Giggy posted:

I would hardly call the climate change policy of 2008-16 "decent."

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

the part of this post where twice burned ice tells all and sundry you are not to, under any circumstances, make your voice heard outside of the polling place is highlighted, for your convenience.

to take politics anywhere outside of voting would be woefully indecorous, you see.

Phi230 posted:

Oh yeah? What do you do exactly?

Aren't you the moron that accused me of not caring about immigrant kids while I was literally protesting at an ICE facility, because if so that puts your whole "moral superiority" projection into perspective

twice burned ice posted:

Yes, I very specifically said vote and only vote and don't do anything else. Definitely don't join an advocacy group or take personal action.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

that's actually an important question where I chose my wording carefully in the post!

I gather that it is very rare to not make the most senior person (who wants the job and is not ranking member on another committee) ranking member, and merely uncommon to not promote them to chairman when the Senate flips. It is also not automatic.

I'd rather see seniority violated now _{or Cantwell staying on instead of whatever the hell she's doing} but if it's not then it's not quite 'welp we're loving doomed'.

Your Taint posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1070793148870418432

my bony fealty posted:

Yeah I'm not in VA anymore but it'd be hard to justify pulling the lever for Warner in 2020. A primary challenger has zero chance of winning but there needs to be one anyway...Lee Carter is the obvious choice. Danica Roem second, but I don't think she wants to make those waves yet.

Sucks that if Warner retires we'll probably get Senator Northram. Ugh, Virginia being blue is excellent, but all the high-profile VA dems really suck.

twice burned ice posted:

Do you think there's some other time that the American people get to have actual input into what the government does?

twice burned ice posted:

Anyway, my point is that just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I kick puppies, vote republican, or do any of the other things you're sure to accuse me of next.

twice burned ice posted:

Do you think there's some other time that the American people get to have actual input into what the government does?

Your Taint posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1070793148870418432

VitalSigns posted:

Do you really believe that a party unwilling to buck seniority in a purely symbolic vote is going to somehow find the integrity to do it when the full weight of the fossil fuel lobby and their precious donations are coming down hard on Democrats to make a climate denier the chair?

Ogmius815 posted:

Like, just ignore the fact that climate policy during the Obama administration was hamstrung precisely because Democrats lost elections in that period. For example, congress would have passed a climate bill (not a perfect one, but certainly better than what we have) but for the loss of the supermajority in 2010 and subsequent loss of the House. Also (and this is really loving critical) Obama did a lot on climate by executive fiat, and would have been able to do much more but for the right wing Supreme Court (appointed by republicans). Also, all of the major things Obama did get through (the clean power plan comes to mind) are now being undone... because the democratic candidate lost in 2016.

But yeah Dems bad whatever I get it. You have to be the smartest fuckers in the room.

Groovelord Neato posted:

https://twitter.com/badler/status/1070812718565941248

Condiv posted:

remember when obama took a "wait and see" approach on dapl while the oil company was brutalizing protesters?

Nonsense posted:

Somebody make Bush waving at 9/11

Ogmius815 posted:

Like, just ignore the fact that climate policy during the Obama administration was hamstrung precisely because Democrats lost elections in that period. For example, congress might have passed a climate bill (not a perfect one, but certainly better than what we have) but for the loss of the supermajority in 2010 and subsequent loss of the House. Also (and this is really loving critical) Obama did a lot on climate by executive fiat, and would have been able to do much more but for the right wing Supreme Court (appointed by republicans). Also, all of the major things Obama did get through (the clean power plan comes to mind) are now being undone... because the democratic candidate lost in 2016.

But yeah Dems bad whatever I get it. You have to be the smartest fuckers in the room.

Ogmius815 posted:

Like, just ignore the fact that climate policy during the Obama administration was hamstrung precisely because Democrats lost elections in that period. For example, congress might have passed a climate bill (not a perfect one, but certainly better than what we have) but for the loss of the supermajority in 2010 and subsequent loss of the House. Also (and this is really loving critical) Obama did a lot on climate by executive fiat, and would have been able to do much more but for the right wing Supreme Court (appointed by republicans). Also, all of the major things Obama did get through (the clean power plan comes to mind) are now being undone... because the democratic candidate lost in 2016.

But yeah Dems bad whatever I get it. You have to be the smartest fuckers in the room.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Well I'm sure regardless of what the reaction is you'll log in to tut-tut at leftists, as per your programming.

I mean either we'll express disappointment and hope she does better in the future ( <-- fyi, it's this, and it's already happened) in which case you'll be disappointed that we're not raking her over the coals enough to satisfy you, or we'll rake her over the coals and you'll chime in that we were stupid to ever, ever have any hope for anything better, ever.

Yeah I was referring to this. Shimrra Jamaane lives in a world where the only worthwhile politicians are celebrities above reproach - it's why they'll also frequently agitate for Oprah or some poo poo as well. It's team sports same as like with most Republicans only they chose the other side for whatever reason - "policy doesn't matter" personified.

