|
Chilichimp posted:I'm just saying, I hope you get what you wish for without a monkey's paw finger curling. It can't be bad if other people are doing it too! 
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/930205906637291521 In which Alan Greenspan is dug back out of the grave for a few brief seconds of infamy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Associating with Trump last year and getting in deep with the Clinton conspiracy scene made Broaddrick politically toxic, I doubt we'll ever see her claims widely accepted so long as she and Bill are actually alive and it will always remain a tribal political thing despite the implications it has for American feminism. I just want to say, you're doing a lot of really good posting lately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I'm just saying, I hope you get what you wish for without a monkey's paw finger curling. I really hope she hammers him over his fat loving head for this, and it sticks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Also, nobody wants senators sucking up to banks. Well nobody outside the richest 0.1% anyway. Manchin will eventually lose to a Republican if he keeps stabbing his constituents in the back this way, so it's not *wets lips, pushes glasses up nose, clicks tongue* ~~prag-mat-tick~~ to keep running people like Manchin who build up sorry voting records and alienate more and more of their support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:I just want to say, you're doing a lot of really good posting lately. I'm glad you think so. I try.  Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/930205906637291521 Mark Warner may be poo poo (I'm not familiar) but this isn't a bad lay out of why the tax cuts are bad from the perspective of your average person, i.e. "tax cuts will only go to rich people, won't spur business growth, and even prominent Republicans say it's bad." He's implicitly accepting Republican framing and I think that's a bad thing but in this political moment laying out reasons for why the tax cut shouldn't pass and accomplishing that goal is more important than how they rhetorically accomplish that, to a point, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:They're excellent at politics. They get rich as poo poo and have no accountability. The Democrats have no positions or principles other than playing the babyface to the GOP's heel. They constantly work together to suppress leftism and populist dissent. You can't fight a party exclusively for the rich overclass with another party exclusively for the rich overclass. Under the vegetable posted:Being online 24 hours a day has broken people's loving brains. You bet it has.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It can't be bad if other people are doing it too! Why yes, friendo. That's exactly the point I was going for. edit: Actually, no, it wasn't... I said I'm disappointed in the democrats... but it's weird to SINGLE OUT JOE MANCHIN for the party failing on a major policy position. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Being online 24 hours a day has broken people's loving brains. Like that's the only thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Why yes, friendo. That's exactly the point I was going for. I don't think it's weird at all, because Joe Manchin has the worst record of all of them. If you think it's unbalanced feel free to balance it some by slamming Tim Kaine et al and supporting primary challengers rather than trying to silence criticism of pollutionist, child-poisoner, and all-around evil corporate overlord Joe Manchin
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:They're excellent at politics. They get rich as poo poo and have no accountability. The Democrats have no positions or principles other than playing the babyface to the GOP's heel. They constantly work together to suppress leftism and populist dissent. You can't fight a party exclusively for the rich overclass with another party exclusively for the rich overclass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think it's weird at all, because Joe Manchin has the worst record of all of them. I've not been attempting to silence criticism of Joe Manchin, in this particular instance I'm hoping for broader loving outrage. I hope WV gets a democrat further to the left than Joe Manchin, but I'm also fearful it'll just put the Senate out of reach. I can feel those two things at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I've not been attempting to silence criticism of Joe Manchin, in this particular instance I'm hoping for broader loving outrage. Chilichimp posted:I hope WV gets a democrat further to the left than Joe Manchin, but I'm also fearful it'll just put the Senate out of reach. I can feel those two things at once. I am fearful that Manchin's betrayal of West Virginians on issue after issue will put the senate out of reach, because the more Democrats betray their principles for corporate donations the more the state party has crumbled in WV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh all right then. Yeah, the endgame here is just getting a Republican. If we're to accept any degree of regressive garbage for the sake of WV political pragmatism (which I'm not sure I do) then I would expect Manchin to be terrible on things like women's issues, gay rights, and energy policy (which he is). Being bad on banking regulations is just him going Bad Dem, and I can't come up with any excuse for some of the poo poo he pulls like voting to confirm the shittiest cabinet appointees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
I have a dumb question. Couldn't Republicans just have repealed the Byrd rule? Why are they so worried about adhering to it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I have a dumb question. Couldn't Republicans just have repealed the Byrd rule? Why are they so worried about adhering to it? They need it to obstruct future Democratic legislation should Democrats retake congress and the presidency. Without the Byrd rule we would have gotten the public option. Of course, we can never rule out that Democrats' first action upon retaking power might be to put the Byrd rule right back because it's a very useful excuse for Democrats to, say, not pass the public option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
