|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Such a great military force that we can't even invade and hold Iraq of Afghanistan correctly. It could, but it would require an appetite for brutality that the American public doesn't really have at this point in history.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So they shouldn't try to even stop it from passing? Love the liberals here. Seriously vote GOP wee have no need of creatures like you. Or grow a drat spine. What specifically can Senate Democrats do to stop it if Republican Senators decide they're fine with torching the health care system on their way out of office? Keep 3 Republican senators tied up in Chuck Schumer's basement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It could, but it would require an appetite for brutality that the American public doesn't really have at this point in history. A new draft, a 90% tax rate, a war economy, and a huge Marshall plan for those countries might do it without needing Roman-style brutality. Iraq's population is only 40 million people, an occupying force of 5 million ought to do it. Although that would be even less popular among the American people than going Genghis Khan on the Middle East so
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What specifically can Senate Democrats do to stop it if Republican Senators decide they're fine with torching the health care system on their way out of office? Actually activly fight against it, rather then say that its more important to gently caress Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What specifically can Senate Democrats do to stop it if Republican Senators decide they're fine with torching the health care system on their way out of office? They could make a huge show of opposing it and try to generate enough public backlash to make the GOP back off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What specifically can Senate Democrats do to stop it if Republican Senators decide they're fine with torching the health care system on their way out of office? speak out about it? fight it in public? their current strategy is literally to let it pass with no resistance so they can try to get sanctions against russia. so obviously they think they could do something and are forgoing any action because russia is more important 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:They could make a huge show of opposing it and try to generate enough public backlash to make the GOP back off. No, we need to instead encourage piracy in Russia. So say the libs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:speak out about it? fight it in public? their current strategy is literally to let it pass with no resistance so they can try to get sanctions against russia so obviously they think they could do something and are forgoing any action because russia is more important Wait did I miss a link, did Senate Democrats actually say they don't want to fight the AHCA because Republicans might get butthurt and not vote for sanctions on Russia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait did I miss a link, did Senate Democrats actually say they don't want to fight the AHCA because Republicans might get butthurt and not vote for sanctions on Russia? here you go: ElNarez posted:these dumb motherfuckers worship death and they'll visit it upon you
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, we need to instead encourage piracy in Russia. So say the libs. *in an extremely bad dem voice* Well, obviously all those people who will get kicked off their insurance will be won over by our display of patriotism and toughness on Russia, because that is after all the only thing that matters. You have to pick your battles instead of insisting on purity tests.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Oh wooooow holy poo poo. And they wonder why their voter turnout dropped off a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh wooooow holy poo poo. Yeah it is pretty sad that the only way forward for the dems, beyond Bernie 2020. Is Cenk and the JD. Because frankly we probably will have to primary a bunch of these creatures for them to stop loving us over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Yeah ok we need to get these idiots who think politics is some kind of Avalon Hill war game out of leadership. "If we campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin, everyone might remember that we suck! Lay low and hopefully they'll forget an election is even happening." "If we help our candidate in Kansas, Republicans might remember to vote, best let Republican messaging blanket the district so everyone will think we don't care about it and then come out and vote for us." "If we fight the AHCA, Republicans might decide to pass it, let's just hope they to put their signature campaign issue up for a vote, instead of bringing attention to how bad it is and giving the public valuable time to mobilize and threaten the jobs of anyone who votes for it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah ok we need to get these idiots who think politics is some kind of Avalon Hill war game out of leadership. No offense but what Avalon Hill wargame are you playing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
We may be terrible in office, but at least we are apathetic campaigners so voters have fewer opportunities to see us and remember how we govern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So they shouldn't try to even stop it from passing? Love the liberals here. Seriously vote GOP wee have no need of creatures like you. Or grow a drat spine. No just that your specific demand makes no sense, that's all. Crowsbeak posted:Actually activly fight against it, rather then say that its more important to gently caress Russia. Condiv posted:speak out about it? fight it in public? their current strategy is literally to let it pass with no resistance so they can try to get sanctions against russia. so obviously they think they could do something and are forgoing any action because russia is more important They are, fighting it. They just don't control the media. Sure you can watch McCaskill try to own: https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...083d_video.html or read tweets from Senate Democrats attacking AHCA: https://twitter.com/dscc/status/872828857249935361 https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/874311226481942529 https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/874326892064772096 https://twitter.com/PattyMurray/status/874427601259028480 https://twitter.com/SenBobCasey/status/874413000509329408 https://twitter.com/alfranken/status/860597938304811008 https://twitter.com/SenBennetCO/status/872957414907285505 https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/873287583945699328 https://twitter.com/SenatorBaldwin/status/874315112286474242 https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/873623638108405760 https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/871867020123533312 https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/874394211809972224 But all that is boring as gently caress to the media since Republicans are hiding the bill and healthcare is a snoozer when the president is this crazy. This is a media still eager to write a new think piece on "giving the ahca a chance" and poo-poo anyone who judges the senate bill before they can read it. My point isn't to stop fighting, my point is just we're going to have to fight AHCA elsewhere because the senate isn't our center of strength. Our strength is the community and the millions of real people out there who care far more about this than any politician can because this is their loving life. Community organizing is worth a hell of a lot more than anything some senator could tweet or say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
