|
zoux posted:How the gently caress does a freshman Senator have an ounce of influence in the House? As a result, he has burned almost every loving bridge he has both here in Texas and in Washington, and is pinning everything on running for President in 2016. I'm not sure if he'll get the nomination or not, but watching him drag everything in the Republican Primary as far right has he can (and the resulting awkward as gently caress attempt to pivot back to the center by the eventual nominee in the general election) is going to be a true joy to watch.  My dream is that Cruz gets the nomination, and that Hillary manages to run up the score enough to get (or keep, depending on 2014) a Senate Majority and a House Majority. Even if it's the slimmest of loving margins, 2 years of Hillary with a congress who can actually pass stuff is exactly what we need to get somewhat unfucked. fade5 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jul 23, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
fade5 posted:Even if it's the slimmest of loving margins, 2 years of Hillary with a congress who can actually pass stuff is exactly what we need to get somewhat unfucked. Uhhhh didn't this already happen with Obama? Or is it that the majority in the legislature wasn't enough (cough Lieberman cough) or that Obama wasn't progressive enough?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Wasn't Obama still under the delusions of "bipartisanship with a party that had a cultish rejection of him" at the time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Uhhhh didn't this already happen with Obama? Or is it that the majority in the legislature wasn't enough (cough Lieberman cough) or that Obama wasn't progressive enough? A combination of the two, and also that Obama seemed to genuinely believe that the GOP would work with him in good faith until about a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Also I would think that Hillary has an enormous amount of political capital built up that Obama didn't. I don't trust Hillary much, but one thing I do trust her to do is to get poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Magres posted:Also I would think that Hillary has an enormous amount of political capital built up that Obama didn't. I don't trust Hillary much, but one thing I do trust her to do is to get poo poo done. As much as I don't like Hillary I kind of want her to get elected president just to see the right collapse inward on its own hatred into a black hole of pure malice and spite that no policy can escape from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Magres posted:Also I would think that Hillary has an enormous amount of political capital built up that Obama didn't. I don't trust Hillary much, but one thing I do trust her to do is to get poo poo done. The Republicans have held the line on "if we can't get everything we want, nobody will get anything" for 6 years. What will break that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:The Republicans have held the line on "if we can't get everything we want, nobody will get anything" for 6 years. What will break that? I meant what I said in response to the idea of Hillary getting the first two years of her presidency with full D control of Congress
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Question: Hypothetically, if the SC agrees with the plaintiffs about the subsidies not allowed to be provided to states without exchanges, will that ruling have any effect on the taxes in Obamacare? Anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Hillary gets elected and the balance of power on SCOTUS flips for a generation. Actually rooting out the the Tea Party cancer on the body politic cannot and will not be accomplished by a presidential election though, even one with coat tails, without state parties capable of reversing the gerrymandering thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Uhhhh didn't this already happen with Obama? Or is it that the majority in the legislature wasn't enough (cough Lieberman cough) or that Obama wasn't progressive enough? There are a couple of differences from 2008/9: 1. There are a lot fewer Blue Dogs. A lot of the them lost in 2010 to the Tea Party wave, so there's a lot more unity in the remaining Democratic Party now. Also, the increasing party polarization means the remaining Blue Dogs are more willing to vote with the rest of the party rather than "crossing the isle"  and making bipartisan deals with Republicans like in the past. 2. Reid was willing to nuke the judicial appointment filibuster that formerly required a supermajority of 60 to advance. This was essentially a "gentleman's agreement", but the Republicans abused the gently caress out of it, so now only a simple majority is required to nominate judges. This essentially broke the floodgates on supermajorites (with a simple majority, Lieberman wouldn't have been needed on the ACA), and the assumption in politics now is that once one party controls the Presidency, the House and the Senate, all the playing nice "supermajority" stuff is dead, meaning only a simple majority is needed to pass things. This ties into the third thing: 2. Nancy Pelosi has a lot tighter control over her caucus. During the shutdown/debt default threat (the second one  ) Nancy Pelosi was able to get essentially the entire party to vote as one on everything important. This kind of discipline with a majority means everything that comes up to pass, passes. She somehow managed to put the Republicans to shame on the "Party Unity" front.So, assuming 2016 happens like I dream, anything that Hillary and the majority of Democrats want, they can get without making deals (like with Lieberman). Again, this is a bit of a pipe dream, but I can really hope. Also SCOTUS nominations is a separate but also really, really important thing. fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Would there be a write-up on how Obama's election caused the completion of the realignment we've been seeing since the Southern Strategy, what with all the Blue Dogs getting annihilated in 2010 and 2012? Are both parties more ideologically homogenous now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
