|
RaySmuckles posted:what purpose does "being the adult" serve if its a) losing you elections, b) never being reciprocated, c) only serving to benefit the other party? A) You can vote in elections (local, state, and national) B) You can purchase pornography or tobacco products (except in NYC) C) In some states, you can rent a car on your own with no surcharges
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:18 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 09:35 |
|
Boon posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states That part isn't. What is surprising, is how much of an outlier this particular moment in history is, in terms of Republican dominance. I mean, you realize that, right? This isn't just a normal swing in the GOP's direction. People in the Democratic Party really had to screw the pooch to get us to this point.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:18 |
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that gridlock would be the outcome, which is infinitely preferable to getting any significant portion of the Trump/GOP agenda passed into law. Again, I think you're still operating under the assumption that the Democrats can successfully appeal to voters by being the adults in the room. Recent history has kind of undermined that hypothesis, don't you think? It's probably not a coincidence that the three highest-profile potential compromises that I am at least provisionally willing to listen to are all cases where gridlock could well have very bad consequences. 1) DACA/DREAM. Consequence if Congress does nothing: Trump is entirely 100% capable of giving every single one the boot, or at least stuffing them in underfunded detainment limbo while the undermanned court system works through the backlog. Good for Democratic messaging, very bad for the detainees. 2) Cost-sharing subsidies. Consequence if Congress does nothing: Trump can, if he so chooses, withhold the subsidies and crash the insurance market. Good for Democratic messaging, very bad for everyone who is not rich enough to pay for their medical care out of pocket (or, I suppose, on Medicare/Medicaid). 3) Debt ceiling / passing a budget that exists. Consequence if Congress does nothing: global economic apocalypse, at least regarding the first of those. Good for Democratic messaging, very bad for basically everyone on Earth. Asserting that there is no point at which Democrats should accept a deal with the GOP on any of these three things is internally consistent and might even be better for the Democratic strategic position in the long-term, but it's a strategy I find intensely unpalatable. I'll happily quibble about where exactly the line should be drawn (see my previous posts on cost-sharing ), but I'm pretty adamant it should be drawn at a point where a deal is hypothetically possible.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:18 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:i see no reason the dems should make concessions with the republicans since the republicans refuse to do the same. this so many times.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:21 |
|
boner confessor posted:or, the electoral college is weird and does not elect the most popular candidate - That's not how the game is played. That's like complaining why a team didn't win football because they had more yards than the other team. Trump campaigned heavily in swing states because he knew he needed those states to win. Hillary didn't. - Even factoring that in the fact that Trump got so close to the Democratic candidate is hysterical. The most hated and unpopular candidate in American politics gets practically neck and neck with the other candidate. - Are we just forgetting the Senate races and what not now?
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:22 |
|
Majorian posted:That part isn't. What is surprising, is how much of an outlier this particular moment in history is, in terms of Republican dominance. I mean, you realize that, right? This isn't just a normal swing in the GOP's direction. People in the Democratic Party really had to screw the pooch to get us to this point. Yeah sure, Trump truly is the worst and Clinton doesn't really need to be discussed further because we all understand how bad she is, but it wasn't even all that long ago that we were discussing how on the ropes the GOP was federally, how much of a civil war they were in, how the electoral college was stacked against them. And at the time between 2008 and 2014 it was all true - their gains at the state level were in keeping historically with the minority party at the federal level. To pick the 2016 election out and call the entire party broken despite having all the same people who led the 2008 and 2012 elections is just highly suspect to me. Let me note that I'm not saying there are not problems with the Democrats, and once again, that much of my disagreements with posters is more on procedural grounds. I think, Majorian, you fall into this category anytime we post at one another as I generally agree with you. As to the gridlock piece - yeah I do think that the Democrats did get blind-sided by it. In the history books it will probably be Mitch McConnell, not Donald Trump, that is public enemy number one. I think the first 3 years after Obama's election was the Democrats trying to desperately cope with an opposition who wanted to do nothing but blow up the rules and the system. I don't think they're the Democrats are the same now as they were then. Boon fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Sep 21, 2017 |
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:22 |
|
Majorian posted:I mean, I acknowledge that that's a possibility, and I hope you're right. But look at how the Democrats in Congress have performed over the past decade or so. You can understand why people on the left might be bracing themselves for the Democratic leaders giving up too much in a vain attempt to appeal to Republican reason and better angels, right? Sure, but I don't think "things that don't actually happen" is a good place to go looking for it. G-C might still happen, and if it does then not diving on something more "in the middle" would have been a mistake. The opposite is also true, and it's part of why I'm glad that nothing came of the "bipartisan" push - because I don't THINK G-C will pass.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:23 |
|
punk rebel ecks posted:- That's not how the game is played. That's like complaining why a team didn't win football because they had more yards than the other team. Trump campaigned heavily in swing states because he knew he needed those states to win. Hillary didn't. you posted about how hillary wasn't popular. now you're posting about horseshoes and hand grenades if you want to vacantly bitch into th eether about how much you hate hillary clinton there is a special thread for you to do exactly that so the rest of us dont have to scroll past your increasingly lengthy and incredibly boring tantrums
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:23 |
|
What about Bernie Sanders? I haven't actually heard anyone with a strong opinion (pro or con) on him. Would his campaign have been different?
