|
And yes, the early Obama craze was very much a cult of personality, but I think we need only look to how short that lasted to see my point.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Reasonable points... except I will push back a little on Paul Ryan. Yeah, he is subservient to McConnell, but he is very much a fresh new face on some old, ugly poo poo. A big promoter of "small government/cut social services and everything will be awesome!", both directly and indirectly. I guess my frustration is that the dems have no one willing to throw out the playbook and fight dirty. Ryan and McConnell have demonstrated that there is no reason to follows rules and norms anymore, because they keep getting away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Spoderman posted:Reading this is the mental equivalent of a dolly-in/zoom out. I need to sit down for a few minutes... I kind of wonder what they would have done had that anti-Trump wave happened and Stooksbury won his seat would a guy show up in the Capitol building who looked suspiciously like Jon Ossoff wearing a Groucho Marx glasses/moustache thing introducing himself as Rodney Stooksbury in some kind of indecipherable European accent
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Nancy Pelosi might be the most effective parliamentarian of her generation; there is no ACA without Pelosi. She's an incredibly skilled vote counter. That is what you want out of her job. I'm fine moving on from her only because she's not getting any younger, but you have to come up with a similarly skilled alternative. So far, all I'm seeing is vague ideas. "Should be someone from Ohio because swing state." Dumb. "Should be someone the conservatives won't fixate over." They went googly-eyed nuts over Harry Reid. Also, I like the weird argument direction leftists take w/r/t Pelosi. Pelosi won't smash capitalism therefore the GOP is right that she sucks and we should get a more, um, conservative option from the heartland and what was I saying again? Final note: Know who was photoshopped into the anti-Ossoff ads along with Pelsoi? Bernie Sanders. Therefore we should make Bernie....oh wait
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Is this Stooksbury thing *true*? Or is it just a left-wing Facebook share. I can only find it on the "usual suspects" sites. Because if true... wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
In before someone huffs and puffs that Stooksbury got more votes than Ossoff did without realizing that a run-off in a special election in an off year getting almost as many votes as a main election in a Presidential year is actually impressive for Ossoff
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
That's less the complaint and more the three others (without funding or with little) outdid the 2016 presidential results, also in an off year special election run. Ossoff did as well (actually -3%, but I'm willing to give him an even shake here), but with the amount of sheer cash dumped in he kind of should have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:In before someone huffs and puffs that Stooksbury got more votes than Ossoff did without realizing that a run-off in a special election in an off year getting almost as many votes as a main election in a Presidential year is actually impressive for Ossoff a) we had this conversation yesterday, so make that "in after" b) he raised no money and did not campaign, and Ossoff's special election was the highest-funded House election in history and was pretty heavily hyped across the entire country I know you like Ossoff, but this was not a good result. I don't happen to think we can really do better for that particular district, so all I can say is I hope either he shapes up or they find someone better
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Agreed that the plan should be long-term infrastructure building rather than just dumping cash on a race for optics' sake. That said: The seat is up for grabs again in 2018. Ossoff's infrastructure needn't go away. quote:I hope either he shapes up or they find someone better I mean this with all due respect: It's tough to take these pieces of advice when they're coming from people who keep fumbling the actual details of the race. CAN YOU BELIEVE HE RAN THIS AD DOWN THE STRETCH? well no, he didn't. CAN YOU BELIEVE HE DIDN'T SAY ______? well yeah, he did. CAN YOU BELIEVE THE VOTE TOTAL HERPA DERPA well, see, 2016 vs. 2017. CAN YOU BELIEVE HE RAN ONLY AS ANTI-TRUMP? CAN YOU BELIEVE HE DIDN'T ONLY RUN AS ANTI-TRUMP? and on and on. Nebulously, sure. "Shape up," fine, in the sense that he's young and this was his first go-around. As for "they" finding someone better? Who is "they"? Ossoff chose to run hisself. And as I will say until I turn blue, no True Progressive assed themselves to oppose him. If there is a "they" anywhere – it's there. Where the gently caress is Our Revolution? Where are the DemSocs? D.N. Nation fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:On the other hand, it's a monarch, so really kind of worthless. Plz don't belittle her maj. