April 20, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Dave Moss said: There’s really no need. Dr. Philly has already declared it a bad idea. Exactly. Shape up young whipper snapper.
April 20, 20214 yr Author A report for the doctor: On 4/18/2021 at 11:16 AM, DrPhilly said: The topic moved from a list of 50 items waiting for attention to one of the top 5 being discussed and given airplay. I've said time and again that the fringe left would not be satisfied with just a lot of hot air and that Biden would eventually be in a large fight with them on several fronts. When you and others implied that the idea was "just a commission" I was pretty clear to say that the commission gave legitimacy to the idea and that it would stoke the fringe. I wasn't too worried at all about what the Right would say on this one. The country at large was my worry and I knew the Left fringe would take the bait and run. Point being is that as good as he is at keeping a level head he is going to be persuaded by the progressives to take poor decision on occasion and this was one of those. He should have just simply said "no". If he wanted to start a commission on the general topic he could have been clear that expansion was not part of their assignment. I needed a little time to review our conversational history on this subject, as well as a break from the boards in general. CVON fatigue is no joke, lol. I wanted to look at two aspects of the debate and evaluate our positions in light of recent events. First, I wanted to verify your claim to have essentially predicted the kind of factional confrontation that has ensued. I also wanted to re-evaluate my original position in right of recent events. I knew that you were generally repulsed by the escalatory nature of anything with an eye toward expansion, but our debate has always centered on the idea court-packing as merely the latest in a series of distasteful power moves involving the judiciary, one that stretches back well over a decade and that has only gained momentum as it makes its presence felt in a third administration. This gamesmanship has generally been discussed in the media and by the public within the context of a liberal-conservative paradigm, with each side voicing dismay that reaction across the aisle could be bad enough to negate any favorable re-distribution of power. At least, this is generally how this issue is discussed among the public, a "what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot" kind of scenario. Calls to reconsider expansionary tactics have generally used the same logic, with Republicans basically daring Democrats to do so at their own peril. The conversation hasn't often taken the form of Liberals rebuking Leftists for advancing the nuclearization of Congressional business. So, in regard to your pretty straightforward claim that you called exactly what happened, that would mean you expected that Congressional Democrats would do an end-run to pre-empt Biden on expansion. I went looking for verification and didn't find any statements to that effect in our conversation on April 10. In fact, you didn't really bring up the left at all. You reference "playing with fire," "bad optics," "bad for the country," and "starting/escalating an arms race." All of these replies were said within the context of the relationship between Republican and Democratic maneuvering, that is, the interparty dynamics, not intraparty ones. If the latter is what you were referencing, it was at least clear that I was talking about the former, and you never clarified otherwise. All of my replies on the subject to you understood your position to basically be that expansion was dangerous primarily because it would encourage the right to be more fascist, not because it would encourage the left to be more aggressive in their own right. I guess we were talking about two different things. Hardly anyone saw this legislative move coming, though. Now, using hindsight, even if I did think that this was a realistic possibility, I would've still supported what Biden did, because most would think that by throwing the left a bone on expansion, it would calm tempers for a bit. I think one could reasonably say, "Well, if we commission a study, maybe that'll give them something to chew on and hold them off for a little while." There is an argument for doing this in hopes that it may weaken or forestall an impending clash of Democratic factions. Biden might have been influenced by just that kind of perspective from his advisers. While I'll admit that Congressional Democrats are behaving more petulantly than I expected, I stand by my position. I did not think this announcement would satisfy the left, but I did think that it could at least temporarily hold them off. I'm sure that that was part of the rationale in the West Wing. Knowing now how the left reacted when Biden actually stepped up to the plate, I'd imagine they'd be even more rowdy had he continued to ignore it. And remember that it's not just leftists who want to expand the Court. After what happened with Barrett, plenty of moderate liberals are on board with it, too. This is quite the political football. In conclusion, while I don't think you "called this" "exactly" as it happened (easy there, you might break your arm patting yourself on the back that hard ), I will give you credit for pointing out that seemingly academic undertakings could be "playing with fire" in a way, because the risk of unintended consequences in these situations is always incalculable. The fact that I didn't expect Congress to show up the president is a testament to this. I don't think that the risk of some leftists trying to up the ante is enough to have said at the time, "No, it's too risky, better just keep ignoring it and hoping it goes away." The risk of doing nothing is greater. If Biden had continued to ignore it, the left flank would likely be even more aggressive, and the chances are that inaction could divide the party enough that it would lose majority in 2022, leaving us in a position where Republicans might have a seventh Justice added to the court in short order. Ultimately, I wish more young Democrats were like me in the sense that I voted for Bernie in the primary, but I'm firmly backing Biden, because I know that he's our best shot at moving the country forward, that we're stronger together, and at the very least, I can appreciate Biden's efforts efforts to seek compromise and negotiate in good faith. The left would do well to defer to their elder statesman, not simply because he's an elder, but because he has accrued a lot of wisdom from 50 years in Washington. But sensibility and practicality seems largely lost on my generation.
