|
It slays how me how the newest addition to the gaggle of pricks in the democratic portion of the senate decided to hop onto the financial deregulation train just to steer the whole thing off a cliff. Just slap enough platitudes into your platform so nobody notices when you decide to ruin their lives at a later date for ~reasons~
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Radish posted:I watched eight years of Republicans making it so Obama couldn't do anything and now reading about Democrats are not only NOT filibustering new banking deregulations but the loving former VP candidate is helping them pass it. "Lesser evil" my rear end they are the good cop to the republican bad cop at this point. I remember getting screamed at a month ago because I was pissed the Democrats publicly abandoned Dreamers as I didn't have enough faith that Schumer had a plan and they totally were going to do something. If it wasn't for the courts the Dreamers would be getting deported tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
Here's the part that is flying under the radar in how terrible this law is: https://ncrc.org/letter-senate-section-104-s-2155-undermines-fair-lending-oversight-investment-underserved-communities/ When it passes, it will exempt 85% of all banks from having to report on their mortgage lending activities, which would make it impossible to check if lenders are discriminating against certain minority groups or communities. I mean, gee, I wonder why the banks are pushing to repeal these disclosure requirements of data they already collect. It can't be because they clearly want to go back to gouging minority and underserved populations, no sir.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Here's the part that is flying under the radar in how terrible this law is: But it's important to aggressively grill leftists, because they are the true racists waiting to backstab minorities. No, really, gently caress centrism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Another place for people who get shredded in higher traffic threads to say their piece under the radar without danger of getting dunked yet again. Ok, fine, I'm sure this time McConnell wouldn't torch the filibuster 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Another place for people who get shredded in higher traffic threads to say their piece under the radar without danger of getting dunked yet again. Who the gently caress cares if he does, democrats shouldn't be supporting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
I hope they remake cannibal Holocaust and cast Mitch McConnell in it
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Another place for people who get shredded in higher traffic threads to say their piece under the radar without danger of getting dunked yet again. Which thread would you prefer me to repeat my post?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Ok, fine, I'm sure this time McConnell wouldn't torch the filibuster Good I hope he does then we can pass M4A. Oh wait he doesn't have to because Democrats will just vote for his agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
What good is the filibuster if we can literally never use it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
The only point of the filibuster is to give cover to bad politicians and it doesn't even do that as the voters clearly didn't buy that excuse during Obama's terms. If they actually want something they just ignore it since in reality it has no power outside of OPTICS. It's why the "we only had 59 Senators" was just a bad excuse since for some crazy reason the filibuster is apparently powerless to stop a tiny Republican majority. It's going to be super awkward in 2020 if the Democrats say they just don't have the votes to undo many of Trump's policies despite possibly having more Democratic senators than he had Republicans. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:What good is the filibuster if we can literally never use it? Handy excuse for not passing single-payer or the DREAM Act E: My favorite is the "we only had 59 senators" excuse for voting down the DREAM Act even though 3 Republican defectors supported it, reality literally doesn't matter to partisans VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
In terms of social stuff the Manchins of the party and in regards to economics the Mark Warners and Tim Kaines mean that even with 60 Senators they won't be able to pass anything "good." If the Democrats gently caress up and get 60 seats (their sweet spot is enough to be a majority but not enough where they have no excuse for doing nothing) then there is going to be some new "well they only had 58 non-Red State Democrats so you couldn't expect the President to do anything" bullshit instead of the lame excuse for the squandered 2008-2010 when they had a total majority but one seat means they couldn't do anything for real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
We just need to wait until we get 84 Senate seats, and then even after the hall passes go out for red state dems close to reelection and to blue state Dems who like money, we'll finally be able to pass single payer you whiners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
You know, I can't help but wonder how many other Democratic Senators also support this deregulation bill but just don't have to vote for it because it already has enough votes. It's generally in their interest to only supply the minimum number of votes necessary in order to pass unpopular legislation. Part of the reason I think the party should be attacked regardless of the circumstances for either failing to pass good legislation or passing bad legislation (like this) is that it's more or less impossible to prove whether or not the kind of thing I just described actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:other Democratic Senators also support this deregulation bill but just don't have to vote for it because it already has enough votes. Chuck Schumer despite being nominally against the deregulation bill said he's taking a "hands' off" approach and isn't going to whip his caucus at all to defeat it so we can be absolutely sure that this is indeed the case
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We just need to wait until we get 84 Senate seats, and then even after the hall passes go out for red state dems close to reelection and to blue state Dems who like money, we'll finally be able to pass single payer you whiners. This but unironically. That's when we can party split.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This but unironically. That's when we can party split. So in other words never.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Chuck Schumer despite being nominally against the deregulation bill said he's taking a "hands' off" approach and isn't going to whip his caucus at all to defeat it so we can be absolutely sure that this is indeed the case Stuff like this is why when Reconciliation hits with a Democratic Senate and House there is no way they are going to undo half of the stuff in the tax bill this year let alone put in anything good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Another place for people who get shredded in higher traffic threads to say their piece under the radar without danger of getting dunked yet again. Oh Snapple! posted:Who the gently caress cares if he does, democrats shouldn't be supporting it. This is kind of the point Potato. I know you don't generally support these sorts of policies, so can you provide a good reason as to why poo poo like this should not be called out as a "call to action" for the people affected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