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:Agreed that the plan should be long-term infrastructure building rather than just dumping cash on a race for optics' sake.  quote:I mean this with all due respect: It's tough to take these pieces of advice when they're coming from people who keep fumbling the actual details of the race. CAN YOU BELIEVE HE RAN THIS AD DOWN THE STRETCH? well no, he didn't. CAN YOU BELIEVE HE DIDN'T SAY ______? well yeah, he did. CAN YOU BELIEVE THE VOTE TOTAL HERPA DERPA well, see, 2016 vs. 2017. CAN YOU BELIEVE HE RAN ONLY AS ANTI-TRUMP? CAN YOU BELIEVE HE DIDN'T ONLY RUN AS ANTI-TRUMP? and on and on. You realize of course that you are talking to a strawman I said "this is a bad ad" (it was) (it was such a bad ad) I said "this race was treated as a Trump referendum" which it largely was in the national press, and the only issues you were able to say he ran on that weren't "I will oppose the Republicans" were "I will cut spending" (boooo), "I will cooperate with Republicans" (what?) and "I will bring in more tech jobs" (ok I guess but if you're not a tech pro I dunno what you can get out of it). and yes I did say it was bullshit that this is being touted as some kind of moral victory when he got as many votes as a literal ghost who did not campaign and spent no money, despite running the most expensive House race in history with coverage and visibility out the wazoo and I stand by that, special election or not "They" is the Democratic infrastructure it would be really nice if we had in the area, and which hopefully can get set up with all that money we threw at this race like you said. That'd be a nice silver lining. I don't loving know what the DemSocs are doing in that area. I don't live there. You tell me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
It's most important that we agree on the first half of your response, and we do, so I'll move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Shangri-Law School posted:Oh yeah, time to see what Allie is up to these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:And yes, the early Obama craze was very much a cult of personality, but I think we need only look to how short that lasted to see my point. Let us not forget, Obama was the antichrist
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Dumb question but couldn't we still have Pelosi as a cat rancher for Dems while having someone else as the popular face of the party?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:It's most important that we agree on the first half of your response, and we do, so I'll move on. Sure, yeah. At the end of the day we want the same thing: for the Democrats to run a government which is effective at helping people. The party's eroded infrastructure across the country is barring us from ever being competitive in a ton of districts, and my point in posting the Stooksbury article at all is that I'd rather we run an Ossoff every year than one more Stooksbury. Even if we didn't get a House seat out of this mess, hopefully that money can do some good somewhere. Ularg posted:Dumb question but couldn't we still have Pelosi as a cat rancher for Dems while having someone else as the popular face of the party? The way to do this would be to make someone else minority leader and make her minority whip, but I'm on the record as having no problem with Pelosi holding her position because she is fine for the job she has. The argument is that she's effectively running for House Speaker every time a Democrat runs for Congress anywhere, which I guess is kind of true but I don't really think that's really an issue foremost in the mind of someone voting for their local rep (although maybe I'm being too cynical about voters again???)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
 with a healthy dose of projectionTrump's administration is a mess and this guy is busting out Hillary cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
loquacius posted:The argument is that she's effectively running for House Speaker every time a Democrat runs for Congress anywhere, which I guess is kind of true but I don't really think that's really an issue foremost in the mind of someone voting for their local rep (although maybe I'm being too cynical about voters again???)   Note - by posting these I am not advocating we "give in to GOP talking points" and remove her, but it definitely makes a case for why she might be toxic. Also, she's old and may die soon, so just practically we need to be looking for a new leader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Plz don't belittle her maj. Not terrifically fond of the monarchy myself but they do 2 main jobs: tourism income and preventing our corrupt poli's from selling off heritage sites to their buddies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Note - by posting these I am not advocating we "give in to GOP talking points" and remove her, but it definitely makes a case for why she might be toxic. Also, she's old and may die soon, so just practically we need to be looking for a new leader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Maybe they'll have trouble attacking us if we put a guy in charge. A white guy. War hero, even. This Pelosi debate is horribly timed, seeing as Trumpcare is about to destroy the healthcare system, so I'll say no more on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:No it doesn't. Remove Pelosi and it's just whoever takes her place. Literally nothing changes except we lose an exceptionally good whip. Her "we're capitalist and that's just the way it is" comment doesn't make her "exceptionally good" to me, but different strokes I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Shangri-Law School posted:Oh yeah, time to see what Allie is up to these days. Still getting perpetually owned by the guy he draws like an angrier, crazier Clint Eastwood, I see.  1 2 3Sounds like Rogers needs a refresher on the Brair Rabbit story.  4Old man yells at man buns.  5Can't give it a CBO score until its done gestating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:57
|
|
6
|
WampaLord posted:Her "we're capitalist and that's just the way it is" comment doesn't make her "exceptionally good" to me, but different strokes I guess. Again, nothing changes by removing Pelosi. They just attack the new person in her place. All people need to see is "democrat" for it to be effective, and Pelosi is extremely good at her job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Today's Zelda isn't super translatable: For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skam_(TV_series)#International_success