There should be no talk about going soft on it at all. Don't give me this "We're strong in the community bullshit". If our leadership will not stand it makes it harder to organize the community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No offense but what Avalon Hill wargame are you playing? I was thinking of Diplomacy. The kind of elaborate gambit where you say "of course, he's expecting me to defend this crucial city, therefore he won't bother attacking, therefore I don't need to defend it after all and I can use those units to do something else instead"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I was thinking of Diplomacy. Ok, you see when I hear Avalon HIll I think back to classics like Getysburg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But all that is boring as gently caress to the media since Republicans are hiding the bill and healthcare is a snoozer when the president is this crazy. This is a media still eager to write a new think piece on "giving the ahca a chance" and poo-poo anyone who judges the senate bill before they can read it. On the other hand, if tweeting is boring as gently caress to the media, maybe they should try something interesting as gently caress to the media, like shutting down the senate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:17
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:The most unswallowable part of Corbyn for the center-left part of the DNC is his foreign policy positions. Which definitely would cause a shift in power and breaks in relationship no matte who was in power. First off, good thing Corbyn isn't running in america, so what the DNC thinks of him means actually jack poo poo. Secondly, my point is the massive campaign of smearing and degrading corbyn isn't some made up bullshit, and the impetus for that smear campaign is his policies directly and negatively affecting assholes like Murdoch. You might be right about the reasons people give for not liking him, and I'd like if you could tell me exactly how they know all about his foreign policies (it might have something to do with Murdoch plastering every bad thing he can find about corbyn all over every newspaper he owns in the UK) but that's beside my point, and given what happened in the last election, it turns out a shitload of people in his party actually don't give a flying gently caress about any of that because their house is burning down around them. Foreign policy is something people only give a poo poo about when we feel like our own countries aren't going to poo poo, and, I don't know if you've noticed, the UK is pretty well and truly hosed right now. Thanks for the burning hot takes about south america, though. Glad to see "but I'm X" is still a fantastic defense for racism.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But all that is boring as gently caress to the media since Republicans are hiding the bill and healthcare is a snoozer when the president is this crazy. This is a media still eager to write a new think piece on "giving the ahca a chance" and poo-poo anyone who judges the senate bill before they can read it. Or maybe, just maybe, they could force the GOP to actually and publicly fully own taking away the healthcare of million of americans and channel the massive outrage this will cause into Dem support instead of meekly throwing in the towel in the vain hope that the GOP won't pull away the bipartisanship football again next time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:First off, good thing Corbyn isn't running in america, so what the DNC thinks of him means actually jack poo poo. Well there is also the small problem that right-wing rags like the Daily Mail were running anti-Iraq War columns during the Blair era and saying that terrorism is blowback for Blairites loving around in the Middle East, and this was a very successful tactic against Blair because unlike most right-wing talking points this had the advantage of being 100% completely true, but it made it difficult for the right-wing media to whip a U-turn on this in just 8 weeks and excoriate Corbyn for saying the same things on the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:On the other hand, if tweeting is boring as gently caress to the media, maybe they should try something interesting as gently caress to the media, like shutting down the senate? Or literally anything at all of consequence. Republicans have spent the last eight years or so going out of their way to use every dirty trick in the book to advance their agenda and Dems literally won't even try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They are, fighting it. They just don't control the media. Sure you can watch McCaskill try to own: you worked hard on this, so i'm not gonna be too harsh, but the tweet literally says they are going to stop fighting in order to get the republicans to pass russian sanctions. it's good that they have been fighting (somewhat, they loving sat on their hands and cheered when it passed the house). now they're giving up the ghost in the senate so they can wage economic warfare. and they're falling for the same idiotic bait and switch the fell for with the nc bathroom bill. they're worthless idiots
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:28
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well there is also the small problem that right-wing rags like the Daily Mail were running anti-Iraq War columns during the Blair era and saying that terrorism is blowback for Blairites loving around in the Middle East, and this was a very successful tactic against Blair because unlike most right-wing talking points this had the advantage of being 100% completely true, but it made it difficult for the right-wing media to whip a U-turn on this in just 8 weeks and excoriate Corbyn for saying the same things on the campaign. That might all be true, but that's still beside my point. Corbyn is being demonized by that same media in the UK specifically because the people who own it do not want an actually left Labour to gain power because they would personally be negatively affected by it. The content of their smearing is incidental to the point of what they're doing. That's it. That's the entire point I'm trying to get across here. Having arguments about why centrist labour members don't like Corbyn is a whole 'nother thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
