|
if Biden is elected every single lib is gonna dust their hands off and declare that the Great Orange Menace is defeated and dip back to brunch and politics is going to return to being a thing only cranks care about and we're going to be even more insanely hosed than we are now I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I'm willing to bet evilweasel and yronic heroism and their friends don't actually engage with any sort of political struggle beyond Owning Bernie Bros Online and a Biden presidency is, at best, going to get them to halfheartedly defend the status quo for the next 4-8 years while the blue team continues to gut the economy and wreck the environment and - maybe most importantly - batten down the establishment hatches so any Bernie v2.0s that are hiding out there can't come nearly as close as he did. They'll pop back up to tell us we have to vote for Bloomberg in 2024 or 2028 so we don't get president Tom Cotton or Eyepatch Dan or Eric Trump or whatever the gently caress.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:lol where do you think all those seats that Schumer is helping McConnell fill, including a SCOTUS one, with these people came from? They just fell from the sky as an act of God and nobody could've done anything about it and nobody is to blame? How is Schumer "helping" him fill these seats? The Republican majority will vote to eliminate any procedural rule that the Democrats use to block judges and McConnell has already done it before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:oh good we’ve circled back to “who are you gonna believe, evil weasel or your lying ears and eyes” generally speaking, since your eyes and ears told you the following Raskolnikov38 posted:yeah man the guy in second place drops out to endorse the guy in 4th all the goddamn time when what the delegate counts were was trivially checkable and biden was not in fourth, nor was buttigeg in second (it was second, and third, respectively) but you didn't think to check until i showed you, i think that you should absolutely go with me over your quite obviously lying eyes and ears
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
nivdes posted:How is Schumer "helping" him fill these seats? The Republican majority will vote to eliminate any procedural rule that the Democrats use to block judges and McConnell has already done it before. So better go ahead and make it easy for Republicans like Schumer did, right? quote:A sudden deal made by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on a set of judicial nominees has made Democratic activists livid. But yes, instead of fighting with what tools he had Schumer fast-tracked the judges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:lol where do you think all those seats that Schumer is helping McConnell fill, including a SCOTUS one, with these people came from? They just fell from the sky as an act of God and nobody could've done anything about it and nobody is to blame? from the period 2014-2016, when mcconnell controlled which judicial nominees got a vote (the answer was none) because republicans controlled the senate like, what did you think the answer was
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you asked a set of specific questions and got very specific answers that respond entirely to your question. unfortunately for you, i was right, and you can't actually quibble with the answers. but, uh, feel free to declare you've won and slink out if you can't figure out how to address them. You named exactly one Senator who wouldn't support M4A, implied that it was impossible for a party that oversaw 20% unemployment to lose 5 Senate seats, ignored that Sanders had a way to push M4A through budget reconciliation, and instead of explaining how Biden would get his healthcare plan to 60 votes, said he would abandon the parts that didn't fall under budget reconciliation. In short, you failed to offer compelling evidence that "there is precisely zero chance of M4A passing" but did show that you have zero reason to believe that the Biden Plan could ever become law. I definitely do not believe I have won, given that I learned nothing useful from this exchange and wasted ten minutes explaining your own posts to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Yeah gently caress Schumer for not confirming all Obama’s judges with 46 votes! so you're admitting that the party is totally subservient to the Republicans, which is exactly what I'm saying as well, and also this doesn't explain why Schumer is actively facilitating ramming through slates of chudges RIGHT NOW for absolutely zero considerations or concessions. The Dems feel the most qualified type of judge to put forward is a heritage of AFP approved one and it's not worth fighting for a moderate because they are fiscal conservatives and will continue to entrench capital's stranglehold on all levers of power lol remember when Schumer agreed to let DACA die because McConnell promised he'd get around to it eventually if Schumer just agreed to all demands without concession yet again? you think a party that has behaved as it has in its own primary actually wants something like HR1 to pass and didn't just put it forward as a PR campaign because they knew it was doomed? If not I really suggest you talk to some Cali progressives sometime. Dems looooove to run on popular reforms but absolutely refuse to enact them once in power, something Obama embodied
