The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[John A Arkansawyer]

I'm sure enough to say it means there'll be a Speaker within a week.

Bold.

I figured politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Plus they respond to the word "power", just like we do.

[beantownbubba]

I'm sure enough to say it means there'll be a Speaker within a week.

Bold.

I figured politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Plus they respond to the word "power", just like we do.

<handsclappingemoji>

[jr29]

What I'd have done....
1. Just vote for McCarthy to avoid chaos. That's the easiest thing.
2. Be outspoken in potential support of a moderate/compromise speaker in exchange for a more centrist/bipartisan approach. Go to the press and say "to move things forward I am willing to support "fill in the blank Republican" for speaker. Ken Buck, Lawler from NY....someone. If none of those folks are interested or if they can't get any other Republican support I/Dems could say "hey, we're trying to work something out, but Republicans aren't interested". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way that could work out is that the compromise candidate becomes speaker then continues to operate like McCarthy. Dems could say "we came to the bargaining table in good faith and supported "fill in the blank". Now "fill in the blank" has betrayed the House and the country". In that case the Dems look reasonable, Republicans continue to look like a shit show.
Another way it could work out is the compromise speaker actually operates as such and the House works more like it did pre-Newt Gingrich.

Just for yucks, I had a very long conversation today with an old and dear friend I had not spoken to in months. When the talk turned to Congress, he said what you said, 100% as to substance and a lot of it in almost identical language. We didn't convince each other, either.

A kindred spirit. A lot of polls say we are the majority, but in the real world it seems we are an endangered species.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

[brettac1]

https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only ... can-exist/

[Mundane Mayhem]

I'm about as left wing as you're likely to find among people who generally ascribe some credence to elective politics, but I was also of the mind that the Dems should have bailed out McCarthy in exchange for basically any sort of concession. Devil you know, etc. I don't think whatever embarrassment this causes the Republican Party will matter at the ballot box, and my hunch--proven correct--is that they were only going to end up with someone even worse.

[beantownbubba]

https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only ... can-exist/

Yeah, people say this, but in the context of 10/7 it's pretty much bullshit. First of all it's factually incorrect. Just for one example, for each of the last 2 days for sure and maybe 3, there have been more articles and opinion pieces in the NY Times about the plight of the Palestinians than there have been about Israel, 10/7, the hostages, or other pro-Israeli messages. Both have been represented but it's absolutely fair to say the Palestinian position including "human interest," sympathetic stories of loss, grief and fear has not been buried or minimized and has in fact been prioritized. Yes, only one sample, but it's, you know, the New York Times, the semi-official voice of the oppressor establishment. It is also not true that Israel has been operating outside international law for 75 years. One of the fatal traps that all apologists for any side in the Middle East is saying "you can't view [whatever event] without understanding the [75 year/100 year/2000 year] context" and then pretend that the only context is the part that helps their position.

Just curious: What about "if you oppress a people you should expect to be subjected to unconstrained violence by the oppressed" is different from "if you slaughter a bunch of innocents in particularly horrible ways you should expect retribution"? Both are dead ends, but I don't see either as a morally superior position.

Let's be clear: Killing civilians is wrong and is always somewhere on the scale of immorality. How immoral depends. Killing children, the elderly and other "protected" or "should be protected" classes of people is even more wrong and further up the scale of immorality. Killing anyone in particularly violent, torturous ways is also on the scale. Killing civilians indiscriminately from the air (targeting is better than ever, but still, come on, it's not exactly surgical). And if that's what we're talking about, count me in. But it's not. We're talking excusing one kind of immorality and cloaking it in revolutionary language while ignoring the suffering on the other side (both sides do this; both are wrong).

What about killing grandmas and babies is revolutionary? What about giving up all the "gains" of territory that were established by Hamas on 10/7 within hours, essentially without a fight, is anti-colonial? There was no strategy involved in the attack, no attempt to overthrow the oppressor and no positive political or military aims. It was either (i) violence for violence's sake or (ii) violence expected/intended to result in the slaughter of their own people for byzantine reasons that are a long way from revolutionary. Sorry, that just can't be cloaked in revolutionary rhetoric. Well, I mean it has been so it can be, but that doesn't make it right or convincing. I'd say "inhumane" and "corrupt" are more accurate descriptions.

