|
AceRimmer posted:The guns and prepping part is going to be a hard sell in Berkeley though i can promise you that there's a region where that kind of prep ain't:      
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Specifically, there will be 34 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 30 Republican Senators in the interim between sessions. Three fifths of 66 is 39.6.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:i can promise you that there's a region where that kind of prep ain't:
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:OWS was supposed to be this but then idpol happened Even without idpol OWS struggled in its messaging. I remember at least one "what does OWS want? It's simple" type presentation that made its way around Facebook was like a 60 slide deck. It was 60 slides that were really confusing and disjointed, even though it basically only made 2 points: income inequality is growing, and CEO pay is high. I think Bernie's campaign streamlined a lot of messages that were somewhat overstuffed by OWS, and I think a lot of things over the past few years have further crystallized how wealth inequality is itself a problem. Mark Blyth's stuff is good at this, and charts like this are much more impactful than a lot of what I remember being floated around then: https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/806232456013746176
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
 Label the elephant GOP and you're all set
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I think the question of whether or not the Democrats could sneak Garland in is less important than will they even try and do it and uh... *looks at the state of the presidential transition* yeah they ain't gonna do that lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Serf posted:yeah they ain't gonna do that lol Literally have Garland show up to work and make the GOP kick him out
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:i can promise you that there's a region where that kind of prep ain't: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
What are the consequences to them appointing Garland in that way, assuming they can actually do it? When your enemy has already committed just about every indignity possible and then defiled your corpse, what's left for the Republicans to do? Pack the court?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:They could at least do something like the gun control sit-in ffs no but see we're the party of decency and decorum lmao Nichael posted:What are the consequences to them appointing Garland in that way, assuming they can actually do it? When your enemy has already committed just about every indignity possible and then defiled your corpse, what's left for the Republicans to do? Pack the court? lol if you think they won't try this anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Serf posted:no but see we're the party of decency and decorum lmao I do think they'll try this so what are the consequences? To borrow a phrase from a wise man, "WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
and since this is page 420, y'all:      although that last one has assumed an absolutely tragic additional meaning here lately  i got a sneakin' suspicion that we travel in the same circles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
If you're going to try the one weird trick that Republicans hate to get a new judge on SC, you should probably burn that secret action on a judge that's actually as Liberal/Left as you want, and not the compromise candidate Obama but up to try and show how obstinate R's are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Nichael posted:I do think they'll try this so what are the consequences? To borrow a phrase from a wise man, "WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?" there are no consequences when your party controls all 3 branches of government. all Dems will do for the next 4-8 years is get repeatedly dick-slapped while complaining about how undignified this is
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:If you're going to try the one weird trick that Republicans hate to get a new judge on SC, you should probably burn that secret action on a judge that's actually as Liberal/Left as you want, and not the compromise candidate Obama but up to try and show how obstinate R's are. Serf posted:there are no consequences when your party controls all 3 branches of government. all Dems will do for the next 4-8 years is get repeatedly dick-slapped while complaining about how undignified this is
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:If you're going to try the one weird trick that Republicans hate to get a new judge on SC, you should probably burn that secret action on a judge that's actually as Liberal/Left as you want, and not the compromise candidate Obama but up to try and show how obstinate R's are. also I agree with this. gently caress Merrick Garland, if we're gonna actually do something underhanded for once I want the reincarnation of Che Guevara or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:If you're going to try the one weird trick that Republicans hate to get a new judge on SC, you should probably burn that secret action on a judge that's actually as Liberal/Left as you want, and not the compromise candidate Obama but up to try and show how obstinate R's are. It requires obama's cooperation, I think? And Garland is the leftmost candidate he is willing to consider from what I understand, he was never actually a compromise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
the plan literally cannot work but hey let's do it anyway because otherwise the internet will think we're spineless cowards for fighting a losing battle with no upside apart from optics or whatever the gently caress we're fighting for in this the end of days
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It requires obama's cooperation, I think? And Garland is the leftmost candidate he is willing to consider from what I understand, he was never actually a compromise. holy poo poo you have to be kidding me
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Given how thin the vote margins were in the battleground states, it is entirely possible that the GOP's gambit on Garland not only worked, but in fact ensured its own success by providing that one additional, immediate incentive for republicans to vote. which is super lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It requires obama's cooperation, I think? And Garland is the leftmost candidate he is willing to consider from what I understand, he was never actually a compromise. If this is true I may never stop laughing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Zo posted:Given how thin the vote margins were in the battleground states, it is entirely possible that the GOP's gambit on Garland not only worked, but in fact ensured its own success by providing that one additional, immediate incentive for republicans to vote. they got everything they wanted and more
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
UHD posted:the plan literally cannot work but hey let's do it anyway because otherwise the internet will think we're spineless cowards for fighting a losing battle with no upside apart from optics or whatever the gently caress we're fighting for in this the end of days but, they ARE spineless cowards
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