If the Democrats can't even be the "lesser" evil and instead vote right along with Republicans on issues like this what the hell is the point? They aren't doing poo poo when they get back into power. Schumer giving the go ahead for his caucus to vote however they wanted makes it very clear how the party stands on this which is "gently caress you," ESPECIALLY after Obama's terms where the banks did whatever they pleased and people had to deal with it. They have learned absolutely nothing except that they are allowed to be as evil as they want, especially now that Trump has pushed the bar for "greater" evil into outright White Supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Turns out the CO caucus is today during the entire time I'm working, welp. Definitely making time for the primary though because gently caress bennet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Vote dem because the republicans are worse, and please ignore when the dems vote for the republican policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Turns out the CO caucus is today during the entire time I'm working, welp. Definitely making time for the primary though because gently caress bennet. Bennet was reelected in 2016. This primary is all about state offices & u.s. reps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vote dem because the republicans are worse, and please ignore when the dems vote for the republican policies. Who is saying that besides you? Primary those fucks every elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Bennet was reelected in 2016. gfdi
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Another place for people who get shredded in higher traffic threads to say their piece under the radar without danger of getting dunked yet again. please stop posting
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Vote dem because the republicans are worse
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Don't vote because your vote doesn't matter and there's literally no way to use a broken system to fix a broken system, so short of a violent uprising, two very similar but marginally different parties will continue to control the United States government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
In the last month the Democratic leadership has been trying its absolute hardest to convince me that's true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Don't vote because your vote doesn't matter and there's literally no way to use a broken system to fix a broken system, so short of a violent uprising, two very similar but marginally different parties will continue to control the United States government. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Radish posted:In the last month the Democratic leadership has been trying its absolute hardest to convince me that's true. Which continues the fine Democratic tradition of trying way too hard to do things that should be easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Don't vote because things staying the same forever or actively getting much much worse is preferable to any level of incremental improvement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter what people ""should"" do, it matters what they actually do. When offered a choice between two indefensibly evil candidates and told they have to agree to one because the other is worse, people actually say "no gently caress that and gently caress you". Complain about it all you like, if you want to change the turnout numbers you need to change what you're offering people because "we can gently caress you over and you can't do anything about it as long as Republicans are worse" aint working.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Complain about it all you like, if you want to change the turnout numbers you need to change what you're offering people because "we can gently caress you over and you can't do anything about it as long as Republicans are worse" aint working. Is it not? Have campaign donations to either party notably decreased? Is a third party creeping up on the Democrats? Are either of the main parties in danger of being replaced? How is the current system "not working" for the elected class exactly? I mean Democrats aren't in power, that's true, but I'd hazard a guess that they will be in a better position after this year and could potentially take the white House back in 2020. Definitely in 2024. Edit: or they never do again? It'll still be like literal decades before anyone else can overtake them, and then we'll just have a new second party that will get fat and complacent eventually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Is it not? Have campaign donations to either party notably decreased? Is a third party creeping up on the Democrats? Are either of the main parties in danger of being replaced? Sure if your definition of "working" is that establishment suits in safe seats continue on in their positions enjoying the corporate money gravy train, while cyclically losing the government to increasingly insane ghouls who loot the country until they gently caress up so bad Democrats win by default, change nothing, and kick off another even worse cycle which burns down even more of the country but that's okay because they prefer ceding the government to fascists over bucking corporate power then yeah the system is "working" just fine, for now. I thought we were taking about "working" meaning consistently winning elections and shutting fascists out of power, not "enjoying two years of power every decade or so spent cleaning up a fraction of the damage, with the rest of the time nutjobs seize up the machinery of government at best and outright control it at worst" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Don't vote because things staying the same forever or actively getting much much worse is preferable to any level of incremental improvement. too bad incremental improvement isn't an option (unless your idea of improvement is deportations) 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When offered a choice between two indefensibly evil candidates and told they have to agree to one because the other is worse, people actually say "no gently caress that and gently caress you". Donald Trump was the most obviously smug lying piece of poo poo with an elementary school level vocabulary probably to ever run for president and millions of people voted for him. He ran on building a wall and "lock her up." His brain dead supporters still literally chant "lock her up" at rallies. Donald Trump won in large part because of "lesser of two evils voting" and is still benefiting from that mentality during his presidency. So this thread is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Donald Trump ran on saying things people wanted to hear, this proves that running a boring stuffed-shirt corporate tool that says "better things are impossible because of people like me, you have to vote for me or Trump will win" is a sure-fire strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
zeroprime posted:Don't vote because things staying the same forever or actively getting much much worse is preferable to any level of incremental improvement. It's kinda hard to say whether the Democrats actually offer net incremental improvement. While you can point to things that incrementally improved things (like the ACA or whatever), you can also point to harmful things they've done (like Clinton's welfare reform or the current financial deregulation), so it's hard to say whether the net result is actually even positive. Spanish Matlock posted:Is it not? Have campaign donations to either party notably decreased? Is a third party creeping up on the Democrats? Are either of the main parties in danger of being replaced? He's talking about whether it's working for the people (like those in this thread) arguing about a lesser-evil approach to voting. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:57
|
|