"Will you shut up, man?" US Politics October 2020

He does, though, that's his entire job.

hopefully he is reallocated to more useful labor at some point in the future

fertilizing Central Park, if you catch my drift

1. Presidents don't decide the number of SC justices

2. Trump keeps telling us about plans (e.g. healthcare) without detail

3. "We'll see" us a totally understandable and defensible position these days

calling it defensible is one thing, saying that it represents some kind of substantive shift in Biden's thinking because he didn't just say "nah, Jack" is silly

No it isn’t?

Saying no probably helps him with the kind of swing votes he needs, and if he felt that way he’d probably say so. he’s been clear on things like defunding the police, why not this?

his phrasing was bad, not giving a position is good

i know that's the joke this year. i don't watch late night talk shows any more but i can picture it being a recurring theme: "2020! what else do you expect, haha!"

Seth Meyers' show has a 12-min segment a couple of times a week written by a former news researcher, that carefully elucidates the previous day's major threats to life and democracy, lightly pasted over with just enough jokes to keep it entertaining. (On Thursday it graduated to its own prime-time half-hour timeslot as a pilot.) The others lean on "lol dumpster fire year, orange man fascist" a fair bit. Colbert is completely inadequate at it, coming off incredibly *rich white man talks to rich white families about how bad things are in the abstract voice* before going to a zoom conference with the cast of The West Wing. Surprisingly, Kimmel is the best at maintaining the glib suited monologue format while making the same style of jokes, but using them to convey to middle America how the fascism is bad.

meanwhile stephen miller is popping his spooge into his triumph of the will import dvd for the 400th time, as the steroids really take hold

Impregnated her by climbing a ladder in the corner of her bedroom his music room and shuddering into a long, flexible funnel.

― erratic wolf angular guitarist (sic), Wednesday, October 7, 2020 11:57 AM (four days ago)

Lindsey overtaking Rand Paul and TED FUCKIN CRUZ on my personal list of most hated during the Trump era was not something I anticipated

My wife has said she suspects he’s drinking heavily

I hope a shitload of people read that tweet and make their decisions accordingly

If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 3, 2016

Stevie - Was the video of Kamala giving different answers to the fracking question invalidated by who posted it? You really are pathetic.

Lmao it was posted by benny Johnson so yes?

Joe Biden is a PUPPET of CASTRO-CHAVISTAS like Crazy Bernie, AOC and Castro-lover Karen Bass. Biden is supported by socialist Gustavo Petro, a major LOSER and former M-19 guerrilla leader. Biden is weak on socialism and will betray Colombia. I stand with you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2020

big, if true

Because nothing matters? Ok xxp

The Castro are dead.

Colbert bums me out so badly now.

If it's information that's correct and isn't being made available elsewhere, I don't really care who shares it, even if it's by someone on the exact opposite end of the ideological spectrum than me. The Benny Johnson tweet could have come from a left-wing green voter, too!

I mean, I know we've gone over this in this thread, but I'm just going to remind people that Kamala Harris is awful, and so is fracking, and no amount of hemming and hawing can change those two facts.

does Ezra Klein know he doesn't have to publish literally every thick-headed fanfic produced by his unfortunate brain

― it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Saturday, October 10, 2020 1:47 PM (forty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

He does, though, that's his entire job.

― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, October 10, 2020 1:50 PM (forty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Once again, this is a complete misreading of Klein and what he's all about.

Unless that is some fake news video it matters. Stevie the planet is burning I'm begging you to be serious.

Table the difference is you post in good faith and say interesting things. Xyz does not so pretexts to dismiss what he’s saying are totally fine.

xxp Like, there's literally nothing in that excerpt I posted that is "fan fiction"?

caek you were trying to get me to vote lib dem in 2024 have some respect.

Ok benny

I simply want to reduce the GOP to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

calling it defensible is one thing, saying that it represents some kind of substantive shift in Biden's thinking because he didn't just say "nah, Jack" is silly

― it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Saturday, October 10, 2020 2:03 PM (thirty-six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Klein said it *could* represent a shift in Biden's thinking...or it could not! It could also mean that the party is more open to entertaining the idea and that Biden wants to be careful about his messaging in light of that fact. Given recent comments from other elected Democrats (including Chuck Schumer of all people saying "everything is on the table"), this observation seems basically true to me. That doesn't mean anything will actually come of it, but Klein doesn't say it will.

Ok benny

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 10 October 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Tfw you know what good faith posting is

Lol at the concept of trump knowing what castro chavistas are— trump is already dead ain’t he?

I think it's legitimate to post a tweet from a piece of shit if the video isn't edited/misleading, but I will not stand for posting tweets in the "(x) sure would hate to see this get spread around twitter, whatever you do don't retweet" format.