April 20, 20214 yr I am glad more young people didn't vote for Bernie. He was a coward four years ago when he ran over by Hillary/DNC and didn't stand up for what he believed in.
April 20, 20214 yr @EaglesRocker97 Thanks for the long reply. I’m on my phone now so I’ll post a longer response later. In any case, there wasn’t a need for the left to prempt Biden. All that has to happen is for the left to take the ball and run whether that comes before, during, or after.
April 20, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: A report for the doctor: I needed a little time to review our conversational history on this subject, as well as a break from the boards in general. CVON fatigue is no joke, lol. I wanted to look at two aspects of the debate and evaluate our positions in light of recent events. First, I wanted to verify your claim to have essentially predicted the kind of factional confrontation that has ensued. I also wanted to re-evaluate my original position in right of recent events. I knew that you were generally repulsed by the escalatory nature of anything with an eye toward expansion, but our debate has always centered on the idea court-packing as merely the latest in a series of distasteful power moves involving the judiciary, one that stretches back well over a decade and that has only gained momentum as it makes its presence felt in a third administration. This gamesmanship has generally been discussed in the media and by the public within the context of a liberal-conservative paradigm, with each side voicing dismay that reaction across the aisle could be bad enough to negate any favorable re-distribution of power. At least, this is generally how this issue is discussed among the public, a "what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot" kind of scenario. Calls to reconsider expansionary tactics have generally used the same logic, with Republicans basically daring Democrats to do so at their own peril. The conversation hasn't often taken the form of Liberals rebuking Leftists for advancing the nuclearization of Congressional business. So, in regard to your pretty straightforward claim that you called exactly what happened, that would mean you expected that Congressional Democrats would do an end-run to pre-empt Biden on expansion. I went looking for verification and didn't find any statements to that effect in our conversation on April 10. In fact, you didn't really bring up the left at all. You reference "playing with fire," "bad optics," "bad for the country," and "starting/escalating an arms race." All of these replies were said within the context of the relationship between Republican and Democratic maneuvering, that is, the interparty dynamics, not intraparty ones. If the latter is what you were referencing, it was at least clear that I was talking about the former, and you never clarified otherwise. All of my replies on the subject to you understood your position to basically be that expansion was dangerous primarily because it would encourage the right to be more fascist, not because it would encourage the left to be more aggressive in their own right. I guess we were talking about two different things. Hardly anyone saw this legislative move coming, though. Now, using hindsight, even if I did think that this was a realistic possibility, I would've still supported what Biden did, because most would think that by throwing the left a bone on expansion, it would calm tempers for a bit. I think one could reasonably say, "Well, if we commission a study, maybe that'll give them something to chew on and hold them off for a little while." There is an argument for doing this in hopes that it may weaken or forestall an impending clash of Democratic factions. Biden might have been influenced by just that kind of perspective from his advisers. While I'll admit that Congressional Democrats are behaving more petulantly than I expected, I stand by my position. I did not think this announcement would satisfy the left, but I did think that it could at least temporarily hold them off. I'm sure that that was part of the rationale in the West Wing. Knowing now how the left reacted when Biden actually stepped up to the plate, I'd imagine they'd be even more rowdy had he continued to ignore it. And remember that it's not just leftists who want to expand the Court. After what happened with Barrett, plenty of moderate liberals are on board with it, too. This is quite the political football. In conclusion, while I don't think you "called this" "exactly" as it happened (easy there, you might break your arm patting yourself on the back that hard ), I will give you credit for pointing out that seemingly academic undertakings could be "playing with fire" in a way, because the risk of unintended consequences in these situations is always incalculable. The fact that I didn't expect Congress to show up the president is a testament to this. I