|
LegendaryFrog posted:We already covered this. It's not even particularly relevant to any interesting argument, but I get annoyed when people intentionally misrepresent. His statement at Planned Parenthood was not that it was something he wanted to do immediately or on his first day in office or as his first action as president. He used "Well, the first thing I would do is..." as an answer to a question in the same way someone responding to a question with an answer that has multiple points would use "Firstly.... secondly...." It's funny you'd lean on "well at the time Roe v Wade was in effect" given Obama himself said: Obama posted:With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election. in the speech preceding his statement of support for prioritization of FoCA. He either recognized it as an urgent threat and didn't act on it, or he was cynically deploying that rhetoric to scare up more votes But since we're really drilling down on context, it's worth noting that in the press conference in which he described it as not a high priority, he wasn't framing it against the ACA or anything actually on his agenda, he was framing it in opposition to doing vague small-bore poo poo like "reducing unwanted pregnancies" because he(explicitly) didn't want to make conservatives mad. It was never a choice between FoCA and the ACA, that's just something you've invented to justify his surrender on the issue
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:Sorry, it's my fault for not being clear. Let me clarify; the changing of the rules is not the constitutional crisis. The changing of the rules to a sufficient degree to achieve the outcome of passing the entire democratic platform overnight (or 72 hours as the poster I was originally responding to suggested) would have the inevitable result of a constitutional crisis. Because the Republicans would absolutely not just shrug and go about their business in response to that. you seem to be arguing about the perception of such an act, when that sort of perception is necessarily distorted by one's own circumstances. I personally would be hesitant to describe how the people of the country would perceive such a move without empirical support.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Republicans didn't do that when they had a majority and the presidency before. One of the few bipartisan beliefs of Senators is that the minority party should be able to derail the majority party's ability to govern, because they both understand that they won't hold power forever. People make "DECORUM" memes about Democrats, and they aren't wrong, but it's not just the Democrats who subscribe to this particular belief. During the entire Trump administration, Republicans never got anything together that was both subject to the filibuster and had 50-59 votes. Apart from uncontroversial bipartisan bills, they passed some reconciliation bills(and failed even one of those with the Obamacare repeal), and got a lot of appointments through. Neither are subject to the filibuster as is. It's almost assuredly the case that if there had been a single bill that had a House majority and 50 Republican votes in the Senate, the filibuster would be gone entirely today. But they like it being there when Democrats are in charge for sure, so they weren't going to remove it a minute before they had to.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:46
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:you seem to be arguing about the perception of such an act, when that sort of perception is necessarily distorted by one's own circumstances. I personally would be hesitant to describe how the people of the country would perceive such a move without empirical support. What form of empirical support would that be? I don't expect that voters have ever been polled on their level of support for the opposing party unilaterally declaring majority rule and overnight passing their entire platform encompassing changes to every aspect of society. My educated guess though is that this would poll quite low! In terms of the likelyhood of the outcome I suggested for the elected official response, I'd point to the fact that right now you already have some elected officials ala MTG and Lauren Boeber advocating for their voters to storm the baracades over made up tyrannical actions taken by the "Democrat Party", and those people are tolerated enough among the Republican Party mainstream that they are not being instantly excommunicated. Is it a really a giant leap to suggest that if Democrats actually just passed their entire agenda in a single move that flips over the entire senate table, that more Republicans who had previously stood on the sidelines would join their extremist colleagues and the Tucker Carlson of the world in this rhetoric? If there needs to be hard data attached though, then I really don't see how we can discuss items like "assuming they had a unified 50 votes, would it be a good idea for democrats to play to win / go nuclear and just pass everything they want right now?"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 09:01
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:What form of empirical support would that be? I don't expect that voters have ever been polled on their level of support for the opposing party unilaterally declaring majority rule and overnight passing their entire platform encompassing changes to every aspect of society. My educated guess though is that this would poll quite low! Hyperfocusing on the fact that there's nothing legally preventing them from passing their agenda all in one go, to the extent of theorycrafting rightist reactions to it, is just eliding the broader point, which is that the assumed legislative limits are self-imposed and there's a broad range between the maximal approach outlined by cc and what they actually did... which was not pass a 4 page bill that basically just said "Congress officially agrees with the court's ruling on abortion and it lines up with these powers we have, no backsies" that would have prevented this situation that they explicitly anticipated Virtually everything you've posted in defense of the Democrats tonight has boiled down to the same "they did the best they could, and I know they couldn't have done better because they didn't do it" circular reasoning
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
