Obviously you can vote yes for the "Give Dems everything they want bill" or the "Agree that puppies are adorable bill" and anything similar. So long as you make sure you've read the thing.
But on every substantive bill the Dems should assuredly be a wall of no.
I'm with Saul and inMD. There should, absolutely, be a wall of No from the Dems right now. If ever the McConnel strategy was justified from the Dems it is absolutely, undeniably justified right fishing now. Until the Muskrats are reined in, normal constitutional order is followed on spending/cutting and, preferably, unless Trump pulls his head from his posterior on tariffs the Dems should be in full opposition mode. The GOP has their trifecta- let them own their policies in full if they can pass them.
Yeah I don't disagree per say but I read him daily and my own imperfect recollection of the events were that he had the MM controlled and it was the prostate cancer that prompted the new round of treatments that walloped his immune system which prompted the infection which ultimately felled him.
Works fine for the shouty left online fringe. In my opinion a lot of our problems source to a lot of our current class of Democratic pols being past their sell by date and/or being unable-unwilling to state and stand up for their principles and instead just outsourcing them to consultants and the groups. Hopefully should be resolvable by the current stint in the wilderness and primaries assuming that Trump doesn't blow the whole system to heck before the next election.
IIRC he whupped the cancer you're thinking about, they found new cancer in his prostate as he was wrapping up the previous cancer, they went after that cancer but the treatment KO'd his immune system and an opportunistic infection nailed him and the docs weren't able to shepherd Drum out of that.
Agreed that this isn't a big deal yet but the fact that any right wing justices are willing to walk the walk they've been talking for the past 3 decades is better than them all going Alito right off the bat.
We'll see. One of those promises you're waving at was that he'd fund government on tariffs instead of on income taxes. So if your claim is he's going to keep his promises* then by your own reasoning the tariffs should be expected to stay.
*And boy that'd be a gullible thing to assume vis a vis Trump.
I agree, I hope the Dems are laying groundwork to field a candidate in every congressional district in the country and every swing states state legislative districts too.
I don't think I quite can make out what you're saying but, yes, I agree that plenty of damage seems to be leaking through the hoped for impasse between malice and incompetence that is Trump.
To be clear his threatening tariffs, getting a market sag then claiming victory over "concessions" that he obtained from his targets that ended up being meaningless happened this term not during his previous one.
Perhaps they will- their own electorates will likely become increasingly unfriendly to the kowtowing that Trump will demand and prevented recessions and waves of unemployment are mostly invisible and thus provide limited upside with voters. At which point we find out if Trump will actually hold firm to this idiocy in the face of a massive market bloodbath or if he'll try and scramble for the exits.
Presumably Trump will try and shake out some "concessions" just like last time or else we're going to see a market cratering like we've probably never seen before and he'll end up backtracking and claiming he never did it.
I can remember, many times in the past, especially under Bush Minor, prophesizing that the day would come when the neocons would be extinct and here we are with that having very functionally come to pass and turns out it was a finger on a monkeys paw.
Fair point- then President McCain rolls in in 2008? I wonder if he gets an Obama sized trifecta in reverse? Probably too many butterfly wings at that point to even begin to guess but you can bet the Debt would be a lot fishing lower.
All I'm saying is that in 2000 the non-incumbent Gore got within a few hanging chads of winning Florida. It seems unlikely to me that an incumbent Gore would turn in a result that is the same or worse assuming economic conditions remained the same. Especially when we consider we're talking about the turn of the century when all our assumptions about incumbency advantages were minted. I grant, readily, that Gore had connection and politician problems with the voters but let us not forget how gape jawed idiotic W was. An incumbent Gore would have gotten some "things are good- stay the course" low info votes. Maybe that's not a lot of votes but, again, non-incumbent Gore tied W. Any little benefit flips it to Gore.
I mean, as close as VP Gore vs Bush was in 2000 the idea that Incumbent Pres. Gore vs Bush would have had the same outcome strikes me as unlikely. Just the slightest nudge of incumbency advantage would have pushed Gore over the top.
Now whether Gore's admin would have:
A- intercepted the Al'Queda hijackers or
B- not intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11 or
C- not intervened in Iraq or
D- headed off the subprime fiasco
Is a very difficult question. I'd say A: maybe they could have, B: probably not if 9/11 happened; C almost assuredly they wouldn't have gone into Iraq; D- No they wouldn't have Captain Foresight in their cabinet.
Gores VP was... (holy agnostic Jebus!), Liberman and Gore'd be term limited out in 2004 so... a Pres Liberman goes down to McCain after the Great Recession blooms in 2008? But no Iraq? And, good God(ess?) what the countries fisc would look like without the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war on the books?!?!
As, I presume, you're well aware that is utterly and completely meaningless this far out from the next primary contest. More than anything it simply indicates how many of the interviewees recognize a given name.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Heck I imaging the current GOP would declare it bipartisan with one vote.
"
Obviously you can vote yes for the "Give Dems everything they want bill" or the "Agree that puppies are adorable bill" and anything similar. So long as you make sure you've read the thing.
But on every substantive bill the Dems should assuredly be a wall of no.
"
Yep, madness.
