|
DeeplyConcerned posted:its vague but here's what I remember. according to friendbot it wasn't really about the bill. that was sort of the culmination of things. basically his problem was tweeting so much it caused a bunch of drama but also caused volunteers to have a hard time staying on message. he was not coordinating with his volunteers properly after a certain point. how much of it got tangled up in the big vote I'm not exactly sure but as I recall by that point a lot of relationships had already been damaged. i just remember friendbot kind of lamenting that he believed in the guy but he was hard to work for, as a volunteer. I think there were some media articles going around trashing the guy too, which didn't help things. Ditto for the usual shittier twitter types trying to work the crowd into a frenzy since he was a left leaning person. Sounds to me it's less of a manners issue and more of a "it's hard to coordinate with this guy issue" given the lack of decorum*. That whole thing also coincided with a centrist/right leaning PR blitz against the dude. Which itself was aided by the usual lefty circular firing squad types that want purity in their candidates while also having the perfect public face coincidentally helping the centrist/do nothing type's PR blitz. Basically, a small gently caress up on his part coincided with a genuine attack on his legitimacy by opposing interests that was also assisted by dumb people that will never get what they want because the world doesn't work that way since the perfect candidate does not exist (and if it does it just means you've been snowed by that person since there's doubtless plenty of other people that think he's perfect too despite having directly opposing views to yours. Just look at how people treated Trump compared to his policies as an example of what I mean. You even had some LGBT people supporting him.  **).  *Which is debatable if it can really be held against him since it seems like the other reps had no intention of actually following through on their promises given what we know now. Anyone that actually ran on doing things to help the people and found that their efforts were being deliberately sabotaged by what was supposed to be their own allies would be pissed off at realizing their own party was a bunch of self interested saboteurs that intended to string along the public for as long as possible for personal gain. That's literally the morally correct take in that situation. Of course, coming out and saying that ____ reps are lying to the people of the state without a vote taking place to prove him right would just give those same people an excuse to openly (instead of privately) turn against him while opening up the opportunity to run a smear campaign to de-legitimize him in the public's eye in the hopes that he was voted out or it broke up whatever movements there were that were pushing for change. Likewise, forcing a vote would obviously lead to the same situation he was nailed for. So it was very much a damned if you do damned if you don't sort of situation where barring a severe gently caress up by the opposition you have to just press ahead and hope that people look past all the PR tricks and bullshit to realize who the real guilty party is (and if this forum is any indication they didn't, by all accounts). **This is also true of other populist leaning presidents. Bush partially got his initial win because he was the folksy guy who people felt they could have a beer with. Of course later on people remembered that folksy!=qualified for the job. Bill Clinton too had some of that charm prior to the whole oval office debacle. Being personable and approachable is unfortunately a higher priority in the minds of most people than policy and intent in a time when every aspect of a person's life can be examined. And this goes the time spent in office as well. Remember those beer gardens and the meetings several presidents had? Even Obama tried to carry that little tradition onwards for a bit until the Republicans organized yet another campaign of slander against him for doing what Republican presidents had done before him. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 2, 2021 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Classic Collins. She'd vote for a bill to codify roe into law! But it would take 60 votes because she's not willing to vote to end the filibuster! Man just a shame that this ends up with her saying something that she'll never ever have to follow through on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:So half the problem is that there is no reporting out of Virginia and we just have half remembered posts from two half remembered posters to go on. I'm sorry, what? Link Link Link Link quote:For the third straight year, Del. Lee Carter (D-Manassas) filed a bill to repeal Virginia’s ‘Right to Work’ law. And for the third time, it sat in committee without a vote... Filed back in December, the bill never made it on the committee’s docket to be discussed in more than a month. The committee doesn’t plan to meet again before Crossover Day, effectively killing the proposal for this session. Friendbot's whole diatribe was based on the idea that the bill was otherwise passable if Carter hadn't maneuvered to get it passed, and despite all the times this has come up, I have never seen a single person who is blindly repeating FB's assertions actually put in the work to verify those claims. I don't know if FB was lying, or if they were just wrong, but FB was wrong, verifiably so. Here's the bill: HB 1755. It was assigned to the Labor and Commerce Committee on 12/16/20. Everything you need is right on these pages: the dates of motions on the bill, the dates of committee meetings, and the date of crossover. I don't even particularly care about Lee Carter. By all accounts he is an abrasive dick and I can't imagine I'd enjoy his