Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. 18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    It’s not like Schumer, being the majority leader in the Senate, has just been twiddling his thumbs through all of this. It’s almost like people have forgotten that Mitch isn’t controlling what comes up for a vote anymore. 

    Yeah, but with the filibuster, he is controlling what passes.

  2. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but I think the true record-holder for the largest gap between office held and ability to hold such office is Mike Johnson.  That guy is (maybe) qualified to be a clueless backbencher who does exactly what the party whip tells him to do.  He has absolutely no business being within a hundred miles of the speakership--a fact he confirms every day.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  3. 48 minutes ago, Goredho said:

    You left off the best part of that scene.

    The part where Det. Murtaugh shoots an unarmed man, but is never prosecuted and cannot be sued for civil damages because he has--and here's the great irony of the movie--qualified immunity?

    I mean, yeah.  That was great.  It works on so many levels.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 13 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

    We shouldn't be turning away anyone from the middle class, regardless of their country of origin. They are educated and have the skills we need.

    Most Chinese and Venezuelans are in this boat (sorry...)

    As a matter of public policy, I broadly agree.

    But right now, the American Republic faces an existential crisis from Trump and the GQP.  Seeing off that threat is Priority 1.  So if putting a few middle-class citizens of Communist China into a detention camp in Mexico to cool their heels for 6-12 months is the necessary price of saving American democracy, then I'm pretty fucking willing to pay it.

  5. 57 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

    Was the Chinese angle presented as a positive or a negative? Just curious what angle they’re trying to push. 

    I don't know, man--the video is posted directly above your query.  Why don't you just watch it?  I think @bolverk gives a pretty good synopsis.  

    From my own perspective, I'll say this: I'm pretty sympathetic to people seeking refuge from places like Honduras and Guatemala.  Those are failed narco-states, and they're failed narco-states in large part because of American (in)action and demand for drugs.  For a lot of people, staying here is a literal death sentence.

    I'm a lot less sympathetic to middle-class Chinese people who are coming here because the Chinese economy is in the shitter.  The United States played a minimal role in China's poor economic decision-making; we bear no responsibility for their real-estate bubble popping.  And even in that situation, being middle class in China just isn't that fucking bad.  

    So if the Biden Administration has to put in place some restrictive policies to bolster its reelection chances, I'm a lot more agreeable to that happening at the expense of middle-class Chinese people than on the backs of desperate Central Americans.  I mean, bottom line: if it takes putting some Chinese people in a detention center in Mexico for a few months to wait on a CBP appointment in order to save American democracy, then I'm on board with that.

    • Hook 'Em 8
  6. A real interesting issue was talked about on 60 Minutes last night.  It was a really good episode, by the way--come for the Jerome Powell interview; stay for the border story.

    Anyway--in the first half of 2023 (the most recent period for which we have statistics), a majority of migrants crossing the Southern border came from "historical atypical countries."  Basically, that is everyone who is not from Latin America.  And as detailed in the 60 Minutes piece, a growing percentage of those are from China.  They're middle-class economic migrants who hop a flight to Mexico and walk across the border with their roll-aboard luggage in tow.

  7. On 2/3/2024 at 9:06 PM, Guadaloopy said:

    I have a pretty high threshold for calling a movie complete shit.  This movie blew right through it.  Not one redeeming quality.  I’m blown away that it could be this bad with that cast.    

    It's not the worst movie I've ever seen.  But it's the one that makes me the angriest.

    You had Bryan Cranston and Catherine O'Hara and Sam Rockwell in a cast, and this is the shit you turned out?  I mean, fucking seriously?  Its only redeeming quality was that it wasn't badly acted.  The decent acting just revealed how awful everything else was.

    I sweatergawd, I was ready to leave after the first scene.  Actually, in the middle of the first scene.  The CGI was so distractingly bad, and the plot really made no sense (so there's a lounge full of beautiful people all drinking and partying at 7:00 AM in Santorini, and literally every one of them is a spy/hitman/hitwoman?).  And honestly, that was probably the high point.

    Goddamn, it was so bad.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Rage+1 1
  8. 1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

    The other thing is, beyond it being a pretty clear cut incumbent campaign, is that it's the first time the South Carolina primary has been this far forward for the Democrats.   In the past, that hasn't been the case, and I do wonder if that played into turn out, at least to some small degree.   If this were an actual battleground sort of thing I'm sure that might not have mattered as much, but given that it isn't, I have to think that made at least a small difference in turn out.  

    There was also a lot of fuckery with polling locations. So much so that Jamie Harrison-you know, the chairman of the fucking DNC—showed up to the wrong place for an event because the polling place had been moved several miles away.  

    And in a non-event primary, that kind of fuckery is going to have a real impact on turnout.  I mean, if I show up to my polling place and it’s been lived five miles away, am I really going to try to try it down on a Saturday to cast a purely symbolic vote? 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    There are big differences in effect between a Tomahawk arriving while you’re under it, versus a Tomahawk arriving when you’ve run away. 
     

