Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Not Exactly News: Jeff Sessions Says Something Dumb (Again)


Recommended Posts

Huh. One one hand, this is crass and a little bit of a racist allusion to other islands in the Pacific. Like, say, the Philippines and their strong Islamic population. Or Japan. He makes them (Hawaii) sound like a foreign entity trying to govern the good old U.S. 

On the other hand, this is the kind of the raw politics the Trump administration has been using to effectiveness the whole time. It's nothing new. Pat Buchanan, Reform Party wonder himself once went to the Mexican border and said "No way, Jose." 

Perot and the Reform Party has always had this element to them, and used it to great populist effect.  

eta* Also, Hawaii themselves has some nativist politics themselves; including that strong push to get islanders in the legislature and going so far as to ask for judge-made quotas in doing so.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Huh. One one hand, this is crass and a little bit of a racist allusion to other islands in the Pacific. Like, say, the Philippines and their strong Islamic population. Or Japan. He makes them (Hawaii) sound like a foreign entity trying to govern the good old U.S. 

On the other hand, this is the kind of the raw politics the Trump administration has been using to effectiveness the whole time. It's nothing new. Pat Buchanan, Reform Party wonder himself once went to the Mexican border and said "No way, Jose." 

Perot and the Reform Party has always had this element to them, and used it to great populist effect.  

eta* Also, Hawaii themselves has some nativist politics themselves; including that strong push to get islanders in the legislature and going so far as to ask for judge-made quotas in doing so.   

I don't understand the contrast between hands.  You're correct that this is dogwhistle politics and it's effective. It's disgusting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tommyGunZ said:

I don't understand the contrast between hands.  You're correct that this is dogwhistle politics and it's effective. It's disgusting.  

Because it might not be rawly stupid, per the title. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

 

Pretty sure they're playing the Yuma stage at Coachella on Saturday.  Right after Tacocat and Chicano Batman.

and Chupalabra - the Mythical Liberace of Sinaloa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rockaction said:

Because it might not be rawly stupid, per the title. 

I guess it isn't stupid, strictly speaking, within the context of an administration that continues to attempt to govern as if they are running a nasty, populist election campaign.

It is disgusting, on many levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

I guess it isn't stupid, strictly speaking, within the context of an administration that continues to attempt to govern as if they are running a nasty, populist election campaign.

It is disgusting, on many levels. 

I know it usually serves little more than to irritate you when i ask you about stuff, but how do you imagine genuine conservatives (i know you're not a conservative but a Classical Liberal, which is closer to libertarian) or the center-to-left leaning half of the country not in on the populist miracle that is President Drunkuncle should proceed in an attempt to take their country back? And how do you feel about three-line questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wikkidpissah said:

I know it usually serves little more than to irritate you when i ask you about stuff, but how do you imagine genuine conservatives (i know you're not a conservative but a Classical Liberal, which is closer to libertarian) or the center-to-left leaning half of the country not in on the populist miracle that is President Drunkuncle should proceed in an attempt to take their country back? And how do you feel about three-line questions?

That's a heck of a question.

I would think it really falls on moderate and mainline GOP legislators to show some political and moral courage. 

:lmao:

Pardon me, I'm back.

Moderate and sane conservative voters need to call their reps and senators and pressure them. It won't yield results right now, but over time, with enough pressure, those cowardly ####s will start to feel they have no choice but to actually stand up and be counted when Trump (or one of his minions) does or says something awful. Which is virtually daily. It would also help in making sure these investigative committees don't all get knee-capped politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

That's a heck of a question.

I would think it really falls on moderate and mainline GOP legislators to show some political and moral courage. 

:lmao:

Pardon me, I'm back.

Moderate and sane conservative voters need to call their reps and senators and pressure them. It won't yield results right now, but over time, with enough pressure, those cowardly ####s will start to feel they have no choice but to actually stand up and be counted when Trump (or one of his minions) does or says something awful. Which is virtually daily. It would also help in making sure these investigative committees don't all get knee-capped politically.