don't think that the risk of some leftists trying to up the ante is enough to have said at the time, "No, it's too risky, better just keep ignoring it and hoping it goes away." The risk of doing nothing is greater. If Biden had continued to ignore it, the left flank would likely be even more aggressive, and the chances are that inaction could divide the party enough that it would lose majority in 2022, leaving us in a position where Republicans might have a seventh Justice added to the court in short order. Ultimately, I wish more young Democrats were like me in the sense that I voted for Bernie in the primary, but I'm firmly backing Biden, because I know that he's our best shot at moving the country forward, that we're stronger together, and at the very least, I can appreciate Biden's efforts efforts to seek compromise and negotiate in good faith. The left would do well to defer to their elder statesman, not simply because he's an elder, but because he has accrued a lot of wisdom from 50 years in Washington. But sensibility and practicality seems largely lost on my generation. Again, thanks for spending the time to go back and review. I have no doubt that you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I'll take that on my poor posting. In any case, once I saw that the commission was put in place and what they would be reviewing I immediately thought about the signal it would send to the left flank. My concerns had to do with them and the fact that Biden's actions gave a level of legitimacy to the idea of court expansion. I made that point in several posts and I would imagine it would be pretty clear that the concerns would be people on the left seeing the signaling that an expansion was ok. It surely wouldn't be the people on the right. Not at this point in time though of course once the ball of expansion was rolling the right too would embrace the idea the next time they gained power. So, things have actually turned out just as I thought they would. Namely, that the left would take the ball that Biden threw out there and run with it. I would have rather had him call the commission but the topic of expansion not on the list of reforms to be reviewed.
April 20, 20214 yr Author 12 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Again, thanks for spending the time to go back and review. I have no doubt that you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I'll take that on my poor posting. In any case, once I saw that the commission was put in place and what they would be reviewing I immediately thought about the signal it would send to the left flank. My concerns had to do with them and the fact that Biden's actions gave a level of legitimacy to the idea of court expansion. I made that point in several posts and I would imagine it would be pretty clear that the concerns would be people on the left seeing the signaling that an expansion was ok. It surely wouldn't be the people on the right. Not at this point in time though of course once the ball of expansion was rolling the right too would embrace the idea the next time they gained power. So, things have actually turned out just as I thought they would. Namely, that the left would take the ball that Biden threw out there and run with it. I would have rather had him call the commission but the topic of expansion not on the list of reforms to be reviewed. I just don't even understand why they did it. Even if they're set on this, it would seem better to me to let the commission report it's findings, then make a legislative move that could rightly be taken as either an endorsement or rejection of the report. Like I've been saying with this group, they don't think anything through. There's no strategy. Even if you have an ambitious or provocative agenda, you need to actually have a path forward, or you're just wasting your (and the country's) time. This seems like a group that's good at campaigning and nothing else. They can drum up enough support from the youth to get in office, but once they're in there and actually have to have a legal strategy, they stick with the campaign tactics. Like, putting up this bill when their own guy just took office and said he plans to look into the matter, and they're like "actually, nah, f*** you!" WTF are you doing wasting the most critical time for any majority party by passing symbolic measures? It's almost like they still think they're in the minority. They don't know any other way but protest. I guess such is the life of a perpetual outsider once they're on the inside. They don't know how to function as part of the system that they're attacking once they're part of it. As far as taking the ball and "running with it," how far can they conceivably run? Pelosi has already shut it down in the House. I don't think they'd have the votes if it even made it to the floor. I can't imagine the more moderate Senate being any more amenable to these interests.
