|
Khisanth Magus posted:Except it is a completely empty thing they are signing on to. It has less than 0% chance of going anywhere no matter how many Democrats sign on. It's not meaningless. At some point the democrats are going to have control of government again and if they signed on to this they will have to deliver.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:Didn't respond to this earlier because I was looking into it, but as far as I can tell (there are not many examples), seniority is preserved when you switch parties. I don't know if it would have been up to Reid or not, but it looks like that's how it's normally done. That doesn't make sense wrt to bipartisan committees and party seniority. Also, Reid wouldn't have needed to promise that he'd keep those positions if he won those elections if he had no say in the matter. Further, he was no obligation to make promises that's help party traitor lieberman win the general Saying "that's how it's normally done" when a party member ditches the party cause he lost a primary. Edit: Wikipedia posted:Some votes are deemed to be so crucial as to lead to punitive measures (such as demotion from choice committee assignments) if the party line is violated; So yes it was fully in Reid's power Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not meaningless. At some point the democrats are going to have control of government again and if they signed on to this they will have to deliver. and on that day, you will complain heartily i am sure
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:and on that day, you will complain heartily i am sure If you aren't complaining you aren't paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
2016 was, if anything, a referendum on Clinton's policies and the direction she took the Democratic party after her husband was elected and their own use of the Third-Way Democrats to take control of the party's messaging. I don't believe she should continue to be involved in running the party, though she obviously has connections and experience in politics that should be tapped. Just, you know, not running anything or directing policy.  Acebuckeye13 posted:LBJ: Had a number of terrible faults, and did the most to get the US stuck in the Vietnam War, but no other president ever had his singular devotion and dedication towards eradicating poverty and embracing civil rights. I like your list! Very good picks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Except it is a completely empty thing they are signing on to. It has less than 0% chance of going anywhere no matter how many Democrats sign on. This particular bill probably won't pass now, but its success or failure isn't tied up in whether or not it gets signed into law. Having centrists like Booker sign on helps normalize it. Single payer now seems a lot more attainable than it did a couple years ago, and the more that legislators back it, the closer it will be to a reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If you aren't complaining you aren't paying attention. ah i didn't know mcmagic was a 90 year old man trying to return a decades old toaster at wal-mart
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:While I certainly agree on one level, I've got a cynical enough view of the general public that if you run on that but don't win enough, they'll blame you for not achieving it even though you couldn't. then why run on anything if the possibility of failure is so terrifying
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Lincoln FDR Rienhold Niebhur John Adams Martin Luther With regards to the flaws of those that came before us. We swim in our culture and cannot escape it. The ideas we are surrounded by inform the models of what is right and wrong in our heads. I try to judge them with that in mind. People's beliefs also change over time and can be radically contradictory over a life time. Did they change when confronted by reality when it conflicted with thier ideas? Did they change when they were confronted by suffering? I almost value those two things more than the particulars of any persons ideas. An example : FDR is nothing without his understanding of loss, suffering, persistence and poverty gained from polio. It's these types of human experiences that give meaning and consequence to the ideas the individual held.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not meaningless. At some point the democrats are going to have control of government again and if they signed on to this they will have to deliver. Well gently caress yeah I hope they deliver. It's almost like you got it fine the way it is or something. If they do not they need to castigate those responsible, from either party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah i didn't know mcmagic was a 90 year old man trying to return a decades old toaster at wal-mart Unless you think the country is perfect and the government is addressing people's needs perfectly. I mean I guess you could believe that....
