|
DarkCrawler posted:All politicians, in U.S. or elsewhere, promise material gain through one means or other. What separates this new promise from the old ones? Why would this electorate believe it any more? Did not say, Bernie Sanders, already promise material gain? Not every politician makes those promises the centerpieces of their campaigns, though. The campaigns that fail to do so, tend to be losing ones. See, for example, Clinton '16, Kerry '04, etc, etc. Bernie promised material gain, and that's why he did as well as he did in the face of overwhelming odds. Biden promised at least a certain degree of material gains, and so did the Dems running for Georgia's Senate seats. They won in part because of these promises.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 06:02 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 18:05 |
|
It's not really worth it to argue any of this with DarkCrawler, who has been on this track since at least the old GE threads and probably well before. But they live in the netherlands or something and believe that everyone who has ever voted for a republican is a subhuman, howling demon who can't recognize anything other than their lust for wanton destruction and defilement. I didn't bother to check but I'm sure they've already posted ITT about how it's your moral duty to cut any family members who eg. watch fox news completely out of your life or you're just as bad etc. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 06:48 |
|
Centrist liberals it seems are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the notion that they can win elections literally by just saying 'I'm not Trump' and rubbing their fingers together expectantly.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:11 |
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Centrist liberals it seems are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the notion that they can win elections literally by just saying 'I'm not Trump' and rubbing their fingers together expectantly. People like their big wet boy!
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:16 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:Well, yeah: I'm not saying CRT is real + bad, or that the GOP isn't using it as a figleaf. I agree. Virginia was less of a 'trend' and more about a really stupid man staying something that was easily exploited by Republicans. The dumbest thing politically since Dukakis answered the "wife got murdered" question.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:17 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:What "causes a political problem" is that there is no non-GOP political sector in power recognizing the very real pain that non-richie Americans are experiencing in trying to meet their basic needs while being told they should be grateful for inflation that raised their wages to still-sub-minimum living wages, and instead brushing it off as ignorant chuds who just don't appreciate how good they have it. You say this as if the GOP IS a political sector in power that recognizes the pain of the non-richie Americans. Unless by "recognize their pain," you're talking about how they work to make it worse while giving them permission to be bigots as a distraction I guess.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:25 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:Imagine giving away your political power to this extent: 1: If Republicans don't implement these programs but Democrats do, it highlights the disparity between Dem run states and Republican run states, and prompts voters to vote for Dems, ie, if you want helpful programs in your state then elect Dem governors who will actually implement them, rather than Republicans who won't, and will just let you suffer so they can give the middle finger to the Dems. 2: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it highlights how loving stupid the Conservatives obsession with doing everything on the State level is and how it always turns into a poo poo show. 3: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it again highlights why Dem run states > Republican run states, so go elect Dem governors if you want good programs that actually loving work. 4. If Republicans implement these programs and run them well, then while the Republican governors will no doubt take as much credit as they can for them, they won't be able to hide that the program actually originated with a Dem president, who will also get credit. So basically no matter what Republicans do with Dem run programs, the Dems come out looking good. Of course, would is emphasized here because all of the above has the critical prerequisite that voters spend more than a half second thinking about any of this. As we know they absolutely will not and will instead just think: Biden did a thing -> a thing didn't work good in my state -> Biden bad. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 08:39 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways. If the 'electoral strategy' people spent more than a half a second thinking about it they'd also realize that what they did to people was: Biden did a thing -> Thing was designed to not help me -> Biden bad, which is a 100 percent accurate assessment of this 'ingenious' tactic.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 08:42 |
|
rare Magic card l00k posted:If the 'electoral strategy' people spent more than a half a second thinking about it they'd also realize that what they did to people was: Biden did a thing -> Thing was designed to not help me -> Biden bad, which is a 100 percent accurate assessment of this 'ingenious' tactic. The programs are designed to help them. If the programs are implemented as they're supposed to be, then they would help. That's by design. Period. In those instances the Republicans are the ones that stopped that help from happening. People should be able to parse that fact and base their choices on who to elect based on their self interest. That's how it's supposed to work. If Dems try to give you things you want, and Republicans stop that from happening , stop loving voting for Republicans. Voters complaining that the Democrats didn't protect the program from being sabotaged by Republicans governors THAT THE VOTERS THEMSELVES ELECTED is pretty stupid. This is especially true since, as is factually evident, the state run programs also have the added important feature of being the ones we can actually pass. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 09:03 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways. Or, you know, they could pass legislation not written in a way that allows Republican state governments to block its effects. This would also have the much stronger electoral benefit of giving a clear, nation-wide benefit attributed to a Democratic administration. Since this is something they could have done, people aren't exactly wrong to think "the Democrats chose not to help me." Given that anyone who isn't extremely stupid can anticipate that this legislation won't result in Democrats gaining control of state legislatures, this is basically just "Democrats choosing to pass a bill that won't actually provide the stated benefits to most people." Your post literally only makes sense as some sort of awkward post-hoc rationalization obviously coming from a position of "how can I make this look good for the Democrats (or at least not look bad)?" It's like someone having the option of giving food to a thousand starving people, unnecessarily creating a requirement that they don't get the food if some of those people had bad opinions, and then taking the angle of blaming the people who had bad opinions, even though they're the actual person with power and the restriction in question is completely unnecessary. -Blackadder- posted:The programs are designed to help them. If the programs are implemented as they're supposed to be, then they would help. That's by design. Period. It's not "by design" when it's contingent on something you know isn't going to happen. The people who wrote the legislation in question know full well that many/most people won't see the benefits. Also, you realize that multiple people live in states, right? Some random person in a red state doesn't have the power to make other people stop voting for Republicans. While you might be fine with sacrificing them on the alter of "having the justification for saying Republicans are bad on the internet," they probably won't share your perspective. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 09:35 |
If you ever catch yourself brainstorming a scenario in which you posit that what looks like a straightforward policy failure could actually be the Democrats setting up some kind of clever ruse to fool their enemies, you should probably stop for a second and ask yourself how sure you are that it's the Republicans they're trying to trick with it and how you arrived at that conclusion
|
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 09:58 |
|
Ytlaya posted:Or, you know, they could pass legislation not written in a way that allows Republican state governments to block its effects. This would also have the much stronger electoral benefit of giving a clear, nation-wide benefit attributed to a Democratic administration. Since this is something they could have done, people aren't exactly wrong to think "the Democrats chose not to help me." Literally a couple of pages ago this very thread discussed interview with Biden/Youngkin voters from Virginia that couldn't even remember that either Biden OR Trump gave them bailout checks. That was less than a calendar year ago. Why should I or anyone else take the notion that skirting around state government will magically be more effective at getting votes than leaving it in state government's hands? You want the voter's feeling that "Democrats choose not to help me," to be rational because if it is you can create the mythical cross-party proletariat solidarity by offering greater material benefits. It's not rational. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 10:11 |
|
So on the Roe news, are Obergefell and Loving pretty much dead now too?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 10:21 |
|
Wang Commander posted:So on the Roe news, are Obergefell and Loving pretty much dead now too? In the oral arguments Judge Beer and Judge Cultist and their fellow blood-gurglers apparently went out of their way to frame arguments about overturning Roe as NOT being the first step on a slippery slope to wiping out other rights because Sotomayor explicitly asked them that. It's horse poo poo of course, they'd wipe out the entire constitution under their veil of constitutional originalism if they thought they could get away with it.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 10:41 |
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:It's not really worth it to argue any of this with DarkCrawler, who has been on this track since at least the old GE threads and probably well before. But they live in the netherlands or something and believe that everyone who has ever voted for a republican is a subhuman, howling demon who can't recognize anything other than their lust for wanton destruction and defilement. I didn't bother to check but I'm sure they've already posted ITT about how it's your moral duty to cut any family members who eg. watch fox news completely out of your life or you're just as bad etc. rofl this deep into the nightmare this planet has become and you want to give actual voting republicans a pass? Buddy at this point being a centrist is basically supporting the destruction of most/all life on earth because the center cannot hold.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 11:02 |
|
Regarde Aduck posted:rofl this deep into the nightmare this planet has become and you want to give actual voting republicans a pass? Buddy at this point being a centrist is basically supporting the destruction of most/all life on earth because the center cannot hold. I don't think that's remotely close to the point they were trying to make. That being said: IK Hat If people want to keep arguing the pros/cons/logistics of severing chuds from your life, take it to it's own thread, quit dredging it up in here.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 11:28 |
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:If you ever catch yourself brainstorming a scenario in which you posit that what looks like a straightforward policy failure could actually be the Democrats setting up some kind of clever ruse to fool their enemies, you should probably stop for a second and ask yourself how sure you are that it's the Republicans they're trying to trick with it and how you arrived at that conclusion heck we already have an example of how it works with that kind of policy that states can choose to not accept: the ACA medicaid expansion it uh, wasn't exactly a huge blow to republicans!
