|
Srice posted:There's also the argument to be made that it will energize republican voters as well. They already hate Biden but now they're getting the abortion ban they wanted, and a gay marriage ban might be in the cards too? They're getting a lot of what they want with promises of more on the horizon. I mean the wording of the ~draft ruling~ explicitly calls out past rulings in favor of contraception, interracial marriage and gay marriage, and against forced sterilization and forced surgery in general, so they're openly saying they want full Nuremberg Laws at this point. Alito practically said "We want full nazi poo poo, just a little later."
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Several posters, myself included, suggested investigating Manchin and his family. I even posted an Intercept piece on things Manchin can and should be investigated over. Gumball Gumption posted:Cutting them off from the party's fundraising infrastructure would be a simple and easy one. They could freeze them out of the basic services the party provides that allow you to successfully run races. Is it impossible without them? No, but it's a whole lot harder. I don't think Manchin really cares. He is a millionaire, and in the good books of both the GOP donors and voters in his state. He could switch parties the instant you go after him. Sinema could maybe be pressured, but there is no point alienating one senator if you can't get the other. The only solution is to have a majority without guys like Manchin. If you had 52-53 senators, putting pressure on the Democrats to nuke the filibuster would be a viable solution in this situation. Short of literally putting a gun to Manchin's family's head, there is nothing you are going to do to get him to budge, and without him you have zero options. With the impending red wave, everyone needs to accept that abortion rights, are gone until 2028 at the earliest, and a few more rights will follow in short order.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The only solution is to have a majority without guys like Manchin. If you had 52-53 senators, putting pressure on the Democrats to nuke the filibuster would be a viable solution in this situation. Getting this kind of majority is effectively impossible, as has been pointed out many times already.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Pure guess, the democrats probably don't lean on the blue dog dildos because they'll simply switch to R out of spite. If this happens, nothing gets passed regardless. And a bad poo poo Dem gets removed from the party, and can be replaced. Seems like win-win.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't think Manchin really cares. He is a millionaire, and in the good books of both the GOP donors and voters in his state. He could switch parties the instant you go after him. Sinema could maybe be pressured, but there is no point alienating one senator if you can't get the other. Sounds to me like electoral politics is not an effective means of pushing progressive goals, then. Perhaps people should be focusing their energy on direct action, organizing unions, preparing for a general strike, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
The powers that be have had more than six years to get this settled, this was not unforeseeable
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Kanos posted:I've always been curious about this, to be honest. Manchin being an untouchable obstructionist because he's a conservative from West Virginia and all you'd ever get instead of him if you booted him out would be a Republican is a known fact. So if you magically conjured 10-12 more democratic senators from other conservative or battleground states, they too would necessarily be largely untouchable because all you'd ever get instead of them if you booted them out would be Republicans. It would be trivially easy for them to form an obstructionist bloc or even participate in a rotating villains scheme and whoops the Blue Dogs are back from the dead and ready to party, baby. But more to the point, "vote harder" is a necessary mentality in any case. We can't know the future, but we can remember how we got here. 2016 was one of the most grim elections imaginable. It was the most demoralizing displays the Democrats could possibly present. There was basically no positive reason to vote for Clinton. This is primarily the fault of Clinton and the Democratic establishment, true, but that was the situation voters had to deal with. If people who cared about things not being poo poo just voted harder in 2016, despite the absolutely miserable showing of the Democratic establishment, Roe v Wade would still exist. As it stands, the Democratic establishment was punished for their incompetence. And so, the theory goes, they should at least learn their lesson right? Nope. We have Biden and Roe v Wade was still repealed. Voting harder could easily have prevented some truly catastrophic political developments, while punishing the Dems has proven disastrously ineffective. That's just how things played out. Would a Return of the Blue Dogs be good? It doesn't sound good to me. Possibly a dozen Manchins would be just as bad as one. But it honestly sounds better than a dozen absolutely lockstep intransigent Republican ghouls, which is in fact the only alternative. Voting isn't enough. "Just vote" is bullshit. I have no idea what more there is to be done, but I'm entirely behind whatever people want to try. Except for "maybe don't vote, to punish the Dems". That is the absolutely most dumb shortsighted self-indulgent bullshit. Our political system is garbage that will only get worse with disengagement. Are primaries a demoralizing unfair slog? Yes. They are. But keep doing it anyway. We can't predict the future. The only tactic guaranteed to fail is giving the Republicans more power.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:What is the scenario where multi-millionaires Samuel Alito, ACB, Clarence Thomas, and Kavanaugh are so impacted by a liberal protest that they wait for a new abortion case to make its way up through the courts, very publicly show that they were cowed, and write a legal opinion saying the one they just wrote last year was entirely wrong? They would not be cowed by liberal protests in this hypothetical, Leon. They would be cowed by their friends, allies, and benefactors who would not want to pay the price necessary to overturn Roe and demanded they change their minds, because they themselves would consider the price of resisting their friends as being too high I'll say again, though, that you're just trying to nitpick a hypothetical example so you don't have to engage with the broader point. If a general strike specifically is not enough, you can either escalate the price you demand of your enemies or you can surrender. That isn't being constrained by natural law, it's making a calculation and every actor within the system does it