company. What really gets to me is the sheer incuriosity that grips this subforum. I remember wandering in here for the first time 9 years ago, and trying to debate some folks with some shoddy reasoning and some half-remembered facts. I got absolutely curbstomped and retreated to GBS in a hurry, but it made me confront my politics and to never take a position without making my best attempt to be informed. That culture is nothing like what exists now, where folks (and I catch myself doing it too) are content to gorge themselves on nothing but article headlines and 140 character hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I'm coming dangerously close to shitposting in a serious thread but i thought that was funny enough to be worth the risk and now I can't get it out of my own head, god dammit Permission to poo poo post occasionally granted. Seriously not really hitting that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Obamaphone I share your cynicism, but I think one key difference is that the NBA strike was a wildcat strike and didn't seem particularly well organized in the first place. Or at all. Like wasn't it just Lebron James saying I DECLAAAAAAAAAARE A STRIKE?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I share your cynicism, but I think one key difference is that the NBA strike was a wildcat strike and didn't seem particularly well organized in the first place. Or at all. Like wasn't it just Lebron James saying I DECLAAAAAAAAAARE A STRIKE? Seems like Obama, being an experienced community organizer, could’ve helped out with that but instead…well, you know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Since "Obama ruins everything with phone calls!" is an over-applied trope here I'll post a full article about it... people can decide on their own how culpable Obama is. (I'm sure many will find the answer to be "very much", which is a valid take!) https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2020/8/29/21406770/barack-obama-nba-players-lebron-james-strike-chris-paul-meeting-call SBNation posted:A call to Barack Obama from a small group of players including NBAPA president Chris Paul and Los Angeles Lakers superstar LeBron James helped convince NBA players to end their strike in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake and return to the court to finish the playoffs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The main problem with Lee Carter is that he torpedoed all of his relationships and completely tanked his political career, and RTW is no closer to passing than it was before - in fact it's less close because one of its main proponents loving tanked his political career. No, he's not responsible for it not passing, clearly it wasn't going to pass anyway, but self-immolating over it didn't help anybody. Maybe the ones who lost the campaign against Greg Youngkin should be trying something else instead. Nucleic Acids fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
selec posted:Seems like Obama, being an experienced community organizer, could’ve helped out with that but instead…well, you know. Yeah, Fister Roboto's distinction is a fair one to make, but ultimately the whole episode showed what the Democratic Party leadership can and will do when the status quo is even mildly threatened. It reminds me a bit of the India Walton, or even the Nina Turner, race. Yes, they both were imperfect candidates that make some big mistakes with their campaigns, but it's still not a good thing that the establishment can ratfuck candidates so blatantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
selec posted:Seems like Obama, being an experienced community organizer, could’ve helped out with that but instead…well, you know. Oh yeah for sure, but also lmao at anyone who got their hopes up for a bunch of millionaires turning off their money hose out of solidarity for normal people. Class analysis and all that. (it was me, i got my hopes up) Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm sorry, what? Link Link Link Link Funnily enough, Friendbot being wrong kind of proves my point about personability. Dude glommed onto a right wing/centrist dem talking point when he could have looked it up and seen that the bill was not going to be voted on yet again, and in all reality was never going to get a vote (never mind a passing one) no matter what given the current reps. FB's post was also as much about Carter being hard to get along with as much as anything else, which goes to show you how easy it is to manipulate even formerly steadfast allies with a bit of trickery if the person in question is unlikable or has even a moment of weakness. Which brings up another good point. So what the gently caress was Carter supposed to do given that the other reps weren't willing to even vote on a bill? Just sit there and take it? Then he'd be open to being run against as yet another left leaning candidate that got office, achieved the position, and then got nothing done due to a lack of visible resistance to the resistance to change things for the better. Which would have lead him to be labeled as a sellout/accomplice/do nothing/etc. Couple that with his personality issues and that's a death sentence to his political career and any hope of change in the immediate future. At least the way he went ended up forcing the democratic reps to cast a vote on record. Meaning there was a chance that folks would see through the whole hemming and hawwing about how "Oh, this man is so rude and forced the vote so I cannot in good conscience vote on this bill that I super duper ultra promise you I was going to vote on before (and please don't look up the history of what i've done to this bill that would easily contradict this claim).". But nope, the guy is rude to people who two timed him and the public so we gotta believe the lovely lying centrists/corporatists instead of our own eyes. 
Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Maybe the ones who lost the campaign against Greg Youngkin should be tryine something else. Majorian posted:Yes, they both were imperfect candidates that make some big mistakes with their campaigns, but it's still not a good thing that the establishment can ratfuck candidates so blatantly. Fister Roboto posted:Oh yeah for sure, but also lmao at anyone who got their hopes up for a bunch of millionaires turning off their money hose. Class analysis and all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Those lucky duckies at the bottom of the income scale, whom Krugman et al. think should be more appreciative of their 11 percent rate increases on average, are having a rough time keeping up with inflation:quote:Roughly 45 percent of households are being hurt by price increases, according to a survey of nearly 1,600 people conducted Nov. 3 to Nov. 16. About 1 in 10 said that hardship was severe enough to affect their standard of living, while 35 percent described the hardship as “moderate.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/inflation-causing-financial-strain-for-nearly-half-of-us-households-poll-finds/ar-AARoiOY eta this; jesus, those numbers for <$40k.  
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Hey my dumb area of the state is making the national news again! I wonder what fo... https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2021/12/02/oxford-michigan-schools-closed/8833243002/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/583993-multiple-detroit-area-schools-closed-due-to-threats-of-more-violence My state apparently just lives in a constant state of stochastic terrorism now, fun times First the kidnapping/ Bomb threats on the Governor and now waves of threats of school shootings, great job Michigan Republicans who are a minority of the population but control both chambers and the Supreme Court! You did it!  "Could it be the guns though?"  as this happens again in the only loving core region country where this poo poo regularly happens
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I mean, if they couldn't, they wouldn't be "the establishment", right? Trump showed that you can win with the establishment and the media completely allied against you. There's nothing innate to the Republican party that makes them less oppressive of minority viewpoints or insurgency - the politicians advocating for insurgency in the GOP have just done a much, much better job making their case with voters. I partially agree with this (and I especially agree with your first point), but I think it begs the question, did Trump have the establishment and the media completely allied against him? Hours upon hours of free coverage and all that certainly didn't hurt him, especially when the right-wing media and the donor class realized that he could potentially win. I think the operative distinction between the two party establishments is that the GOP leadership was less prepared to ward off an insurgency from the right, than the Democratic leadership has been to ward off insurgencies from the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yes, of course, they absolutely should. You will note, reading carefully, that there is nothing about the statement "Lee Carter hosed up" that suggests "Terry McAuliffe did nothing wrong." Lee Carter isn't the one who hosed up though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm sorry, what? Link Link Link Link Sorry if I was unclear but I had in the past disagreed with the general repetition of one goons opinion as fact and ask for sources supporting the opinion, but there were none to be had. I'm on the same page with you about the rest. Edit- as white guys mellow seas, you and I can both absolutely apply class analysis to the activity of rich people and come to reasonable conclusions. Black people are humans, they are not a distinct and mysterious species whose thought processes are incomprehensible to you. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Which brings up another good point. So what the gently caress was Carter supposed to do given that the other reps weren't willing to even vote on a bill? Just sit there and take it? Then he'd be open to being run against as yet another left leaning candidate that got office, achieved the position, and then got nothing done due to a lack of visible resistance to the resistance to change things for the better. Which would have lead him to be labeled as a sellout/accomplice/do nothing/etc. Couple that with his personality issues and that's a death sentence to his political career and any hope of change in the immediate future. The point is being an rear end in a top hat means you lost the possibility to persuade people, or compromise. It sucks that there isn't full support for good policies off the break, but that's hardly surprising given the voting public. And for a competent politician that's nowhere near the end of the struggle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I partially agree with this (and I especially agree with your first point), but I think it begs the question, did Trump have the establishment and the media completely allied against him? Hours upon hours of free coverage and all that certainly didn't hurt him, especially when the right-wing media and the donor class realized that he could potentially win. I think the operative distinction between the two party establishments is that the GOP leadership was less prepared to ward off an insurgency from the right, than the Democratic leadership has been to ward off insurgencies from the left. Yeah, the media fell over themselves to give him coverage even when he was running rallies that had journalists and cameramen