Morbidly curious to see just how much influence and power the film industry, Coca-Cola, delta and salesforce actually have in Georgia.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:What form of empirical support would that be? I don't expect that voters have ever been polled on their level of support for the opposing party unilaterally declaring majority rule and overnight passing their entire platform encompassing changes to every aspect of society. My educated guess though is that this would poll quite low! Congress consistently polls in the low teens in approval polls, if a body that's never able to do anything is so popular why is it so hated. It seems like whatever they're doing now is the least popular thing possible Maybe people would like congress more if it actually had the power to do poo poo other than pour gazillions of dollars into Raytheon's profits. It's a thought.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why. This is one of those statistics that sounds great about how Congress sucks and nobody likes them until you realize that even in the worst years 87% of Congress is reelected. People "hate" congress but love their individual Congressperson.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:This is one of those statistics that sounds great about how Congress sucks and nobody likes them until you realize that even in the worst years 87% of Congress is reelected. People "hate" congress but love their individual Congressperson. Does that mean they actually like the obstruction? Or does it just mean that for some reason people think the guy they voted for is the one trying to get stuff done and it's all the other clowns loving it up (those clowns!) Also I'm not sure an 87% reelection rate is evidence of a functioning democracy especially when voters are so frustrated by the government as a whole. If incumbents keep getting reelected yet almost everyone is unhappy with what the government is doing, is that democracy?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:26
|
|
|
Here's a pretty frequent sentiment I get from all sorts of demographics. The individual expresses lack of faith in our systems leaders or trajectory. They then suggest "if only X", as if it was so simple one policy or leader could correct it, as if their job as an individual was done. It's a captured, won game, if all we can do is vote for one of the two parties we've already lost. The longer we kick the can the worse it will be.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does that mean they actually like the obstruction? Or does it just mean that for some reason people think the guy they voted for is the one trying to get stuff done and it's all the other clowns loving it up (those clowns!) To some degree I would say conservative voters on some level either like the dysfunction or obstruction. As for the 2nd point, again its a hard question to answer. I guess a better(?) statistic to use is how many people are challenged every year or primaried every year. My broader point here is that people assume their frustrations is CLEARLY the same frustration everyone feels. And we know that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Morbidly curious to see just how much influence and power the film industry, Coca-Cola, delta and salesforce actually have in Georgia. I don't think it really matters in this case, abortion law doesn't impact their bottom line, and so there's not much of a reason for them to put much of a stake in the issue. They have quite a bit of sway in culture war battles that can affect their profits (like being pro-gay marriage makes them money from wealthier LGBTQ types), but not standing in the way of an abortion ban probably won't hurt them as much as being seen as baby murderers would. Speaking cynically, that is. BRJurgis posted:Here's a pretty frequent sentiment I get from all sorts of demographics. The individual expresses lack of faith in our systems leaders or trajectory. They then suggest "if only X", as if it was so simple one policy or leader could correct it, as if their job as an individual was done. It's a captured, won game, if all we can do is vote for one of the two parties we've already lost. The longer we kick the can the worse it will be. I think this is because the alternative is largely unthinkable to most people. There is a tendency among people (all people, not just liberals) to use the tools that are already available to them to solve the problems that appear before them because it's significantly easier to try to apply a new use to something than it is to conceive of a new something entirely. In my view, a broken system can't be used to right itself, and the vested interests refuse to use the mangled thing to do anything other than hurt people for more and more money. If the government only extracts value and adds nothing, then the government just shouldn't exist. I understand that this would likely result in either a revolution and a constitutional convention, and the make up of the people involved in that don't really lead to better outcomes in the short term, but I think ultimately if the US can't be a functioning country, then it shouldn't be one at all. e: vvvv Yeah, sadly I think you're spot on with that. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 13:09 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:I don't think it really matters in this case, abortion law doesn't impact their bottom line, and so there's not much of a reason for them to put much of a stake in the issue. They have quite a bit of sway in culture war battles that can affect their profits (like being pro-gay marriage makes them money from wealthier LGBTQ types), but not standing in the way of an abortion ban probably won't hurt them as much as being seen as baby murderers would. Speaking cynically, that is. We're gonna see this put to the test in the near future because Alito might as well have outright said that Obergefell v Hodges is another case they can overturn with the same rationale. I would like to think it could make a difference but, well, hard to have confidence right now!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:03
|
|
|