Yep, oppressive regimes ought to expect to be subject to violence and generally not the kind of violence considered acceptable under the "laws of war" (whether that's a real thing is a question for another day). But you're talking about a people who have been victimized as much by their alleged leaders as by the oppressor. Whose alleged leaders are far more corrupt than the oppressors (and that's saying a lot when the oppressor is personified in Bibi). Whose alleged leaders have an express, avowed strategy of using their people as human shields and sacrificing them for their own purposes. Do the people making these revolutionary claims understand that Hamas is in control of Gaza? That the "oppressor" is not even present in the alleged colonial territory? Do the people making these claims understand that Hamas turned down the opportunity for the peaceful creation of a "2 state solution" with an autonomous Palestinian state because in order to get it they would have had to give up their avowed aim of wiping Israel off the map and eliminating the Jewish people. Eliminating. How is that revolutionary? How is that acceptable? And if it's not acceptable how should Israel respond to the people/organizations who pose a literal existential threat? That part always seems to be missing from the conversation.

The Palestinian people do not deserve to be oppressed, much less killed and maimed, by Israel. They also don't deserve to be killed or to be set up to be killed or to be sold out again and again by their own leaders. Any attempt to impose the glorious language of revolution on an inaccurate view of one side of the equation is naive at best and not intellectually honest. There is no revolution in the Middle East. There are only people and organizations out to destroy each other while non-violent, practical, non-genocidal solutions recede further and further into the unattainable distance.

[pearlbeer]

I'm about as left wing as you're likely to find among people who generally ascribe some credence to elective politics, but I was also of the mind that the Dems should have bailed out McCarthy in exchange for basically any sort of concession. Devil you know, etc. I don't think whatever embarrassment this causes the Republican Party will matter at the ballot box, and my hunch--proven correct--is that they were only going to end up with someone even worse.

Agree, but word on the street is he didn't offer shit. The Dems repeatedly offered votes, with bare minimum concessions like funding the government and funding ukraine/isreal...but no. Looks like even the concept of working with a Dem has much greater consequences than the embarrassment they endured. Truly broken.

[jr29]

I'm about as left wing as you're likely to find among people who generally ascribe some credence to elective politics, but I was also of the mind that the Dems should have bailed out McCarthy in exchange for basically any sort of concession. Devil you know, etc. I don't think whatever embarrassment this causes the Republican Party will matter at the ballot box, and my hunch--proven correct--is that they were only going to end up with someone even worse.

Agree, but word on the street is he didn't offer shit. The Dems repeatedly offered votes, with bare minimum concessions like funding the government and funding ukraine/isreal...but no. Looks like even the concept of working with a Dem has much greater consequences than the embarrassment they endured. Truly broken.

I preface with I'm not saying I am right.....I follow this stuff fairly closely and I barely heard a peep out of Dems about any type of negotiation. I think they should have been screaming about it every chance they got. They should still be screaming about it.

This was a hell of a chance for folks closer to the center to get a win. I should have known it was too good to be true.

[Mundane Mayhem]

I'm about as left wing as you're likely to find among people who generally ascribe some credence to elective politics, but I was also of the mind that the Dems should have bailed out McCarthy in exchange for basically any sort of concession. Devil you know, etc. I don't think whatever embarrassment this causes the Republican Party will matter at the ballot box, and my hunch--proven correct--is that they were only going to end up with someone even worse.

Agree, but word on the street is he didn't offer shit. The Dems repeatedly offered votes, with bare minimum concessions like funding the government and funding ukraine/isreal...but no. Looks like even the concept of working with a Dem has much greater consequences than the embarrassment they endured. Truly broken.

Yeah, I mean he even said as much.

Whether anything different happened behind closed doors is anyone’s guess.

Maybe this job, in this conference, just kinda sucks. He sure didn’t act like a guy who wanted to do much (read: anything) to keep it.

[jr29]

I'm about as left wing as you're likely to find among people who generally ascribe some credence to elective politics, but I was also of the mind that the Dems should have bailed out McCarthy in exchange for basically any sort of concession. Devil you know, etc. I don't think whatever embarrassment this causes the Republican Party will matter at the ballot box, and my hunch--proven correct--is that they were only going to end up with someone even worse.

Agree, but word on the street is he didn't offer shit. The Dems repeatedly offered votes, with bare minimum concessions like funding the government and funding ukraine/isreal...but no. Looks like even the concept of working with a Dem has much greater consequences than the embarrassment they endured. Truly broken.

Yeah, I mean he even said as much.

Whether anything different happened behind closed doors is anyone’s guess.