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:That doesn't make sense wrt to bipartisan committees and party seniority. Also, Reid wouldn't have needed to promise that he'd keep those positions if he won those elections if he had no say in the matter. Further, he was no obligation to make promises that's help party traitor lieberman win the general That's committee appointment, not seniority. And considering what a massive sore loser Lieberman was and is if Reid didn't do that I bet Lieberman very much would have refused to be the filibuster breaking vote on the watered down ACA. Majorian posted:It makes it easier for the HFC that their constituents are a bunch of smoothbrains, no question, but I don't think Democratic voters are so different that they would punish earnest-but-failed efforts at popular legislation. Plus it's not like Trump isn't as big a target for Democratic voters as Obama was for Republicans.(unfair and loony though their hatred of him was) The bottom line, imo, is that the Dems need promise big, sweeping changes if they get elected, and then make it clear to voters that the Republicans are why we can't have nice things. Right now, that isn't as clear to voters as it needs to be - in the mind of a lot of Democratic voters, prominent Democratic leaders are also why we can't have nice things. See, for example, Pelosi whiffing on the Medicare For All question recently. You're a lot more optimistic of progressive voters than I am. I hope you're right. Raskolnikov38 posted:then why run on anything if the possibility of failure is so terrifying Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Congratulations! You've cracked the code. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Well gently caress yeah I hope they deliver. It's almost like you got it fine the way it is or something. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Unless you think the country is perfect and the government is addressing people's needs perfectly. I mean I guess you could believe that.... i'm gonna save everyone some time when i hold you down and tattoo "i demand to speak to a manager" on your forehead
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Lincoln This is a very good point, and it's part of the reason why I feel Trump is such a garbage person and president-he's never been significantly challenged in his life, and feels no empathy towards those worse off than him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:You're a lot more optimistic of progressive voters than I am. I hope you're right. Eh, they're humans. In the end, they want to be inspired, to be part of something bigger than they are. Obama succeeded when he tapped into this. When he failed, it was because he didn't seem to be fighting for what he had promised anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
His idealism about politics and clinging to the dead concept of bipartisanship certainly didn't help.BrandorKP posted:Martin Luther Ehhhhhh... He was pretty horrible in many of his views. His antisemitism in particular was pretty extreme even for Europe in those days. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:You're a lot more optimistic of progressive voters than I am. I hope you're right. This is why I'm suggesting people post their 5, you don't even need to order them. It's time for us to start believing in things again, and thanks to everyone who's participated so far. We've had 30+ years of cynical calculation, it's time to remind ourselves of all the good in the world, how we can make a difference and how through the privilege of history we can go beyond our previous limitations and make a more just world. The alt right has power at all because people are now so insincere about believing in ANYTHING at all that they need to stick it to normies to prove they can out do the cynicism of the boomers and gen-x. All that lays in that direction is fear oppression and despair. Obama touched a nerve with this in his campaign mode but failed to put down groundwork for future hope, arguably because of the continued cynicism of his own party and/or GOP obstruction. But we can start solving this right now We need things to believe in and values beyond being able to play video games while in a dead end job. We can do so much more. We can make America greater than it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
axeil posted:He is a cuckoo in the nest of the Democratic Party, replacing all the eggs with his own poo poo-filled ones. Haha, this poster calling the jewish man a parasite
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
axeil posted:because he's not a Democrat by his own admission Why does this matter to you, if he caucuses with the Democrats? I still don't understand why this is such an odious thing to Clintonistas. A lot of Democratic voters aren't registered Democrats, and yet the Dems need their votes desperately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
axeil posted:Campaigning in Wisconsin wouldn't have saved her. Kamala Harris who has been in the Senate for 17 minutes is a party leader? https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/907964625714630656 EVERY Democrat should be running on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not the lesson I've learned from observing the far right, though. The House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times at this point, and none of those attempts have been successful, but that hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of their base. Indeed, their continuing to beat the drum has helped put them in control of the entire government. Really the only reason why the ACA has survived the last few months is that Trump is literally the most inept politician this country has ever seen. The problem, of course, is that Republicans have managed to get themselves a permanent underclass who would never, ever vote Democrat, and then give that underclass undue electoral power. If the democrats were smart enough to do something like that, they'd win elections but also would be just as bad as the republicans. I'm still trying to decide if this would be a net gain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why does this matter to you, if he caucuses with the Democrats? I still don't understand why this is such an odious thing to Clintonistas. A lot of Democratic voters aren't registered Democrats, and yet the Dems need their votes desperately. I think it probably comes down to a difference in perspective between "political party as tool for organizing for electoral and policy pushes" and "political party as persistent organization." I might not be phrasing that second one how I mean to, but to expand on it: what I mean is that for the people who make the "Bernie's not even a Democrat" argument, the Democratic Party is an organization that has been working together to accomplish certain things, and Bernie is a relative outsider who comes in and suddenly demands to steer the ship. It's obviously not that simple (he's not a total outsider to the Democrats and caucuses and votes with them), but it puts a lot of emphasis on membership to an official organization and work in building up that organization as an organization. (I don't endorse that view, but I think that's how people who chafe at Bernie's apparent leadership role in the party see things. If I'm misrepresenting that, someone definitely correct me.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