being in visible danger of being assaulted or killed due to him openly slandering the media and trying to start a riot against them. Part of this was because he was a celebrity. The other part was because his personality made him a spectacle so that boosted ratings and oh loving well if some innocent cameraman got his teeth knocked out or something. You could argue that his entire campaign strategy was one of media attracting spectacle too. Remember that thing where his jet flew over Ted Cruz's jet as he was trying to give a speech? His spectacle was the lure, and the bigotry and fear was the hook. His rallies would sometimes go off on tangents against women, immigrants, minorities in general, etc, etc. Even his rallies were a spectacle in of themselves. I remember that around the time he started slandering people from Mexico by ranting about MS-13 on stage whoever organized his rallies started doing crazy poo poo like putting guards with sniper rifles in lookouts and towers as if he was speaking truth to power and was in danger of being assassinated by the Mexican/immigrant drug cartels or the media or whatever the gently caress he was coked up on and ranting about at any given rally. Someone pushing actual policy would have to be willing to attract as much attention and probably also keep the left leaning policy stuff quiet during the campaign to get as much media attention as he did. Sarcastr0 posted:The point is being an rear end in a top hat means you lost the possibility to persuade people, or compromise. It sucks that there isn't full support for good policies off the break, but that's hardly surprising given the voting public. And for a competent politician that's nowhere near the end of the struggle. But on the other hand not being an rear end in a top hat to people who are credibly screwing not just you but also your constituents over means that you run the risk of giving them a free pass on their behavior unless you've got some sort of hidden political leverage that can be publicly leveraged and successfully publicized to punish them for their behavior. Which obviously he didn't have since he was the intruder on a centrist oriented group controlling things. Which means that barring some way to force a change for the better while showing proper "decorum" a good chunk of left leaning voters will eagerly label you as a do nothing, sellout, etc, etc in the same way you've got some left leaning people turning against AOC, Ilhan, etc, etc, in small numbers due to absurd preconditions for their support. Like I said, it was very much a damned if you do damned if you don't sort of situation. And I can't really blame him for forcing a vote when it was blatantly obvious that the other reps were not even going to let it go to the floor after they had pulled the same stunt three times before and were gearing up for doing the same thing for a fourth time. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Hey my dumb area of the state is making the national news again! I wonder what fo... OK, I got a couple - More like Michigun ... More like Michigenah. Just use whichever you like more and cut the other one out in post.  Majorian posted:I partially agree with this (and I especially agree with your first point), but I think it begs the question, did Trump have the establishment and the media completely allied against him? Hours upon hours of free coverage and all that certainly didn't hurt him, especially when the right-wing media and the donor class realized that he could potentially win. I think the operative distinction between the two party establishments is that the GOP leadership was less prepared to ward off an insurgency from the right, than the Democratic leadership has been to ward off insurgencies from the left. We all came of age in the "talking points memo" era of careful GOP message coordination, but RWM now is very decentralized - some of them were initially anti-Trump, but there were enough voices promoting him for him to keep catching momentum. There is decentralized left wing media but it seems to be much less popular (largely because so many are content with what they get on TV and in the papers). There's probably less than 10 leftist voices that get as many ears/eyes as the 50th most popular random Dan Bongino ripoff. The question is, what can a leftist politician do to get those free network cameras on him? Trump did it by being a gigantic rear end and talking about his dick and stuff; there has to be other ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I partially agree with this (and I especially agree with your first point), but I think it begs the question, did Trump have the establishment and the media completely allied against him? Hours upon hours of free coverage and all that certainly didn't hurt him, especially when the right-wing media and the donor class realized that he could potentially win. I think the operative distinction between the two party establishments is that the GOP leadership was less prepared to ward off an insurgency from the right, than the Democratic leadership has been to ward off insurgencies from the left. Why would they want to ward off an insurgent right though? Perhaps from a personal power perspective, but by and large they are in near total ideological lockstep with their right flank. Meanwhile the democratic leadership is incredibly misaligned with a much wider swath of what their base wants. The demands from the fringe that won’t get addressed or are outright denied is a much much smaller list for a reactionary than it is a leftist
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