Fair enough, sir. Do you go at Trump first or the semi-intentional stasis in the system? Should old-fashioned conservatives show a front so decent folk have a place to go when the fever passes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this country is ready and waiting for a true progressive populist government. Every poll shows this country, in the majority, wants to move to the left. When we see that platform made available to voters at every level we will see things change and dramatically so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

I think this country is ready and waiting for a true progressive populist government. Every poll shows this country, in the majority, wants to move to the left. When we see that platform made available to voters at every level we will see things change and dramatically so.

Count me in for the progressive plank, and out for populist part.  The anti-science and anti-economic platforms that are the hallmark of the current Republican Party have no place in my party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Count me in for the progressive plank, and out for populist part.  The anti-science and anti-economic platforms that are the hallmark of the current Republican Party have no place in my party. 

Yeah, the idea anybody as bright as NCC would paint "populism" as a positive thing is fairly breath-taking.

The core of populism, historically, has been nativism and protectionism. Those are both unambiguously and objectively terrible policy directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Count me in for the progressive plank, and out for populist part.  The anti-science and anti-economic platforms that are the hallmark of the current Republican Party have no place in my party. 

Populism more-or-less refers to the groundswell nature of it. For decades, Sen Harold Hughes of Iowa, along w pre-Vietnam-activism Gene McCarthy and George McGovern, talked about a liberal populist sweep of our institutions once Commiemania subsided and decent folk came to naturally realise that the country was only as strong as its weakest link and America could best lift itself up to its promise and potential with unions, PeaceCorps, civilrights, yadayadayada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

Populism more-or-less refers to the groundswell nature of it. For decades, Sen Harold Hughes of Iowa, along w pre-Vietnam-activism Gene McCarthy and George McGovern, talked about a liberal populist sweep of our institutions once Commiemania subsided and decent folk came to naturally realise that the country was only as strong as its weakest link and America could best lift itself up to its promise and potential with unions, PeaceCorps, civilrights, yadayadayada

Grassroots activism is a-okay with me. It's the broad-brush "us vs. the elites" crap that I find overbroad, intellectually lazy, and off putting.  

When you demonize "elites", you're unfairly demonizing lots of liberals simply because of their economic lot in life. That's just as wrong as demonizing poor people for being poor. We should argue specific market reforms that will make life better off for everyone in the long run instead of demonizing markets altogether.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys keep falling for the propaganda. Populism doesn't have to be any of those things but it is when the right seizes on it with their faux populism. And this idea that the poor elites are so put upon kills me. They have been making out like bandits for 30 years as a we hurtle into a new Gilded Age and you guys want to protect them. Protect your kids future first. The elites are the ones rigging the system for them and against you.

There is class warfare in this country and the rich have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

You guys keep falling for the propaganda. Populism doesn't have to be any of those things but it is when the right seizes on it with their faux populism. And this idea that the poor elites are so put upon kills me. They have been making out like bandits for 30 years as a we hurtle into a new Gilded Age and you guys want to protect them. Protect your kids future first. The elites are the ones rigging the system for them and against you.

There is class warfare in this country and the rich have won.

Good post. Let's burn Bill Gates, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi  (all of whom are rich elites) at the stake.   WHO'S WITH ME!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

You guys keep falling for the propaganda. Populism doesn't have to be any of those things but it is when the right seizes on it with their faux populism. And this idea that the poor elites are so put upon kills me. They have been making out like bandits for 30 years as a we hurtle into a new Gilded Age and you guys want to protect them. Protect your kids future first. The elites are the ones rigging the system for them and against you.

There is class warfare in this country and the rich have won.

In.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

You guys keep falling for the propaganda. Populism doesn't have to be any of those things but it is when the right seizes on it with their faux populism. And this idea that the poor elites are so put upon kills me. They have been making out like bandits for 30 years as a we hurtle into a new Gilded Age and you guys want to protect them. Protect your kids future first. The elites are the ones rigging the system for them and against you.

There is class warfare in this country and the rich have won.