Ogmius815 posted:

Another ridiculous deflection meant to do nothing but display your own supposed righteousness. The left in a nutshell.

Ogmius815 posted:

Like, just ignore the fact that climate policy during the Obama administration was hamstrung precisely because Democrats lost elections in that period. For example, congress might have passed a climate bill (not a perfect one, but certainly better than what we have) but for the loss of the supermajority in 2010 and subsequent loss of the House. Also (and this is really loving critical) Obama did a lot on climate by executive fiat, and would have been able to do much more but for the right wing Supreme Court (appointed by republicans). Also, all of the major things Obama did get through (the clean power plan comes to mind) are now being undone... because the democratic candidate lost in 2016.

But yeah Dems bad whatever I get it. You have to be the smartest fuckers in the room.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Dems: "Guys we will totally do good things but only with a super-majority, the presidency, and a packed court."

Reps: *gets 51 senators* "RAHOWA!!!!"

CubanMissile posted:

While you guys have your activism slap fight, I'll work on doing the only thing that makes a difference: getting rich so I can buy politicians.

Crow Jane posted:

I feel like Skex and Kotex are currently in a contest to be the thread's new get-off-my-lawn guy since Vladimir Putin hasn't reregged

Ogmius815 posted:

Huff does how does the US government work? Is there a difference between being the party that wants to implement major policy changes vs the party that mostly just wants to cut taxes once a year? I don't know because I'm a dumb loving leftist who doesn't vote.

Giggy posted:

Really makes you think.

Ytlaya posted:

There is actual harm associated with treating voting with a disproportionately massive sense of importance. You might claim "but I didn't say don't do anything else!" but in practice voting is drat near all you people talk about.

I would go as far as to say that the whole rhetorical strategy of always focusing on the importance of voting is intended to entrench an inherently hamstrung form of activism that doesn't threaten the status quo (not that I think you and other people using this strategy specifically have this in mind, but I think this is why you see these sort of points brought up by public figures and media).

The particularly funny thing about this topic is that one could make a pretty persuasive argument that yelling on the internet literally accomplishes more than voting. Even that limited source of dialogue (particularly given most people don't live in the states/districts of politicians they're discussing, or live in ones where their own politicians' seats aren't contested) likely has a greater impact. It at least perpetuates discussions about these topics and contributes to a general sense of dissatisfaction among the Democratic base. Which isn't exactly much, but neither is voting most of the time.

CubanMissile posted:

While you guys have your activism slap fight, I'll work on doing the only thing that makes a difference: getting rich so I can buy politicians.

Skex posted:

I'm not trying to tell anyone to get off my lawn. I'm trying to explain why the lawn sucks and save you the pain and frustration of figuring it out on your own. I should know better because it's not like I listened to anyone when I was younger and was spouting most of the same things that people calling me a centrist today are, And it's not like my opinions have shifted so much as I've learned to appreciate the inertia of society and how difficult it really is to shift.

And yes I've done food service and customer facing jobs most of my life. I'm not college educated and I sure as gently caress wasn't born rich. I joined the Marines because money for college wasn't an option , even my current job is network support on the phone the majority of which is customer facing. Jobs I've had in my life though, Worked for my grandfather training quarter horses in my youth, Whattaburger in high school, Dishwasher at a local French Bistro, Pizza hut, the kitchen at Hooters (had a friend who worked there when I got out to the Marines) Sales and warehousing at a Sun and Ski as well as multiple tech jobs after I figured out that my hobby of building computers to play games in the Marines was actually a marketable skill.

So yeah I have a little bit of an idea of what life is like.

It's not like I even disagree on most of the issues or the proposed solutions. My main point is that poo poo is a lot loving harder to do than a lot of people ITT seem to believe. That there is societal inertia to overcome and it's significant. But my main disagreement is this idea that the reason that the Democrats have not managed to enact a perfect progressive socialist agenda is because they are fascists enablers rather than a bunch of unorganized imperfect people trying to do what they think is best for the country. Hell I even think that about most of the people on the Right, I just strongly disagree with what they think is best for the country.

The thing about the age limit on the Presidency is really a loving stupid discussion anyway because not only is it highly unlikely to change for the reasons that have been discussed but that it's also not even loving remotely high on the priority list of things that really need to be addressed. And while the focus should be doing everything loving possible to stop the Fascists we have this circular firing squad bullshit from both the "centrists" and the "leftists" with the centrist thinking not entirely incorrectly that going to radical could actually hurt our chances of thwarting the Fash, and the leftist thinking that the centrists are just closet Nazis themselves.

I think that both of these views are incorrect and that it is entirely possible for reasonable decent people to reach different conclusions because each and every one of us view things through our own filters that were shaped and shaded by our lived experiences each of which are unique.

