|
N00ba the Hutt posted:So that’s a no, then? He shouldn't "go to the other side", he should stop stabbing West Virginians in the back before he loses the seat to a Republican, or Libermans the next Democratic government and loses the whole drat country to Republicans like Lieberman did. If he won't stop dicking over West Virginians then he needs to be replaced and luckily we've already got a great person ready to take on the job her name is Paula Swearingen.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Democrats are trying to mobilize opposition to the Republican tax plan, but nobody seems to care all that much. I wonder how much of this is coming from a complacent feeling that the GOP will tear itself apart over this anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I wonder how much of this is coming from a complacent feeling that the GOP will tear itself apart over this anyway. It seems to be a hasty reaction to realizing that suburban voters in VA helped carry the state and extrapolating that to the entire country: quote:“What did suburbia ever do to the Republicans that they now have to make an assault on them?” Pelosi said Monday, speaking in front of signs that read “No middle class tax hike!” and “Don’t tax the suburbs!” Schumer similarly emphasized that Republican members from the “middle-class swing suburbs” were “slapping around” their voters, “and they think they can get away with it. But they can’t.” Basically doubling down on the Panera Bread strategy. Assuming that the Dem base is mostly well off suburban voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:She's not. Collins announced about a month ago that she's staying in the Senate. I can't believe I actually am relieved by that, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
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? I mean... you're missing the point entirely (loving intentionally). Would Paula "Swah-jin" win in West Virgnia? I have no idea. I'm not a loving voter there, I don't know her from Adam, I just -have fear- that a leftist wouldn't win in a purple state. That doesn't mean I don't want her in the Senate over Dunghill Joe. VitalSigns posted:In what reality is Manchin good for minorities and women. At this point, I'm honestly curious what votes he was the deciding vote on in the Senate. He's been standing firm with the caucus on alot of poo poo and breaking ranks to log poo poo votes when it wouldn't have mattered anyway. 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? Because sometimes the lesser evil is having the senate majority, but you're just attacking straw-men at this point hoping for a rhetorical dunk and it's getting pathetic. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
You literally admit you don't know anything about what you're talking about, but assume that the candidate with less horrible policies must automatically be unable to win elections?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:You literally admit you don't know anything about what you're talking about, but assume that the candidate with less horrible policies must automatically be unable to win elections? No, I don't ASSUME that, I'm FEARFUL of it. It makes me NERVOUS. If I was sure, I'd be campaigning for Joe Manchin, and I'm not. I wanna see how this plays out. Hell, if there's gonna be a year to run a more-left candidate in WV it's blue-wave 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
I'm sure the guy who signals for political gain that he wants segregationists and theocrats running the federal government when it wouldn't have made a difference will have minorities' and womens' backs when it's all up to him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:No, I don't ASSUME that, I'm FEARFUL of it. It makes me NERVOUS. If I was sure, I'd be campaigning for Joe Manchin, and I'm not. I wanna see how this plays out. then why be fearful? why not be brave instead? what has fear got you or the dems in the last few decades? massive losses. cowering from republican attacks, backing republican-lites like lieberman, etc has cost the dems power, not helped them in the least! so why are you giving in to self-destructive fear once again and boosting a shitbag like manchin over the lesser evil?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm sure the guy who signals for political gain that he wants segregationists and theocrats running the federal government when it wouldn't have made a difference will have minorities' and womens' backs when it's all up to him. What I -want- isn't on the god drat menu, but I'm trapped in this loving restaurant. I want to leave Georgia so loving bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then why be fearful? why not be brave instead? what has fear got you or the dems in the last few decades? massive losses. cowering from republican attacks, backing republican-lites like lieberman, etc has cost the dems power, not helped them in the least! so why are you giving in to self-destructive fear once again and boosting a shitbag like manchin over the lesser evil? Is Swearingen good or a lesser evil, I honestly can't tell if you're still trying to go for a rhetorical dunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
"You only like Paula Swearingen because you're a privileged straight white cismale" I yell as I stump for a corrupt poor-killing 1%er who loves to pack the federal government with segregationist anti-choice theocrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"You only like Paula Swearingen because you're a privileged straight white cismale" I yell as I stump for a corrupt poor-killing 1%er who loves to pack the federal government with segregationist anti-choice theocrats. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