The Bernie isn't even a Democrat line would be more convincing if their treatment of Lieberman had been colder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
I actually don't really see Bernie as being a party leader at this or any point. He got the ball rolling on a couple things but the bulk of the base doesn't seem to see him as a leader. That said, the more he talks about single payer the less crazy it seems to people who aren't brainwashed, so we might actually get there eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/908033333564645376Washington Post posted:The Justice Department should consider prosecuting former FBI director James B. Comey for actions that “were improper and likely could have been illegal,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
I'mma be blunt here. Hillary lost the election because she was running for the position of chief administrator of America International Holdings LLC, not for the position of President of the United States of America. Hillary was trying to play office politics on the national scale, and while her tactics did succeed in severely hampering Bernie Sanders they failed massively to win over the American people. A leader can inspire people and motivate them to work together in common cause, and say what you will about Hillary's impressive list of credentials not a bit of that is able to motivate or lead people. Hillary was basically shopping her resume during the campaign, not trying to lead the American people. Further Hillary has never shown that she has any concept of what leadership actually is and her actions since losing have done nothing but demonstrate that point further. Hillary was a general who was handed control of the army during an important battle- a battle which she lost primarily because of pure hubris. When you are leader it does not matter what actually happened-it is always your fault. If Hillary actually was a real leader (and not a puffed up administrator) that book would be a list of where she went wrong and how she thinks future Democrats can avoid her mistakes. Instead it is an ode to why she thinks she deserved to win and why she would have been the bestest administrator ever. It doesn't even matter whether that is how she privately felt about the matter or not, a leader would have written a book that they thought could help improve the party, nto a book that kvetches ab out how unfair everything was and how her failure to lead is a result of the incompetence/malfeasance of outside actors. A leader shows, not tells. Hillary had endless well-annotated lists of her telling, but she never ocne understood the importance of showing. In point-of-fact a number of her actions (the way she handled the Goldman Sachs speeches for example) demonstrate that she had no concept and no intention of showing real leadership. She just wanted to pontificate over her reams of studies that declared her correct instead of actually doing some loving leading. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Y'all do have an appropriate thread to endlessly brag about how much you hate her and the Democratic leadership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I'mma be blunt here. Hillary lost the election because she was running for the position of chief administrator of America International Holdings LLC, not for President of the United States. A leader can inspire people and motivate them to work together in common cause, and say what you will about Hillary's impressive list of credentials not a bit of that is able to motivate or lead people. Hillary was basically shopping her resume during the campaign, not trying to lead the American people. Further Hillary has never shown that she has any concept of what leadership actually is and her actions since losing have done nothing but demonstrate that point further. Hillary was a general who was handed control of the army during an important battle- a battle which she lost primarily because of pure hubris. When you are leader it does not matter what actually happened-it is always your fault. The problem with this argument is that she was running against a man who was openly and unabashedly running for CEO of America, inc. Americans, being the stupid proles they are, then actually elected that man. Though not with a popular vote because the system actually is rigged, just not the way said CEO was claiming it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
If Hillary wants to have power and influence on government, she should go back to NY or wherever and win her Senate seat back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:Y'all do have an appropriate thread to endlessly brag about how much you hate her and the Democratic leadership. I don't see what those two things have to do with each other? Seems like Hillary is at least twice removed from this thread, the Current US Politics thread. Whereas discussing what one of the parties, the Democrats, is doing in our two-party system currently is extremely relevant. Here is the hot news on Capitol Hill today: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-act?id=6CA2351C-6EAE-4A11-BBE4-CE07984813C8&download=1&inline=file
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:Y'all do have an appropriate thread to endlessly brag about how much you hate her and the Democratic leadership. i have never once seen prester jane post in the "the democrats are a waste" thread. the speed at which you guys will rush in to a thread to cry about any criticism of hillary clinton is pretty sad tbh. stop demanding tons of safe spaces from any criticism of hillary (especially when it's topical after axeil brought that into the thread all on his own). if you want that kind of place, maybe you'd be better suited to one of the many private facebook groups devoted to hillary clinton than debate and discussion
