Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Mar 11, 2020.
Green … plants... I see what you did there
I find this to be a drastic oversimplification of geopolitics and a strawman view of MMT.
MMT does not claim to offer a free lunch. The fact that Saudi Arabia accepts dollars for oil is far from the only reason that other countries find it useful to accumulate dollar-denominated assets.
I also completely disagree that "the consumer economies of the West are destroying the planet." Timely in this regard is a recent study demonstrating that the top 1% are responsible for twice as many emissions as the bottom 50% - while ordinary Westerners are consuming more than their share of carbon, this idea that we all have to stop consuming or we're doomed is just propaganda designed to distract from the real drivers of the problem, and the fact that structural change for sustainable consumption is absolutely within reach, even at this late date.
I'll go further and say that these moneyed interests depend completely on the protection of the state for their very existence. The big multinationals would not exist without the big states.
This may be true in the first instance but I am not sure it is true anymore in this age of private security forces and private military contractors.
Amazon and Walmart could certainly afford armies.
Not very big ones.
Companies are worth alot but probably not that cash rich when it comes to paying for a military.
Or PepsiCo... https://www.businessinsider.com/how...6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7?op=1
My edgy days are thankfully far behind me. Look at the Green party program on gp.org. It is a good program. Any progressively minded person would take it over the Dems alternative program any day. Especially knowing how well Dems follow up on their progressive issues. Howie Hawkins is a good leader from the interviews I have seen and a far better man than Biden in about every possible way. If you want to buy into the democratic smear machine that is your call. If there are some strange individuals in the Green party that is OK as well. It is not like the major parties are exempt for attracting a good few loons themselves. As it stands now only days from the election I (if I could) would vote for Biden in any state that is not polling securely Dem. I would do that with a physical clothespin on my nose like the French did when they had the choice of Chirac or Le Pen. That was a very mild protest far too radical for “progressive” Americans. If in a safe state; I would vote for a better agenda because it would appeal to me and represent me.
So what? Liberals/Progressives/whoever should just accept an unelected, undemocratic court from striking down all their legislation, which they passed with overwhelming popular backing, as well as the court working to help the minority party subvert democracy? SCOTUS has weighed in in multiple cases, against Democracy. An unelected super-legislature that serves for life is far more authoritarian, than a majority electorate exercising its will.
I'm sure if the shoe was even partly on the other foot, like a modern Warren court, that you wouldn't just 'take it lying down'. Let alone a flat out mirror liberal court ******* with conservative voters.
And Court-packing is already part of the game. Republicans have already pulled it off multiple times in states under their control. The difference is they just do it, while the liberals have to talk it over first. Let alone the games they played in 2016 which were tantamount to court-packing (the end result of ensuring the court agrees with you, is the same either way). They were ready to leave the court at 8 justices if they controlled the Senate, and Clinton was in office.
Expanding the court is entirely legal, and part of the rules. Don't like it? Well tough, the GOP made this situation, by making politics the raw exercise of power. The way this situation resolves itself is the court rendering itself much less powerful and activist, like comparable courts in the first world. Not just taking a conservative victory lying down.
Anyway, the polling situation is getting a bit ... odd in some cases.
Biden and Democrats seem to be doing very well in the interior West, like races in the single digits in Kansas and Montana. As well as big swings in Iowa, going from nearly +10 Trump to +3 Biden.
in 2016, Trump won Montana by a 20.5% margin, which has been reduced to be a mere 6 point margin.
in 2016 Trump won Kansas by 20.42% margin, which has been reduced to be a mere 7 point margin.
Biden and Democrats winning these states would be good, for them because of the Senate races. But even so, being this close would make the national race a pretty strong landslide. This is also backed by some district polling that has Biden gaining double-digit margins, like this or this.
Though the fact that a super popular Governor and a former GOP super moderate state rep aren't seriously outrunning Biden is a concern for Democrats. The only reason the Senate isn't worse for Democrats is ticket-splitting in their favour. That disappeared in 2016 and was slim in 2018, and is a big reason why Democrats have to reform the Senate now.
The key Blue wall states wouldn't even be close unless they swing very oddly compared to Kansas and Montana,and the district level polling contained within them. Which would be weird, since they share quite a few similarities, demographically and the internal maps tend to go together.
Yet, in some polls, particularly statewide polls of the battleground states (and very particularly states like Florida and PA), the polling seems to be closer. Still a Biden win, but more in the range of a single-digit swing, which is still on the edge case of a massive pro-Trump polling error making it a tossup race. But it would have to be big, bigger than in 16.
The national race is still a very uphill battle for Trump. I'd say his odds are in the range of 5%, and almost certainly rely on a heavy intervention from SCOTUS and GOP state legislatures. Biden is closer to 400 EC votes than Trump is to 270.