How about you take five minutes and look up for yourself whether Paula is a 'lesser evil' rather than flailing and panicking at the scary change from the devil you know and demanding validation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted: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? The Democrats may be the boys who cried wolf, but now they’re standing in opposition to tax cuts for the rich subsidized by higher taxes elsewhere and we’re still mad at them? Brony Car posted:I wonder how much of this is coming from a complacent feeling that the GOP will tear itself apart over this anyway. Bleh, I think Pelosi is right. People care about healthcare, but tax plans are boring and unsexy and Republicans are doing a better job of obscuring what they’re doing. If they tie healthcare to the tax bill I expect we’ll see more anger. WampaLord posted:It seems to be a hasty reaction to realizing that suburban voters in VA helped carry the state and extrapolating that to the entire country: I’m not sure this is true, insofar as the Republican tax plan is built specifically on taxing suburban voters to finance rich tax cuts. Note her specific use of “their voters.” To me they’re trying to drive a wedge into the Republican base by asserting that Republicans are betraying that base to appease their donors. Which is essentially true, so, you know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m not sure this is true, insofar as the Republican tax plan is built specifically on taxing suburban voters to finance rich tax cuts. Note her specific use of “their voters.” If you think Republican voters are listening to Nancy Pelosi, then boy, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It seems to be a hasty reaction to realizing that suburban voters in VA helped carry the state and extrapolating that to the entire country: So do you think the party response needs to be more explicitly about the working class as opposed to the middle class? If they had said “working class” instead of suburbia, that would have provoked more protests and calls? My reading of that Slate article is that the general level of voter outrage is lower because Tax Policy changes are hard to explain easily and the proposals aren’t quite set yet. The Democrats are trying to get people riled up, but unless the GOP really walks into a trap by trying to mess with health care through tax code changes, we might not see the mind of outrage that it should get. It’s too bad they can’t set up a calculator telling people how much more they’ll have to pay under the new plan. That’s probably how you get people really involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
This tax reform business is mindboggling because it would be so simple to do a 10-year rate cut where the rich and the corporations get the lions' share with just enough kicked over to the middle class to distract them and it's a win. But no, they have to go full Repub and hike taxes on their own voters just to send even more money to the rich, forever 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:So do you think the party response needs to be more explicitly about the working class as opposed to the middle class? If they had said “working class” instead of suburbia, that would have provoked more protests and calls? I think middle class people aren't going to get up in arms because they're comfortable middle class people and they really don't get up in arms over anything. So, yes, essentially. I think a much better message is to take an anti-1% approach, but that would require Dems attacking their own donors and we can't have that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They need it to obstruct future Democratic legislation should Democrats retake congress and the presidency. Given that the Dems pulled the filibuster for judicial nominations, this is a loving stupid thing to say. You're making up reasons to get mad at the Dems rather than dealing with the reasons that already exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If you think Republican voters are listening to Nancy Pelosi, then boy, I don't know. Maybe not, but what’s the play? If Republicans successfully dodge the Byrd rule it isn’t gonna matter if every Dem votes no. The donor class of the Republican Party wants this bill a lot more than they wanted Obamacare repeal. So what do Republicans fear as much as their donors? Their base. It’s the only reasonable path to sinking the bill I can see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Maybe not, but what’s the play? If Republicans successfully dodge the Byrd rule it isn’t gonna matter if every Dem votes no. The donor class of the Republican Party wants this bill a lot more than they wanted Obamacare repeal. So what do Republicans fear as much as their donors? Their base. The Republican base is going to go to their Right Wing Media bubble and hear about how this is the best tax reform that's ever tax reformed, they're literally going to believe the opposite of anything Nancy Pelosi says. Do you honestly not get how this works yet? If the path to sinking the bill involves making the Republican base educated about something as complicated as tax policy, that's never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The Democrats may be the boys who cried wolf, but now they’re standing in opposition to tax cuts for the rich subsidized by higher taxes elsewhere and we’re still mad at them? It's not an issue of being caremad at the Democrats. It's credibility. You can't expect people to rally behind the Democrats for calling out Republicans for having their head in the cookie jar in between mouthfuls of Oreos as they wipe the crumbs off their greasy hands onto their Hamilton t shirt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The Republican base is going to go to their Right Wing Media bubble and hear about how this is the best tax reform that's ever tax reformed, they're literally going to believe the opposite of anything Nancy Pelosi says. Do you honestly not get how this works yet? No I do, I’m not saying it’s going to work. I just think that, of the available options, it’s not a bad plan. They’re crafting a Those Fuckers/Our Stuff narrative and trying to get somebody the Republicans actually give a poo poo about to stand against the bill. Their other options are just going to end in doomed moral victory. Iron Twinkie posted:It's not an issue of being caremad at the Democrats. It's credibility. You can't expect people to rally behind the Democrats for calling out Republicans for having their head in the cookie jar in between mouthfuls of Oreos as they wipe the crumbs off their greasy hands onto their Hamilton t shirt. I would rather they did something than nothing, and I don’t see the value in making fun of them when they do what I want versus all the times they still do poo poo I don’t want them to do. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Given that the Dems pulled the filibuster for judicial nominations, this is a loving stupid thing to say. You're making up reasons to get mad at the Dems rather than dealing with the reasons that already exist. https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/851512692267405313
