|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Maybe you should try looking at the context. What have they voted for when the votes actually mattered? How can we determine "when the votes actually mattered", when what are life and death decisions for one person can have essentially no bearing on someone else? Saying that a vote didn't matter post facto seems like a cop out, especially given how much control the party itself has over what even comes to a floor vote. If the answer to whether a vote counts as evidence of belief is "only when it does", if we don't have an objective method of determining that, it's just the No True Scotsman Fallacy with extra steps.
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I think it's a little more nuanced than that. this made me think of the Terry Schaivo incident when politicians decided they needed to weigh in on persistive vegetative state diagnoses. There's also transitional care for trans people, birth control, etc... Conservatives seem like they get to play in the medical field without any consequences. don't even get me started on Dr. Oz. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I think it's a little more nuanced than that. They've dumped the "rare" part since 2012. Hillary Clinton even changed her slogan to "safe and legal" in 2014. quote:Is Hillary Clinton recalibrating her position on abortion as she seeks the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination? quote:But there are other indications that not only the words but the music of her position on abortion have evolved in this campaign. According to Vox, the last time an elected Democrat used the full term was... quote:But “safe, legal, and rare” isn’t completely gone. Gabbard — who once identified as pro-life but now says she supports abortion rights — used the phrase at the fourth presidential debate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Didn't he sign a bunch of bullshit restrictions as governor that made it harder for Virginia women to get an abortion Oh, yeah; those "partial-birth abortion" bans that most Democrat pols have supported is another great example of allowing your opponents to frame the issue, and then feeling compelled to vote against a medical procedure for political reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Tnega posted:How can we determine "when the votes actually mattered", when what are life and death decisions for one person can have essentially no bearing on someone else? Saying that a vote didn't matter post facto seems like a cop out, especially given how much control the party itself has over what even comes to a floor vote. "Mattering" here means deciding. If Manchin is the vote that blocks we know his position. We don't know that everyone else truly supports the bill in their hearts verse voting in a way that is electorally good for them because Manchin will block. Yes it sucks. Yes it adds to the feeling of hopelessness of ever getting enough good Dems into Congress. But the logic is sound Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:52 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They've dumped the "rare" part since 2012. Hillary Clinton even changed her slogan to "safe and legal" in 2014. Wonderful; it only took them 40 years to become less morally ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Wonderful; it only took them 40 years to become less morally ambiguous. I wonder how much of a backslide the slogans will suffer as a result of this. The dems favor a "lead from behind" sort of behavior when it comes to championing issues, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that "and rare" come back into play when abortion is legal again in 2032. ... even as a joke that was a little too dark. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:"Mattering" here means deciding. If Manchin is the vote that blocks we know his position. Thank you. It will be a pain in the rear end to find votes like that, as why would you bring something to the floor just to have Manchin take a position, but it is at least something to work with.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Abortion is one of the issues where there aren't really any "secret" beliefs. The pro-life people are loud and proud and usually do it as a way of showing they "aren't like other Democrats" or distancing themselves from cosmopolitan cultural values. The opposite tends to happen where "pro-choice" Republicans who previously supported pro-choice policies will still declare they are pro-choice, but have a nearly 100% pro-life voting record as they fall in line with the party. Same with Democrats. Tim Kaine and Ted Kennedy both had nearly 100% perfect abortion voting record in the Senate despite both being "opposed to abortion personally." The "secret" beliefs usually involve money or issues with low-salience that people don't care about, but have extremely high value to specific subgroups like biologic patent law, carryover interest loopholes, or logging bushel regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:this made me think of the Terry Schaivo incident when politicians decided they needed to weigh in on persistive vegetative state diagnoses. There's also transitional care for trans people, birth control, etc...  I'm not sure you understood my point, which was that by talking out of both sides of their mouths, Democratic politicians like Kaine who claim to believe in their hearts that abortion is wrong, but would never (now) vote against it, give credence to the idea that abortion is bad, and feed into rightwing tropes about "killing babies."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1521608281969422336?s=21&t=nLYhPiCKzgtpt7cSg2uv0Q I love this exchange: https://twitter.com/40_Years/status/1521605496951783425 https://twitter.com/40_Years/status/1521606793251729409 https://twitter.com/AWKWORDrap/status/1521352055281049603 https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1521638812354596864
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
The redemption arc for Peter Daou has been really compelling, I gotta say.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
Another way to conceptualize this idea, and why its a bad position to welcome into the party would be if instead of the issue at hand being abortion, you imagine someone like Tim Kaine as a politician who personally believes that black people are inferior to white people, but would never vote to limit the rights of mintorities. Absolutely no one would want someone like that in the party, because while their vote may be helpful in a sheer numbers sense, they legitimize an awful viewpoint. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 16:20 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Tnega posted:I apologize for the hostility implied in the following post, but there is no way to type it out that doesn't sound hostile. If a voting record cannot be used as evidence for a politicians beliefs, does anything count as evidence? It's some evidence but since we know that hall passes and such exist, a voting record of votes that don't matter by itself isn't conclusive proof that a legislator can be counted on when it matters It's weird to get hostile about it when it's just a fact. Yeah it'd be nice if votes were always 100% honest but they aren't and we know that so no sense in shooting the messenger for pointing it out
