Chris Hayes has a great term for Cruz and all Republicans and what they do: performative trolling. They are bad at government, especially helping people, so when there is a crisis, they do what they do: attack liberals and progressives.
Yep, that segment with Al Franken and Michelle Goldberg was good.
Even when they had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, people like Cruz did nothing in terms of legislating. They don't come to D.C. to do any of the hard work of writing legislation and building coalitions, they come to attack. I would like someone to ask this question to Cruz, "Can you name three major legislative accomplishments?"
But even the less controversial people like Lamar Alexander do nothing. As Lawrence O'Donnell recently remarked, Alexander retired from the Senate and he leaves no legacy behind. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Last edited by Wilt on Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:18 am; edited 2 times in total
The stakes may be higher this time, however, as key players — Trump, among them — have openly threatened the prospect of creating a new political party, which would endanger the Republican Party’s very existence.
Roughly 120 anti-Trump Republicans, including current and former officeholders, secretly convened earlier in the month to contemplate the future of the GOP. A plurality, or 40%, supported the idea of creating a new party, according to an internal survey provided by one of the meeting’s organizers, former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin.
Even if it that actually happened (it won't, too much at risk), it would only affect the GOP Primary. Once the General Election came around, they'll unify. They know they have no chance to win divided.
I don't know. It's been debated whether or not Perot spoiled the 1992 election for Bush? Some say he siphoned votes from Bush. I think he also siphoned some from Clinton.
Today's political climate leads me to believe more Independents or whatever 3rd party would pull more votes from a Republican nominee than they would a Democratic choice. JMHO _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:55 pm Post subject:
Wilt wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Chris Hayes has a great term for Cruz and all Republicans and what they do: performative trolling. They are bad at government, especially helping people, so when there is a crisis, they do what they do: attack liberals and progressives.
Yep, that segment with Al Franken and Michelle Goldberg was good.
Even when they had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, people like Cruz did nothing in terms of legislating. They don't come to D.C. to do any of the hard work of writing legislation and building coalitions, they come to attack. I would like someone to ask this question to Cruz, "Can you name three major legislative accomplishments?"
But even the less controversial people like Lamar Alexander do nothing. As Lawrence O'Donnell recently remarked, Alexander retired from the Senate and he leaves no legacy behind.
A great example would be the congressman Boebert beat in the primary. Multiple time winner, solid conservative, but a number of quotes coming out of the district was that he was too busy going about his business in the congress, not attacking the Dems enough. That’s the change we are seeing in the base. They’ve always been racist xenophobic know nothings, but they are now animated solely by attacking and breaking things. It’s literally all they demand from their officials. Do whatever else you want, do nothing else if you want, but attack liberals and democrats and the other and you’re Golden. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
The stakes may be higher this time, however, as key players — Trump, among them — have openly threatened the prospect of creating a new political party, which would endanger the Republican Party’s very existence.
Roughly 120 anti-Trump Republicans, including current and former officeholders, secretly convened earlier in the month to contemplate the future of the GOP. A plurality, or 40%, supported the idea of creating a new party, according to an internal survey provided by one of the meeting’s organizers, former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin.
Even if it that actually happened (it won't, too much at risk), it would only affect the GOP Primary. Once the General Election came around, they'll unify. They know they have no chance to win divided.
I don't know. It's been debated whether or not Perot spoiled the 1992 election for Bush? Some say he siphoned votes from Bush. I think he also siphoned some from Clinton.
Today's political climate leads me to believe more Independents or whatever 3rd party would pull more votes from a Republican nominee than they would a Democratic choice. JMHO
Republicans always blamed Perot for Clinton's win. I could be wrong, but if memory serves that election went right down the line in terms of how much they spent = how many votes they got. And I don't think Perot took money, used his own (could be wrong...it was a while back!). But had he taken grass roots funding, maybe that would have helped.
Still, had he not briefly dropped out that summer, Perot might have won the election. Which would have been fascinating to see a third party candidate who then would inherit the dot com boom, so the economy would have looked great for him...and maybe we'd still be benefiting because he was hell bent on doing something about the deficit, so who knows? Not sure if that would have changed the party system or not, but probably the best chance we've had by far in a long time.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:08 pm Post subject:
I don’t think Perot had any window to win, there just weren’t enough of the combinations of motivations that made people vote for him. Conversely I think Bush still loses but by a tight margin, because a ton of republicans either voted for Perot, didn’t vote at all, or went with Clinton (who was not really seen as aggressively progressive by the mainstream of the time) out of dissatisfaction with Bush. There were the anti taxers, the war hawks who thought he wussed out, and the moderates who found him full and uninspiring and not terribly effective. And walk street liked Clinton after they famously met with him and he wowed them with his knowledge of the street and the economy (the story is that they went in to try and educate the candidate and instead he held forth like a pro). The luster of Reagan hadn’t carried over and the legacy of his divisive movement hadn’t kicked in yet (it would as a backlash to Clinton) _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29279 Location: La La Land
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:18 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
It seems that virtually no scandal sticks to these guys, but hey, maybe something weird like this will.
