Bob Ojeda posted:

The real question is, could Thomas Brackett Reed?

quote:

Reed's solution was enacted on January 28, 1890, in what has popularly been called the "Battle of the Reed Rules".[4] This came about when Democrats attempted to block the inclusion of a newly elected Republican from West Virginia, Charles Brooks Smith.[5] The motion to seat him passed by a tally of 162–1; however, at the time a quorum consisted of 165 votes, and when voting closed Democrats shouted "No quorum," triggering a formal House quorum count. Speaker Reed began the roll call; when members who were present in the chamber refused to answer, Reed directed the Clerk to count them as present anyway.[6] Startled Democrats protested heatedly, issuing screams, threats, and insults at the Speaker. James B. McCreary, a Democrat from Kentucky, challenged Reed's authority to count him as present; Reed replied, "The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"[6]

Unable to deny their presence in the chamber, Democrats then tried to flee the chamber or hide under their desks, but Reed ordered the doors locked. (Texas Representative "Buck" Kilgore was able to flee by kicking his way through a door.)

Tubgoat posted:

Non-white I can totally see, but would not the poor be just as hosed under Clinton? She wouldn't dare try to match The Donald's slightly left-of-the-crazy-super-duper-Nazi-far-right positions (tax billionaires, spend it on infrastructure, we're not ever gonna build an anti-immigrant wall).

As to my income level, check the custom title that was so generously bestowed upon me.

quote:

Clinton said she would not hesitate to prosecute individuals in the finance sector who commit fraud, while also instituting incentives for companies to share profits with their workers, and creating an economy that works for “the struggling, the striving, and the successful.”

Clinton said that raising incomes for Americans to afford a middle-class life was the “defining economic challenge of our time. … The evidence is in,” she said later in the speech. “Inequality is a drag on our entire economy. This is the problem we need to tackle.”

In laying out proposals to encourage both “growth and fairness” in the economy — encouraging small business growth and setting up an infrastructure bank, while also talking about increasing the minimum wage and profit-sharing — Clinton’s speech appeared to be an attempt to unite the centrist and populist economic wings of her own party.

But she avoided some of the most controversial populist ideas, such as increasing the federal minimum wage to $15, significantly raising corporate tax rates or expanding Social Security for all.

She reiterated her support for the Warren Buffett rule, “to make sure millionaires don’t pay lower rates than their secretaries.” She said she supports closing the carried interest loophole, which allows wealthy financiers to pay a lower tax rate.

“While institutions have paid large fines, too often it seems that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences, or none at all, even when they have pocketed the gains,” she said about Wall Street prosecutions. “This is wrong. On my watch, this will change.” She said she would rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and make sure the stock market works for “everyday investors,” not just high-frequency traders.

She said the country needs to go beyond Dodd-Frank regulations of major financial institutions and warned that “serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called shadow banking system,” including hedge funds, high-frequency traders and nonbank financial companies.

quote:

Released on Mother's Day, the video touts Clinton's commitment to fighting for paid family leave, citing her own mother and daughter as inspirations. "At a time that should be so exciting and joyful, I see so many women who are just distraught," she states. "They have to immediately go back to work. They don't know how they're going to manage."

She continues, “It’s outrageous that America is the only country in the developed world that doesn’t guarantee paid leave.”

quote:

So, it is to be expected that some would call Trump and Bush’s plans to close the loophole a “populist” policy position. But they also both propose to pile tax cuts on the rich many times larger than the roughly $2 billion a year that could be raised by taxing carried interest at the same rate as normal compensation.

quote:

As for Trump, if his soon-to-be-released tax plan resembles his most recent tax reform proposal, anti-tax conservatives and wealthy investors won’t have anything to fear after all. In his 2011 tax reform proposal, Trump proposed to eliminate the corporate income tax and the estate tax, drop the tax rate on capital gains income and cut marginal income tax rates. This would result in huge tax cuts for the wealthy. The roughly $500 billion annual cost of eliminating the corporate income tax would pay back wealthy investors 250 times over for the tax hike they’d see from closing the carried interest loophole.