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 12:23 |
|
Ytlaya posted:Or, you know, they could pass legislation not written in a way that allows Republican state governments to block its effects. This would also have the much stronger electoral benefit of giving a clear, nation-wide benefit attributed to a Democratic administration. Since this is something they could have done, people aren't exactly wrong to think "the Democrats chose not to help me." Ytlaya posted:Given that anyone who isn't extremely stupid can anticipate that this legislation won't result in Democrats gaining control of state legislatures, this is basically just "Democrats choosing to pass a bill that won't actually provide the stated benefits to most people." Ytlaya posted:Your post literally only makes sense as some sort of awkward post-hoc rationalization obviously coming from a position of "how can I make this look good for the Democrats (or at least not look bad)?" It's like someone having the option of giving food to a thousand starving people, unnecessarily creating a requirement that they don't get the food if some of those people had bad opinions, and then taking the angle of blaming the people who had bad opinions, even though they're the actual person with power and the restriction in question is completely unnecessary. Ytlaya posted:It's not "by design" when it's contingent on something you know isn't going to happen. The people who wrote the legislation in question know full well that many/most people won't see the benefits. If you're so frustrated by the watered down legislation maybe direct some of that energy constructively and volunteer to pound the pavement for a candidate that can primary some of those lovely moderates that are causing it. Or maybe even flip a seat from Red to Blue. Or run for office yourself. An Islamaphobic Truck Driver with no experience and a campaign budget of $2200 ran as a Republican and beat a 20 year incumbent Democrat in New Jersey so it really can't be that hard. We can start GoonPac and begin raising money for goon candidates. But what would be their policy platform? -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 12:55 |
|
https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1466513079391375371?s=20 I can’t believe that a Congress of Democrats gave billions to this fantasy.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 13:13 |
|
DeSantis wants to bring back the Florida State Guard:quote:The Florida State Guard was created in 1941 during World War II as a temporary force to fill the void left behind when the Florida National Guard was deployed to assist in the US combat efforts. It was disbanded after the war ended, but the authority for a governor to establish a state defense force remained. Seems useful in hurricane hell zone but the National Guard exists? This just feels like a workaround/creepy personal guard. quote:But in a nod to the growing tension between Republican states and the Biden administration over the National Guard, DeSantis also said this unit, called the Florida State Guard, would be "not encumbered by the federal government." He said this force would give him "the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible." DeSantis is proposing bringing it back with a volunteer force of 200 civilians, and he is seeking $3.5 million from the state legislature in startup costs to train and equip them. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-desantis/index.html
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 13:15 |
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1466513079391375371?s=20 It was generating bad news cycles. It was being picked up that it generated reliable bad news cycles. Blame cable news for constantly airing people in the diplomatic service getting vertigo, heat injury, tinnitus, and mass hysteria as the next Russian super weapon.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 13:26 |
|
Bellmaker posted:DeSantis wants to bring back the Florida State Guard:
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:00 |
|
Culture war in the deep southern town of Bristol, Vermont: https://www.wcax.com/2021/12/03/large-police-presence-expected-mount-abraham-high-school-following-threats-disruption/ Last night the principal posted: quote:Dear Students and Families,
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:08 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways. Biden did a thing-> thing designed on purpose to gently caress over (mostly PoC) Democratic voters in red states to get a talking point to use against Republicans->Biden doesn't give a poo poo about me->Biden bad, which is 100% true
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:13 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways. This didn't really happen with the medicare expansions though.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:14 |
|