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:If this happens, nothing gets passed regardless. And a bad poo poo Dem gets removed from the party, and can be replaced. Seems like win-win. This assumes the Party leadership agrees that they are "bad". Pelosi is supporting an anti-choice candidate against a pro-choice candidate in TX right now, as I type this. Schumer and Pelosi have to go before any of this becomes feasible IMO
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That excuse becomes less and less persuasive every time it's uttered. Manchin knows he wouldn't survive a WV Republican primary cycle. Plus he'd rather be the decisive vote in the Senate than a complete non-factor, which is what he would be if he were a Republican in a GOP-held Senate. If Manchin switched to Democrats he would probably win the primary on the "gently caress you" factor alone. Unlike Democrats, Republicans understand and utilize hate towards the political opposition, quite effectively.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Madison Cawthorn can talk about seeing congressional Republicans having coke orgies and a week later had photos of him crossdressing and being inappropriate with a staffer. And yet the Dems can't do anything for Manchin or Sinema in protecting their constituents?! Madison Cawthorn will be replaced with a comparably chuddy idiot if he loses his place. Manchin is replaced with a party switch who votes agianst them 100% of the time instead of just a lot of the time and actively shifts the seat right. There is no downside undercutting MC but there is of undercutting Manchin. I agree it's worth it in this case but if you're going to argue the realpolitik of consequences with Manchin then you need to deal with all the consequences. Majorian posted:That excuse becomes less and less persuasive every time it's uttered. Manchin knows he wouldn't survive a WV Republican primary cycle. Plus he'd rather be the decisive vote in the Senate than a complete non-factor, which is what he would be if he were a Republican in a GOP-held Senate. Doesn't have to be convincing, it's reality. Manchin wants to hold on to power, so he has to do the thing where he is mostly aligned with republicans but votes with dems some of the time. If they remove his committeees, he loses next election. If he switches parties, he loses next election. Any time he loses an election dems lose his vote permanently instead of just most of the time. Dems would rather count on his vote a few areas than be unable to count on his vote in any area. It's stupid and Manchin and the dems are trash but that's the extremely stupid reality. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Edit wrong thread
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:They would not be cowed by liberal protests in this hypothetical, Leon. They would be cowed by their friends, allies, and benefactors who would not want to pay the price necessary to overturn Roe and demanded they change their minds, because they themselves would consider the price of resisting their friends as being too high Why do you think they would do that? They don't receive their money from any outside source, they have a lifetime appointment, and they are already wealthy. Maybe they are just really empathetic to their friends. But, it seems like people who are extremely proud and ideologues would love for a backlash that doesn't impact them because they can show how they are resisting the mob and doing the right thing. Getting mad that people are pointing out your plan won't work doesn't seem like a productive way to create a plan that does work.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Reminder that today's the beginning of primary season for the midterm elections. I don't know of any exciting Indiana races to watch, but in Ohio it'll be interesting to see who the GOP picks to run against Ryan for the U.S. Senate and who Dems pick in Turner vs. Brown for the House.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Getting this kind of majority is effectively impossible, as has been pointed out many times already. It is more possible than getting Manchin to nuke the filibuster. If this is a country where the Democrats can't get a majority without Manchin, then losing abortion rights is the least of our worries. People should also realize that in a hot civil war, the right will win with ease.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:People should also realize that in a hot civil war, the right will win with ease. Oh cool we're already doing hypothetical hot civil wars? Only took a day.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:People should also realize that in a hot civil war, the right will win with ease. Okay this part I disagree: The Right is largely a minority, 30% at best, and while they have a lot of people in power, they are not a single power block.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:**things get worse** --> "Why didn't the democrats prevent this" --> don't vote for democrats Why are you conflating Democratic victory with progress when recent history shows that to be untrue? Is it because you identify with the Party? That's fine, just understand that not all progressives identify as Democrats. Anyway. If they never ever suffer any consequences for failing, why would they change? This is just not that complicated. If you pledge your undying support to a Party that doesn't serve you, it just helps preserve the status quo of an organization that only exists to give jobs to failnephews.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
lol at this thread full of posters who spent all of 2020 loudly insisting they would never vote for joe biden, now getting mad at joe biden for not doing something they didn't even believe he'd do in the first place (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I don't find the Vote for Democrats > Things Get Worse > VOTE HARDER!!! cycle to be effective or meaningful either. They never ever suffer any consequences for failing? 2010 was a consequence of failing. 2016 was a consequence of failing. The problem is, those consequences of the democratic party failing are felt by a whole lot more people than elected democrats. I'm all for suggestions of activism/organizing/direct action that exist outside of electoralism to try and make things better. But let's be clear; "If the people just stop showing up for democrats, that will be impetus they need to suddenly turn things around" seems to be disproven two or more times every decade, to pretty disastrous consequences. LegendaryFrog fucked around with this message at 21:32 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
