change. He will not leave quietly.
 
Sure, it's not a devastating medical event, but I disagree that it's an issue of "optics." Bad optics is Biden prattling about Corn Pop, or Booker saying his favorite snack is vegan cupcakes, or Kamala Harris joking about rappers and weed on the radio. Being hospitalized for an urgent medical procedure that takes you out of commission, even just for a matter of a few days, isn't optics, IMO. If Bernie were elected to the presidency and this same thing happened 3 years from now, it's a potential matter of national security, even IF the prognosis is good. Looking at the candidate's health is not just a referendum on the candidate, but an examination of how we can ensure the continuity of our government in a crisis.

Yeah, I don't disagree that it's likely to throw a bunch of fence sitters into Warren's camp. A lot of it depends on how he looks at the next debate. We disagree though about Biden. Bernie is still very sharp mentally where as Biden's brain is turning to slush on him. Mental competence is much higher on my priorities list. But I've also always viewed Bernie's VP as vital for long term progressive momentum and realize that he is likely a one term President. Thus, this not fazing me personally as much. I don't view Bernie as some savior, I view him as a movement builder and would see his election as one victory in a long war.

Do you have a reference for this information?
Like how many people were a part of the survey that would've generated that data?

I am curious about how those stats was generated, but I'm not sure why it matters what the race, ethnicity, or salary of political supporters (Edit: is), particularly with reference to the discussion about how Bernie's health situation is perceived.

I was typing from my phone at the soccer practice of my god family's 2nd grader and questioned whether I should include the union part right before I hit "post reply". Before I elaborate further, I should clarify that I think Warren AND Bernie have clear paths to victory against Trump and it was in no way meant as a jab at Warren's electibility. It was meant as a jab at people who think Bernie isn't electable and a nod to the fact that I think their are substantial differences in policy and approach that make Bernie preferable as a conduit of systemic change (see the fact that Warren signed a pact to not support candidates or organizations who primary incumbent Democrats for example) .

Warren's path to victory = solid youth turnout, winning centrist, suburban households throughout the country + your typical DNC voter
Bernie's path to victory = flipping the working class white vote that went from Obama to Trump, high youth turnout, solid minority turnout + the disinfranchised that might not vote if he isn't the nominee.

Since I think the typical DNC die-hard is likely to swallow their bitterness and vote for Bernie should he be the nominee, I think his path to victory is easier. But also I think Trump is basically toast at this point either way-- unless Biden is the nominee which risks deeply suppressing turnout among people under 40, progressives and the already disinfranchised. Yes, suburban whites matter, but they are only one portion of the populace-- and their status-quo-as-usual flavor candidate (Hillary, Kerry, Gore) keeps losing elections because they are completely out of touch with the plight facing younger generations and rural communities.

As to the union thing- I should have been more careful with my words. Teachers & Nurses (both of which are awesome unions) are two of his top 5 donors. The others, I believe, are Amazon workers, fast food workers and Wallmart employees because OF his support in attempts to unionize and raise wages. UE (United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America) has endorsed him for the same reason- Bernie was at their picket lines and an advocate of their cause.


There was also an article from the LA Times a while back from a reporter on the ground at the GM strike and it indicated that most of those people were Sanders supporters in 2016 who went with Trump over Clinton because they were desperate for change. Sounds like most of them are behind Sanders / Warren this go round.


Personally, I have only had good experiences with unions. When the unions were strong at Safeway during my teenage years, the contracts were great. Then they cracked down during a strike during my college years and the contracts you get in 2019 are lower paying with less benefits than people received back in 04' (source I still have friends there). Meanwhile, the unions are the only reason the film industry isn't more exploitative than it already is. Great health insurance, workers rights and very solid pay help make up for the long hours. Meanwhile, the video game industry is a complete shit show of worker exploration- and surprise, isn't unionized. And as I mentioned earlier, my friends who are teachers and nurses have good things to say about their unions. That is not to say that unions don't have their downsides or potential for corruption. The police union is the perfect example of that.

And for some reason I'm having trouble finding that exact data I quoted. Google doesn't work is well as it used to. Or maybe I don't Google as well as I used to. But there have been several write-ups (back in August?) on the fact that Warren's base is extremely educated, white and wealthy versus Sanders being more working class and diverse. Think the #'s come from a combination of polling and donor data. You see it linked fairly regularly on r/politics.

Some random links:





 
Last edited:
Oh, and Warren deserves some props for her policy proposal today:


Also, @jaycee @Indymisanthrope, I appreciate the convo as always.

Likewise. I don’t see things the way you do but I appreciate the convo and thoughtfulness.

Also didn’t mean to imply an attack on unionization in my earlier post. The ability to organize is a critical part of having a functional democracy. My comments were more about the idea that union is good or bad and that IMO there’s a lot of grey there. I think it would be helpful if unions took NBC a look at themselves in a more critical light if they really intend to fulfill a mission of improving the lives of their members.

Maybe I’m just telling myself this and not seeing the reality of the world but I’m not getting my hopes up about the chances of whomever is not Trump. Logic has very little to do with any of this in my mind.
 