Maybe let me put it another way: if Elon Musk came to me and said "hey I want to give your family thousands of dollars because you're struggling and I see you need the help" and then added "but I won't just give it to you, I will tell one of the biggest dripping assholes in the country he can deliver a check from me to you if he wants but if he doesn't tough titties then" then yes I will blame Greg Abbott when he says no, but I would also be pretty pissed at the guy with all the money and power to help me for creating this totally unnecessary dependency in the first place. If you have the power to help me, but let a raging rear end in a top hat decide whether you help me or not, and you don't have to let him, are you any less of an rear end in a top hat than that guy in the end? At the end of the day you're making a choice that ends up with me not getting help. And no "well just vote against Greg Abbott in two years" doesn't help because I've voted against him twice and he's still there and I can't magically flip Texas all by myself VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:32 |
|
why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:46 |
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right? It's pretty much set up to fail. Even some blue states won't want to go for it because the funding dries up in less than a decade and if republicans are in power by then, well, it sure won't be getting renewed.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:47 |
|
Should've gone all in on the child tax credit IMO for helping families with kid costs.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:49 |
|
Tired of living in this fantasy world where we have to pretend the GOP is either better at paying lip service to poor Americans or electoral strategy. They are not just evil, they are also a bumbling, idiotic organization that loses half of elections to Democrats and there is nothing admirable about them, nor anything to be emulated. "Enemy of my enemy" thinking will take you to some stupid loving places, people. (Trust me, I know: I support Democrats )
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:54 |
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right? Because the states have the infrastructure in place already and it is much cheaper/faster to set up to work through the existing Pre-K regulations and networks already established in each state than to develop a new federal bureau of Pre-K to vet and credential every Pre-K program in the country in compliance with each state's rules. If you want to know why a federal program is poorly designed without obvious financial benefit to anyone, then the answer is almost always: - Constitutional issue. - Cheaper to farm it out to the states. - Having the staff from 50 different state DHSS and DOEs set up and administer a program is more efficient, less work, and cheaper (for the federal government) than hiring the equivalent amount of full-time federal employees with benefits to do it in perpetuity. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:55 |
|
Srice posted:It's pretty much set up to fail. Even some blue states won't want to go for it because the funding dries up in less than a decade and if republicans are in power by then, well, it sure won't be getting renewed. Yeah states unlike the federal government can go bankrupt so by forcing the states to pay for almost all of it through a ridiculous formula they can say they didn't increase the federal deficit. https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1465679815110017026 So there will definitely even be blue states that reject it for the same reason that federal Democrats are refusing to pay for it: blue state Democrats won't want to make a vote to raise state taxes or increase their state's deficit and be called "tax-and-spend fiscally irresponsible Democrats" Also they think all humans work on debate club rules so if you don't give a poo poo about giving them credit for help you didn't get they can say "well *akshually* I voted to ask someone else to help you and they said no, so ipso facto quod et decorum est you may only be mad at them and must thank me" and then Dumblodore will say "scintillating logical riposte, 10 points to your house, Ravenclaw wins the House Cup!" and everyone cheers and nobody points out the ridiculous sleight-of-hand you're using to gently caress them over because your argument won you the House Cup! E: what the hell he deleted his tweet in the 5 minutes since I posted? Hang on E2: ok there VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:59 |
|