:goodposting: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tommyGunZ said:

Good post. Let's burn Bill Gates, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi  (all of whom are rich elites) at the stake.   WHO'S WITH ME!  

Nancy Pelosi is not on your side. Obama made sure to protect your precious elites by making the Bush tax cuts permanent so yeah that's some real liberal policy there.. As to Gates yeah he is giving away a lot of money but let's not pretend MS hasn't paid for more than.one break. As to Warren exceptions tend to prove the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NCCommish said:

You guys keep falling for the propaganda. Populism doesn't have to be any of those things but it is when the right seizes on it with their faux populism. And this idea that the poor elites are so put upon kills me. They have been making out like bandits for 30 years as a we hurtle into a new Gilded Age and you guys want to protect them. Protect your kids future first. The elites are the ones rigging the system for them and against you.

There is class warfare in this country and the rich have won.

For you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Nancy Pelosi is not on your side. Obama made sure to protect your precious elites by making the Bush tax cuts permanent so yeah that's some real liberal policy there.. As to Gates yeah he is giving away a lot of money but let's not pretend MS hasn't paid for more than.one break. As to Warren exceptions tend to prove the rule.

Obama didn't "make the Bush tax cuts permanent".  It's that kind of overbroad and inaccurate attempt at slandering liberals that I absolutely reject.

Nancy Pelosi is now a fake liberal?  Purity tests are antithetical to effectively governing a democracy. It's horrible when the Freedom Caucus does it, and just as bad when the fringe left does it. Liberals are better than that.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tommyGunZ said:

Obama didn't "make the Bush tax cuts permanent".  It's that kind of overbroad and inaccurate attempt at slandering liberals that I absolutely reject.

Nancy Pelosi is now a fake liberal?  Purity tests are antithetical to effectively governing a democracy. It's horrible when the Freedom Caucus does it, and just as bad when the fringe left does it. Liberals are better than that.   

 

Apparently not.

I agree that political purity tests are absolutely unhelpful. Combining them with identity politics, on either side, is disastrous.

Pragmatism and competence are so badly needed. They are in short supply in the body politic these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, why are we bagging on NCCommish for comparing politicians to a standard he's determined rather than to each other again?  This isn't a "purity test".  It's a standard he has set for his support.  Perhaps more people should be doing that rather than the constant comparison politic approach that gave us Don vs Hillary.  Actually, I can't think of a better reason for shifting from the comparison politics/lesser of two evils/you're wasting your vote if you don't vote for the "D" or the "R" approach that produced Hillary vs Don.  

Maybe, just maybe, digging down a couple hundred feet to retrieve the currently set bar is just what we need to do.  Maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

Not a pie chart, but a pie-in-the-sky one to be sure.

Size is the determinant, not good guys & bad guys. There is no financial entity of any size which doesn't begin to use capital to rig their, if not other, markets. They cease to exist if they don't, but that will never make it right nor productive. Don't know why economists aren't trying to identify an equilibrium here, but my guess is it's somewhere around publicly-traded.

My pie-in-the-sky would be a govt which finds that point, takes the regs off (as long as they arent poisoning someone) those trying to reach it, but then make any entity who crosses that threshold apply for the right to develop new revenue streams or purchase/merge and endure community-impact review for any cost-cutting - outsource, taxdodge, plant closing, etc - or other significant action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

So, why are we bagging on NCCommish for comparing politicians to a standard he's determined rather than to each other again?  This isn't a "purity test".  It's a standard he has set for his support.  Perhaps more people should be doing that rather than the constant comparison politic approach that gave us Don vs Hillary.  Actually, I can't think of a better reason for shifting from the comparison politics/lesser of two evils/you're wasting your vote if you don't vote for the "D" or the "R" approach that produced Hillary vs Don.  

Maybe, just maybe, digging down a couple hundred feet to retrieve the currently set bar is just what we need to do.  Maybe?

Because I challenge their world view. If they don't try to.marginalize me and those like me they'd have to admit the Democrats in general stopped being liberals a long, long time ago. And that's too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

Because I challenge their world view. If they don't try to.marginalize me and those like me they'd have to admit the Democrats in general stopped being liberals a long, long time ago. And that's too hard.