Srice posted:We're gonna see this put to the test in the near future because Alito might as well have outright said that Obergefell v Hodges is another case they can overturn with the same rationale. I would like to think it could make a difference but, well, hard to have confidence right now! That would be absolutely horrific if they overturn Obergefell. So many families would be torn apart by that, even if they had state protections.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I hope you get what you vote for! She's voting republican so there's a chance she will get what she voted for. Can't say the same thing about voting for democrats. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well Democrats also ran on codifying Roe v Wade in 2020 and won control over the entire government so by your reasoning voters did democratically vote for basic freedoms like a woman's right to choose and the government said "gently caress you no" anyway. Won control on the barest of margins possible, including 2 people who openly flaunt the fact that they are GOP senators pretending to be Democrats. You can't actually protect Roe v Wade with 48 votes in the Senate. There is a lot of performative anger like this in this thread where people like to pretend that there is whole host of things that could be done on this issue if everyone just tried hard enough. You can't pass bills 48-52. Anyone in this thread who hasn't figured that out needs to enroll in some remedial pre-school arithmetic.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:To some degree I would say conservative voters on some level either like the dysfunction or obstruction. Mooseontheloose posted:As for the 2nd point, again its a hard question to answer. I guess a better(?) statistic to use is how many people are challenged every year or primaried every year. My broader point here is that people assume their frustrations is CLEARLY the same frustration everyone feels. And we know that is not the case. And treating the fact that politicians are rarely primaried as evidence democracy is working is rather simplistic, almost circular. How do we judge whether a system is democratic, shouldn't there be more to it than: we had a vote, then the government did things, therefore voters intended for those things to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Won control on the barest of margins possible, including 2 people who openly flaunt the fact that they are GOP senators pretending to be Democrats. You can't actually protect Roe v Wade with 48 votes in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
there was some hope that the left could use this performative anger to discipline the Democrats somehow and push them leftwards, it clearly hasn't worked at all in the past six years so it's not particularly productive people still do it as a emotional vent which is understandable but there isn't any higher purpose to it at this point - there's no broader left project at the moment
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
The Simpsons correctly identified the systemic issues plaguing the Democratic Party in 1994: “We can’t govern” is at the root of a lot of the party’s issues. They get control of the White House, the house, and (barely) the senate, but are unable to use their power to change policy. A large portion of that ineffectiveness is due to sheer incompetency (apathy?) on the part of the leaders, who consistently fail to nominate political appointments, address broken CBP policies, and even preserve their own authority to act in a public health crisis. Democratic leaders are bad at their jobs, and outcomes like the repeal of Roe v. Wade are a predictable and sad result of decades of failure to effectively wield power.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
Robot Jones posted:The Simpsons correctly identified the systemic issues plaguing the Democratic Party in 1994: But Pelosi ripped up that speech that one time. If that isn’t governing, I don’t know what is!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
Nationa polls don't really mean anything in terms of votes, but it is interesting that Republicans are more than twice as likely to agree with Democrats on abortion than Democrats are to agree with Republican. Both parties have purged the pro-life and pro-choice members respectively almost entirely. But, the Republicans have done a worse job of purging the pro-choice voters. If they are still voting for Republicans regardless of their feelings, that could be an advantage, though. Since many of the pro-life Dems have been drummed out and they are down to 7% pro-life members. Republicans are at around 12% pro-life, but almost 1 in 5 college educated Republican is pro-choice. https://twitter.com/SpecialPuppy1/status/1433504884926652417
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Gin_Rummy posted:But Pelosi ripped up that speech that one time. If that isn’t governing, I don’t know what is! Unfair! Feinstein also told a crop of bright-eyed young kids that she'll die fat and rich clutching every scrap of power, and they can all roast or starve in climate hell after that, as they please. That takes political courage! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Unfair! Feinstein also told a crop of bright-eyed young kids that she'll die fat and rich clutching every scrap of power, and they can all roast or starve in climate hell after that, as they please. Do you have the quote or video for that? Sounds wild, but I can't find anything on video.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:does it just mean that for some reason people think the guy they voted for is the one trying to get stuff done and it's all the other clowns loving it up (those clowns!) It means that they line up and vote along party lines fired up on rhetoric when the time comes and the rest of the time are fuming about those (((liberals))) or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
Robot Jones posted:The Simpsons correctly identified the systemic issues plaguing the Democratic Party in 1994: Democrats Won't Govern. At some point the incompetence excuse only goes so far. Democrats are plenty competent at stymying any sort of leftward movement, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:He probably shouldn't have made people think it was a priority for him if it wasn't This is something you can only say with hindsight. Back in 2009, it was completely reasonable to think that conservatives would be more okay with healthcare than with abortion, and that passing a healthcare bill would increase the Dems' political leverage for other things. That was Obama's whole thing after all - he put too much stock in the power of political strategy and liked to pursue roundabout paths, thinking he could optimize his chances of passing poo poo if he did things in the right order and made the right concessions to the right people at the right time. Hell, even after the political clusterfuck that was the 2010s, it's still pretty clear that the GOP is more okay with healthcare than abortion. They dropped "repeal Obamacare" after less than a decade, but they've been clinging to "overturn Roe" for 49 years now. Of course, there's also the fact that neither party is a monolith, and both parties fail to pass major campaign planks even when they win majorities, because the entire party does not vote 100% in lockstep. Even the GOP, for all their famous party discipline while in the opposition, had some big issues trying to pass legislation when they were the ones who held the presidency and both houses of Congress. And in 2009, the Dems' huge majorities included a significant number of conservative-leaning members from districts and states that wouldn't normally go Dem, so party loyalty was especially low. The Dems may have had greater numbers on paper, but those boosted numbers were made up of unreliable members who couldn't be counted on - though that wouldn't have been so big a problem if the GOP hadn't decided to go all-in on "filibuster loving everything the other party suggests no matter what", which was still a rather new strategy back in 2009.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Democrats Won't Govern.  in the end motive doesn't matter, the joke is on us and anyone else who elects people who fight for the same thing for their entire career and can't deliver it. At some point the voters should of told a lot of the Democratic party "Take a seat champ, we're going to let someone else make this play"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:
That was literally how Republicans got Roe overturned. It took 50 years of failing to deliver over and over (even when they had a majority on the court) and failing to pass any national law banning them (despite campaigning on them for 40 years straight), but now it seems inevitable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
The White House finally put out a statement and it’s basically ‘we need more Senators so we can maybe do something about this next year’ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/03/statement-by-president-joe-biden-4/
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That was literally how Republicans got Roe overturned. It took 50 years of failing to deliver over and over (even when they had a majority on the court) and failing to pass any national law banning them (despite campaigning on them for 40 years straight), but now it seems inevitable. Roe is being overturned by their dumb luck that RGB was self-centered enough to die on the bench. If she had put her ego aside to step down under Obama, or even just held out from dying for a few more months, this timeline doesn't occur.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Democrats Won't Govern. Yet we see democrats governed just fine when there are actually working majorities in plants of individual states. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That was literally how Republicans got Roe overturned. It took 50 years of failing to deliver over and over (even when they had a majority on the court) and failing to pass any national law banning them (despite campaigning on them for 40 years straight), but now it seems inevitable. That just sounds like an explanation for why it would be fairly easy to play defense here but the Democrats still manage to not deliver on what they promise to do to play defense. The Republicans also repeatedly failed to do what they want but were given many opportunities that they managed to eventually get a majority on the court that is allowing them to repeal Roe v. Wade. I think we can also both agree the joke is often on Republican voters.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The White House finally put out a statement and it’s basically ‘we need more Senators so we can maybe do something about this next year’ So, in other words, they’re going to do gently caress all about it then.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That was literally how Republicans got Roe overturned. It took 50 years of failing to deliver over and over (even when they had a majority on the court) and failing to pass any national law banning them (despite campaigning on them for 40 years straight), but now it seems inevitable. It’s pretty telling that I can clearly describe the goals of the GOP and measure their progress, wins and losses, but I cannot do the same for Dems. GOP: 1. End legal abortion 2. End gay marriage 3. Eliminate as much taxation as possible, starting at the top 4. Eliminate the EPA 5. Roll back civil rights protections of all kinds DNC: 1. Make sure I gotta pay to go to the doctor? 2. Taxes on ??? 3. Schmabortion Schmights It’s the duality of capitalism; one side can lean all the way into the natural end state of a system of economic dominance. The other has to act like it doesn’t support that end state, like pretending the car won’t ever get to the vet’s office, the voter being an unneutered dog in this image. Both parties work under and for capitalism, which cannot consider human rights or desires in its algorithm, thus one side is constantly hamstrung by fighting (allegedly, but not really) for things the system ultimately finds untenable because of those concepts or frameworks’ incompatibility with capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sfpelosi/status/1521294980488204289?s=20 The nerve of this woman when her mother is openly supporting anti-choice candidates like Henry Cuellar. It's going to be a long road ahead, but the first step is the old Dem guard getting out of the way and retiring. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 15:05 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That was literally how Republicans got Roe overturned. It took 50 years of failing to deliver over and over (even when they had a majority on the court) and failing to pass any national law banning them (despite campaigning on them for 40 years straight), but now it seems inevitable. They did not just fail for 50 years and then deliver finally one day out of the blue. The GOP has been for years delivering for their constituents on this front, and even when failing to make progress they made consistent, visible, public, and often dramatic efforts. Conservatives did not sit idly by voting red and patiently waiting for 50 years, they consistently demanded action, got things for their votes, and attacked those who failed to deliver either action or rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:So, in other words, they’re going to do gently caress all about it then.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:Out of curiosity, given the amount of effort and time that has been expended by Democrats, including the Biden admin, in trying to pass Build Back Better which has climate change as a core focus... would you say that qualifies as Democrats caring enough about climate change to throw their weight behind the issue? Biden threw his weight behind congress not waiting for passage of the BBB before passage of the infrastructure bill and that was the one final act that killed BBB, as the House lefties had said it would be, so the answer is no: they wanted a short-term & smaller win rather than strategically tying passage of the infrastructure bill to the BBB first passing the Senate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/sfpelosi/status/1521294980488204289?s=20 What do some or all of our Faves think about this?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 15:05
|
|