|
Trabisnikof posted:Again, you love to pull the "don't you understand politics" line while also fundamentally mistaking something about politics. Its a pretty good gimmick. I'm saying you don't get it, because you fundamentally don't get it at all. Whether you win the vote or not is immaterial, if the bill isn't going to pass what you're doing is political theatre no matter on what level your opponents block it. The practical difference in outcome is zero. poo poo, the corollary to the fact that the way to win is to energize the base is that the way to losing is demoralizing the base, and there are few things that are as demoralizing as seeing that your elected representatives won't even bother trying because they're afraid of losing. The gently caress kinda inspirational message does that send? "We'll fight for you when a more convenient season arrives"? And then you lot marvel at the GOP base turning out every four years like clockwork while getting super confused why the Dem base doesn't work that way.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I am. I'm not seeing very many people with a take on Obama as negative as readingatwork's. Yeah, even I’ll admit that the majority opinion is Obama was a well intentioned technocrat who wanted to do good things but was thwarted by the wily Republicans and Blue Dogs (Over and over and over. Due to rules the Democrats could have lifted at any time. Even on things he had unilateral authority over.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm saying there's a good chance that he was bluffing, and that Obama and Reid could probably have exerted more pressure on him than they did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Or they could have just exploited the rules in a different way to bring the ACA to a simple majority vote. You know, like the Republicans did with their tax bill
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And that sort of attitude would leave any party far short of a majority. Say if the Republicans did that, they'd have already kicked out the freedom caucus and all the moderate members too. doubtful. blue dogs don't actually seem to be necessary to get seats in red states so what's your reasoning for this? why do we need dems that vote with trump more often than not like manchin? why do we need dems who profit off raising prices on lifesaving medication like manchin?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:doubtful. blue dogs don't actually seem to be necessary to get seats in red states so what's your reasoning for this? why do we need dems that vote with trump more often than not like manchin? why do we need dems who profit off raising prices on lifesaving medication like manchin? You're referring to the Mylan scandal with his daughter, correct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You're referring to the Mylan scandal with his daughter, correct? yep i also don't see why we need dems like manchin who side with trump on whether football players kneeling should be retaliated against
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Or they could have just exploited the rules in a different way to bring the ACA to a simple majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yep It looks like Swearengin is running against him. I'm curious what that primary is going to look like. The state broke pretty hard for Bernie on the D side so she might have a shot, but I don't know what the general would look like for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/jim_newell/status/943249399135850496 Third party is still never an option, correct? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Infiltrate the DNC. subvert its values. laugh about it at DSA meetings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Radirot posted:Third party is still never an option, correct? Not electorally no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It looks like Swearengin is running against him. I'm curious what that primary is going to look like. The state broke pretty hard for Bernie on the D side so she might have a shot, but I don't know what the general would look like for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/jim_newell/status/943249399135850496 Anyone remember when there was that one Democratic rep from Illinois, I think it was, who had a lot of Latino constituents, and he was super-dissatisfied with Pelosi's and Schumer's promises on making a DACA deal with Trump? And how up-in-arms centrist Dems got about it? And how much they were cheering Pelosi for beating him into submission? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If she doesn't have a shot in the general, then Manchin is going to get his rear end kicked. He's got the incumbency advantage plus his pretty sizable list of connections in state, and polling has been pretty kind to him so far. He's also going to have party money behind him in the primary, most likely, since it's an "at-risk" seat. But again the state broke hard for Bernie so who knows what could happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Anyone remember when there was that one Democratic rep from Illinois, I think it was, who had a lot of Latino constituents, and he was super-dissatisfied with Pelosi's and Schumer's promises on making a DACA deal with Trump? And how up-in-arms centrist Dems got about it? And how much they were cheering Pelosi for beating him into submission?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:He's got the incumbency advantage plus his pretty sizable list of connections in state, and polling has been pretty kind to him so far. He's also going to have party money behind him in the primary, most likely, since it's an "at-risk" seat. But again the state broke hard for Bernie so who knows what could happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Ellison is not ready for a Presidential run. He should run for a Senate seat first. gently caress that, Speaker of the House. If you have seniority then you might as well use it. Chomskyan posted:Or they could have just exploited the rules in a different way to bring the ACA to a simple majority vote. ACA was the Senate bill and passed by 60 votes. AHCA was the House bill. After Brown took Kennedy's seat the House passed the ACA and what I think was the 2011 reconciliation bill was used to increase funding in the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Is this lovely tax bill going to pass tonight or what
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Anyone remember when there was that one Democratic rep from Illinois, I think it was, who had a lot of Latino constituents, and he was super-dissatisfied with Pelosi's and Schumer's promises on making a DACA deal with Trump? And how up-in-arms centrist Dems got about it? And how much they were cheering Pelosi for beating him into submission? if you read the article (and remember some things I originally didn't about the continuing resolution ongoing kerfuffle) they're prioritizing CHIP because it's expiring in January and if they can't jam DACA through simultaneously with CHIP, DACA goes to the January fight, because DACA expires in March I'm undecided on whether admitting this in advance is a good strategic decision, and I hope the recalcitrant Senators get their arms twisted until they come off at the elbow, but it's not as bad as it sounds
