Jump to content
The Political Lounge

FiveThirtyEight Agrees with Patine


vcczar
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Patine said:

I read a similar article (different in specifics, but a similar message) from the Atlantic (which seems to lean Republican Establishment - @MrPotatoTed and @Pringles types, it seems, though I was unaware of what bias the magazine had clicking on the link), that was written back in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

But, frankly, I'm surprised it took real sources with, "authority and credibility," to see it, and not just those viewed as, "conspiracy theorists," (a term invented and promoted by the CIA as a discrediting derisive during the JFK assassination fallout), when it's so transparent. And I mean this as astonishment, not self-congratulation. 

The Atlantic is probably leans left. Yeah. Bias checking website says leans left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

I read a similar article (different in specifics, but a similar message) from the Atlantic (which seems to lean Republican Establishment - @MrPotatoTed and @Pringles types, it seems, though I was unaware of what bias the magazine had clicking on the link), that was written back in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

But, frankly, I'm surprised it took real sources with, "authority and credibility," to see it, and not just those viewed as, "conspiracy theorists," (a term invented and promoted by the CIA as a discrediting derisive during the JFK assassination fallout), when it's so transparent. And I mean this as astonishment, not self-congratulation. 

Republican establishment is my label eh? 😛

Just playing but I know how you might come to the conclusion. 

I dislike McConnell and McCarthy. I dont need to explain McConnell but anything you muster on him and I'll agree. He is way too confrontational, and is a huge hypocrite. I would've voted to confirm someone like Garland... that's just one instance of my resentment towards him. 

A true Senate majority leader though, is someone like Howard Baker. Big respect for him.

McCarthy seemed to be on the path of screw Trump after Jan 6, but nope... hes spineless and his condemning of Liz Cheney is a disgrace. 

I just want normalcy in the party I once considered great. 😞

We need to move away from Trumpism, Tea Party BS, and get back to good old leadership in the mold of Baker, McCain, and Reagan. 🙂

Just to clear the air. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Patine said:

I read a similar article (different in specifics, but a similar message) from the Atlantic (which seems to lean Republican Establishment - @MrPotatoTed and @Pringles types, it seems, though I was unaware of what bias the magazine had clicking on the link), that was written back in 2016.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

But, frankly, I'm surprised it took real sources with, "authority and credibility," to see it, and not just those viewed as, "conspiracy theorists," (a term invented and promoted by the CIA as a discrediting derisive during the JFK assassination fallout), when it's so transparent. And I mean this as astonishment, not self-congratulation. 

I mean, I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 17 years, but sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pringles said:

Republican establishment is my label eh? 😛

Just playing but I know how you might come to the conclusion. 

I dislike McConnell and McCarthy. I dont need to explain McConnell but anything you muster on him and I'll agree. He is way too confrontational, and is a huge hypocrite. I would've voted to confirm someone like Garland... that's just one instance of my resentment towards him. 

A true Senate majority leader though, is someone like Howard Baker. Big respect for him.

McCarthy seemed to be on the path of screw Trump after Jan 6, but nope... hes spineless and his condemning of Liz Cheney is a disgrace. 

I just want normalcy in the party I once considered great. 😞

We need to move away from Trumpism, Tea Party BS, and get back to good old leadership in the mold of Baker, McCain, and Reagan. 🙂

Just to clear the air. 😄

And now McConnel is promising to block a Biden SCOTUS nominee in 2024 if he’s able, regardless of the nominee’s qualifications. 

This man has made obstruction republican praxis, and it’s straight up hurting America. 

He needs to go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patine said:

Deliberately, knowingly, publicly, and blatantly violating one's oath of office and mandate of duty by an elected government official, especially multiple times, should be grounds for immediate dismissal of that official, even without impeachment or Congressional expulsion procedures.

I mean that sounds nice but who would be the one dismissing him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Supreme Court can't do it, and has been neutered from near the start, because their Justices are appointed on a Partisan Spoils and Patronage method.