April 20, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I just don't even understand why they did it. Even if they're set on this, it would seem better to me to let the commission report it's findings, then make a legislative move that could rightly be taken as either an endorsement or rejection of the report. Like I've been saying with this group, they don't think anything through. There's no strategy. Even if you have an ambitious or provocative agenda, you need to actually have a path forward, or you're just wasting your (and the country's) time. This seems like a group that's good at campaigning and nothing else. They can drum up enough support from the youth to get in office, but once they're in there and actually have to have a legal strategy, they stick with the campaign tactics. Like, putting up this bill when their own guy just took office and said he plans to look into the matter, and they're like "actually, nah, f*** you!" WTF are you doing wasting the most critical time for any majority party by passing symbolic measures? It's almost like they still think they're in the minority. They don't know any other way. Such is the life of a perpetual outsider once they're on the inside. They don't know how to function as part of the system that they're attacking once they're part of it. As far as taking the ball and "running with it," how far can they conceivably run? Pelosi has already shut it down in the House. I can't imagine the more moderate Senate being any more amenable to these interests. When I say "run with it" I mean pick up the signal and go beat the drum and blare the trumpet. They actually believe they are going to overwhelm everyone else with their mob like activist behavior in order to implement their agenda. They do have a strategy. Collect as big a mob as they can get an run over everyone that dares to stand in front of them. Use their control of social media to stoke the flames and to drown out anyone that dares to challenge them. They aren't interested in working with the system. They want to force the system to take a knee and bow to their demands. It is like a religion to them and they know they are right and anyone that says otherwise is wrong.
April 20, 20214 yr Author 45 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: When I say "run with it" I mean pick up the signal and go beat the drum and blare the trumpet. They actually believe they are going to overwhelm everyone else with their mob like activist behavior in order to implement their agenda. They do have a strategy. Collect as big a mob as they can get an run over everyone that dares to stand in front of them. Use their control of social media to stoke the flames and to drown out anyone that dares to challenge them. They aren't interested in working with the system. They want to force the system to take a knee and bow to their demands. It is like a religion to them and they know they are right and anyone that says otherwise is wrong. You are probably right, but I don't think that will work for them. It might work on the internet and for campaigning in some small urban district, but it's not going to do anything at the national level, politically speaking, except make more enemies. I understand your dismay, though. The matter is particularly weighty, because the concern has gone beyond whether this extreme polarization will eventually render Congress impotent and incapable of discharging even routine duties. That fierce rivalry has transformed into open hostility between enemies who are willing to move beyond shamefully obstructionist tactics to ones that are dangerously illiberal. Now, there's nothing wrong with putting forth even the most unpopular proposal, but it is off-putting to see people trying to force the issue, and that's definitely how it comes off in this context. We need to get back to talking, listening, and working with each other again. What the American people are hopefully learning as they watch this play out is that authoritarian power-grabs are the remedy sought by either extreme, and when there is a total breakdown in communication among lawmakers and everyday people, the resulting anxiety and paranoia leads in different directions to the same psychological state of people feeling that their way of life is under attack and that extreme measures are justified to meet a struggle for survival. This is why fascism ultimately looks pretty much the same as authoritarian communism. The only difference between Hitler and Mao in this regard was that the former started from an advanced position of industrialization with and cultural unity, while Mao had to literally build the Chinese economy and society from the ground up. Both were simply power hungry and bloodthirsty, but they realized that the personal glory that they craved could be achieved through careful manipulation of Gerrman and Chinese socioeconomic anxieties that was carefully designed to exploit their cultural and ethnic affinities. I generally balk at 'slippery slope' arguments, as they are often little more than alarmist outcries promoted by the most obstinate and bigoted people to an audience of gullible and ignorant folk who aren't particularly ideological but are vulnerable in ways that easily make them a captive audience for conmen who will speak directly to their feelings of anxiety and malaise. But, in truth, the idea of a slippery slope is only somewhat fallacious. The perpetual danger of populism in every form is that, as these movements grow beyond the grass roots and work into the institutional pillars of a democracy, they become more detached from principles and specific issues, and then it just becomes another form of tribalism. They maintain the cover of being ostensibly popular by focusing their rhetoric on the concentration of wealth and power, but this easily crosses over from principled concerns about equal opportunity and exploitation to self-interested experiments with identity politics and culture wars intended to satisfy yearnings for revenge and privilege.