Of course a general strike would impact the SCOTUS, one successfully being organized and having their demands met would strike against two of the biggest historical mandates - the elevation of corporations over labor, and the shielding of the carceral state and coercive apparatuses of the government from restriction or accountabilityEiba posted:There's a big difference between West Virginia red and Georgia red. There are places that can more plausibly support actual Democratic senators. In fact there are few places as hostile to actual Democratic senators than West Virginia. She got more votes by far. The kind of votes that people like us can cast don't actually have any bearing on who becomes President. Who failed her and the party or whatever here anyway? Progressives are by far the most loyal dissenting bloc in this country, it's why they're so irrelevant. If Libertarians or ancaps held their nose for the GOP as reliably as progressives do for Dems Trump would be 2 years into his 2nd term.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Honest question: If a near future republican president has the same makeup of the house/senate as Biden does just flipped R/D then wouldn't they just kill the filibuster without any hesitation? Short answer probably not. I very strongly suspect that the filibuster's continued existence 2017-2019 was because McConnell straight up didn't have the votes to kill it. Its survival in the current congress is tenuous because, broadly speaking, Democratic senators want the government to do things. The Republican party has a LOT more politicians who see keeping the government from doing anything as an end, not a means, and the filibuster is an extremely powerful tool for any random rear end blood-gargling goblinoid senator to say "no actually we're not subsidizing solar panels on cat rescue shelters, gently caress you". I don't think it's possible for the GOP to get the votes to kill the legislative filibuster anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:lol at this thread full of posters who spent all of 2020 loudly insisting they would never vote for joe biden, now getting mad at joe biden for not doing something they didn't even believe he'd do in the first place Dang who would have expected people who didn't like Joe Biden being mad at Joe Biden for exactly the reasons they didn't like him. Hoisted on their own petards, you see.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Dang who would have expected people who didn't like Joe Biden being mad at Joe Biden for exactly the reasons they didn't like him. i don't see the logic in getting mad at a guy for breaking* a promise you didn't even believe he'd fulfill in the first place *joe biden is not the one responsible for inaction on federal abortion protections
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Short answer probably not.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Disagree here, McConnell gutted the filibuster to pass tax cuts, this is flatly not true, the tax cut was passed through reconciliation
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:this is flatly not true, the tax cut was passed through reconciliation
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Disagree here, McConnell gutted the filibuster to pass tax cuts, No, he didn't. They had to reduce the Trump tax cuts from $7.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion because they refused to kill the filibuster and had to do it via reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Disagree here, McConnell gutted the filibuster to pass tax cuts, and Democrats had already nuked the filibuster for judicial appointment. That's all they care about. The entire Republican platform is to weaken federal government and cement their grip on the judiciary. The filibuster now exists entirely as a tool to keep Democrats from doing anything. Also once the Republicans win the House and Senate this year, the filibuster will be gone day one because neither chamber will ever fall into the hands of the Democrats ever again, so there is no further need for “the weapon of the minority”.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:i don't see the logic in getting mad at a guy for breaking* a promise you didn't even believe he'd fulfill in the first place You don't see the logic for being mad at a guy for being a conservative liar, when it's shown he's a conservative liar? That seems incredibly logical. Are you sure you picked the right tact to try and complain about vague unnamed "thread posters" here?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Via changing the rules of reconciliation over the Senate Parliamentarian, something Dems don't want to do They didn't change the rules for the Trump tax cuts. You might be thinking of when they replaced the parliamentarian early in the Bush administration.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:i don't see the logic in getting mad at a guy for breaking* a promise you didn't even believe he'd fulfill in the first place we said he would not fulfill the promise, and as a result a large number of people would suffer. he has not fulfilled the promise, and as a result a large number of people will suffer. smugly saying "called it" would not only be in poor taste, it would be even less productive than the anger.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They didn't change the rules for the Trump tax cuts. You might be thinking of when they replaced the parliamentarian early in the Bush administration.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You don't see the logic for being mad at a guy for being a conservative liar, when it's shown he's a conservative liar? if i promise something but somebody else holds it up, most people would not consider that promise "broken." if i promise to meet you for dinner, but my car breaks down on the way and i can't make it, i didn't break my promise
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:if i promise something but somebody else holds it up, most people would not consider that promise "broken." if i promise to meet you for dinner, but my car breaks down on the way and i can't make it, i didn't break my promise Oh we're dying on this hill huh Biden didn't even try, despite saying it was a top legislative priority. Nor did Obama, as others have shown in this thread. Stop tone policing people who are justifiably upset.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Oh we're dying on this hill huh what does "try" mean in this context. hold joe manchin at gunpoint?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
One of you change your title please
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Doesn't everything here just boil down to nobody agreeing on what counts as "trying".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:lol at this thread full of posters who spent all of 2020 loudly insisting they would never vote for joe biden, now getting mad at joe biden for not doing something they didn't even believe he'd do in the first place GreyjoyBastard posted:I don't think it's possible for the GOP to get the votes to kill the legislative filibuster anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
goethe.cx posted:what does "try" mean in this context. hold joe manchin at gunpoint? Step 1 would be "literally anything, even one single thing. Do anything except absolutely nothing at all." If Biden tries that, we can go from there
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:45
|
|