UHD posted:the plan literally cannot work but hey let's do it anyway because otherwise the internet will think we're spineless cowards for fighting a losing battle with no upside apart from optics or whatever the gently caress we're fighting for in this the end of days
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It requires obama's cooperation, I think? And Garland is the leftmost candidate he is willing to consider from what I understand, he was never actually a compromise. He was definitely a compromise. Srinivasan is less of a moderate and he was absolutely on the shortlist; Obama just thought that Garland would make for better...sigh...optics, when the Republicans inevitably stonewalled him. THAT WORKED OUT SO WELL
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Actually, if they wanted to do that, they could confirm the 30 judicial nominees pending in the Senate, which are all lifetime appointment and only require a majority vote. There are way more than 30 open seats on the federal judiciary, by the way. Obama has been slow to nominate people his entire Presidency and left a lot of gaps even before McConnell shut down confirmations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
UHD posted:the plan literally cannot work but hey let's do it anyway because otherwise the internet will think we're spineless cowards for fighting a losing battle with no upside apart from optics or whatever the gently caress we're fighting for in this the end of days I feel like your saying this ironically yet I can't find anything wrong with the logic. What else do they have to do for the next four years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
doesn't matter whether the Dems are spineless cowards or not, I'm still gonna vote for 'em because haha what the gently caress else am I gonna do
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Actually, if they wanted to do that, they could confirm the 30 judicial nominees pending in the Senate, which are all lifetime appointment and only require a majority vote. Hell, I'd take this if nothing else. I just want to see them fight for every last scrap of ground they can take while they can still fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
*busts into thread at a dead run, smashes into coffee table and falls over* *sits up with one finger raised in a "well, actually" gesture* appeals to manufacturing jobs are inherently counterrevolutionary as they target the reactionary labor aristocracy at the expense of the true modern proletariat, the service and retail workers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:*busts into thread at a dead run, smashes into coffee table and falls over* *sits up with one finger raised in a "well, actually" gesture*
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha You know, I've been pretty critical of the HFA field program but I have nothing but respect for people who spent months of their lives - at extemely insufficient pay - organizing for a Democratic candidate. What did you do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Serf posted:doesn't matter whether the Dems are spineless cowards or not, I'm still gonna vote for 'em because haha what the gently caress else am I gonna do you could stay home out of disgust like much of the democratic base a month ago
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
or you could vote trump because yolo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I feel like your saying this ironically yet I can't find anything wrong with the logic. What else do they have to do for the next four years? useful things i'd hope i'd suggest things but idk how this poo poo works i just shitpost here
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/06/the-inaccuracies-in-donald-trumps-air-force-one-tweet/?utm_term=.1df33e297fae BTW I look forward to more news outlets losing their loving minds in the next few months attempting to break down every last tweet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
whoa hot scoop - donald trump is full of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
UHD posted:useful things i'd hope How it works is basically: This will be there absolute last opportunity to do anything, and this is the only option they really have so far as "things they can do". Even if they aim for the SC and only manage to make lower level appoints... or hell, even if they only manage to get a bit of attention from the news for trying to do something... that's better than nothing. And they are about to lose control of every single branch of government, there's not really anything else they can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:You know, I've been pretty critical of the HFA field program but I have nothing but respect for people who spent months of their lives - at extemely insufficient pay - organizing for a Democratic candidate. What did you do? Full disclosure semi-coherent timeline: I overheard the "$27 average donation!" thing and gave $50 to Bernie. Ignored various text messages inviting me to CA Bernie events because I had switched to GOP and wanted to vote Trump in primary in CA to do my little part in destroying Team Rocket.  is inevitable folks  Voted Trump in CA primary.Gave some money to RAINN after pussygate. Submitted my mail-in CA ballot after some proposition research. Checked in with the family in a semi-swing state in early November: Dad: TRUMP! *click* (he wound up betting an Olive Garden dinner on Hillary winning with a friend lol) Sibling #1: I heard the Green Party was cool but I forgot to register. Is Hillary really going to start WW3 like Facebook says? Oh, that minimum wage thing won't affect me, I work for $10 an hour I listened to the Keepin it 1600 :arzy: episode that said to reassure yourself by actually doing something but all I did was look at one of the slick phonebanking videos and said "Nah". Decided not to bet anything on the election besides submitting the winning electoral college map in this forum lol. Attended the saddest election night party ever, drank orange colored vodka. Gave money to SPLC. tl:dr; I'm the worst liberal
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Serf posted:doesn't matter whether the Dems are spineless cowards or not, I'm still gonna vote for 'em because haha what the gently caress else am I gonna do Yeah me too, if we even get to vote at all in the future. GOP will 100% spend the next 4-8 years trying to ratfuck the election process as much as possible, and the dems will just turn around and present their asses with a whimpered apology like they always do when a republican raises their voice, because they are a bunch of spineless, incompetent cowards. They ceded every inch of ground they had in order to make the oval office their alamo, and did nothing to stop a right wing coup of congress and state governments. 2018 sure as gently caress isn't going to go our way. District lines and voter suppression all but ensure that the House will remain a permanent republican majority (oh you thought the district lines were getting redrawn in 2020 in any way that would actually make a difference? Hahahahahahahaha not anymore), and we'll have to fight tooth and nail just to not lose seats in the senate midterms. Face it, USA is effectively a one party state now and probably will be for at least a generation. The Republicans won. We might get the white house again, but it won't matter because it will be another neolib doormat with an unrequited fetish for bipartinsanship just like the one we've got now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:49
|
|