I was supplementing your point that Murdoch's rags don't care about his foreign policy and just want to keep their taxes low. During the Blair years the right wing press had the same anti interventionist position that Corbyn has now. That attack wasn't very effective because Corbyn's foreign policy is wildly popular (which is why the Daily Mail cynically adopted it to attack New Labour in years past).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Trump also cynically capitalized on that same massive public hatred for endless wars that don't benefit them and only enrich the wealthy while killing their kids, by slamming the Iraq War over and over in the primaries and making Hillary "I am too dumb to understand what my vote in congress is for or I was outsmarted by the dumbest President ever, you decide" Clinton's Iraq War vote a major issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
I wonder what the final tally of countries who put gays to death for existing is between US and Russian satellites (hint: that we're allied with even one more or less strips the Washington consensus of the moral high ground to act like they give a gently caress about lgbt russians)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
What is the leftist idea of foreign policy? Anything more substantial than those kids shouting "No more war!" at the DNC? Like, obviously everything we do with our military ends up being a clusterfuck, but I assume we can't just stop doing it for complicated reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What is the leftist idea of foreign policy? Anything more substantial than those kids shouting "No more war!" at the DNC? The complicated reasons are mostly a bunch of corporations' bottom line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What is the leftist idea of foreign policy? Anything more substantial than those kids shouting "No more war!" at the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:Why do you assume that an anti-war foreign policy would be less effective than the current pro-war one? America's standing in the world outside of its immediate NATO/MNNA hugbox hasn't ever been that great, and even inside of it there's plenty of criticism. What exactly would be the downside to not striving for global full spectrum dominance? I'm not assuming anything, but at the same time, "no more war" seems laughably naive. And the downside is that if we weren't the supreme military power, either Russia or China would be, and that would be bad, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm not assuming anything, but at the same time, "no more war" seems laughably naive. China and Russia are nowhere near powerful enough to be "supreme military powers". Also american dominance is dependent on allies that make Russia and China look like human rights leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm not assuming anything, but at the same time, "no more war" seems laughably naive. There is also a lot of daylight between "global full spectrum dominance" and "no more war ever and we're disbanding the military". Also, what makes you think the Russians or the Chinese have either the capacity to strive for something like global full spectrum dominance, or the ability to do so without being constrained by other actors? And why is this necessarily a worse state of affairs? Hambilderberglar fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:Don't be obtuse. "No more war" is just as aspirational as "No more child poverty" or "No more people who aren't covered by health insurance", with the only difference being the latter two are arguably easier to achieve. Okay, but in a hypothetical "no more war" scenario, how would we respond to something like 9/11? Hambilderberglar posted:There is also a lot of daylight between "global full spectrum dominance" and "no more war ever and we're disbanding the military". These are both good points, I'll think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, but in a hypothetical "no more war" scenario, how would we respond to something like 9/11? Probably without invading two unrelated countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, but in a hypothetical "no more war" scenario, how would we respond to something like 9/11? You wouldn't be seen selling weapons to noted dictator and Bad Ba'athist Saddam Hussein to fight against the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime may have not come into being at all because you wouldn't be seen supporting noted douchebag the Shah of Iran. Because you aren't supporting Israel in general and shoveling copious amounts of weaponry into the middle east, several wars may be avoided, or be smaller in scope. And all of that might have summed up to there not being a fertile breeding ground for angry young men like Osama to begin with. And even if you decided to do it right on 9/11, and all of that poo poo was water under the bridge already, you'd have saved yourself the lives of several thousand American troops, not even counting those who got PTSD or parts of them blown off to do... what exactly? Shock and awe the gently caress out of some goatherds in the Tora Bora valley? And I'm not even counting the moral good of not destroying two entire countries, installing an agreeable puppet and declaring mission accomplished, but not before leaving a giant pile of trash and two countries that are in no way, shape or form capable of providing for their citizens. Perhaps instead of responding in a way that vindicates the criticism of the (Arab) world, something more measured would have been appropriate. If the war on terror had confined itself to the Abbottabad raid, you could have declared mission accomplished just the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Probably without invading two unrelated countries. If we're not invading an oil rich country somewhere, China Will conquer the West Coast
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
We are so hosed. I think the best we can hope for is a wave election in 2020 and then three Justices immediately croak before the Republicans take back the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2224. The Democrats will be singing while 23 million people die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 11:38
|
|