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:from the period 2014-2016, when mcconnell controlled which judicial nominees got a vote (the answer was none) because republicans controlled the senate Seat them anyway on the grounds that the Senate had the privilege of a vote on it and declined, create a crisis that you can then use to fire up your base, and hey on the other side of that sort of thing you have a much better chance of winning in 2016! instead it's better to just lay back and hope for the best, assuming the Republicans are operating in good faith until the very end, obviously. Why bother giving these clowns power if they aren't even going to exercise it except to make things worse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:from the period 2014-2016, when mcconnell controlled which judicial nominees got a vote (the answer was none) because republicans controlled the senate Well I'm going to have to side with Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff Adam Jentleson over your unsubstantiated claims on this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
If you're a Dem, Obama and Biden failed you, period. Biden's platform is "I will continue to fail you like before" If you're okay with that, well that's your thing, but I want something better
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But yes, instead of fighting with what tools he had Schumer fast-tracked the judges. Those "tools" would be gone with a voice vote the moment they used them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
nivdes posted:Those "tools" would be gone with a voice vote the moment they used them. That's interesting because Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff Adam Jentleson seems to think it was a viable strategy, and no offense, I imagine he has more experience on the topic than you. Do you have a specific link that says the strategy Jentleson proposed would have failed? Or are you just extrapolating from your personal knowledge of the senate rules?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Hell yeah lets gooo oh god please https://twitter.com/CarlBeijer/status/1255181040357957634?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
nivdes posted:Those "tools" would be gone with a voice vote the moment they used them. okay so your defense is that they're cowards who have no idea how to wield popular power, at best, or more likely are actively opposed to the notion of popular power and instead consulted only their donors and industry lobbyists as to how far they should go a ringing endorsement people want to compare Biden to LBJ and FDR but can you imagine him threatening to pack the courts or rip peckers off left and right to get what the Dem base wants? lmao, like he had years and years this decade to do exactly that and instead just meekly rolled over alongside the rest of party leadership but again I ask - if this is their theory of power and change, why on Earth should I have any interest in empowering them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Hell yeah lets gooo oh god please This is all I would need, please Joe!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Hell yeah lets gooo oh god please Might actually vote trump if they did that
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
as Trabisnokof says, there were people even within the Dem establishment who were agitating for a more aggressive approach that by all accounts would've worked, but they specifically rejected every plan in favor of sitting on their hands, and they did this specifically because they had no actual issue with the idea of the Republicans filling all those seats and securing fiscal conservative control of the judiciary forever, because that is also a project of neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:okay so your defense is that they're cowards who have no idea how to wield popular power, at best, or more likely are actively opposed to the notion of popular power and instead consulted only their donors and industry lobbyists as to how far they should go Didn't Reid specifically call Biden out as a huge fuckup who ruined negotiations because Biden kept inserting himself into things and giving away poo poo that Reid was trying to trade for concessions? Biden has never been known as a savvy negotiator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of self-described leftists ragging on Stacy Abrams, but it would be genuinely fantastic to have somebody who cares as much as she does about voting rights and accessible voting in power. If we end up taking the Senate, keeping the House, and Biden ends up unable to serve his full term then we could possibly pass such sweeping pro-voter reform that it truly would be the effective end of the Republican party for a generation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Eminai posted:You named exactly one Senator who wouldn't support M4A, implied that it was impossible for a party that oversaw 20% unemployment to lose 5 Senate seats, ignored that Sanders had a way to push M4A through budget reconciliation, and instead of explaining how Biden would get his healthcare plan to 60 votes, said he would abandon the parts that didn't fall under budget reconciliation. i was right, krysten sienema also opposes M4A, which I stated in my post. which gives you the two opponents you need to still lose on M4A if you win 5 senate seats instead of 4 (or somehow save Jones' seat). feinstein is, apparently, a third. i'm