Jump to content

Signifyin(g)Monkey

Members
  • Content Count

    2,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

754 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Even one who would manage to convert the US into a ruthlessly efficient, enlightened fascist autocracy?
  2. Eh. While I can’t imagine him being much worse than our current president, my biggest problem with Bernie is that he strikes me as an ideologue—that, unlike Warren, he hasn’t thought through how to actually implement his policies. Whenever he’s been pressed on the details he hasn’t been able to produce much that’s concrete. (Or rooted in reality) Ideologues tend to make bad or at least subpar presidents, even when many of their ideals are, broadly speaking, on ‘the right side of history.’ (Think about Wilson’s foreign policy, for example)
  3. Practical pols know climate change is an electoral loser until people actually start perceiving that climate change is affecting their lives. (even if it’s a real problem) This is evinced by election outcomes in places like Europe and Australia where candidates who focused big time on the issue lost amongst working class voters. Unfortunately, until Lake Michigan has risen up to the roof of his house and Florida has been reclaimed by the Gulf, I think John Blue Collar Doe just isn’t that concerned—or is skeptical about the existence of—climate change. He cares more about whose going to boost his wages the most, and just doesn’t see a connection between those ‘bread-and-butter’ issues and climate change. (Yet) And as 2016 showed, the dems need the blue collar vote to win the Rust Belt.
  4. Who will win the primaries by a wide margin. Not even a question.
  5. This is clearly the state’s last chance to solve its fiscal issues. Use the influx of weed tax dollars wisely, O Land of Lincoln.
  6. “Hmmm...our voting constituency overwhelmingly supports strong network neutrality measures, but our donors don’t...what to do?”
  7. No, but the Democrats might become less popular. Voters might perceive them as having spent all their time in Congress going on a fishing expedition for dirt on Trump that yielded nothing rather than legislating and providing a vision for how to improve voters’ lives. And as we’ve seen the margin of error for these elections is razor-thin, even when Donald freaking Trump is one of the choices on the ballot. Anyway, from the sounds of it that’s why Pelosi isn’t pressing forward with impeachment.
  8. Technically true, but surely you would want them to retain something close to their legal meaning. We wouldn’t want Congress defining a jaywalking offense as constituting ‘high crimes and misdemeanors ‘. Has that emoluments case turned up slam-dunk evidence of wrongdoing? Is that what you’re talking about? Last time I checked it was turning more on the definition of ‘emolument’, not on new evidence of Trump essentially accepting bribes or something. Has that changed? I just think impeaching Trump without some fairly slam-dunk evidence on your side could end up backfiring massively a la Clinton, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of what’s holding Pelosi and co. back, too. The Democrats don’t want their efforts to look frivolous and appear like they’re not offering anything in 2020 other than more investigations. (Or that they can’t win more votes based on policy) A blue balls impeachment opens that door, IMO.
  9. Has there been fairly definitive proof of high crimes and misdemeanors? I assume you wouldn’t want to impeach with less. (been a little too busy to read the Mueller report unfortunately)
  10. Can’t be letting cartoon aardvarks give our kids teh gay...these are important issues you know!
  11. This—I know quite a few conservatives who think he’s a buffoon but just like his economic policies and care more about getting conservatives on the courts.
×
×
  • Create New...