I think there are probably still some that might consider the optics of such a move as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Yeah, the endgame here is just getting a Republican. If we're to accept any degree of regressive garbage for the sake of WV political pragmatism (which I'm not sure I do) then I would expect Manchin to be terrible on things like women's issues, gay rights, and energy policy (which he is). Being bad on banking regulations is just him going Bad Dem, and I can't come up with any excuse for some of the poo poo he pulls like voting to confirm the shittiest cabinet appointees. Yeah exactly. I get the argument that we have to compromise on issues that are unpopular in WV like women's rights (I don't necessarily agree, after all Dukakis won the state and Bill won it twice, so it obviously is possible to win in WV owithout compromising on social justice), but helping banks to rob us and then collapse the economy in a gamblers' orgy of greed and fraud is horrifically unpopular, and yet for some reason the establishment tries to conflate horribly unpopular grifting with pragmatically taking the immoral but popular side on local issues 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Democrats are trying to mobilize opposition to the Republican tax plan, but nobody seems to care all that much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I've not been attempting to silence criticism of Joe Manchin, in this particular instance I'm hoping for broader loving outrage. I hope WV gets a democrat further to the left than Joe Manchin, but I'm also fearful it'll just put the Senate out of reach. I can feel those two things at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ, you know politicians with a (D) next to their name are usually not actually quite as bad as the ones with an (R) next to it, but Democratic voters who care for nothing more than running up the score and beating the other team 51-49 in a squeaker, and to hell with what actual policy comes out of that, are as bad as Republican voters who reflexively vote (R) no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Associating with Trump last year and getting in deep with the Clinton conspiracy scene made Broaddrick politically toxic, I doubt we'll ever see her claims widely accepted so long as she and Bill are actually alive and it will always remain a tribal political thing despite the implications it has for American feminism. i don't think it has to be that way. i don't know, broaddrick's case itself doesn't matter as much as the overall hypocrisy of the situation and I hope eventually dems can come to terms with the fact that bill clinton is most likely a rapist or at least comitted sexual assault, and that they eventually can discuss it without it being about the the broader clinton conspiracies or the tribalism of the moment. maybe you're right and that's impossible though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I have a dumb question. Couldn't Republicans just have repealed the Byrd rule? Why are they so worried about adhering to it? To get into more detail than what's been said: the Byrd rule is all about both crippling keynesian policy in favor of strengthening austere politics, which the majority of american politicians subscribe to. Repealing the Byrd rule makes it easier for a more leftist government in the future to push the former and not the latter, which the majority of either party is none too interested in doing. In the short term it would be convenient for reps to get rid of it, but in the long term that damages the bipartisan Debt narrative that both parties have cultivated. If the rule is removed and a debt incurring budget was passed which then had no reprecussions, it becomes all the easier to ask "why dont we have UHC? Why is social security in shambles? Why are our schools rotting away?". Just to provide an example without any intention of dredging up the primaries, think of the articles that accused Bernie of being economically inept because his proposed platform wasn't costed in the short term, whereas Clinton's comparatively minor platform was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Does anyone have a standard anti-tax bill e-mail I can send to my legislators? Is there a good source to find this type of thing? I am going to e-mail my congressmen and senators and would like a concise message to send them. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Jesus loving Christ, you know politicians with a (D) next to their name are usually not actually quite as bad as the ones with an (R) next to it, but Democratic voters who care for nothing more than running up the score and beating the other team 51-49 in a squeaker, and to hell with what actual policy comes out of that, are as bad as Republican voters who reflexively vote (R) no matter what. You've got it completely backwards. People aren't locking horns and voting D regardless if whatever policy comes out of it. People are horrified about R policy, mobilizing, and voting D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're a male and white, kilroy
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You've got it completely backwards. People aren't locking horns and voting D regardless if whatever policy comes out of it. People are horrified about R policy, mobilizing, and voting D. I mean, we've had plenty of people in past iterations of this thread defend Lieberman and Minchin types as being the only possible D's that could win in their states. And I agree with him, if we're going to take for granted that X amount of bigotry is required to win Y state, we should find cases where that's not true and either push the politician on those issues or find a new senator without those issues. I heavily doubt banking regulation is a make/break topic for WV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If the Dems get 51 seats in the Senate, and one of those seats is occupied by Joe Manchin's fat, sweaty rear end, then it is out of reach. We get the maj leader, chair all the committees and can block bullshit legislation from the house. It's not as good as 51 without Joe Manchin, but it's better than 50/50 w/Turtleneck as maj leader and Pence doing tie breaker. edit: Collins is gonna gently caress-off and be the Gov of Maine next year, so the safe "republican who block evil bullshit" is gonna be gone. Kilroy posted:Jesus loving Christ, you know politicians with a (D) next to their name are usually not actually quite as bad as the ones with an (R) next to it, but Democratic voters who care for nothing more than running up the score and beating the other team 51-49 in a squeaker, and to hell with what actual policy comes out of that, are as bad as Republican voters who reflexively vote (R) no matter what. The damage Joe Manchin can do in the Senate isn't even loving close to the damage a lock-step republican majority can do, man, and it's not about "RUNNING UP THE SCORE". Do you even know what that means? It's about playing for the loving stalemate at this point, because as of right now we're -losing- and the stakes are pretty hilariously loving high. So yeah, I'm with you, Joe can gently caress off, but I'm STILL CONCERNED about the effect that has on the control of congress. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Democrats are trying to mobilize opposition to the Republican tax plan, but nobody seems to care all that much. We're the party that made the Bush tax cuts permanent and that's solution to income inequality is tax credits for small businesses. We're the party of billionaire capitalists and other people that are "doing well." We're the party that's currently fighting to deregulate the Wall Street banks and loving loan sharks. Why won't people listen to us when we say we're the party of the little guy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Why yes, friendo. That's exactly the point I was going for. It's almost like the Dems are an obstacle to progressive reform
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:We get the maj leader, chair all the committees and can block bullshit legislation from the house. She's not. Collins announced about a month ago that she's staying in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:We get the maj leader, chair all the committees and can block bullshit legislation from the house. why? why do you immediately assume that the greater evil joe manchin is a better choice than the lesser evil paula swearengin? why do you wring your hands about the greater evil not being selected? i thought you guys were all about voting for the lesser evil, but when it comes to primaries you're pulling for the greater evil every single time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:We get the maj leader, chair all the committees and can block bullshit legislation from the house. Yeah, the tremendous importance of simply being in the majority is often overlooked. You wouldn’t get bloggers confirmed to lifetime judgeships, because they’d get squashed in committee. Pence has already had to break more 50/50 ties than any first year VP. Schumer could pull a McConnell and just not have the truly heinous stuff come to the floor. I thought Collins had announced she was staying in the Senate. Did I miss that changing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
These arguments also tend to be extremely disingenuous, because the side unhappy with the Bad Dem is always painted as rather having no dem at all in that seat. When in reality they're saying they should be primaried and held with contempt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why? why do you immediately assume that the greater evil joe manchin is a better choice than the lesser evil paula swearengin? why do you wring your hands about the greater evil not being selected? Here’s the thing: if it turns out that the people of West Virginia actually prefer Manchin to Swearengin in their primary, will you accept that and work to help Manchin get elected in the general?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
In what reality is Manchin good for minorities and women. He voted to put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court to bring back segregation, back alley abortions, and companies treating workers like disposable machinery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:Here’s the thing: if it turns out that the people of West Virginia actually prefer Manchin to Swearengin in their primary, will you accept that and work to help Manchin get elected in the general? you know the answer to that already. the question isn't what i'll do, the question is why you guys aren't sticking to your claimed "always support the lesser evil" principles? why are you choosing to support the greater evil in a race (manchin) over the lesser evil? why are you pretending it's either him vs a republican, or the republican wins by default?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you know the answer to that already. the question isn't what i'll do, the question is why you guys aren't sticking to your claimed "always support the lesser evil" principles? why are you choosing to support the greater evil in a race (manchin) over the lesser evil? why are you pretending it's either him vs a republican, or the republican wins by default? So that’s a no, then? I haven’t really looked at the West Virginia primary. I’d honestly vote for a not-Manchin in a primary, since he’s pretty terrible. But if he’s in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, he’s helpful and I’d work with him there, instead of howling about how evil he is and telling him that he should just go over to the other side already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:So that’s a no, then? You learned literally nothing from Lieberman. They're even both named Joe, this should be easy to connect the dots on!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:So that’s a no, then? Duh. I've said as much before quote:I haven’t really looked at the West Virginia primary. I’d honestly vote for a not-Manchin in a primary, since he’s pretty terrible. But if he’s in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, he’s helpful and I’d work with him there, instead of howling about how evil he is and telling him that he should just go over to the other side already. Swearengin is not a "not manchin", she's actually really good and it'd behoove you to check out her campaign As for the rest of your tripe, no, electing bank fellating dems only weakens us. And I feel no regret not supporting manchin since the party is already putting their thumb on the scale for him Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:30
|
|