sure we'll find more if we go looking. so, we have demolished that point. as for sanders passing M4A through budget reconciliation, you absolutely can't, unless you dead-letter the byrd rule which i'd previously discussed. if you're going to dead-letter the byrd rule you are effectively abolishing the filibuster anyway, which has the same problems as getting to 50 on M4A. see the below: evilweasel posted:a public option is a lot easier to get a majority of the senate behind it and is probably easier to finagle through reconciliation without abolishing the filibuster or effectively dead-lettering the byrd rule (both of which i am in favor of, to be clear, but add additional difficulty because it's an additional failure point) so basically, that's two of your "but you didn't explain it!!!" knocked down. bernie's "plan" to pass M4A through reconciliation is to dead-letter the byrd rule (the law that specifies what can and can't go through reconciliation). that is essentially the same as abolishing the filibuster, but dumber (you get two non-filibusterable bills per term, instead of as many as you want, but the other side will get as many as they want when they retake control) and has an additional exposure to Roberts calvinball (the byrd rule is law not a senate rule, and while that would not and should not matter it's an additional "aha you cheated, it's all abolished" attack vector). if you are willing to abolish the filibuster (again, i am in favor) you can get anything through with 50 votes - but M4A still has the problem of getting 50 votes, and you have the problem of getting the 50 votes to abolish the filibuster which may be difficult (it took harry reid years and a bigger majority to line up the votes to abolish the judicial filibuster) the remaining issue appears to be that you believe i must show the exact plan on biden's webpage must pass exactly or i lose, in some sort of dumb "aha!!!!" argument. that is, of course, just bad-faith posting. what i said was abundantly clear - to the extent that you run into an irresolvable votes problem, you can still get reform through under biden's plan. that is an advantage - if you can get increased subsidies but no public option, well you weren't getting M4A either. if you can get increased subsidies and a public option, great, no problems. but the fact that all of it does not rise and fall together gives it a very important advantage in that it has a fallback plan M4A does not. i am sure you learned nothing from this exchange, but hopefully someone interested in learning will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well I'm going to have to side with Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff Adam Jentleson over your unsubstantiated claims on this one. there was the additional problem of leahy adhering to the blue slip problem when harry reid was majority leader (not schumer) but the primary source of seats, including the specific scotus seat named, was what i said. and it is trivial to look who controlled the senate from 2014 on and how many obama judges they approved and we all know the exact story of that scotus seat, and if you do not you can try googling it
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
How are u posted:I've seen a lot of self-described leftists ragging on Stacy Abrams, but it would be genuinely fantastic to have somebody who cares as much as she does about voting rights and accessible voting in power. If we end up taking the Senate, keeping the House, and Biden ends up unable to serve his full term then we could possibly pass such sweeping pro-voter reform that it truly would be the effective end of the Republican party for a generation. I have bad news for you about what Dems do when they seize power. Still waiting for my progressive health care reform in California.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
They should get a VP from a state where the VP selection might help 🧠
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it doesn't actually mean anything and is just a "please turn your brain off folks" request. if progressive legislation is intentionally designed to be picked apart would be a discussion that would revolve around "how does one pick apart legislation" and "what did the legislation actually say" This is several thousand words just to say “you’re dumb and so goddamn crazy” I think anytime you say that someone’s perspective is lunatic or crazy or irrelevant or obviously wrong you should have to explain why instead of posturing a bunch. Maybe that’s just me though
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:generally speaking, since your eyes and ears told you the following i was talking about going into south carolina, any campaign could have just written it off as being joe's single stronghold on the map
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Didn't Reid specifically call Biden out as a huge fuckup who ruined negotiations because Biden kept inserting himself into things and giving away poo poo that Reid was trying to trade for concessions? Biden has never been known as a savvy negotiator. I mean he was widely known as the Senator from Credit Cards so I think he was just advocating on their behalf at the time How are u posted:I've seen a lot of self-described leftists ragging on Stacy Abrams, but it would be genuinely fantastic to have somebody who cares as much as she does about voting rights and accessible voting in power. If we end up taking the Senate, keeping the House, and Biden ends up unable to serve his full term then we could possibly pass such sweeping pro-voter reform that it truly would be the effective end of the Republican party for a generation. the Bloomberg lady who endorsed a gerrymandering plan that effectively killed her own state party? I'm not like hugely critical of her largely because I just don't know much about her, but I've not really heard much that was a ringing endorsement. I've just assumed she's getting elevated because she's done the two things the Dems seem to prize above all else - lose to a Republican, and work with Republicans