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:The problem with this argument is that she was running against a man who was openly and unabashedly running for CEO of America, inc. Americans, being the stupid proles they are, then actually elected that man. Though not with a popular vote because the system actually is rigged, just not the way said CEO was claiming it was. No, she was running against a man who was presenting the image of leadership that decades of American propaganda have cultivated. Say what you will about Trump, he can actually inspire people to follow him. Hate the man all you like but he can indeed give people a vision of the future that they will latch onto. Even if that vision of the future is childish and simplistic, it was still more robust than what Hillary was offering. Hillary was offering the American people a vision of a future where everything is pretty much exactly the same except a few minor improvements. Trump offered people the ability to project their own fantasies onto the future and believe they would live them if they voted for him. Leadership is not about being the most skilled or qualified, (although theoretically good leadership is), leadership is about whether or not you can get people to believe in your vision and cooperate towards that end. Hillary is possibly the most qualified administrator the American political system has ever produced, but she is not and never was a leader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:The problem, of course, is that Republicans have managed to get themselves a permanent underclass who would never, ever vote Democrat, and then give that underclass undue electoral power. True, but that's still a relatively small portion of the electorate - 30%, or thereabouts. Big enough to be a real problem, but not insurmountable, even with their electoral advantages. Even with them, while it's unlikely you could ever get them to vote for the Dems, it's possible to at least make them feel less compelled to get out and vote against the Dems. Obama did this pretty successfully in 2012, in casting Romney as "the guy who fired your dad."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i have never once seen prester jane post in the "the democrats are a waste" thread. the speed at which you guys will rush in to a thread to cry about any criticism of hillary clinton is pretty sad tbh. stop demanding tons of safe spaces from any criticism of hillary (especially when it's topical after axeil brought that into the thread all on his own). i've also never seen a novel point in this eternal debate. people are posting the same old things at each other, loudly, without changing anybody's mind. it's not so much that we can't handle criticism of HRC, it's more that these discussions are tiresome as poo poo and don't lead anywhere, ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:The problem with this argument is that she was running against a man who was openly and unabashedly running for CEO of America, inc. Don't think I agree. Trump absolutely ran touting his background in business and making the best, greatest deals or whatever bullshit, but he was not at all presenting himself in the way that PJ is describing Clinton's case for herself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
botany posted:i've also never seen a novel point in this eternal debate. people are posting the same old things at each other, loudly, without changing anybody's mind. it's not so much that we can't handle criticism of HRC, it's more that these discussions are tiresome as poo poo and don't lead anywhere, ever. leftists robotically repeating dogma which has failed to have any real world impact, you say 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:No, she was running against a man who was presenting the image of leadership that decades of American propaganda have cultivated. Say what you will about Trump, he can actually inspire people to follow him. Hate the man all you like but he can indeed give people a vision of the future that they will latch onto. Even if that vision of the future is childish and simplistic, it was still mroe robust than what Hillary was offering. Hillary was offering the American people a vision of a future where everything is pretty much exactly the same except a few minor improvements. Trump offered people the ability to project their own fantasies onto the future and believe they would live them if they voted gfor him. I don't blame hillary for losing. I honestly don't. She lost to twenty years of right wing propaganda that was eaten up by the fractionn of the democrat base that wanted bernie to win the primary. That really isn't her fault although she seems to be taking it quite badly. Majorian posted:True, but that's still a relatively small portion of the electorate - 30%, or thereabouts. Big enough to be a real problem, but not insurmountable, even with their electoral advantages. Even with them, while it's unlikely you could ever get them to vote for the Dems, it's possible to at least make them feel less compelled to get out and vote against the Dems. Obama did this pretty successfully in 2012, in casting Romney as "the guy who fired your dad." I don't think this works. Hannity and his ilk make every election into the end of the world. You can't suppress the vote of someone who literally thinks his country will end if he doesn't pull the lever for R. I'm not saying there's another answer, because there isn't. The only answer is to use our majority to dismantle their electoral advantage one district at a time. The work will likely not be completed in our lifetime. Edit: new phone hasn't learned how I type yet. BardoTheConsumer fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Haha, this poster calling the jewish man a parasite Internet leftism is so loving embarrassing. "Well you made a complex point but I can't help but notice that if I deliberately misconstrue a single line you've committed racism in the fourth degree..." Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
I can't even get mad at this stuff anymore. It's so petty, horrible, and stupid, yet is almost certain to be given a pass (with deep concern) from the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:42
|
|