I don't get the Obama broke the NBA strike meme. They weren't actually striking for material conditions. They were protesting over a police shooting that night. Obama has actual instances of his administration not supporting unions, so it seems weird that this is the one everyone remembers. LeBron called Obama - Obama didn't call him. quote:In a moment of need, LeBron James turned to the one and only Barack Obama for such advice regarding NBA players’ decision to strike following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Obama said he would participate in a player action committee to support them. quote:During his call with the former president, the parties discussed the possibility of forming a player action committee that Obama would participate in. They said the NBA needed to make a statement and adopt ideas from the players about supporting racial justice. quote:Players chose to strike in response to the recent police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Sunday night, as many believed that the NBA’s social justice messaging was not doing enough to combat police brutality. The NBA agreed. quote:On Thursday morning, as The Athletic reports, both teams agreed to restart in the postseason if the players union and NBA "work toward increased social justice measures.” https://www.complex.com/sports/2020/08/lebron-james-barack-obama-advice-regarding-players-strike
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
IDK if this is the right thread for this. but: Could the Democratic party, who controls all 3 branches of the government, pass a law to make abortion legal in all states? Or is this a 'states rights' thing (and how can you figure out what is federal or states rights, when it comes to things like this?) edit: apparently there's a post limit: VVVVV But doesn't congress literally write laws? And the supreme court only interprets laws? So couldn't congress pass a law saying 'abortion is legal' and then roe vs wade would not matter any more? redreader fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
redreader posted:IDK if this is the right thread for this. but: Could the Democratic party, who controls all 3 branches of the government, pass a law to make abortion legal in all states? Or is this a 'states rights' thing (and how can you figure out what is federal or states rights, when it comes to things like this?) They don't control the judiciary. EDIT: That being said, you could pass a statute and then you'd have a lot of arguing over whether the statute is grounded in enough enumerated powers of the federal government or some other part of the US Constitution to be controlling and not knocked out. The absolute safest way to guarantee reproductive rights would be a constitutional amendment but at this point in our eroding civic fabric, that's like basing your financial planning on the possibility of gold magically falling from the sky. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:They don't control the judiciary. They have the power to assign all existing federal judges to Federal traffic court and appoint better ones to do the real work. It's the same as all their other power they won't use
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
IIRC, what Carter was specifically accused of doing was using procedural manipulation to move the RTW repeal to the top of the legislative calendar and force a vote. This pissed off a lot of people, as the Virginia legislature is only in session for sixty days, and this vote took additional time off the legislative clock that could have been used for other priorities. It was likely that the repeal would have failed regardless, but Carter's actions were seen by many in and around the legislature as self-aggrandizing and counter-productive, and alienated some moderate lawmakers who possibly could have voted in favor of repeal, but then voted against the legislation out of spite towards Carter. (Spite being the single most powerful motivator in politics, far beyond policy goals or good sense). So it's probably not accurate to say that Carter single-handedly doomed the RTW repeal, but he certainly didn't help. And then his run for governor effectively burned off all the remaining goodwill he had left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
redreader posted:IDK if this is the right thread for this. but: Could the Democratic party, who controls all 3 branches of the government, pass a law to make abortion legal in all states? Or is this a 'states rights' thing (and how can you figure out what is federal or states rights, when it comes to things like this?) Ideally, you’d want to pass that as an amendment. Nope on that. You could try and pass a law through healthcare/interstate commerce, but my money would be on the SCOTUS spiking that hard into the ground - Roberts already argued that the ACA could not be upheld under the interstate commerce clause, so an attempt to regulate abortion would basically be a subset of that, and DOA. Should and could the Democrats legislate abortion before next June anyway? Yeah. Same as they could legislate votings rights, and many other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
redreader posted:IDK if this is the right thread for this. but: Could the Democratic party, who controls all 3 branches of the government, pass a law to make abortion legal in all states? Or is this a 'states rights' thing (and how can you figure out what is federal or states rights, when it comes to things like this?) Abortion can't be banned by any state right now. They could pass a federal law guaranteeing it, but - as of now - no state can actually ban abortion and states have a lot of leeway to make restrictions on abortion. If the court overturns Roe/Casey, it would depend what kind of doctrine they replace Roe/Casey with. A federal law could either do a lot or very little depending on how expansive the court majority wants to get in their interpretation. https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1466475442123251712 This is the most "Congress.txt" example of the U.S.'s failure of gun policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