    We are allowing IRCG people to get out of the way.  Say what you will about this idea, but that’s the goal. Jake Sullivan continues to manage escalation. 

    That is definitely the goal.  And I think it's a good goal.  We neither need nor want a war against Iran right now.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  10. 21 hours ago, bluto said:

    Does this really matter until the shelter is moved? 

    Yeah--I don't know.  The shelter is obviously a magnet for them.  But at the same time, most homeless people don't want to be around an area that is full of normal people.  And that's going to be particularly true if those landlords hire private security to protect their investment.

  11. 3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    Iran desperately wants not to get hit directly. 

    Except for killing some Americans and injuring many Americans.

     

    Iran desperately wants not to get hit directly. 

    Except Iran is developing nuclear weapons and will be able to permanently disrupt the Middle East and world oil prices.  And currently we are signaling that we are okay with that.

     

    And so it seems that there is a lot of activity through various intermediaries and a lot of signaling. 

    True

     

    And all that is fine.  Because there's really no hurry.  A tomahawk delivered tomorrow is no less effective than a tomahawk delivered today:

    Except when you wait and then attack you will be seen as the aggressor. We won't do shit until a ship gets hit. And even then, it would be limited strikes into Iran. And we will pull out when Israel leaves Gaza.

    Well, inasmuch as we are now a net exporter of petroleum, we don't really care that world oil prices might go up.

    But the immediate issue isn't Iran's nuclear program or world oil prices.  It's three dead Americans.  The only way to deal with Iran's nuclear program is through diplomacy.  We don't have any way to eliminate Iran's nuclear program through military or covert action.  We can (and have) delayed it.  But there's really no way to stop it unless the Iranians themselves agree to a halt.

    The best way to accelerate it, however, would be a general war.  In that event, Iran would go full Manhattan Project to finalize its development of nuclear weapons (and the necessary delivery vehicles).  So that's yet another reason to take a measured approach and avoid escalating to the point of bringing about a general war.

    All these various considerations take time to parse out and think through.  There's just no benefit to rushing into military action that could spark consequences that we haven't fully thought through.  Taking a week or two or three doesn't make us look like an "aggressor;" anybody who thinks that already thinks we're the aggressor by having troops in Iraq in the first place.  But taking that time could enable us to explore diplomatic solutions that would achieve our goals without risking American lives, treasure, or prestige.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  12. 27 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

    All talk, no action so far?

    There seems to be a lot of diplomatic action.  Iran desperately wants not to get hit directly.  At the same time, we don't necessarily want to hit Iran directly for fear of sparking a general war in a region in which we have fewer and fewer strategic interests.  Or maybe we do, as a way to weaken the Iranian regime and in the expectation that Iran will just eat shit and smile.  There's a lot of uncertainty on both sides, and so a lot of incentive to avoid increased confrontation.

    And so it seems that there is a lot of activity through various intermediaries and a lot of signaling.  And sorting that out is going to delay whatever play we decide to make.

    And all that is fine.  Because there's really no hurry.  A tomahawk delivered tomorrow is no less effective than a tomahawk delivered today.

    • Hook 'Em 7
  13. I'm just going to drop this here: The Palace Hotel is one of my favorite hotels in America.  It's an historic hotel, but it's been updated and is really comfortable.  The location is great with an F-train stop right out front.  But the real winner for me is the bar across the street.  House of Shields--the bartender makes the best martini I've ever had.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. I'm going to echo York.  Between the York Minster and the Shambles, I think York is worth a day.

    After that, you can take the train or drive up to Edinburgh.  I know you've been there before, but I don't think you've done the Tattoo.  I have to tell you, I was kind of skeptical.  I mean, how many military bands can a person really take?  But my skepticism was misplaced--it is really cool.

    But otherwise, you've got three things on your list--Oban, Skye, and the Orkneys--that are really far apart and difficult to get to.  I don't think you cand do all three in two weeks.  You kind of need to pick two (and those two can't be Oban and the Orkneys).  But if you're going to try to do all three, that's really a Northern Scotland trip.  You need to fly into Inverness and do a loop north of Loch Ness.

    Big question: do you want to take the ferry out of Oban down to Islay to take a day around the island and visit the distilleries there?  And if so, how much Lagavulin are you bringing back for me?

  15. 10 minutes ago, Baboontyme said:

    Depends what you're into. I recommend the DIA, definitely the Henry Ford (Dearborn), Hittsville, the Riverwalk is decent. The zoo is nice. If the Tigers are in town you could check out Comerica, they might even be decent this year who knows. You could do a pedal pub downtown, they even have a boat version of the pedal pub on the river. Hell bring your passport and check out Windsor. There are also casinos if you're into that. Dearborn and Hamtramck are cool if you want to explore some different neighborhoods and aren't scared of brown people. If late 20s, early 30s bar hopping is your thing, Royal Oak. If you are a hipster corktown and Ferndale. If you want to hit on cougars and shop at Lululemon and smoke cigars, Birmingham. If you want to get out to the country and do something seasonal, find a good cider mill. Early September is an awesome time of year in SE Michigan typically weather wise. 