"
I'm with Saul and inMD. There should, absolutely, be a wall of No from the Dems right now. If ever the McConnel strategy was justified from the Dems it is absolutely, undeniably justified right fishing now. Until the Muskrats are reined in, normal constitutional order is followed on spending/cutting and, preferably, unless Trump pulls his head from his posterior on tariffs the Dems should be in full opposition mode. The GOP has their trifecta- let them own their policies in full if they can pass them.
"
Yeah I don't disagree per say but I read him daily and my own imperfect recollection of the events were that he had the MM controlled and it was the prostate cancer that prompted the new round of treatments that walloped his immune system which prompted the infection which ultimately felled him.
"
Works fine for the shouty left online fringe. In my opinion a lot of our problems source to a lot of our current class of Democratic pols being past their sell by date and/or being unable-unwilling to state and stand up for their principles and instead just outsourcing them to consultants and the groups. Hopefully should be resolvable by the current stint in the wilderness and primaries assuming that Trump doesn't blow the whole system to heck before the next election.
"
IIRC he whupped the cancer you're thinking about, they found new cancer in his prostate as he was wrapping up the previous cancer, they went after that cancer but the treatment KO'd his immune system and an opportunistic infection nailed him and the docs weren't able to shepherd Drum out of that.
"
I'm extremely sad about it. Another precious fragment of my beloved Blogosphere washed away in the river.
On “SCOTUS Does Not Exist to Please You, Especially Amy Coney Barrett”
Agreed that this isn't a big deal yet but the fact that any right wing justices are willing to walk the walk they've been talking for the past 3 decades is better than them all going Alito right off the bat.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Goodbye to Monolith Studios”
Still chewing on Book of Hours, the successor to Cultist Simulator.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Heck, I get it, kept promises are very rare in Trump land so it makes sense pointing them out.
"
We'll see. One of those promises you're waving at was that he'd fund government on tariffs instead of on income taxes. So if your claim is he's going to keep his promises* then by your own reasoning the tariffs should be expected to stay.
*And boy that'd be a gullible thing to assume vis a vis Trump.
"
Err sure Saul, my original point was, merely, that the example I gave was Trump "2.0" not Trump "1.0".
"
I agree, I hope the Dems are laying groundwork to field a candidate in every congressional district in the country and every swing states state legislative districts too.
"
I don't think I quite can make out what you're saying but, yes, I agree that plenty of damage seems to be leaking through the hoped for impasse between malice and incompetence that is Trump.
"
And the boys called me optimistic!
"
No doubt Trump has let the tariffs be imposed so we're definitely forging into uncharted territory even vis a vis his previous stunts.
"
To be clear his threatening tariffs, getting a market sag then claiming victory over "concessions" that he obtained from his targets that ended up being meaningless happened this term not during his previous one.
"
Perhaps they will- their own electorates will likely become increasingly unfriendly to the kowtowing that Trump will demand and prevented recessions and waves of unemployment are mostly invisible and thus provide limited upside with voters. At which point we find out if Trump will actually hold firm to this idiocy in the face of a massive market bloodbath or if he'll try and scramble for the exits.
"
Presumably Trump will try and shake out some "concessions" just like last time or else we're going to see a market cratering like we've probably never seen before and he'll end up backtracking and claiming he never did it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/24/2025”
I can remember, many times in the past, especially under Bush Minor, prophesizing that the day would come when the neocons would be extinct and here we are with that having very functionally come to pass and turns out it was a finger on a monkeys paw.
Sweet agnostic Jesus what a sh*tshow!
"
Fair point- then President McCain rolls in in 2008? I wonder if he gets an Obama sized trifecta in reverse? Probably too many butterfly wings at that point to even begin to guess but you can bet the Debt would be a lot fishing lower.
"
All I'm saying is that in 2000 the non-incumbent Gore got within a few hanging chads of winning Florida. It seems unlikely to me that an incumbent Gore would turn in a result that is the same or worse assuming economic conditions remained the same. Especially when we consider we're talking about the turn of the century when all our assumptions about incumbency advantages were minted. I grant, readily, that Gore had connection and politician problems with the voters but let us not forget how gape jawed idiotic W was. An incumbent Gore would have gotten some "things are good- stay the course" low info votes. Maybe that's not a lot of votes but, again, non-incumbent Gore tied W. Any little benefit flips it to Gore.
"
I mean, as close as VP Gore vs Bush was in 2000 the idea that Incumbent Pres. Gore vs Bush would have had the same outcome strikes me as unlikely. Just the slightest nudge of incumbency advantage would have pushed Gore over the top.
Now whether Gore's admin would have:
A- intercepted the Al'Queda hijackers or
B- not intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11 or
C- not intervened in Iraq or
D- headed off the subprime fiasco
Is a very difficult question. I'd say A: maybe they could have, B: probably not if 9/11 happened; C almost assuredly they wouldn't have gone into Iraq; D- No they wouldn't have Captain Foresight in their cabinet.
Gores VP was... (holy agnostic Jebus!), Liberman and Gore'd be term limited out in 2004 so... a Pres Liberman goes down to McCain after the Great Recession blooms in 2008? But no Iraq? And, good God(ess?) what the countries fisc would look like without the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war on the books?!?!
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/17/2025”
As, I presume, you're well aware that is utterly and completely meaningless this far out from the next primary contest. More than anything it simply indicates how many of the interviewees recognize a given name.