why do people know think that the senate and house of congressional reps are two separate branches the fed government? I even hear this on public radio / other "real, serious" news. This mildly miffs me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Archonex posted:But on the other hand not being an rear end in a top hat to people who are credibly screwing not just you but also your constituents over means that you give them a free pass on their behavior unless you've got some sort of hidden political leverage. Which obviously he didn't have. Politicians change their votes for all sorts of reasons other than political leverage. They're people - soft power works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:I think you assume the outcome that occurred was the only possible outcome, but I don't think you can assume that. This is just West Wing wishcasting. Please name one other politician in this saga besides Lee Carter. The fact that p much none of us can tells me the propaganda works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:why do people know think that the senate and house of congressional reps are two separate branches the fed government? I even hear this on public radio / other "real, serious" news. This mildly miffs me. I think it's just kind of a slip-of-the-mind thing, there's an idea of a "trifecta" where you control three things, two of which are legislative, and then there's "three branches of government", and I think they just get mixed up in people's heads because they're both three things, and they both represent checks on other powers. AOC messed it up once. I'm sure I have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:why do people know think that the senate and house of congressional reps are two separate branches the fed government? I even hear this on public radio / other "real, serious" news. This mildly miffs me. As Harold Fjord pointed out, Congress and Biden could kill the filibuster and pass federal courts reform legislation to reconstitute the judiciary into something packed with politically compatible judges and even pack the Supreme Court. This could easily turn into an arms race with each party doing the same thing every time a party manages to wrest control of both the executive and legislative branches, but we're kind of there anyway. The Constitution really only mandates that we have a Supreme Court and that all judicial appointments in the Supreme Court and lower federal courts last as long as the judges are on "good behaviour" (i.e., their entire life unless they gently caress up). It's easy for us to take for granted that the present status quo is unfixable because so many of us want to believe that the judiciary is the learned, unbiased part of the government and not just another political bullshit factory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:IIRC, what Carter was specifically accused of doing was using procedural manipulation to move the RTW repeal to the top of the legislative calendar and force a vote. This pissed off a lot of people, as the Virginia legislature is only in session for sixty days, and this vote took additional time off the legislative clock that could have been used for other priorities. It was likely that the repeal would have failed regardless, but Carter's actions were seen by many in and around the legislature as self-aggrandizing and counter-productive, and alienated some moderate lawmakers who possibly could have voted in favor of repeal, but then voted against the legislation out of spite towards Carter. (Spite being the single most powerful motivator in politics, far beyond policy goals or good sense). Out of curiosity, is there some mandate within the state government's legislature that bills that are pushed out of the session due to timing issues are mandated to be voted on or discussed before bills that are designed later on that would come up with during the next session? Or is it just considered dead in the water and would have to be refiled yet again? Because if there isn't some mandated procedure to ensure that the bill would have to be addressed then his behavior still holds true as an entirely justifiable reason to gently caress with the rules to force a vote. quote:For the third straight year, Del. Lee Carter (D-Manassas) filed a bill to repeal Virginia’s ‘Right to Work’ law. And for the third time, it sat in committee without a vote... Filed back in December, the bill never made it on the committee’s docket to be discussed in more than a month. The committee doesn’t plan to meet again before Crossover Day, effectively killing the proposal for this session. Ditto for why the hemming and hawwing about procedure being justification to vote against it was complete bullshit. It wasn't even going to be discussed prior to that point, and had been deliberately sidelined three times before that. Sarcastr0 posted:I think you assume the outcome that occurred was the only possible outcome, but I don't think you can assume that. This is no different than saying that the method he chose was wrong because an unknown hypothetical was the right choice. However, without a viable course of action within the laws of the state government that simply can't be said to be true. Do you know of a method that would have worked in that situation that was reasonably doable within the timeframe of his time in office (which, again, was possibly jeopardized given his PR issues. So he'd have cause to push the bill up to be voted on against the will of the legislature.). Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