    The Tigers are not in town that weekend, unfortunately.  

    I'm going to head up with some good friends whose daughter will be a sophomore at UM.  But damn--hotels in Detroit that weekend are fucking expensive.  And hotels in Ann Arbor are non-existent. 

  16. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Well, one interesting twist is that now Paxton has not only admitted the allegations in the petition, he has moved for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  So he is kind of "putting his money where his mouth is."

    So that leaves damages as the only "live" issue in the case.  And Paxton may actually have a point that he and his staff don't have much discoverable information on damages.

    This is a truly bizarre set of facts.  No idea how it will come out.  SCOTX hasn't shown much interest in protecting him, but  . . . . .

    That's not exactly true.  He's not putting his money anywhere.  He's putting the taxpayers' money where his mouth is.  And as a taxpayer, I don't really like my money being in that position.

  17. 2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    That’s an interesting POV, but I think Trump’s instincts are right on this one, as they unfortunately often are.
    I’ve always kind of thought independent voting was dependent on thematic or subject matter advantage. 
    IOW-  there are a bucket of  themes (not issues) that (however silly the reasons) the parties are respectively perceived by independents as having an advantage other the other. 

    For Democrats those issues are healthcare, entitlements, the environment, abortion, etc.

    For Republicans that’s national security, the economy, violent crime, and immigration, and somehow, personal morality. 

    If the perceived subject matter advantage doesn’t belong to a party, the best that party can do is break even. For example, the best Democrats can do on the economy is break even. That’s why Biden isn’t getting the credit from independents right now the way Trump would. 

    So if immigration is the thing, that advantages the GOP with independents unless the Democrat can either make healthcare or abortion a bigger deal, or, pull even on immigration and win on the totality of their advantaged themes. 

    I'm not necessarily disputing the issue-ownership theory that you lay out.  

    I'm saying that by having a bipartisan Senate border bill, it makes the issue less salient to the independent voter.  Those voters are not good at nuance, and there being a bipartisan bill introduces a lot of nuance to the issue.

    So on something like abortion, there's no nuance.  Depending on your point of view on the issue, you think D=Good, R=Bad, or vice-versa.  But with a bipartisan bill being debated, that makes that Manichean viewpoint untenable.  And that means that not very many independents are going to be voting on it.

    . . . all of which illustrates how badly Johnson and Trump have mishandled it.  If they were smart, they'd voice some displeasure and pass the bill.  Make sure it's "Biden's Border Bill."  And then when it doesn't succeed at keeping out every last brown person, campaign on the failure of Biden's Border Bill.  "I mean, haven't you heard--as a result of BIDEN'S BORDER BILL, literally every Mexican is throwing themselves at our border."  It's like a scene out of World War Z, dontchaknow?

    • Hook 'Em 2
  18. But it's far worse than all that.

    After they impeach Mayorkas for not doing anything about the border, the impeachment will go over to the Senate.  And the Senate will have . . . wait for it . . . passed a bill to do something about the border.  So Fox News is going to have wall-to-wall coverage of the impeachment trial.  Because IMPEACHMENT! of a Democratic officeholder.  But during that, they're going to hear a bunch of senators--including a bunch of Republicans--talk about how the Republican House isn't passing the bipartisan Senate bill to address the border.

    And that gives Democratic challengers a line of attack against Republican House members--"GQP Member X refuses to do anything about the Border; vote him out now!"  And that's going to be consistent with what GQP voters heard on Fox News during the impeachment trial.  It's an attack that is going to stick.  

    So Republican House members are literally harming their own reelection efforts to forestall a border bill from being passed.  All on the theory that this helps Trump's campaign.

    Whether it actually helps Trump's campaign is very questionable at this point.  It has become such common knowledge that the Republicans in the House are preventing a border bill from passing to help Trump--they're so stupid that they've said so themselves--that it takes the effectiveness out of the issue entirely.  Fox News viewers may still be fired up.  But not a single independent is going to have his vote swayed by the issue now.

    And that's pretty much the definition of a cult.  House members are sacrificing themselves on the alter of Trump solely because Trump asks them to.  There's no obvious benefit.  There's not even a non-obvious benefit.  But they'll do it all the same, because the cult leader demands it.

  19. 30 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

    I read also that it's entirely unrelated and about someone's finances.  Lots of wild speculation, no idea when this might come out, if ever.  

    I thought I saw that it was a Democrat who was alleged to be misappropriating his security allowance.

×
×
  • Create New...