As for the Senate.
Well, the dam could break, and Democrats could romp into the second tier of senate races, the types like Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Alaska, the Georgias, Texas, (maybe even Mississippi) and take quite a few. A lot of races, if Biden improves a bit more and/or there is more ticket-splitting than indicated in the polls above. That gives Democrats a lot more wiggle room in the Senate.
Or the polling situation of the Kansas and Montana polls holds, and Democrats fall short in these reach races, but pretty solidly put away, Iowa, North Carolina, Maine, Colorado while losing Alabama, along with the odds are that they break into at least one of the second-tier states. Throw enough dice, and you eventually get a six. 8 shots (maybe 9 if you include Alabama) at a 20-40% event could net a few seats.
Though the GOP could end up playing the inside straight, and hold Democrats off in the entire second tier, making the Senate far narrower.
Finally, if the polls are narrower than Democrats could fail to take the Senate, or it would be a 50-50 tie even as Biden takes back the Blue wall states.
Some of the Senate races are pretty crazy considering the territory, like this
In Mississippi, a Democrat is outraising a Republican 45:1. Could be a case of Democrats throwing money down a hole like in Kentucky, but pretty crazy spending that could lead to a breakthrough. And a very weak Republican incumbent. $85,000 is nothing for a House race, let alone a Senate race. Of course, the disparity is smaller factoring in national Republican groups, but still pro D.
Throwing money down a hole isn't unique to Democrats. Aside from how Trump spends, multiple Republican challengers in safe blue territory, even in Republican wave years, let alone now, are raising millions. Like Kim Klacik running in Baltimore, has raised over 6 million dollars, which is more than multiple embattled Senate Republicans, and she isn't even campaigning in her district anymore (instead she is in Arizona at Trump rallies). I bet those six million dollars on her resume lands her a great Fox News gig.
Anyway,the ballots returned so far.
I think that Beto and 2018 ended up waking a sleeping electorate, and future Texas races are going to be on a whole new baseline. I wouldn't be surprised if Texas hits 100% of 2016 voting before early voting is finished.
Ugh, shepherd's pie is not good food.
I like fried Mars bars. I'm not sure they're Scottish, but I'm under the impression they are. Haggis is tolerable. Oddly enough, Edinburgh has good places selling mussels the few times I've been.
The court doesn't strike down that much.
If they make it effectively impossible to govern maybe.
Just remember that eventually the GoP will win another election and even they have abused the rules but didn't go nuclear in terms of making up new justices to get the numbers.
If the washout is as bad as it looks like for the GoP I would imagine over the next 10 years you're going to be able to do the same thing the GoP has.
FDR got stuff done with hostile court.
I'm not normally a huge fan, but this one was special.
Conservatives need the false legitimacy of the court to destroy the modern administrative state and enact popular policy for them. Democrats don't need the court, they can just govern. Most of their policies are fairly popular, they just need the will to do the pre-steps, and then pass stuff. Destroying the legitimacy of the SCOTUS is a good thing, besides a brief interlude of the Warren court, it has been a force of reaction in US politics.
And the current SCOTUS justices on the Republican side have made it very clear that they think the entire New Deal period was a mistake and they want to roll it all back. Once Barrett is confirmed, the swing justice is going to be Kavanaugh. And the court is going to be to the RIGHT of the person who wrote the opinion gutting the VRA.
And Republicans have packed the courts in multiple states
They haven't done it federally, because they haven't needed to. They've had a conservative biased court for decades. Barrett just means a fully hard-right court now.
And the reforms needed, if they happen, will stop the current GOP from ever being elected. What will happen is a new GOP will have to remould itself, and when they win, won't be able to strike back like the current one could. A GOP that has to listen to the median person in the US, would not be electing Trump, Ryan and McConnell.
And FDR had sustained Senate majorities and could pass constitutional amendments. No way anything like that will happen under any Democratic President now.
I used to agree with you but I've reached my limit on trusting the GoP to do the right thing. I'm exhausted by one team playing by the unwritten rules while the other won't even play by the written rules.
I like the sound of this. Where can I find these Republicans and are they recruiting? I've seen the view from space and I concluded that the Dept of Education was unnecessary, perhaps a higher resolution would help.
Maybe a higher resolution would help you on a lot of topics.
if this republican party’s destruction of government and its competency is not good enough for you I ha e no idea what to tell you.
If fried Mars bars are in your good column, I'm not prepared to respect your opinion on shepherd's pie, especially as the latter so strongly conflicts with my own perspective on it.
Quite true, you don't. So I will tell you something: The full-blown administrative state that takes interest in all things, and has solutions to all problems, is the Dream of Fascism.
You need to come to terms with this.
Fascism as well as Communism? It seems to me that any sufficiently authoritarian ideology would qualify.
Separate names with a comma.