When I see that format of tweet the (x) usually = Trump. Agree it's rubbish.

Lol at the concept of trump knowing what castro chavistas are— trump is already dead ain’t he?

the video of Kamala giving different answers to the fracking question...

Unless that is some fake news video it matters...

It may interest you to know that a vice president is free to disagree with the president on any policy issue, but a vice president cannot overrule a president on any policy issue. My conclusion is that Kamala Harris probably does still personally want to end fracking, just as she has indicated in the past, but now that she is on the ticket, but not at the top, it does her no good to repeat that disagreement during the campaign, or to repeat her position in public later on, after Biden wins. The best she can do is emphasize Biden's position and keep her own under wraps.

Biden is probably just pandering to Pennsylvania on this issue. What's far more important is that the alternative energy infrastructure gets built up and running asap. Next, ending fossil fuel subsidies would be the simplest way to end fracking without specifically banning it.

Biden is probably just pandering to Pennsylvania on this issue.

this

I know it's Sirota, but:

https://www.dailyposter.com/p/harris-did-not-need-to-tout-fracking

More likely KH’s fracking position was calculated to appeal to the Democratic primary voting base and her current position is that of her boss. Who knows how she really feels.

I feel like Biden/Harris have a whole hell of a lot less to do with this country’s energy future than the Senate does.

First we need to win the Senate, then the Senate needs to be convinced by the House to take green energy seriously, then Biden needs to sign it.

The same path to progressive goals applies to restoring influence in the Judiciary, and to DC and PR statehood.

The President (and presumptive heir, given Biden's age) leads the way, as ever. It's utterly bizarre after half a century of talking about the 'imperial Presidency' to pretend otherwise.

Seriously. Get out front with the messaging. Its the only thing missing! The public is already there.

Stating that you'd veto M4A, denigrating the GND, stating that a fracking ban is completely off the table chokes those ideas to death in the crib. It can't be serious when Bernie or AOC or Markey or etc. introduce them, because we know they're not supported by Biden, why even give them the time of day?

I don’t agree with your ahistorical nihilism, I don’t think Ill belabor it further.

Next, ending fossil fuel subsidies would be the simplest way to end fracking without specifically banning it.

Saying "we're ending fossil fuel subsidies and reinvesting that money into renewable energy systems and new jobs" would be a positive way to campaign.

The public is already there.

There's a ton of rural people who think the idea of giving up fossil fuel is utter craziness and their lives without gasoline/diesel fuel would be crazy hard. They have a point.

Almost all rural locales depend on agriculture or resource extraction to survive and in the 20th century these livelihoods became thoroughly entwined with mechanization from top to bottom. On top of needing fuel for work, many of them must drive long distances just to shop for necessities. They will fight like wildcats for fossil fuels until they can see how to live without them.

can't be serious when Bernie or AOC or Markey

AOC is especially good at messaging on this: making it clear that the leadership is completely backwards BUT that continuing to push until they fix their hearts change their minds or die is the only practical option right now.

I don’t agree with your ahistorical nihilism, I don’t think Ill belabor it further.

Saying something doesn't make it so, bro. "The President leads and sets the agenda" is... the opposite of 'ahistorical' and has nothing to do with nihilism.

Rural isn’t the half of it. To get from one city to another you need jet fuel. To do any kind of construction work more serious than home remodeling you need diesel. Energy independence has been a pillar of national security policy going back to 1973. But let’s ignore all that because context is for nerds and centrist melts.

Saying something doesn't make it so, bro. "The President leads and sets the agenda" is... the opposite of 'ahistorical' and has nothing to do with nihilism.

... Nixon proposed the very existence of the EPA, he wasn't browbeaten into signing it.

Like, I know some people started trying to convince themselves in the primaries that the President isn't actually that important, Joe Biden has no beliefs and no ideology and that in a complete reverse of the way American politics has worked for our entire lives he'll never be heard from except to sign bills... but that's not the way it works.

It’s completely unsurprising to me that you’re the type who reads the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article and stops

Energy independence has been a pillar of national security policy going back to 1973.

If we'd started switching to renewables from, say, 1983, when it became apparent that not doing so would destroy human life p quickly - would that not have made nations more secure?

great question sic let’s all think about that

To get from one city to another you need jet fuel. To do any kind of construction work... etc.

That's why building the infrastructure to support a carbon-neutral economy is absolutely the critical step that pulls everything else along. It's a bootstrapping kind of problem and to make it happen with any speed it must be part of a national blueprint, kind of like the Interstate highway system or rural electrification.

You can't wave a wand and say "fossil fuels are an awful way to run our economy, so we are outlawing them tomorrow". Or (for the literalists among us) you absolutely could do that, but the price would be near instantaneous social collapse.