Shageletic posted:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech-nyc-120028

Also


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/hillary-clinton-paid-family-leave-mothers-day_n_7257370.html

Also that's discounting the power of Presidential appointees for administrative agencies like the NLRB, etc.

FAUXTON posted:

This is the kind of thing that I unabashedly salute Sanders for. He's not going to get into the general but that was never the plan - he's torqued the party's dialogue sharply leftward.

Luigi Thirty posted:

Brave of politicians to come out against fraud now that the statutes of limitations for 2008 have passed.

Shageletic posted:

Yeah, I think that's indisputable as of now. But he's not alone in shifting the dialogue leftwards. Look at Hillary's comments regarding the viability of federal family leave circa 2014 and now. There was a shift there, and its due to a lot of changes and movements in the party's base and major supporters.

EDIT: The article I posted about Hillary is slightly out of date. She has endorsed the $15 dollar minimum wage.

Tubgoat posted:

This, right the gently caress here, is what really pisses me off about Clinton's sudden support for policy positions left of Cheney, and why it rings so hollow to me.

Also, holy poo poo, less than a decade is long enough to lay low stealig stealing billions of dollars, both in economic activity AND peoples' loving houses, and destroying the lives of millions (more than were already destroyed by neo-[con/lib, literally doesn't matter, same result] policies?

Meanwhile, if that American hero who dressed as an armored truck employee and robbed Wal-Mart ever gets caught, he'll get murdered before he gets processed.

Everyone keeps saying Sanders was never meant to win, well WHY THE gently caress NOT? If you think Clinton would make an acceptable president, then surely Sanders would be even better, and if you think Sanders would do TOO good a job for the country, why the gently caress not just fill in the bubble for whatever humanoid biohazard golem gets anointed by billionaires? ("You" in this context refers to whomever specifically is trying to tell me that Sanders is unelectable/will ruin everything)

If the statute of limitations on sex crimes is multiple decades, then SURELY we should be able to treat the perpetrators of the END OF THE loving WORLD to the CIA's famous hospitality suite until the former prays for death from the same false deities they hid behind to fool the poor into railing against their and their neighbors' self-interest? God loving drat it.

There isn't enough alcohol in the world.

So please, resolute Clinton supporters, PLEASE just loving vote for Sanders in the primary, Jesus Christ, it costs no one anything and might even result in America not being the most uniquely loving horrifying country in the history of Terra.

Democracy is within reach, all we need do is reach out and grab it, turn out in such numbers that no amount of election and voter fraud can distort the result in the GOP's favor.

Tubgoat posted:

Everyone keeps saying Sanders was never meant to win, well WHY THE gently caress NOT? If you think Clinton would make an acceptable president, then surely Sanders would be even better, and if you think Sanders would do TOO good a job for the country, why the gently caress not just fill in the bubble for whatever humanoid biohazard golem gets anointed by billionaires? ("You" in this context refers to whomever specifically is trying to tell me that Sanders is unelectable/will ruin everything)

Zeroisanumber posted:

We tried that in 1972, it's why the Democrats have super-delegates now.

Maarek posted:

You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about.

Maarek posted:

You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about.

Maarek posted:

Yeah, when times get bad and politics start getting too radical the liberals sort of sour on the whole 'democracy' thing too, lol.

Maarek posted:

I don't know how anyone could seriously think Clinton is shifting anything to the left considering that she has only 'evolved' her views on Gay marriage, the PATRIOT ACT, and the Iraq war after they went from popular to unpopular.

Spaceman Future! posted:

Its not that sanders is too far left. Because hes not, he's the only self declared socialist in history that doesn't actually want to nationalize anything and he is just as hawkish as Hillary on drones and blowin stuff up, supporting an actual leftist may be kinda neat actually. Its that he has zero political capital or support and would enter the office with a limp wrist in the off chance that he didnt get destroyed worse than Kerry in the public image arena, which he would.

Zeroisanumber posted:

What Sanders says does resonate, but it doesn't matter for poo poo if he can't get elected.


McGovern was a good man, but a very bad candidate.

Geoff Peterson posted:

That's a hell of a sentence right there.

"She only changed her views on things after millions of other Americans changed their views on those things."