Irony off the charts with this post.  Accusing others of marginalizing while in the exact same sentence suggesting that some of the most powerful and successful liberal voices aren't real liberals.  

Make no mistake, you're the one ostracizing and refusing to support liberals who don't meet your purity test. I know your heart is in the right place, but it's a horrible strategy and I'm tired of losing.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Irony off the charts with this post.  Accusing others of marginalizing while in the exact same sentence suggesting that some of the most powerful and successful liberal voices aren't real liberals.  

Make no mistake, you're the one ostracizing and refusing to support liberals who don't meet your purity test. I know your heart is in the right place, but it's a horrible strategy and I'm tired of losing.   

 

Then stop with the lesser of two evils bull#### as your measuring stick :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Irony off the charts with this post.  Accusing others of marginalizing while in the exact same sentence suggesting that some of the most powerful and successful liberal voices aren't real liberals.  

Make no mistake, you're the one ostracizing and refusing to support liberals who don't meet your purity test. I know your heart is in the right place, but it's a horrible strategy and I'm tired of losing.   

 

You're tired of losing? Yet here you are  sticking with the people who have done all the losing. That's obviously a great strategy, keep doing what hasn't worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NCCommish said:

Because I challenge their world view. If they don't try to.marginalize me and those like me they'd have to admit the Democrats in general stopped being liberals a long, long time ago. And that's too hard.

I am not trying to marginalize anything. The simple fact is that protectionism, which is a go-to populist idea and a favorite Bernie Sanders talking point, is a terrible policy direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

I am not trying to marginalize anything. The simple fact is that protectionism, which is a go-to populist idea and a favorite Bernie Sanders talking point, is a terrible policy direction. 

as an ideal, I agree.  There is ZERO indication that Sanders wants pure protectionism.  He does choose people over companies.  I know that's a no no in DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

I think this chart tries to influence people by using the word "enemy" instead of something more neutral like "political adversary."  Most rich people are not evil and I don't consider them my "enemy"  But rich people that want to stay rich (or get richer) have different interests than middle-class and poor people.  In my view the non-rich should absolutely advocate for policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the wealthy.  Otherwise it's a one-way fight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think this chart tries to influence people by using the word "enemy" instead of something more neutral like "political adversary."  Most rich people are not evil and I don't consider them my "enemy"  But rich people that want to stay rich (or get richer) have different interests than middle-class and poor people.  In my view the non-rich should absolutely advocate for policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the wealthy.  Otherwise it's a one-way fight. 

There are rent-seekers and parasites at every economic strata. If you are going to go after the "big fish", you also need to attempt to do something about the pilot fish and remoras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RedmondLonghorn said:

There are rent-seekers and parasites at every economic strata. If you are going to go after the "big fish", you also need to attempt to do something about the pilot fish and remoras.

The fish analogies are lost on me but I don't think I disagree.  But I guess we would need to get into more specificity to know whether I'm actually agreeing.  Fortunately I'm leaving work in five minutes so probably not going to bother fleshing this out.  Have a good weekend all, whether rich or poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

The fish analogies are lost on me but I don't think I disagree.  But I guess we would need to get into more specificity to know whether I'm actually agreeing.  Fortunately I'm leaving work in five minutes so probably not going to bother fleshing this out.  Have a good weekend all, whether rich or poor.

Pilot fish and remoras are fish that somehow have convinced sharks not to eat them. They are basically parasites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

You're tired of losing? Yet here you are  sticking with the people who have done all the losing. That's obviously a great strategy, keep doing what hasn't worked.

Refusing to support the Obama/Clinton/Maddow/Pelosi section of the Democratic party because they aren't liberal enough is political suicide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Refusing to support the Obama/Clinton/Maddow/Pelosi section of the Democratic party because they aren't liberal enough is political suicide. 

You're right all they've done is lose 800 or so legislative seats, most of the governorships, the Congress, the Senate and the White House.

Kind of hard for the dead to commit suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...