Sanguinia posted:You say this as if the GOP IS a political sector in power that recognizes the pain of the non-richie Americans. I meant that that the GOP will be able to exploit it politically, just as the Dems, say, exploited the child concentration camps under Trump. Recognizing something isn't agreeing to do something about it, as we've seen with the child concentration camps under Biden. They were useful tools for Dems politically, though, as education was for the GOP in Virginia, and thus likely to be used in upcoming political battles. -Blackadder- posted:I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways. This was pretty much the thinking behind allowing states to determine expanded Medicaid (after scotus ruled against all-or-nothing funding by the feds), and yet in the following decade after passage Dems lost like a thousand seats in state & local government. And, as we saw in state referenda in places like Missouri, voters can support a program like expanded Medicaid while also supporting the party that opposes it. Maybe a more... muscular party than the Dems could pull off that kind of political jiu jitsu, but I wouldn't put my eggs in any of those baskets, given recent political history.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:09 |
|
Remember when Tucker Carlson was going on about how he had Hunter Biden's emails and then suddenly he announced that he mailed the hard drive to himself (without making a copy) and lost it? Seems like it is because they did find an instance in 2014 of Hunter Biden trying to use his name to help someone else profit. It was Tucker Carlson emailing Hunter to beg him to help his son get into Georgetown (Tuck Jr. eventually went to UVM, so Hunter's letter must not have carried a lot of weight). And, of course, Tucker Carlson's son is named "Buckley" https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1466570869120065536 https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1466591346609774595 We also have confirmation that Hunter is a depressed druggie, his dad cut him off for 13 years until Beau died, and that he was sleeping around with anything that moved. But, pretty sure that was all public knowledge.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:17 |
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1466513079391375371?s=20 Have you ever seen the roll calls of votes for military-funding bills? DeeplyConcerned posted:why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right? Gotta cut the care dollar$ so there's enough left over to restore that tax break for richie homeowners.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:21 |
|
Remember when we were assured that the SALT cap was a brilliant tactical manœuver by Democrats because for Republicans would never criticize a tax cut for billionaires or else they'd be hypocrites? https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1466437141370753028 uh oh
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:28 |
|
Yeah the SALT thing is such a bad issue for Dems. But the donors are essentially demanding it
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:32 |
|
The people in power have gutted this country for decades - wages have been stagnant since before I was born and our already not great safety net was snipped in a bipartisan fashion. The economy collapsed because of the actions of both parties and when there was a shot to change the system they just propped it up and virtually all the gains went to the richest of the rich. Can you really blame people for their inability to connect candidates and policies?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:36 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Remember when we were assured that the SALT cap was a brilliant tactical manœuver by Democrats because for Republicans would never criticize a tax cut for billionaires or else they'd be hypocrites? Why do you just make stuff up like this? (I swear to god every time somebody uses the word "assure" in D&D it's some disingenuous nonsense like this.) People said Republicans would be slow to criticize it, but not that it was a "brilliant tactical manœuver" because nobody thinks passing bad policy is brilliant. And I honestly doubt anybody "assured" you of anything. Like the real brilliant manœuver would've been passing this thing in a loving month instead of running around looking like rear end in a top hat dickheads for almost a year. +1 for the fancy New Yorker spelling, though, respect. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Dec 3, 2021 |
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:37 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 18:05 |
|
Mellow Seas posted:Why do you just make stuff up like this? No, I also remember a few people here saying that the GOP would never run ads against the SALT break because then they'd look like hypocrites. Plus, the GOP is the party of richies so it'd look bad to go against their own. It's a natural progression of cartoon thinking (GOP = richies; Dems = working stiffs), but not aligned with what has happened & will continue to happen. I guarantee that the GOP will run ads talking about how the Dems favor tax breaks for the richies while siccing the IRS on hairdressers' & food servers' bank accounts.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:45 |