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Oh wait, they're going to pass it tomorrow. Nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:if you read the article (and remember some things I originally didn't about the continuing resolution ongoing kerfuffle) they're prioritizing CHIP because it's expiring in January and if they can't jam DACA through simultaneously with CHIP, DACA goes to the January fight, because DACA expires in March CHIP expiring will lead to children dying. Btw, Medicare for All needs to have permanent funding or else a future Congress will just forget to fund it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah his main advantage in the primary will be the party putting their thumb on the scale against the will of the people, and his main in the general compared to Swearengin is that, should she win the primary, the party will not invest the resources in her race that they would have if Manchin had won. Which is a good reason to support her in the primary anyway, and to send the Democratic leadership to forced labor camps in Alaska for a few years. West Virginia primary races have historically had some entertaining results that make me a bit leery of assuming they'll go for a progressive. That said, Manchin is slime, so if he can be replaced with an upgrade, it'd be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:if you read the article (and remember some things I originally didn't about the continuing resolution ongoing kerfuffle) they're prioritizing CHIP because it's expiring in January and if they can't jam DACA through simultaneously with CHIP, DACA goes to the January fight, because DACA expires in March Am I supposed to pay close attention to what the Democrats say they're going to do, like force the DACA issue by year's end, or what they actually do, like not force the issue? It's hard to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
karthun posted:CHIP expiring will lead to children dying. Btw, Medicare for All needs to have permanent funding or else a future Congress will just forget to fund it. Correct and correct? Like, that's why I can see the argument for "CHIP is a more important priority right now and anyway we can fight about DACA
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
I like how even the milquetoastiest of milquetoast centrists, like the Pod Save America guys, have said that democrats as a party don't have a reason to exist if they don't fight for DACA and CHIP, but here that is apparently too radical for USPOL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:if you read the article (and remember some things I originally didn't about the continuing resolution ongoing kerfuffle) they're prioritizing CHIP because it's expiring in January and if they can't jam DACA through simultaneously with CHIP, DACA goes to the January fight, because DACA expires in March I hope you're right, but it certainly makes Gutierrez seem less out-of-line for questioning Pelosi's strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:doubtful. blue dogs don't actually seem to be necessary to get seats in red states so what's your reasoning for this? why do we need dems that vote with trump more often than not like manchin? why do we need dems who profit off raising prices on lifesaving medication like manchin? To protect him from tax raises. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I hope you're right, but it certainly makes Gutierrez seem less out-of-line for questioning Pelosi's strategy. Yeah, that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It looks like Swearengin is running against him. I'm curious what that primary is going to look like. The state broke pretty hard for Bernie on the D side so she might have a shot, but I don't know what the general would look like for her. she is, and she's great. she's an environmental activist and mother from the state, and she's trying to fight the big coal companies that are poisoning the populace. i'm really rooting for her
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I like how even the milquetoastiest of milquetoast centrists, like the Pod Save America guys, have said that democrats as a party don't have a reason to exist if they don't fight for DACA and CHIP, but here that is apparently too radical for USPOL. More like this setback isn't enough to declare everyone involved persona non grata.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah his main advantage in the primary will be the party putting their thumb on the scale against the will of the people, and his main in the general compared to Swearengin is that, should she win the primary, the party will not invest the resources in her race that they would have if Manchin had won. Considering the dems are going to "intentionally" tank the 2018 elections so they don't actually have to try and impeach Trump, a lack of resources will probably happen regardless of who runs in WV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Considering the dems are going to "intentionally" tank the 2018 elections so they don't actually have to try and impeach Trump It is practically impossible for "the dems" to intentionally tank the 2018 elections for their side. Scare quotes because I have no idea who you are referring to with this conspiracy theory. Is it a joke? Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:It is practically impossible for "the dems" to intentionally tank the 2018 elections for their side. Scare quotes because I have no idea who you are referring to with this conspiracy theory. Is it a joke? this is generally koop's gimmick, trying to plumb the limits of despair that will go without comment. smile, nod, and move on, is my opinion
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
The Net Neutrality repeal coupled with this appallingly lovely Tax Bill will gently caress republicans in the 2018 midterms. A republican losing in the reddest of republican shitholes like Alabama has fully convinced me of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The Net Neutrality repeal coupled with this appallingly lovely Tax Bill will gently caress republicans in the 2018 midterms. A republican losing in the reddest of republican shitholes like Alabama has fully convinced me of this. The reason why I'm not particularly heartened by this is that the democrats won't do anything about the neoliberal shithole the world is living in right now. There won't be some leftist resurgence there wont be a New Deal 2.0 which SHOULD have been rammed through congress when Obama had his majority. What America fails to realize is that all that talk about compromise etc isn't incompetence- it's intent. They're doing it on purpose. This is not a party that cares for the plight of the working class, the unions or black people. They're just electoral pawns. It doesn't matter which party is in charge because they are both run by the same kinds of people. Republicans are the drunken deadbeat abusive father who spends child welfare cheques on booze. Democrats are the mother who forgets you in the car on a 100 degree day, or doesn't vaccinate you because they think it causes autism. In both cases the country isn't getting what it needs to properly function. And it never will because it has been bought and whored out to the highest bidders and the veneral diseases of wealth inequality and racism will undo everything this country has built since the Eisenhower administration. Rampant debt is the crystal meth that completes this entire metaphor. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The Net Neutrality repeal coupled with this appallingly lovely Tax Bill will gently caress republicans in the 2018 midterms. A republican losing in the reddest of republican shitholes like Alabama has fully convinced me of this. the republicans losing doesn't mean we win, unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Ellison is not ready for a Presidential run But trump was?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The reason why I'm not particularly heartened by this is that the democrats won't do anything about the neoliberal shithole the world is living in right now. Oh, I agree. No argument there. The Democratic party needs to be renamed to the Undemocratic Party until they at least get rid of superdelegates altogether. Neoliberal influence would still flourish among the party, no doubt, but at least it would give voters more power in the primaries by energizing the socialist wing of the party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:, but I don't know what the general would look like for her. Just shoot some guns and don't talk about abortion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:25
|
|