My time in the Marines for example particularly given that my primary specialty was anti-terrorism naturally leads me to a certain way of looking at foreign policy. The books I've read, the speakers I've listened to and the people who have influenced me lead me to certain conclusions, just as the same will go for each and every one of you posting here.

Now if I come across like I'm a "get off my lawn" type old dude, it's because I've grown impatient with these discussions that never lead anywhere and undermine the possibility of improving things at all. When you have multiple things to do, you have to be able to prioritize, because you can't do everything at once. Hell most of the things we're trying to do are difficult as gently caress just on their own.

The most immediate problem that we face isn't Climate Change or HealthCare or Racism, it's the loving Republican Party and their blatant embrace of Fascism. Their complicit media and the dark money infrastructure behind them. The reason it's the priority is that we can't do anything substantial about those other pressing concerns until they are neutralized and the only way that happens is with solidarity among those who oppose them. Because the way the Elites maintain power is through divide and conquer. There is currently a debate in the Democratic Party and that debate is on how best to defeat the Republicans and take back power. There are two main factions one being the Centrist who believe that the path to victory is through moderation, I don't agree but I don't think that they are evil just because they think that the evidence is certainly there to support their view simply by the fact that they did do well in their primaries suggesting that yes indeed they have the message that resonates. The other faction which I actually consider myself to belong to is the one that thinks that we need more radical and extreme actions on the part of the government and that yes if we actually implemented more traditionally leftist policies (socialized medicine, banks, food, housing) that the people would not simply learn to tolerate them but would actually come to expect and demand them and thus lock the loving Republicans out of power for another 50 years in which time maybe just maybe we can figure out a way not to loving die from climate change.

That said I don't see the value or need for the level of hostility and vitriol that is directed from one camp to the other. Either from Centrists or from the Leftists, also I don't see the value in the "but they did it first" point either. We'd be a gently caress ton better off in general if people would stop with this whole idea that we each specifically have the right answer and that everyone else is stupid or evil. When the reality is that each and every one of us are dumb loving semi-sentient animals doing the best that we can with limited knowledge and limited resources.

It's funny to me that people who like to think of themselves as so tolerant and defenders of the underdogs are so ready to demonize and dehumanize their allies rather than use a little empathy to at least try to understand where they are coming from if for no other reason than to know exactly what you are arguing against so you can be more effective in said arguments.

That was the point of my post yesterday about Obama's drone program. I was attempting to explain the kind of reasoning that goes into such programs. Yet rather than actually engage my points it was just an endless stream of "but what ifs" and "you read too much Tom Clancy" completely ignoring the fact that unlike most of you dealing with terrorism was literally my loving job at one point. Made even more poignant by the fact that we're currently engaged in multiple armed conflicts as a result of a foreign based terrorist attack that could have been lifted right out of a military spy thriller like I'm the one who is detached from reality.

I don't come here to discuss what I think the best policy is, I come here to discuss political news, the consequences of that news and what is likely to happen as a result of it. I don't come here to change the world that's so far outside the scope of what discussions on this board are capable of. I miss the Thunderdome because it kept these discussions quarantined so that those who wanted to have them could, but the rest of us could come here and actually discuss the ramifications of the news.

I also happen to think that some excitement and hope on the left is needed and this endless conspiracy theory that the Democrats are the real fascists/racists/sexists/capitalists etc is so loving destructive to that excitement and enthusiasm that we desperately need to defeat the Right and have any hope of getting things back on a track that isn't going to lead us to extinction.

Because even if the conspiracy theory that the Democrats are secret fascist enablers is true (it's not) what good comes from that? What does that do to change the course of this nation? I'll tell you, gently caress all. The answer in my opinion is to get behind the Democrats and work to get them into power, then once that's done we have to stay on them to keep them on task and be ready to primary them when they fail. But doing it before they achieve any power is pointless.

I also don't believe that lasting positive change can be implemented from the top down. If for no other reason that people get their backs up when someone tells them that they are wrong and that there is this other better way to do things. Which is why I don't believe in this idea that there is some silent majority of leftists just waiting to be activated by the right charismatic leader. So we're stuck in this world where incrementalism isn't just the best option available, it's literally the only one. And yeah I don't know if there will be time to deal with the threats we're currently facing with such incrementalism. What I believe however is that it's our only option and that not taking it only makes it that much less likely for us to stave off the worst. I'm not going to complain if by some strange miracle the people elect a radical leftists government ready to go full communism now, I just don't see it happening.

Lightning Knight posted:

You know this is probably actually a better plan than all the poo poo we've been doing lol.

Skex posted:

That was the point of my post yesterday about Obama's drone program. I was attempting to explain the kind of reasoning that goes into such programs. Yet rather than actually engage my points it was just an endless stream of "but what ifs" and "you read too much Tom Clancy" completely ignoring the fact that unlike most of you dealing with terrorism was literally my loving job at one point.

Ague Proof posted:

theCalamity posted:

Yes. Literally at any point in time. Voting isn't the only form of political expression.