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:No it doesn't. Remove Pelosi and it's just whoever takes her place. Literally nothing changes except we lose an exceptionally good whip. This is what it comes down to for me WampaLord posted:Her "we're capitalist and that's just the way it is" comment doesn't make her "exceptionally good" to me, but different strokes I guess. Ironically enough, this is an argument that supports her being primaried and giving up her seat but not an argument that supports her losing her leadership position because her personal politics aren't really that much of a factor in it. If she is primaried or retires or whatever, we'll have to pick a new minority leader. If not, of current sitting reps she's a perfectly fine choice for the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Yea, I'm sure if the majority of reps were pushing for leftist policy, she wouldn't stand in the way, but it's an extremely tone deaf comment in response to a young person's question about the Dems pursuing more socialist policies. She's fine I guess, but that line is everything wrong with the Democratic party. That instant instinct to dig in their heels and go "Whoa there, not too fast!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
We should remove Pelosi because she won't smash capitalism and replace her with someone the Republicans won't be able to vilify at all who, um, will still want to smash capitalism. You do see the problem with this, no? quote:it definitely makes a case for why she might be toxic. Yep. We should definitely remove everyone in these ads because they are toxic. Including that what's his face dude on the right here: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:That would be neat. But she has wined and dined plenty of absolute fuckers before. Quite the reverse. The British government do want Trump to visit so they can court him for trade deals post-Brexit, and they already promised him a state visit. Without clearing it beforehand with the Palace. Which is the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:Is this supposed to read like a Markov chain? Congrats, a monarch ignored trump. You want an actual burn, draw Leader of The Free World™ Angela Merkel dunking on his dumb rear end again. Not letting this go. You can keep your dumb hate boner for the monarchy, but calling a woman 'it' because you don't agree with an institution she is a part of is sexist. She is a woman, not an object, you thick motherfucker. (I've been called an 'it' too many times to ignore this nonsense.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Note - by posting these I am not advocating we "give in to GOP talking points" and remove her, but it definitely makes a case for why she might be toxic. Also, she's old and may die soon, so just practically we need to be looking for a new leader. If you fire the old leader because Republicans say mean things about her, what's going to happen? They stop saying mean things? They'd just say new mean things about the new leader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you fire the old leader because Republicans say mean things about her, what's going to happen? They stop saying mean things? They'd just say new mean things about the new leader. It's like everyone is purposefully ignoring the first half of my statement. Reminder that the ads were posted in response to a question from a poster asking if the Pelosi issue is something that's affecting voters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you fire the old leader because Republicans say mean things about her, what's going to happen? They stop saying mean things? They'd just say new mean things about the new leader. But they won't be saying bad things about her anymore!  Actually judging by prior behaviour they would. Forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
*Mr Fish says to his readers about the headaches caused by his toons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's like everyone is purposefully ignoring the first half of my statement. Except you said "definitely make a case" and the problem is that's just not true. They're not going after Pelosi for any reason other than she's a powerful democrat, and dropping her just means they shift to the next. Like if you actually press republican voters on what exactly they don't like about her, you're either not going to get specifics or just get out of context bullshit like "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Getting rid of Pelosi won't break their stride on this because who Pelosi actually is or what she's actually done is totally irrelevant to their strategy here. Being a powerful dem is what's actually "toxic" here. edit: Seriously all you're gonna get is "They may have gotten rid of <BAD PERSON> but now it's <BAD PERSON> 2.0, their apprentice! Just like <BAD PERSON> they represent <BAD STATE>'s values instead of yours! Plus they're <IF FEMALE:BITCHY AND SHRILL | IF MALE: UNMANLY>! Tell them where they can stick their Washington DC Outsider Liberal Bad For This Country agenda this <ELECTION DATE> by voting for <PERSON WHO WANTS TO ERADICATE ALL LIFE ON EARTH PROBABLY>!" TGLT fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Yea, it's pretty much "Holy poo poo Pelosi can move that money where it needs to be, we better do something". Sure there may be some negative aspects to Pelosi, but that's not what the right is thinking about. We're just filling in the gaps for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Like if you actually press republican voters on what exactly they don't like about her, you're either not going to get specifics or just get out of context bullshit like "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." I can guess it would include the words "strident" and "shrill."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
If Pelosi stepped down, whoever would replace her would be demonized as a satan-loving communist by the right either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:12
|
|