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mm yes, well you'd better tell Senator Ed Market (D-MA) it will be news to him. Then why didn't you post this before rather than making it sound like you were just speculating?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Then why didn't you post this before rather than making it sound like you were just speculating? Because he never gets tired of winning. Also lmao that guy is a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is Swearingen good or a lesser evil, I honestly can't tell if you're still trying to go for a rhetorical dunk. by definition, good is a lesser evil than evil 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Then why didn't you post this before rather than making it sound like you were just speculating? I thought it was well-known around here or I would have lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mm yes, well you'd better tell Senator Ed Market (D-MA) it will be news to him. Everyone knows this isn't going to happen. It's just easy for him to come out and say because he thinks there is a constituency...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mm yes, well you'd better tell Senator Ed Market (D-MA) it will be news to him. D E C O R U M
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I would rather they did something than nothing, and I don’t see the value in making fun of them when they do what I want versus all the times they still do poo poo I don’t want them to do. Believe me, I'd rather the Democrats did something to instead of spewed hot air and bullshit. This is nothing. At their core they want the tax cuts for their donors just like the Republicans do. They just want to try and pick up street cred by mewling about how mean the Republicans are about it but that's not good enough. If they want credit for fighting, they need to pick a fight and actually throw a god drat punch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Everyone knows this isn't going to happen. It's just easy for him to come out and say because he thinks there is a constituency... Well there is a reason I said "can't rule it out" and not "probably will happen", I doubt they'd put it back for the Supreme Court It would be more likely with the Byrd rule though because the donors really like austerity and procedural hurdles that derail everything if they can bribe a single Dem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Believe me, I'd rather the Democrats did something to instead of spewed hot air and bullshit. This is nothing. At their core they want the tax cuts for their donors just like the Republicans do. They just want to try and pick up street cred by mewling about how mean the Republicans are about it but that's not good enough. If they want credit for fighting, they need to pick a fight and actually throw a god drat punch. I’m not sure I understand what you want them to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m not sure I understand what you want them to do. Vivisect manchin in the middle of lexington probably
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
We are better for asking the Dems what they are doing constantly because as we've seen they will literally send research groups out to confirmation bias their centrist we should be Republican light narrative.Lightning Knight posted:I’m not sure I understand what you want them to do. VA happened and their interpretation of that was not "oh wow, healthcare and social justice are important to people" it was apparently "look! look! The suburbs are important!" RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:No, I don't ASSUME that, I'm FEARFUL of it. It makes me NERVOUS. If I was sure, I'd be campaigning for Joe Manchin, and I'm not. I wanna see how this plays out. What you should be truly fearful of is people like Manchin, honestly. You're so concerned about the state of play, but that's foolish and short-sighted. You want to look at the trajectory. Electing a Dem who is actively harming support for the party in their home state and abroad, and who is part of a group turning the state solidly red, is bad. Manchin spends his time pushing policies and ideas and behaviours that might make him the only Dem option that can win, but which serve to hurt the party as a whole in the long term. Sometimes it is better to lose going big (and in the process change the way people think about things) than to scrape out a win with a subpar candidate. When the Republicans ran Goldwater, people like you probably would have called it stupidity on their part. There was no way he could win! And he did, in fact, lose - and as a result, the Republican party became the dominant force in politics for years and years. It is better to run someone who loses but puts the party on the right track, the track to ongoing victories in the future, than to cling to what you have as you slowly lose ground by defending people like Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Your premise that running Democrats who, like Manchin, hold policy positions that reflect their constituencies more than woke twitter is making Democrats unpopular is, charitably, kind of weird.
Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Your premise that running Democrats who, like Manchin, hold policy positions that reflect their constituencies more than woke twitter is, charitably, kind of weird. On the flip side of this, who is the WV constituency for being pro-pharma and banks? Some of his shittiness is explained by that, but not all of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Your premise that running Democrats who, like Manchin, hold policy positions that reflect their constituencies more than woke twitter is, charitably, kind of weird. My premise is that continuing to run candidates who are a part of a state political machine that has overseen their state become more and more red is probably a bad idea. At some point you need to try and staunch the bleeding, even if it hurts. They don't need to be "woke twitter", they just need to bring something to the table that might re-energize and grow blue support. Manchin does not. The results speak for themselves on that front. "Reflecting your constituency" is the stupidest garbage on the planet, as if constituencies were uninfluencable monoliths with clear and singular views that conveniently can only be understood by listening exclusively to industry lobbyists, and is just another way to write "lose, completely, but do it slow". Especially when it's used to describe people like Manchin who often act in ways that are not actually good for or reflective of their constituency, but that's just waved away as being unimportant. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:33
|
|