Maybe this job, in this conference, just kinda sucks. He sure didn’t act like a guy who wanted to do much (read: anything) to keep it.

That's pretty much the way I remember it. They didn't offer much help and he wasn't interested to begin with. Then he went on a Sunday show and made them mad. That was when they had their closed door meeting and coalesced in opposition.
I've definitely beaten this to death, but I'm going to fucking puke the next time any of these folks say anything about "coming together", or "pivotal time in our history", or any of that stuff. They are interested in playing politics.

[beantownbubba]

The problem w/ aligning one's self w/ Hamas is that Hamas comes w/ a lot of baggage including many of its supporters, not even counting Iran and Hezbollah. One can support the Palestinians and acknowledge their suffering w/out supporting Hamas. Charlie Sykes:

"...what’s happening with the pro-Hamas left is a cancer. And it needs to be talked about.

"Once again, a caveat: Sympathizing with Palestinians is one thing. Support for Hamas is quite another. They should not be confused, and what follows is not a suggestion that “all” leftists, or “all progressives” support or excuse this sort of thing.

"But it is absolutely essential for every movement to police its own side, because if it doesn’t, the cancer will metastasize.

"We see the consequences of the right’s failure to confront its extremists all around us. Every day.

"Let’s start with the posters. Via the Free Press: 'My Old Friend Is Ripping Down Posters of Kidnapped Children.'

"This remarkable article starts with a reminder of the atrocities that took place less than three weeks ago.

"[Deleting the descriptions of some horrific atrocities in order to try to be less emotional and stick to the immediate more narrow point]... For parents, though, there may be nothing as agonizing as the ongoing terror of children being held captive by an ISIS-style jihadist terrorist organization that revels in Jewish suffering. As one parent put it, that would be worse than death.

"There have been widespread efforts to call attention to the fate of the missing children.

"One information campaign that has been gaining traction is called Let the World Know, which was started by Anna Tambini, an Israeli woman who lives in San Francisco. Volunteers across America, and around the world, have been hanging posters of the hostages on streetlights and posts, subway walls and coffee shops. Each poster has an individual picture and name with a simple call to action: “Take a photo of this poster and share it. Please help bring them home alive.”

"The posters are not political statements. 'There is no Israeli flag on these posters. There is no mention of politics. They are as anodyne as the missing children that used to appear on the side of American milk cartons.'

"And still. People all over the world—especially young, cool-looking people, with nose rings and neon backpacks—are ripping them down.

Across the internet, videos have emerged of people angrily tearing down these posters wherever they find them. In NYC. In L.A. In San Diego. In Santa Cruz. In Richmond. In Miami. In Philadelphia. In Ontario. In Paris. In London. They are ripping the faces of real people who are missing—babies, children, teenagers, women, elderly—to shreds."

Sykes goes on to report that Ryna Workman, the NYU Law School* student who lost her big law firm job offer when she wrote a pro-Hamas "revolutionary" broadside, was captured on video tearing down one of these posters. Seems to me that it's hard to maintain a distanced "you don't understand revolution" stance in light of actions like that. Another woman, tearing down a poster in London claimed she was tearing it down because she didn't believe Hamas has kidnapped any children.

*I don't think it matters, but just in case anybody thinks it's relevant to the discussion, I am a graduate of NYU Law School.

[cortez the killer]

"There have been widespread efforts to call attention to the fate of the missing children.

"One information campaign that has been gaining traction is called Let the World Know, which was started by Anna Tambini, an Israeli woman who lives in San Francisco. Volunteers across America, and around the world, have been hanging posters of the hostages on streetlights and posts, subway walls and coffee shops. Each poster has an individual picture and name with a simple call to action: “Take a photo of this poster and share it. Please help bring them home alive.”

"The posters are not political statements. 'There is no Israeli flag on these posters. There is no mention of politics. They are as anodyne as the missing children that used to appear on the side of American milk cartons.'

"And still. People all over the world—especially young, cool-looking people, with nose rings and neon backpacks—are ripping them down.

Across the internet, videos have emerged of people angrily tearing down these posters wherever they find them. In NYC. In L.A. In San Diego. In Santa Cruz. In Richmond. In Miami. In Philadelphia. In Ontario. In Paris. In London. They are ripping the faces of real people who are missing—babies, children, teenagers, women, elderly—to shreds."