Either she changed her views for the same reasons millions of other people did, or because she's frigid and calculating and hews to public opinion. You're right, not only is the latter the most reasonable option, nobody could seriously consider the former.

Maarek posted:

You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about.

Maarek posted:

Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start.

Maarek posted:

Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start.

Geoff Peterson posted:

That's a hell of a sentence right there.

"She only changed her views on things after millions of other Americans changed their views on those things."

Either she changed her views for the same reasons millions of other people did, or because she's frigid and calculating and hews to public opinion. You're right, not only is the latter the most reasonable option, nobody could seriously consider the former.

Maarek posted:

Sanders is well to the left of Clinton, Biden, and the O'Malley as Governor. Yes, he's a socialdem at best, but since there's no commie candidate stumping around Iowa with a guillotine there's no compelling reason for a leftist to support the other candidates over him.


No matter how much you tell yourself that it is justified, having a system where party apparatchik can overrule the voters and decide the candidate is undemocratic and a terrible idea. American voters are incredibly apathetic and feel that their opinions and votes do not matter and thanks to our peculiar electoral system they have a drat good point.


Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start.

Maarek posted:

Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

mandatory lesbian posted:

oh poo poo is this today, i might actually go see him if it's open to the public

and even if it isn't it's not like liberty is hard to sneak into

Maarek posted:

"I want my candidate to not be a bigot even if being bigoted is politically popular" -- an incredibly divisive statement in 2015 D&D.

Pyroxene Stigma posted:

More important than political capital, why are people assuming Sanders simply can't win the general? He'll be running against Scott... Walker, or Trump, or another completely inept orator. And it's such a mathematically good election for Democrats they SHOULD push a candidate further to the left, just to attempt to drag the Overton window back towards the center.

Luigi Thirty posted:

Donald Trump has as much chance of being in the general as Bernie Sanders. Make of this what you will.

Pyroxene Stigma posted:

More important than political capital, why are people assuming Sanders simply can't win the general? He'll be running against Scott... Walker, or Trump, or another completely inept orator. And it's such a mathematically good election for Democrats they SHOULD push a candidate further to the left, just to attempt to drag the Overton window back towards the center.

DemeaninDemon posted:

You sound like the left's version of a Freeper, dude.

quote:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who rose to national prominence by battling his state’s public-sector labor unions, is set to unveil Monday a plan to strip power from unions nationwide.

The Republican presidential candidate’s proposal, which he plans to announce at an afternoon speech in Las Vegas, would eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, prohibit federal employee unions, institute right-to-work laws nationwide and repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which requires the payment of local prevailing wages to workers on federal construction projects, often boosting pay and project costs.

Maarek posted:

Yeah guys it's very cool that Obama and Hillary eventually came around and hung up rainbow crepe paper when all the heavy lifting was done but it would have been even cooler if they were actually on our side a few elections back when the electorate was tomahawk dunking on gay people across the country and 'our' party largely shriveled up like a salted snail out of fear of making bigots angry.

This doesn't disqualify Clinton or Obama from holding office but surely you can agree that makes them less desirable than someone who has always been in favor of gay rights?


lol

Maarek posted:

"I want my candidate to not be a bigot even if being bigoted is politically popular" -- an incredibly divisive statement in 2015 D&D.

DemeaninDemon posted:

You sound like the left's version of a Freeper, dude.

Luigi Thirty posted:

Donald Trump has as much chance of being in the general as Bernie Sanders. Make of this what you will.

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Scott Walker's down to 2% in the latest poll, so he's chucking a hail-Mary toward the owner's suite:

Maarek posted:

Yeah, about that: "I think part of the reason that the Congress and very strong Democratic supporters of increasing the minimum wage are trying to debate and determine what’s the national floor is because there are different economic environments,". I don't know how anyone could seriously think Clinton is shifting anything to the left considering that she has only 'evolved' her views on Gay marriage, the PATRIOT ACT, and the Iraq war after they went from popular to unpopular.

JT Jag posted:

Bernie Sanders supported gay rights in the 1980s. Hillary Clinton supported gay rights when it became politically feasible to do so.

I think this single statement kinda boils down the issues that leftists have with Clinton, and why they like Sanders.