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:24 |
|
https://twitter.com/ValeriePlame/status/910884546723196929 *tugs collar* holy smokes
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:25 |
|
RuanGacho posted:It occurs to me that it is not clear who the leftists and who the centrists or liberals are supposed to be. I'm the centrist. And most of these lovely people don't have a point beyond gurgling white hot rage at people that aren't pure enough for them. They'll whine and whine about being attacked, but all they do is attack others. They come up with over simplistic ideological jingoism and pretend it is policy, and when you try and get details about how they would enact it, you get attacked. it's really obvious who these people are and I really wish the mods would start probating people for this lovely gimmick. these same people will howl about free speech like the god damned nazis do when you try and shut them up. quote:“Never believe that (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:26 |
|
Koalas March posted:If you want to argue Leftists vs Liberals/Democrats take it to the loving Dem thread. R. Guyovich posted:ps post about politics topics and not posters or the thread. report posts about posters or the thread. don't post about the ignore function. bye i dunno why people are deciding to ignore a p simple rule r guyovich set out everyone responsible for that poo poo should be rotting in jail including the governor
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:27 |
|
Boon posted:I think where you and I diverge is that I sincerely, truly, do not believe that the US can exist as a country if the Democrats do not attempt to maintain the order and the laws of our institutions and instead shift to a hyper-partisan mentality. Delve into this a bit. In what way would a Democratic shift into a hyper-partisan mentality destroy American institutions to a degree in which they haven't already been destroyed by Republican hyper-partisanship? I agree on all of these counts, in terms of substance, and I'm not against making any sort of symbolic concession, if it's going to stop one of the three outcomes you mention. But the Democrats have to make it look like they're trying really, really hard not to make concessions. They need to look like they're fighting for their constituents. My biggest disagreement with Boon's and others' argument here is placing any value on the Democrats looking like the adults in the room, because at this point, I don't think that does anything for us anymore.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:28 |
|
punk rebel ecks posted:- That's not how the game is played. That's like complaining why a team didn't win football because they had more yards than the other team. Trump campaigned heavily in swing states because he knew he needed those states to win. Hillary didn't. quote:
edit: This doesn't mean that she didn't pitch poorly to certain DEMOGRAPHICS of voters, which he also discussed. But "she didn't go to Michigan" is a really poor argument. As is "if Bernie had backed down, she'd be fine", as well. Silver gave that a 1. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 21, 2017 |
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:28 |
|
Boon posted:Yeah sure, Trump truly is the worst and Clinton doesn't really need to be discussed further because we all understand how bad she is, but it wasn't even all that long ago that we were discussing how on the ropes the GOP was federally, how much of a civil war they were in, how the electoral college was stacked against them. And at the time between 2008 and 2014 it was all true. To pick the 2016 election out and call the entire party broken despite having all the same people who led the 2008 and 2012 elections is just highly suspect to me. I'm not even convinced that the GOP isn't still on the ropes. The complete dysfunctional nature of them right now in congress is not a healthy indicator of their future. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:What about Bernie Sanders? He could have won, from what I've heard.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:29 |
|
Boon posted:I think where you and I diverge is that I sincerely, truly, do not believe that the US can exist as a country if the Democrats do not attempt to maintain the order and the laws of our institutions and instead shift to a hyper-partisan mentality. Yeah if the institutions are rotting and need to be replaced or see heavy structural repairs being the person who just prevents them from toppling now will not be enough.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:30 |
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/ValeriePlame/status/910884546723196929 isn't she the cia operative the repubs outed during the bush admin? in any case, extremely yikes opinion.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:31 |
|
theflyingorc posted:Nate Silver completely disagrees with you about this: The most wrong part of the post is actually the part where he thinks Trump knew something
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:32 |
|
Taerkar posted:He could have won, from what I've heard. Elaborate.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:33 |
|