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
misadventurous posted:This is several thousand words just to say “you’re dumb and so goddamn crazy” the explanation is right here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3912894&userid=30107&perpage=40&pagenumber=6#post504454132 when that explanation was met with sloganeering that did not respond to the explanation in any way, then i posted "several thousand words" to explain why. you are basically right about the conclusion, but rather than just give the conclusion i explained how we got there so, in short, i am glad you appreciate my posts
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i was talking about going into south carolina, any campaign could have just written it off as being joe's single stronghold on the map and had the second place person going into south carolina dropped out going into south carolina instead of coming out of it, you might have a point but you are now not arguing the second place person dropped out to endorse the fourth place person, because he didn't. you're arguing the third place person who dropped out and endorsed the second place person (a normal occurrence) should have pretended south carolina didn't happen. which is, like, fine you can give unsolicited bad political advice to pete buttigeg all you want, but doesn't support your conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1255179147363696644?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Biden might make Hilary his VP. He tweeted (I'm with her) to Hilary's tweet about a 3pm meeting she's been invited to. I might vomit
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Hell yeah lets gooo oh god please gently caress it. Let’s do it. The DNC suffering max pain while Hillary loses to the dumbest most narcissistic person on the planet twice would be 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
misadventurous posted:This is several thousand words just to say “you’re dumb and so goddamn crazy” At this point I don't think he's capable of expressing himself without posturing a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I mean he was widely known as the Senator from Credit Cards so I think he was just advocating on their behalf at the time She's on the board of CAP. That should really tell you all you need to know. She's advocated strongly for voting rights, but never from a position where she could actually do anything about it, so while it's possible she really believes in it, it's also possible it's the issue she's picked for the purpose of building her brand. Dems love fighting for progressive legislation they know has no chance of being enacted to build up their bona fides. Look at Buttigieg and his strong, unwavering support for M4A before running for pres, or CA Dems passing weed legalization and UHC when the Governator was on hand with a convenient veto.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
If we can't get socialist policies through the Senate then the nation is basically dead and the election doesn't matter anyway. Debating whether Biden is more likely than Trump to name a post office after FDR is a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:She's on the board of CAP. That should really tell you all you need to know. i don't get this "maybe democrats secretly don't care about voting rights" you know why democrats are in favor of expanding voting rights and republicans aren't? because it is directly in the interests of democrats to do so, because they're more likely to get elected if more people can vote. and that is in their interests even if their only plan is to sell everyone out to corporate overlords because if they get elected as, say, governor of georgia, they can command a higher price than as, say, a democrat with no current state office in georgia
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
The Democrats doom themselves and all that remain are vultures and conmen trying to fool you into believing they are viable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Biden might make Hilary his VP. He tweeted (I'm with her) to Hilary's tweet about a 3pm meeting she's been invited to. This is the hell we deserve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:okay so your defense is that they're cowards who have no idea how to wield popular power, at best, or more likely are actively opposed to the notion of popular power and instead consulted only their donors and industry lobbyists as to how far they should go they do not have "popular power" or any sort of meaningful power when it comes to blocking judicial nominees
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
They aren’t going to make Hillary VP, only because the only person who thinks that’s a good idea is Hillary herself
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:35
|
|