April 20, 20214 yr 14 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: You are probably right, but I don't think that will work for them. Nor do I but they can do a lot of damage along the way
April 20, 20214 yr 22 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: You are probably right, but I don't think that will work for them. It might work on the internet and for campaigning in some small urban district, but it's not going to do anything at the national, level politically speaking, except make more enemies. I understand your dismay, though. The matter is particularly weighty, because the concern has gone beyond whether this extreme polarization will eventually render Congress impotent and incapable of discharging even routine duties. That fierce rivalry has transformed into open hostility between enemies who are willing to move beyond shamefully obstructionist tactics to ones that are dangerously illiberal. Now, there's nothing wrong with putting forth even the most unpopular proposal, but it is off-putting to see people trying to force the issue, and that's definitely how it comes off in this context. We need to get back to talking, listening, and working with each other again. What the American people are hopefully learning as they watch this play out is that authoritarian power-grabs are the remedy sought by either extreme, and when there is a total breakdown in communication among lawmakers and everyday people, the resulting anxiety and paranoia leads in different directions to the same psychological state of people feeling that their way of life is under attack and that extreme measures are justified to meet a struggle for survival. This is why fascism ultimately looks pretty much the same as authoritarian communism. The only difference between Hitler and Mao in this regard was that the former started from an advanced position of industrialization with and cultural unity, while Mao had to literally build the Chinese economy and society from the ground up. Both were simply power hungry and bloodthirsty, but they realized that the personal glory that they craved could be achieved through careful manipulation of Gerrman and Chinese socioeconomic anxieties that was carefully designed to exploit their cultural and ethnic affinities. I generally balk at 'slippery slope' arguments, as they are often little more than alarmist outcries promoted by the most obstinate and bigoted people to an audience of gullible and ignorant folk who aren't particularly ideological but are vulnerable in ways that easily make them a captive audience for conmen who will speak directly to their feelings of anxiety and malaise. But, in truth, the idea of a slippery slope is only somewhat fallacious. The perpetual danger of populism in every form is that, as these movements grow beyond the grass roots and work into the institutional pillars of a democracy, they become more detached from principles and specific issues, and then it just becomes another form of tribalism. They maintain the cover of being ostensibly popular by focusing their rhetoric on the concentration of wealth and power, but this easily crosses over from principled concerns about equal opportunity and exploitation to self-interested experiments with identity politics and culture wars intended to satisfy yearnings for revenge and privilege. Man I miss that forum, LOL.
April 20, 20214 yr Author 2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Man I miss that forum, LOL. Thank you for drawing my attention to the misplaced comma. It has been edited, lol.
April 21, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Talkingbirds said: Need a subscription to read article, but quite an impressive statement. They're underselling him a bit. I would've gone with "...most impressive first 100 days of any leader in the history of mankind. Suck it, Augustus Caesar."
April 21, 20214 yr Author 2 hours ago, Talkingbirds said: Need a subscription to read article, but quite an impressive statement. You heard it here first!
April 21, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: the feds monitor social media to help sniff out potential threats. no f'n way! kmart kz has been going on about being anti riot for months, someone steps up to do something to stop riots, and he is upset about it. 🤡🌏
April 21, 20214 yr Just now, Alpha_TATEr said: whats wrong with that ... Nothing...especially on Taco Tuesdays.
Create an account or sign in to comment