Sykes goes on to report that Ryna Workman, the NYU Law School* student who lost her big law firm job offer when she wrote a pro-Hamas "revolutionary" broadside, was captured on video tearing down one of these posters. Seems to me that it's hard to maintain a distanced "you don't understand revolution" stance in light of actions like that. Another woman, tearing down a poster in London claimed she was tearing it down because she didn't believe Hamas has kidnapped any children.

Antifa

[beantownbubba]

It is also not true that Israel has been operating outside international law for 75 years.

It occurred to me that this might need further explication: Israel was established in 1948 as a result of a vote of the United Nations partitioning the land that had previously been ruled under the British Mandate into 2 parts, one part of which became the modern state of Israel. To the extent that there is an identifiable thing called "international law," it was the United Nations in 1948.

Israel existed within those original borders until 1967, when it was attacked by 3 surrounding nations. In 6 days it had beaten off the attack and captured significant land which is today referred to as "the West Bank" and "the Gaza Strip." This is the earliest possible date that one can say that Israel was operating outside international law, but if one wants to say that, please explain what Israel was supposed to do in real time, in 1967. Return to its original borders, having obtained no surrender, no guarantee of peace and no retraction of the avowed aims of its enemies to drive the entire country and its Jewish population into the sea?

I personally can't put a date on it, but at some point fairly recently when Israel expanded its settlements in the West Bank and undercut the authority of the Palestinian Authority there, Israel was and remains in violation of at least my understanding of international law. In any case, it's been a lot less than 75 years. And as I said before, Israel does not even occupy the Gaza Strip.

[tinnitus photography]

but to the best of my admittedly weak knowledge, they do control it, right?

[brettac1]

but to the best of my admittedly weak knowledge, they do control it, right?

Israel doesn't technically "occupy" Gaza but they don't need to in order to control it. The citizens of Gaza live under a blockade that is imposed by Egypt & Israel. This includes not allowing the people who live in Gaza to move freely. Israel is considered an "occupying power" under the Geneva Convention.

After the Hamas (who have been in charge of Gaza since 2007, leading to the blockade starting) attack on 10/7, it became a "total blockade."

This has a summary of the situation in Gaza better than I can provide as someone who is also not a Middle East scholar:

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/gaza-s ... mographics

[beantownbubba]

but to the best of my admittedly weak knowledge, they do control it, right?

"

Yes. Especially if you add "along with Egypt." A complete answer would regquire some footnotes, caveats and "color" but the answer is essentially yes.

The reason I have mentioned the fact of literal non-occupation multiple times is this: Prior to 10/7, by Middle Eastern standards, the situation in Gaza was essentially considered "stable" by most with something worthwhile to say on the subject. There were flare ups, but nothing like the recent madness. So during those times when Israel (and Egypt) allowed Gaza to function "normally," e.g. by not cutting off essentials like food, water and fuel, the day to day running of Gaza was left to Hamas (which was elected once, I think in 2007, but has not held an election since). Which to me raises the very fundamental question, what have they done during their time in power (precarious, but still in power)? And the answer is virtually nothing for the Palestinian people in their care.

It is generally accepted that Hamas has stolen and continues to steal (or divert, if you prefer) the $30 Million per month (that's $360 Million per year!) that Qatar contributes to "the Palestinians" with Israel's consent/approval. For the most part, that money does not reach average Palestinians nor is it invested in infrastructure or other projects that might be expected to lead to some improvement in living standards. It goes to shoring up the Hamas regime and increasing Hamas's military capability. I do not have any factual support but I think it's reasonable to assume that some of that money currently resides in Swiss or Grand Cayman bank accounts.

Because Israel does have "control" of Gaza, Israel could cut off food, water and other essentials or to otherwise intervene in the administration/governance of Gaza but until 10/7 they mostly haven't. Hamas bears considerable responsibility for the failure of Gaza to thrive. One can argue about the relative percentages of blame, but Hamas has a lot to answer for, and Israel has not "oppressed" Gaza in the way that term is usually used. All bets are off post-10/7 of course.

[beantownbubba]

but to the best of my admittedly weak knowledge, they do control it, right?

Israel doesn't technically "occupy" Gaza but they don't need to in order to control it. The citizens of Gaza live under a blockade that is imposed by Egypt & Israel. This includes not allowing the people who live in Gaza to move freely. Israel is considered an "occupying power" under the Geneva Convention.

After the Hamas (who have been in charge of Gaza since 2007, leading to the blockade starting) attack on 10/7, it became a "total blockade."