Boon posted:I think where you and I diverge is that I sincerely, truly, do not believe that the US can exist as a country if the Democrats do not attempt to maintain the order and the laws of our institutions and instead shift to a hyper-partisan mentality. the answer is to shift your positions. the problem is that both parties primarily only serve a small slice of the american electorate. by reaching out to the people and giving them the things they really want then the democrats can accrue more votes. if they start winning elections then the republicans will have to change or face being powerless. i think the reason the republicans were able to bounce back after we were all sure they were done for after obama's election is because obama managed to disappoint huge swaths of his supporters. the dems were never able to move in and make the killing blow because their intention was never to give the people what they wanted like: UHC, no more wars, an end to the surveillance state and the increasing militarization in general (ending the GWoT), getting money out of politics, punishing those responsible for the economic crash, and reducing inequality now i admit, there is much misunderstanding on what obama actually stood for during the 2008 campaign. a lot of people, including myself, thought he would be more liberal or left or whatever than he actually way because a lot of people got into him really early when he was saying much more revolutionary stuff and by the time he was walking a lot of that back people weren't really keeping up with him because they assumed they already knew what he was all about. anyway, i see the answer as "more democracy." actually appealing to the poor and working classes and providing vision and leadership that would convince a lot of people that voting for the dems would actually make things better. but to do that means challenging the status quo which means going up against the media and monied interests who have a lot of power and will attack you viciously for it. but this last election showed us that their power is not unlimited. the forces arraigned against trump failed to stop him. even fox news was questioning him to no avail. hillary out-raised trump 2-1 but that didn't change the outcome. i think trump is abhorrent, but he said things that really resonated with people, like getting "better deals" which is obviously vague but people translated that to "reducing the damage globalization is doing," something that is very popular. i admit that its a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. we need more people to change the dems so they attract more people. i see no harm in advocacy because changing people's minds is part of the actual solution. we need to make a hard break from the current policy of mitigation and move to a policy of hard opposition with an attractive alternative. "america's already great" and "only minor tweaks are needed" is not a winning strategy. it doesn't resonate or inspire. i see the path forward as somewhat radical change. change is scary and hard and requires vision and leadership from above along with organization and support from below. the reason things are so bad now is because neither party has an interest in resolving the issues that effect the majority of the electorate. appeal to the masses with the things they want and stick to your guns. change the conversation, something the dems have been atrocious at for as long as i can remember. like, there's a reason bernie and trump were so appealing. people desperately want change but there is no viable outlet for it
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:36 |
|
Like, Trump could be best described as stumbling into victory in the Republican primaries and the general election basically by accident partly because his unfiltered horrible opinions resonated with enough people and included vague tidbits of hope to people who had none, and mostly because all of his opponents were amazingly incompetent hobgoblins who managed to squander massive campaign budgets, establishment and media support to lose massively.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:37 |
|
I like how a narrow loss including a millions of vote popular victory is a massive loss. Jesus gently caress at least be realistic here. There's numerous tiny changes that would have ended up in a victory such as not having voter suppression.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:40 |
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Like, Trump could be best described as stumbling into victory in the Republican primaries and the general election basically by accident partly because his unfiltered horrible opinions resonated with enough people and included vague tidbits of hope to people who had none, and mostly because all of his opponents were amazingly incompetent hobgoblins who managed to squander massive campaign budgets, establishment and media support to lose massively. It's still crazy that basically any of the real contenders in the Republican Primary could have beaten Trump if they hadn't been splitting the "not actively cheering for the death of black people OUT LOUD" contingent among themselves. If it had just been Rubio V Trump or JEB V Trump or god forbid Cruz v Trump, I think he loses every time.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:40 |
|
Boon posted:Yeah sure, Trump truly is the worst and Clinton doesn't really need to be discussed further because we all understand how bad she is, but it wasn't even all that long ago that we were discussing how on the ropes the GOP was federally, how much of a civil war they were in, how the electoral college was stacked against them. Right, but the way that they got off the ropes and back in control of the government was by a pretty radical shift in their messaging and the way they played politics. They jettisoned any pretense at being bipartisan in Congress, and went full-on economic populist in their messaging (even if the substance of what they were selling was distinctly anti-populist). I'm not saying the Democrats need to mirror them step-for-step, in terms of how whacked-out anti-partisan they've gotten, but there's a lot of room for the Democrats to, for want of a better phrase, sack up. quote:Let me note that I'm not saying there are not problems with the Democrats, and once again, that much of my disagreements with posters is more on procedural grounds. I