Roy Moore was a pedophile. Got 48.4% of the Alabama vote. Barely lost.
Both those Georgia Republicans who recently lost made a fortune by knowing about the severity of the pandemic before the general public and investing accordingly. They both barely lost.
Just agreeing with you. It's crazy. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
I don’t think Perot had any window to win, there just weren’t enough of the combinations of motivations that made people vote for him.
It was closer than people realize. I remember those long national broadcasts he ran.
From his wiki: In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).
Just reading on Jodeke's question from an article right after Perot died, they said it's still difficult to tell if he cost Bush the election or not. Some say his attacks damaged Bush pretty good, but they'll never really know the hypothetical scenario of if he wasn't in the race. 38% of Perot's former backers on election day said they voted Bush, 38% said they voted Clinton.
Before Perot dropped out, among democrats, Clinton polled at 43%, Perot at 39%! At the time, they were saying that Perot was actually now hurting Clinton more than Bush. Then Clinton started pulling ahead and Perot behind after some negative press. And Perot abruptly pulled out. Then it was everyone going for his voters. But the swings in that race and how close it was...there wasn't an overwhelming diehard base for either candidate. So it could have swung back Perot's way as they were pretty fickle. And like I said, had he really raised money like the other candidates instead of financing his candidacy himself...I bet that would have been the deciding factor. Spending to that point always decided elections. He kneecapped himself. He could have raised a pretty massive war chest early and when things got tough, just throttled up the spending.
I remember when he jumped out of the race, he lost all momentum and people were ticked...and got their minds directed toward a new candidate. He never had a window to win then after trying to come back.
When Perot initially stepped out, of his supporters, 45% said they would vote for Clinton and 26% for Bush when they started to scramble for his voters. So Clinton certainly got more momentum when it happened.
So many hypotheticals and so many people not married to a candidate, I think it could have played out a number of ways.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:25 pm Post subject:
I think at the end of the day Perot was a novelty, and most people went for their normal routine. The difference was that it was a change election and both he and Bill were change. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Sen. Manchin says he opposes Neera Tanden's nomination to lead OMB:
"I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of [OMB]."
Quote:
Steve Benen @stevebenen
Among the Trump nominees Manchin voted to confirm, indifferent to their "overtly partisan statements":
Jeff Sessions <white guy>
Mike Pompeo <white guy>
Bill Barr <white guy>
Brett Kavanaugh <white guy>
Ric Grenell (who was effectively a professional online troll for quite a while) <white guy>
Neera Tanden <woman of color> extremely qualified candidate who said "mean" stuff about Republicans in some past tweets.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:59 pm Post subject:
Man I wish we had one more Senator. Thanks a lot sexting North Carolina guy. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52653 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:02 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
I think at the end of the day Perot was a novelty, and most people went for their normal routine. The difference was that it was a change election and both he and Bill were change.
That's an accurate assessment.
What we are looking at two decades later is a whole different thing.
The idea that Perot running then and Trump running again as former President in 2024 would the same thing is where the problem lies. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
One thing Perot and Trump had in common was the belief in crank conspiracy theories -- especially directed at them.
Quote:
Ross Perot's charges of Republican dirty tricks follow a long-established pattern of espousing elaborate, unproved conspiracies often directed against himself.
On numerous occasions, most recently in the third Presidential debate, Mr. Perot has described assassination conspiracies directed against him and his family by enemies as varied as the North Vietnamese, the Black Panthers and Texas drug dealers. Dallas law-enforcement officials interviewed by reporters have said they do not believe the plots ever existed.
Over the years, Mr. Perot has shown a great appetite for conspiracy theories from both the far-left and the far-right wings of American politics, lending an open ear to theories of secret global cabals, to Byzantine tales of vast criminal enterprises undertaken with secret Government approval, to talk of organized evil that stretches across continents and over decades, or even centuries.
Sen. Manchin says he opposes Neera Tanden's nomination to lead OMB:
"I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of [OMB]."
Quote:
Steve Benen @stevebenen
Among the Trump nominees Manchin voted to confirm, indifferent to their "overtly partisan statements":
Jeff Sessions <white guy>
Mike Pompeo <white guy>
Bill Barr <white guy>
Brett Kavanaugh <white guy>
Ric Grenell (who was effectively a professional online troll for quite a while) <white guy>
Neera Tanden <woman of color> extremely qualified candidate who said "mean" stuff about Republicans in some past tweets.
Joe Sexist Racist (bleep) Manchin
Let's hope Biden has assurances from at least one Republican, so that Manchin can be Manchin and show his very red state that he's not completely with Biden. Could be wrong, but I don't think he would intentionally kill a nomination. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Sen. Manchin says he opposes Neera Tanden's nomination to lead OMB:
"I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of [OMB]."