This is incorrect. But even then, the Supreme Court shouldn’t be tampering with the internal affairs of the Senate. That is an important separation of powers. The reality is that McConnell is in his role because for better or for worse his caucus put him there. That’s the legislative process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

But, do you agree or disagree than some non-partisan body should be able to bring some sort of discipline, even if only with sufficiently dire justification (like McConnell breaching his oath of office as a legislator by making a career of obstructionism and non-productivity), on that sort of thing or other breaches of discipline, integrity, limits of power and authority of office, or crimes in office committed by the legislative or executive branch that their partisan peers will not act against or acknowledge. Or do you REALLY, HONESTLY have faith that internal, peer review and consequences in the Halls of Government are actually, SOMEHOW working?

As much as I disagree with the way he’s conducted his job he hasn’t done anything blatantly illegal or against the rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patine said:

But, do you agree or disagree than some non-partisan body should be able to bring some sort of discipline, even if only with sufficiently dire justification (like McConnell breaching his oath of office as a legislator by making a career of obstructionism and non-productivity), on that sort of thing or other breaches of discipline, integrity, limits of power and authority of office, or crimes in office committed by the legislative or executive branch that their partisan peers will not act against or acknowledge. Or do you REALLY, HONESTLY have faith that internal, peer review and consequences in the Halls of Government are actually, SOMEHOW working?

For my part, it's not that I'm in love with the current system.  It's just that proposed "solutions" seem to rely on magic hand-waving.

What "is" a non-partisan body?  Who are they, where do they come from, who is in charge of ensuring they are indeed non-partisan?  And what is the partisanship of the people ensuring the non-partisanship?  IE: "Who is watching the Watchers?"  

To me, this magic non-partisan body just doesn't exist, and won't exist. 

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

At the end of the day, the problem isn't the system, it's the people within it (both the politicians and the people who elect them).  And there is no solution to that.  We get the government that the people choose, and the people are sometimes idiots.

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

I wouldn't say, "magic-wand-waving," is the appropriate (who use that term far too often), although maybe, "idealistic and unthought out in details." I don't think dismissing such a thing out of hand and saying the status quo is automatically and universally a better system is quite genuine. Yes, the, "watcher need watchers," or at least firm guidelines and restrictions, and I'm, as yet, uncertain to the mechanisms (though there are nations that such organizations and rules, including here in Canada). But, frankly, without, "the watchers," as it stands, corruption, high state crimes, violations of oaths and mandates of office, abuse and overreach of the limits and authority of office, rigged elections, seditious secrecy and lies, betrayals of the trust, and even high treason, are being committed by U.S. Government officials with no, or at least, very little, real consequences. The reason is obvious - they all cover each others' asses, because they're all (or most of them, at least) guilty of the same, or similar, transgressions in office themselves. Just like Mafiasos won't rat out or testimony against rival Mafia Families.

I didn't say the status quo is "universally a better system."  I said nothing realistic has been proposed to replace it.  

Until you have watchers...who are somehow incapable of corruption or partisanship...you don't have a real proposal.  And in my opinion, such  perfect watchers do not and will not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is a problem in a lot of Internet debate - and you're not unique, at all, in. I've seen this from a few others on 270soft, and on other forums, and comments sections on news articles, etc. If someone (like me, for instance) points out a problem, or even makes also a vague semblance of what needs to be done - the poster is instantly expected to be a Martin Luther (that is, the 98 Theses must IMMEDIATELY be followed by Reformation Treatise if you will - DISCLAIMER, THIS IS A METAPHOR OR ANALOG! DO NOT GET HUNG UP ON IT!), and have a full, ready, complete, workable, and viable solution to the issue, as though they'd just come from a six-month NGO committee with respected experts in all the relevant field and a high research budget - or they should either shut up, or like you, the problem itself is probably insoluable and it's a waste of time going on about it further. It's likely not an intentional mindset of many, yourself likely included - but it gets damned annoying, and counter-productive, regardless.

You’re free to complain to your heart’s content, I’m not trying to stop you.

But you’ve falsely classified my position as “the status quo is universally a better system.”

Thats not my position at all.

It’s only that the status quo is the best system that I can personally imagine.  And, as it turns out, (when forced to color within the lines of realism), it’s also the best system that you can personally imagine.

Maybe one day you will indeed imagine a better system.  But for now, this is what we have.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, maybe what YOU have. As I said, here in Canada, we do have such non-partisan watchdog groups in specific areas with specific tasks and jurisdictions that are reasonably effective (but not universally). It's not to the extent I'd like, but it seems to exceed what is available in the U.S.

Interesting!  How is it done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...