think, Majorian, you fall into this category anytime we post at one another as I generally agree with you. I appreciate that, and I think that's probably true. Taerkar posted:I'm not even convinced that the GOP isn't still on the ropes. The complete dysfunctional nature of them right now in congress is not a healthy indicator of their future. Well, but here's the flip-side of that: what if the Republicans didn't have a complete and utter moron as President? Without that variable, I think it's pretty likely that the ACA would be very dead by now. Jaxyon posted:I like how a narrow loss including a millions of vote popular victory is a massive loss. I think people referring to a massive loss are talking about the last decade of bad elections for the Dems, not just 2016. Also, let's face it: our nominee lost to an extremely weak candidate, and we did worse in downticket races than expected. It was a pretty bad loss.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:41 |
|
Sorry about the lack of details but I'm phone posting -- i just saw on CNN that China has agreed to stop doing business with with banks in North Korea or something to that effect? That seems like a huge deal on China's part...
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:42 |
|
Taerkar posted:I'm not even convinced that the GOP isn't still on the ropes. The complete dysfunctional nature of them right now in congress is not a healthy indicator of their future. it's amazing how the gop can be such a smoking disorganized mess when they supposedly have majority control in every branch and the the majority of state governments, if they were at all competent, they'd be lining us all up to go into their free-market death camps by now
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:42 |
|
Majorian posted:Delve into this a bit. In what way would a Democratic shift into a hyper-partisan mentality destroy American institutions to a degree in which they haven't already been destroyed by Republican hyper-partisanship? I think that in order for the Democrats to shift to this position they would necessarily have to instill the same messaging in their constituency that the GOP has in theirs, that there is no working with the opposition, that anyone who does not toe the line is to be primaried, and that the GOP is the enemy at all costs and nothing good can from them, that they cannot be worked with, full stop. I think for the Democrats to openly engage in the same positioning is a general acceptance that the system is no longer functional and that it cannot be functional in the future - it's essentially closing down the embassies. At that point I think that it is an unshakable cycle which cannot be broken without a massive failure of government or external force. I'm talking a Great Depression, a World War, or other some such calamitous event that would directly pain Americans and represent an existential threat to the country itself. I don't know how a revolution could happen in the US currently because of the geographic divides. However, I think with the Democrats still 'at the table' so to speak, there is the possibility to avoid going down that road. To Crowsbeak's point that's generally true, but government isn't a building. You can move operations and people out of a building, you can't do that with government. If CMS stops payments for a brief period of time, people die. The most evil thing, in my mind, that the GOP ever did, was build the idea that government doesn't work - you will hear GOP reps and senators say random justifications that go unchallenged but are all essentially the same thing - government doesn't work. Combating that idea must be a priority and remain a priority because the irony is that as things get more complex every day, strong and benevolent central governance is ever more important. Boon fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Sep 21, 2017 |
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:43 |
|
Majorian posted:Well, but here's the flip-side of that: what if the Republicans didn't have a complete and utter moron as President? Without that variable, I think it's pretty likely that the ACA would be very dead by now.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:43 |
|
AriadneThread posted:it's amazing how the gop can be such a smoking disorganized mess when they supposedly have majority control in every branch and the the majority of state governments, if they were at all competent, they'd be lining us all up to go into their free-market death camps by now The GOP playbook works. The Democrat one doesn't.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:45 |
|
AriadneThread posted:it's amazing how the gop can be such a smoking disorganized mess when they supposedly have majority control in every branch and the the majority of state governments, if they were at all competent, they'd be lining us all up to go into their free-market death camps by now It's not their competence, it's that what they're proposing is obviously terrible to anyone who can think and they were depending on a D president to veto it so they didn't have to worry about promises they couldn't deliver on. Winning the presidency wasn't in their calculations. The only thing they've gotten was Gorsuch.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:45 |
|
Are the Democrats generally good or generally bad? What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal? And which one is good? I thought Hillary Clinton was a leftist. There was a bunch of reports about her being the most left-wing senator on TV and in newspapers.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:45 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm the centrist. Literally comparing leftists to Nazis now? Criticising you can never be legitimate, it's just a lovely gimmick?