Quote:
Steve Benen @stevebenen
Among the Trump nominees Manchin voted to confirm, indifferent to their "overtly partisan statements":
Jeff Sessions <white guy>
Mike Pompeo <white guy>
Bill Barr <white guy>
Brett Kavanaugh <white guy>
Ric Grenell (who was effectively a professional online troll for quite a while) <white guy>
Neera Tanden <woman of color> extremely qualified candidate who said "mean" stuff about Republicans in some past tweets.
Joe Sexist Racist (bleep) Manchin
Let's hope Biden has assurances from at least one Republican, so that Manchin can be Manchin and show his very red state that he's not completely with Biden. Could be wrong, but I don't think he would intentionally kill a nomination.
Aside from that, someone needs to confront Manchin on why he singled out a woman of color and not the horrible, terrible men he had no problem confirming in the past. Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he should get a pass on the seeming racism and sexism going on here.
I don’t think Perot had any window to win, there just weren’t enough of the combinations of motivations that made people vote for him. Conversely I think Bush still loses but by a tight margin, because a ton of republicans either voted for Perot, didn’t vote at all, or went with Clinton (who was not really seen as aggressively progressive by the mainstream of the time) out of dissatisfaction with Bush. There were the anti taxers, the war hawks who thought he wussed out, and the moderates who found him full and uninspiring and not terribly effective. And walk street liked Clinton after they famously met with him and he wowed them with his knowledge of the street and the economy (the story is that they went in to try and educate the candidate and instead he held forth like a pro). The luster of Reagan hadn’t carried over and the legacy of his divisive movement hadn’t kicked in yet (it would as a backlash to Clinton)
Do you remember in 92 the faction of Rs who preferred that Pat Buchanan was the nominee over the incumbent Bush who had picked up the title of "Wimp" in Newsweek at the time. He had that perception hanging over his head maybe simply because his greatest strength was coalition-building and forming friendships with other leaders and government officials around the world. That's still whimpy behavior to Repubs. Cucky they'd call it now. Buchanan won 38% of the vote in New Hampshire. Bush 1 wasn't damaged headed into the fights against Perot and Bill, but he wasn't as strong as most incumbents typically have been in recent decades.
I think one moment that really bleeped Bush was in one of the debates where he kept checking his watch and when a young lady asked how the recession affected him personally. It was his version of Dukakis in a tank wearing a helmet. He stammered and stuttered and couldn't answer the question, instead asking her if she was implying that people who have "means" can't possibly be affected by the recession. Then Bill stood up, walked to her and knocked that question out the park. George wasn't about dat life of debating with Billy C. Clinton destroyed him with his personable, twangy/hick-like front that put Middle Murica at ease. Meanwhile, he was every bit the cunning linguist we found him to be years later.
One thing Perot and Trump had in common was the belief in crank conspiracy theories -- especially directed at them.
Quote:
Ross Perot's charges of Republican dirty tricks follow a long-established pattern of espousing elaborate, unproved conspiracies often directed against himself.
On numerous occasions, most recently in the third Presidential debate, Mr. Perot has described assassination conspiracies directed against him and his family by enemies as varied as the North Vietnamese, the Black Panthers and Texas drug dealers. Dallas law-enforcement officials interviewed by reporters have said they do not believe the plots ever existed.
Over the years, Mr. Perot has shown a great appetite for conspiracy theories from both the far-left and the far-right wings of American politics, lending an open ear to theories of secret global cabals, to Byzantine tales of vast criminal enterprises undertaken with secret Government approval, to talk of organized evil that stretches across continents and over decades, or even centuries.
Yeah he also acted on them, too. Actually not just conspiracies about himself but he seemed to love conspiracies in general beyond that. He would have been Q’s dream candidate.
By the way, reading old stuff about Perot, I can’t help but hear Dana Carvey’s impersonation anytime it’s Perot’s voice, lol.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:18 am Post subject:
Yeah, he’s been romanticized some, but he was a serious crackpot nut job. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
"It's unsettling to hear of this highly inappropriate story shared on a podcast by a public figure referencing my 'panties' whilst playing at a charity pro-am. What this person should have remembered from that day was the fact that I shot 64 and beat every male golfer in the field leading our team to victory. I shudder thinking that he was smiling to my face and complimenting me on my game while objectifying me and referencing my 'panties' behind my back all day.
"What should be discussed is the elite skill level that women play at, not what we wear or look like.
"My putting stance six years ago was designed to improve my putting stats (I ended up winning the US Open that year), NOT as an invitation to look up my skirt!
"Nike makes skirts with SHORTS built in underneath for this exact reason ... so that women can feel CONFIDENT and COMFORTABLE playing a game that we love."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