There's a lot of variation within the democratic caucus regarding labor (outside of a rising minimum wage), public schools, and health care. At at grassroots level not so much, but there are plenty in power who are corporatists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that the 111th Congress actually passes a lot of really good stuff. It's not smashing Capitalist so DnD gets a little huffy about it but the CFPB, the Stimulus, the ACA, Wall Street reform, and others were all good laws. Not perfect but better than the Bush era status quo
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:There's a lot of variation within the democratic caucus regarding labor (outside of a rising minimum wage), public schools, and health care. At at grassroots level not so much, but there are plenty in power who are corporatists. The Clintons, of course, being among the most prominent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Uhhhh didn't this already happen with Obama? Or is it that the majority in the legislature wasn't enough (cough Lieberman cough) or that Obama wasn't progressive enough? Both. Obama talked a lot more of a progressive game than he actually was, though part of that was people projecting their hopes onto him and ignoring some warning signs. Also the Democratic party is moderate/conservative and pro-business as hell. California is a microcosm of this, for a time they had a Dem governor and supermajority in the legislator and it turns out that GOP obstructionism isn't the reason they're churning out moderate garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:ignoring some warning signs. Which included him explicitly saying that in his book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It's also worth noting that the 111th Congress actually passes a lot of really good stuff. It's not smashing Capitalist so DnD gets a little huffy about it but the CFPB, the Stimulus, the ACA, Wall Street reform, and others were all good laws. Not perfect but better than the Bush era status quo Basically, to me "better than the status quo" is always good, even if it falls short of what I'd like. Of course, this all assumes she get a cooperative House/Senate, otherwise it's SCOTUS appointments, some Executive orders, and otherwise more of the same. But it'll be with Misogyny instead of Racism for a change, and Republicans are a lot worse at threading that needle. Hi, Todd Akin.
fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Magres posted:Also I would think that Hillary has an enormous amount of political capital built up that Obama didn't. I don't trust Hillary much, but one thing I do trust her to do is to get poo poo done. This idea that Obama has done nothing is a bit of a false memory. Here's a couple hundred he's done for starters: http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/zw1cm/what_exactly_were_obamas_promises_in_his_08/c688iam and here's a list of 239 promises kept: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/ He did about as much as he could with the super majority he had for about 9 months, especially considering Lieberman was the deciding vote on issues at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Both. Obama talked a lot more of a progressive game than he actually was, though part of that was people projecting their hopes onto him and ignoring some warning signs. This is, at least in part, one of the problems with Democrats running as the 'big tent' party. Despite being an ostensibly unified party, the Democrats are an uneasy coalition of progressives, social democrats, neoliberals, moderates, single issue voters (environment, unions, LGBT rights), and 'anti-Republicans' which means that there is a ton of variance in opinion on most issues, and pushing too hard in any one direction means potentially alienating large swathes of your voters and/or doners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Which included him explicitly saying that in his book. I remember when people from his life were coming out and saying "dude's pretty conservative" and everybody ignored that too. Campaign season is a hell of a drug. fool_of_sound posted:This is, at least in part, one of the problems with Democrats running as the 'big tent' party. Despite being an ostensibly unified party, the Democrats are an uneasy coalition of progressives, social democrats, neoliberals, moderates, single issue voters (environment, unions, LGBT rights), and 'anti-Republicans' which means that there is a ton of variance in opinion on most issues, and pushing too hard in any one direction means potentially alienating