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:46 |
|
Majorian posted:I think people referring to a massive loss are talking about the last decade of bad elections for the Dems, not just 2016. No it's just hyperbole on Clinton quote:Also, let's face it: our nominee lost to an extremely weak candidate, and we did worse in downticket races than expected. It was a pretty bad loss. Everyone thought she was going to win, including the 'weak candidate'. She very nearly did, except for some very minor differences that ended up deciding it. I wanted the zombie of Eugene Debs to win in a landslide. Being unrealistic about it does nothing.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:47 |
|
AriadneThread posted:it's amazing how the gop can be such a smoking disorganized mess when they supposedly have majority control in every branch and the the majority of state governments, if they were at all competent, they'd be lining us all up to go into their free-market death camps by now the major contributor to GOP control is that our system of portioning out political representation was designed in an era when the majority of people lived spread across the land, where today increasingly people cluster into metropolitan areas and so the 10% of rural americans enjoy massive advantages in terms of political power
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:48 |
|
Jaxyon posted:I like how a narrow loss including a millions of vote popular victory is a massive loss. great to hear we've still got the senate, the- oh, bother. welcome to realism. when your strategy finds a way to lose white women in an election vs. a guy caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault, it needs changing.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:49 |
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Sorry about the lack of details but I'm phone posting -- i just saw on CNN that China has agreed to stop doing business with with banks in North Korea or something to that effect? They've said they're going to limit financial transactions with them. I'm not sure what the details are, but it's definitely a welcome move. theflyingorc posted:I'm not sure how much of that is Trump himself, and how much of it is that people don't want to lose the things it provides. Back at the first failed house bill, the consensus was that they didn't want to ever vote on a bill at all, and he's the only reasons they went for it and maybe the only reason they went for it a second time. Well, that's my point, though: had the Republicans been working with a less idiotic, more self-controlled president, they probably would have had more time to put something together that was less easy for leftists and centrists to unite against. They also probably would have been able to work the levers of Senate and House procedure more effectively. It really is a miracle that the Republicans only gained as much power as they have with a president so thoroughly committed to shooting himself and his compatriots in the foot.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:49 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:welcome to realism. when your strategy finds a way to lose white women in an election vs. a guy caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault, it needs changing. it also helps if the majority of americans disapprove of sexual assault
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:50 |
|
Inescapable Duck posted:The GOP playbook works. The Democrat one doesn't. i don't understand how this is a response to what i said theflyingorc posted:It's not their competence, it's that what they're proposing is obviously terrible to anyone who can think and they were depending on a D president to veto it so they didn't have to worry about promises they couldn't deliver on. but isn't failing to capitalize on an unexpected win a massive failure on their part? if i was a football man, and i got the ball and unexpectedly broke through the lines to have a clear shot at a touchdown, wouldn't i rightly be called a massive loving idiot if i ran around in circles like a panicked idiot because i had only planned to wait out the clock on the game?
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:50 |
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/ValeriePlame/status/910884546723196929 there's a discussion to be had about the roots of neoconservatism in reactionary anti-communist russian and eastern european jewish immigrant communities who otherwise helped form the backbone of the american left in the mid-20th century, but that sure ain't how you do it
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:50 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 09:35 |
|
Jaxyon posted:No it's just hyperbole on Clinton It shouldn't have been close. Come on, now. The Muppets On PCP posted:there's a discussion to be had about the roots of neoconservatism in reactionary anti-communist russian and eastern european jewish immigrant communities who otherwise helped form the backbone of the american left in the mid-20th century, but that sure ain't how you do it Yeah, that's a shame. I had a lot of respect for her, but holy moly...
|
# ? Sep 21, 2017 18:50 |