selec posted:Why would they want to ward off an insurgent right though? Perhaps from a personal power perspective, but by and large they are in near total ideological lockstep with their right flank. Back before 2016, a lot of Republican elites thought that they were going to have to appeal more to POCs if they were going to remain a national party. As hilarious as it may seem in hindsight, that's part of why a lot of Very Serious Types genuinely thought that Lil' Marco would be a serious contender and the future of the party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Congress can also you know, pass laws and say "gently caress the Supreme Court", but everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that part, and thus a Republican Supreme Court is the most powerful entity in a Dem Trifecta What I'm saying is this entire country's leadership is actively huffing lead paint TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Archonex posted:This is no different than saying that the method he chose was wrong because an unknown hypothetical was the right choice. However, without a viable course of action within the laws of the state government that simply can't be said to be true. Do you know of a method that would have worked in that situation that was reasonably doable within the timeframe of his time in office (which, again, was possibly jeopardized given his PR issues. So he'd have cause to push the schedule ahead against the will of the legislature given their past behavior.). No, I'm not saying events surely would have turned out differently, only that you don't know they wouldn't have. selec posted:This is just West Wing wishcasting. I'm just talking about political realities and principles generally, and how being a hard to work with rear end in a top hat who won't compromise really does effect votes and mess up your chances to get stuff passed that otherwise wouldn't. I don't see you with a careful whip count either. Because this is a larger argument about tactics and principles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Back before 2016, a lot of Republican elites thought that they were going to have to appeal more to POCs if they were going to remain a national party. As hilarious as it may seem in hindsight, that's part of why a lot of Very Serious Types genuinely thought that Lil' Marco would be a serious contender and the future of the party. To be clear, it's been eight years since they reached that conclusion post-Romney, and we still don't know if that conclusion was wrong*. What do they have to show so far? Two presidential elections where they've lost the popular vote, and very mixed results at the congressional level that currently have them shut out of power (and however much the Democrats are doing badly at exercising their power, at least they have it.) Republicans are doubling down the idea that can dominate the government with the popular support of 45% of the 60% who vote, and it'll be a while before we know if they're making a terrible mistake or not. As it is, the two most likely outcomes seem to be the Republican party continuing to lose a large majority of popular votes - House, Senate and Presidency - and struggling to hang on to federal power, or killing democracy to rule by fiat, so... maybe they should've just gone and been less racist. (* the appealing-to-minorities thing, not the "Rubio is the future of the party thing" which I think we can say pretty clearly that they were wrong about.) \/\/\/\/\/\/ It's an open question. They have not yet proven that their strategy is effective. They still need to actually win in 2022 and '24, not just look like they're going to, and they need to avoid widespread civil unrest as they cement their power, which the summer of 2020 suggests will not be easy. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Why would they do that when killing democracy is about to work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:No, I'm not saying events surely would have turned out differently, only that you don't know they wouldn't have. quote:I'm just talking about political realities and principles generally, and how being a hard to work with rear end in a top hat who won't compromise really does effect votes and mess up your chances to get stuff passed that otherwise wouldn't. You're giving his opposition in the legislature a free pass with this. By all rights they too were acting like assholes by deliberately sidelining a bill over and over and over again using underhanded tactics that almost certainly went against the intent of the assembly. The difference here is that people are focused on Carter because he was loudly against this and kind of a prick in general while the other reps used procedural fuckery to transparently sideline a bill repeatedly until Carter more or less did the exact same thing they had repeatedly done to him to force them to vote on it. At which point it was Carter that was excoriated for doing the exact same thing his opponents did in a way that forced them to be a bit more honest about their real intentions. Which comes back to the initial question. Given that it's reasonable with what we know now to say that his opponents were just as much bastards as he was (only in a far more conniving way), what was he supposed to do that would have satisfied people? And if the answer is nothing, why was it wrong of him to force the vote when it was obvious that the other representatives were never going to even give it a fair hearing (and never mind a fair vote) to begin with? Archonex fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 20:07
|
|