This has a summary of the situation in Gaza better than I can provide as someone who is also not a Middle East scholar:

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/gaza-s ... mographics

I did not read this until after I posted my previous but I don't see that much divergence (again, talking about pre-10/7). The biggest difference I see is the question of how much Israel's post - 2007 "blockade" of Gaza has affected non-military matters. Axios suggests a much greater impact than I do; let's assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'll stand by my larger point(s). And what about that $30 Million per month?

[beantownbubba]

It's hard to know what to make of Jared Golden's conversion on an assault weapons ban. Golden is the Democratic congressman representing Lewiston and environs. Golden was the anomalous Democrat who was a major supporter of "gun rights" and a consistent opponent of gun control. In the immediate aftermath of the Lewiston massacre, Golden said that he is now a supporter of banning assault weapons and he apologized to the people of Maine generally and specifically the families of the victims in Lewiston for his past position/votes.

OT1H, welcome to the cause, Rep. Golden. And if we (the very general "we" composed of different people in different situations) don't welcome converts to our various causes, what is the point of championing those causes in the first place? And as some talking head noted, it does take a certain amount of courage for a public person to publicly reverse his position on a controversial, public issue. OTOH, it is (a) incredibly painful to see how much pain and misery it takes to gain a single convert and (b) it is incredibly painful to see once again how even that much pain and misery does not affect so, so many others (at least to the point where they're willing to consider alternatives to the virtually unlimited availability of guns*.)

*By "guns" I mean the whole range of objectionable weapons that in my view should be subject to some combination of greater regulation/licensing and outright bans whether they are technically guns, rifles, assault weapons, etc.

[pearlbeer]

I'm about as left wing as you're likely to find among people who generally ascribe some credence to elective politics, but I was also of the mind that the Dems should have bailed out McCarthy in exchange for basically any sort of concession. Devil you know, etc. I don't think whatever embarrassment this causes the Republican Party will matter at the ballot box, and my hunch--proven correct--is that they were only going to end up with someone even worse.

Agree, but word on the street is he didn't offer shit. The Dems repeatedly offered votes, with bare minimum concessions like funding the government and funding ukraine/isreal...but no. Looks like even the concept of working with a Dem has much greater consequences than the embarrassment they endured. Truly broken.

I preface with I'm not saying I am right.....I follow this stuff fairly closely and I barely heard a peep out of Dems about any type of negotiation. I think they should have been screaming about it every chance they got. They should still be screaming about it.

This was a hell of a chance for folks closer to the center to get a win. I should have known it was too good to be true.

Totally agree. Dems have had a messaging problem (and lack of juevos) for a while. Same for gun control after the horror in Maine. Every Dem should be holding a daily press conference asking for a vote on stricter gun control. everyday..all day. Will it work? No. But, they need to get everyone on record - we have a plan - they have thoughts and prayers.

[beantownbubba]

There's not a lot new under the sun, but I thought this op-ed, and surprisingly enough some of the comments, provide a good summary of what we've been discussing here re the House Speaker. I think there are good arguments on both sides which I guess is why it's "controversial."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... p_opinions

[beantownbubba]

Whoops. Not 15 minutes after I posted the above I went back to check on what was happening in the comments section. In that brief time, things degenerated rather far into typical internet "never read the comments" fare. You now have to look back a ways to find substantive comments worth reading and I'm not sure it's worth the effort of hacking through the dross.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

[beantownbubba]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

I'm thinking "stillborn."

[chuckrh]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

I'm thinking "stillborn."

abortion?

[pearlbeer]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

[tinnitus photography]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

stealing this.

[beantownbubba]

I read this. You can also listen to it. Either way I highly recommend it as by far the best explanation and analysis of the Israel/Palestinian situation that I am familiar with, certainly at a "layman's level." The books recommended at the end seem highly worthwhile though I have not read any yet. I note in particular the emphasis on the disaster Israel is creating in the West Bank (as opposed to Gaza) which has been a main theme of mine here and elsewhere.

Seriously. Read this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/podc ... champ.html

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

stealing this.

This is a joke Charles Manson stole from the Beatles & we’re stealin’ it back!

[tinnitus photography]

Mike Pence should be forced to carry his failed presidential bid to term, as God intended it.

stealing this.

This is a joke Charles Manson stole from the Beatles & we’re stealin’ it back!

whatwouldTHEFLYdo?