large swathes of your voters and/or doners. This is why leftists get disillusioned. They have basically two options because of FPTP, but there's really not a whole lot of money to be found in progressive causes, so you end up with a far-right party and a moderate-to-right party that occasionally throws scraps towards the left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:This is, at least in part, one of the problems with Democrats running as the 'big tent' party. Despite being an ostensibly unified party, the Democrats are an uneasy coalition of progressives, social democrats, neoliberals, moderates, single issue voters (environment, unions, LGBT rights), and 'anti-Republicans' which means that there is a ton of variance in opinion on most issues, and pushing too hard in any one direction means potentially alienating large swathes of your voters and/or doners. I'll work to get a socialist elected over a democrat on the local level, but on big-time politics I vote democrat every time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Honestly, the main benefit (which admittedly is pretty solid) of the Democratic supermajority in CA is that the GOP can't try burning everything to the ground anymore by blocking everything like a bunch of Paulsheviks like they did for over a decade. Then again that could change this fall what with all the scandals 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
God drat, Joe Liberman. That is one melted candle I don't miss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I'll work to get a socialist elected over a democrat on the local level, but on big-time politics I vote democrat every time. Same, but I don't have to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Same, but I don't have to like it. Most Democrats suck but they're also your only reasonable choice.  ~Democracy~
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Yeah, when the choices are between a center-right party which can't seem to do anything right and a far-right party which will just gently caress you if they get elected, I'll vote for the former just to keep the latter out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
It's a good system
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
I just want to say gently caress the GOP
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Bunleigh posted:God drat, Joe Liberman. That is one melted candle I don't miss. I googled "joe lieberman melted candle" and found this from David "Get Your War On" Rees: quote:10 jokes about Joe Lieberman & his threat to filibuster any health care bill which includes a public option
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I googled "joe lieberman melted candle" and found this from David "Get Your War On" Rees: Holy poo poo, that is the most amazing thing I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:This is why leftists get disillusioned. They have basically two options because of FPTP, but there's really not a whole lot of money to be found in progressive causes, so you end up with a far-right party and a moderate-to-right party that occasionally throws scraps towards the left. I remember when LGBT were furious with Obama because he didn't make it priority number one to bust up the standard of the time. Looking back, I don't think any president has done more for the community than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Boon posted:I remember when LGBT were furious with Obama because he didn't make it priority number one to bust up the standard of the time. Looking back, I don't think any president has done more for the community than Obama. GW Bush did a lot to fight AIDS in Africa but he was still a massive poo poo. Obama has basically gone with whatever way the wind blows on LGBT rights but that doesn't make him not a massive poo poo either. Scalia has unironically been one of the greatest champions of gay marriage this decade, but that doesn't mean the community doesn't have a legit beef with him. Or with how Obama was being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Scalia has unironically been one of the greatest champions of gay marriage this decade What?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Zoran posted:What? A dissent he clearly intended to be sarcastic has been opportunistically taken as a straight-up statement of support for marriage equality more than once by lower courts, presumably to Scalia's seething frustration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Is Scalia a textualist? He really should know better than that if he is 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
It really is as great as is said. He practically said, sarcastically, "This kind of decision means all state laws banning gay marriage are illegal!" So judges cite that statement, saying "Well Justice Scalia said gay marriage for everyone now".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Magres posted:Is Scalia a textualist? When it suits him to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Magres posted:Is Scalia a textualist? Scalia is a Scaliaist, nothing more or less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:GW Bush did a lot to fight AIDS in Africa* *By putting his name on pre-existing programs, then mandating abstinence-based education thereby setting back the fight on AIDs by decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:06
|
|