Yeah, I don't disagree that it's likely to throw a bunch of fence sitters into Warren's camp. A lot of it depends on how he looks at the next debate. We disagree though about Biden. Bernie is still very sharp mentally where as Biden's brain is turning to slush on him. Mental competence is much higher on my priorities list. But I've also always viewed Bernie's VP as vital for long term progressive momentum and realize that he is likely a one term President. Thus, this not fazing me personally as much. I don't view Bernie as some savior, I view him as a movement builder and would see his election as one victory in a long war.



I was typing from my phone at the soccer practice of my god family's 2nd grader and questioned whether I should include the union part right before I hit "post reply". Before I elaborate further, I should clarify that I think Warren AND Bernie have clear paths to victory against Trump and it was in no way meant as a jab at Warren's electibility. It was meant as a jab at people who think Bernie isn't electable and a nod to the fact that I think their are substantial differences in policy and approach that make Bernie preferable as a conduit of systemic change (see the fact that Warren signed a pact to not support candidates or organizations who primary incumbent Democrats for example) .

Warren's path to victory = solid youth turnout, winning centrist, suburban households throughout the country + your typical DNC voter
Bernie's path to victory = flipping the working class white vote that went from Obama to Trump, high youth turnout, solid minority turnout + the disinfranchised that might not vote if he isn't the nominee.

Since I think the typical DNC die-hard is likely to swallow their bitterness and vote for Bernie should he be the nominee, I think his path to victory is easier. But also I think Trump is basically toast at this point either way-- unless Biden is the nominee which risks deeply suppressing turnout among people under 40, progressives and the already disinfranchised. Yes, suburban whites matter, but they are only one portion of the populace-- and their status-quo-as-usual flavor candidate (Hillary, Kerry, Gore) keeps losing elections because they are completely out of touch with the plight facing younger generations and rural communities.

As to the union thing- I should have been more careful with my words. Teachers & Nurses (both of which are awesome unions) are two of his top 5 donors. The others, I believe, are Amazon workers, fast food workers and Wallmart employees because OF his support in attempts to unionize and raise wages. UE (United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America) has endorsed him for the same reason- Bernie was at their picket lines and an advocate of their cause.


There was also an article from the LA Times a while back from a reporter on the ground at the GM strike and it indicated that most of those people were Sanders supporters in 2016 who went with Trump over Clinton because they were desperate for change. Sounds like most of them are behind Sanders / Warren this go round.


Personally, I have only had good experiences with unions. When the unions were strong at Safeway during my teenage years, the contracts were great. Then they cracked down during a strike during my college years and the contracts you get in 2019 are lower paying with less benefits than people received back in 04' (source I still have friends there). Meanwhile, the unions are the only reason the film industry isn't more exploitative than it already is. Great health insurance, workers rights and very solid pay help make up for the long hours. Meanwhile, the video game industry is a complete shit show of worker exploration- and surprise, isn't unionized. And as I mentioned earlier, my friends who are teachers and nurses have good things to say about their unions. That is not to say that unions don't have their downsides or potential for corruption. The police union is the perfect example of that.

And for some reason I'm having trouble finding that exact data I quoted. Google doesn't work is well as it used to. Or maybe I don't Google as well as I used to. But there have been several write-ups (back in August?) on the fact that Warren's base is extremely educated, white and wealthy versus Sanders being more working class and diverse. Think the #'s come from a combination of polling and donor data. You see it linked fairly regularly on r/politics.

Some random links:






You planning on organizing on in LA for him this year? I've been thinking about putting in time for the local school board elections.
 
You planning on organizing on in LA for him this year? I've been thinking about putting in time for the local school board elections.

I was working a city counsel race while waiting for the crowd to thin so that I could make a decision between Bernie and Warren... (because it's really tough to canvass for two people). Right as I got firmly behind Bernie again and was prepping to volunteer, this heart thing happened.

So I think I'm going to go set a table at Echo Park (a super busy park on the East Side) that says something along the lines of "talk Bernie to me" and push both Warren & Bernie the next couple of weekends and wait to see how the debates go before fully diving in.

The reality is that the early states are gonna swing momentum in one way or another. But California is voting on Super Tuesday this go-round so we are gonna matter a lot this time.

Edit: @jaycee Also, I agree about the logic vs. emotion thing. But that's part of why I think people underestimate Bernie. His supporters are willing to run through a wall for him and will put in the work. More importantly, I think its important that whoever faces Trump be willing to acknowledge that this country was on fire well before Trump (even if the guy is now pouring kerosene onto the blaze) because otherwise you are disregarding people's very deeply felt emotions of anger, fear and pain and breeding distrust.
 
Last edited:
I was working a city counsel race while waiting for the crowd to thin so that I could make a decision between Bernie and Warren... (because it's really tough to canvass for two people). Right as I got firmly behind Bernie again and was prepping to volunteer, this heart thing happened.

So I think I'm going to go set a table at Echo Park (a super busy park on the East Side) that says something along the lines of "talk Bernie to me" and push both Warren & Bernie the next couple of weekends and wait to see how the debates go before fully diving in.

The reality is that the early states are gonna swing momentum in one way or another. But California is voting on Super Tuesday this go-round so we are gonna matter a lot this time.

The school board elections really mean a lot this year. We are trying to get the pro charter people off the board, but they are backed by $$.
 
Back
Top