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Another way to conceptualize this idea, and why its a bad position to welcome into the party would be if instead of the issue at hand being abortion, you imagine someone like Tim Kaine as a politician who personally believes that black people are inferior to white people, but would never vote to limit the rights of mintorities. Absolutely no one would want someone like that in the party, because while they may vote may be helpful in a sheer numbers sense, they legitimize an awful viewpoint. On the other hand, any scenario where Tim Kaine's personal charisma inspires millions of people to "follow my words and not my deeds" and reorganize their entire concept of the bounds of human life is one that only exists in various alternate timelines. And those only exist because an infinite amount of timelines must eventually create all theoretical possibilities.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's some evidence but since we know that hall passes and such exist, a voting record of votes that don't matter by itself isn't conclusive proof that a legislator can be counted on when it matters
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:On the other hand, any scenario where Tim Kaine's personal charisma inspires millions of people to "follow my words and not my deeds" and reorganize their entire concept of the bounds of human life is one that only exists in various alternate timelines. That's basically "posting is not praxis" for individual politicians. MPF made a similar argument yesterday about Dem leaders not being able to singlehandedly make a general strike happen. But each of these arguments belies the fact that politicians set a tone and influence the base. What they do does matter, even if you can rhetorically diffuse responsibility amongst the rest. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:That's basically "posting is not praxis" for individual politicians. You made a similar argument yesterday about Dem leaders not being able to singlehandedly make a general strike happen. But this belies the fact that leadership sets a tone and influences the base. What they do does matter even if you can diffuse alleged responsibility amongst the rest. That's the point though. Posting isn't praxis. Action is praxis. If he is telling people that his political goals are X, achieving a nearly 100% rating in achieving X, runs on a platform of achieving X, but says, "I wouldn't personally do X, but everyone else can." Nobody who is so into politics that they are following Tim Kaine's personal life and voting record is going to radically redefine their personal values and become pro-life due to the raw charisma and lived experience of Senator Tim Kaine's anecdotes. The idea that Ted Kennedy was a damaging force against abortion rights because he said the same thing, while voting 100% pro-choice, is silly. Is it ideal? No, but there are way bigger problems than that and his personal anecdote (that is never mentioned outside of some interviews about faith) is not meaningfully moving the ball in any way. Most of the politicians in favor of legalizing weed say they wouldn't personally do it, but it doesn't matter if they deliver 100% the same results as putting the ghost of Bob Marley in their seat would.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:On the other hand, any scenario where Tim Kaine's personal charisma inspires millions of people to "follow my words and not my deeds" and reorganize their entire concept of the bounds of human life is one that only exists in various alternate timelines. What our political leaders believe has an impact on the discourse and matters, it impacts their priorities, it impacts what they say to the public what causes they do and do not champion. The impact of a politician is greater than just the votes they cast and Tim Kaine's regressive and backwards view on abortion is hurtful to the goal of protection bodily autonomy even if he never voted against it directly in the senate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Ian_Todd/status/1521706479824293889?s=20&t=WrlvFyHIhr1AhOxW4qdtVQ
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's the point though. Posting isn't praxis. Action is praxis. All speech is a form of action. There are degrees and weights to things. Speech without acts are generally hollow, of course. Pols being down on weed does influence antiweed people in the continued beliefs. Pols speech in general carries a lot more weight than even many acts by regular joes. Joe biden's speech about fracking is the perennial example of this. I'm sure you bought into it in good faith but I'm deeply convinced that "posting is not praxis" was made up to win an argument online, probably by someone who just wanted to keep being an rear end in a top hat to people when others suggested they stop. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:37 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
I agree and am clumsily commenting that there seems to be a price, even if small, for democrats that meddle in the practice of medicine, but conservatives are outright encouraged to do so. The abortion issue is a small subset of the overall "lets gently caress with healthcare as part of the culture war" that is envolpong all of us. Fictory in this field will just embolden them to do more top gently caress with patient care directly.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:What our political leaders believe has an impact on the discourse and matters, it impacts their priorities, it impacts what they say to the public what causes they do and do not champion. The impact of a politician is greater than just the votes they cast and Tim Kaine's regressive and backwards view on abortion is hurtful to the goal of protection bodily autonomy even if he never voted against it directly in the senate. Amy Klobuchar tells a long anecdote about the significance of abortion in her personal life and how her experience shaped her views. What is the meaningful difference in "causes championed" and change in the extent of bodily autonomy under the law that happens if you replace Tim Kaine with a clone of Amy Klobuchar?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
There is a difference. It cannot be meaningfully measured because Republicans are always bigger assholes and because you can't measure counterfactuals anyway. So we're just back to VBNMW, aren't we?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
We actually honor it because anti-abortion is based on religious dogma, which is not so much the case with interracial marriage. We LOVE religious beliefs in this country. Which is why I brought up my point about Ilhan Omar: if you're a Muslim woman, you may very well believe that women should cover their hair. You may very well believe that non-Muslims are infidels, as per holy scripture. So, why are we letting this slide? Why are we letting men and women be segregated into those with exposed hair and those with covered hair, which is completely based on patriarchy? The answer is because we have to respect religion, even if you're like me who thinks that all religion is garbage. Having personal beliefs about abortion falls into this category. As long as Omar is not calling for laws that force women to cover their hair, and Kaine is not calling for laws that ban abortion, this is within the bounds of what we should see as acceptable for politicians. (And we do, because religion.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Has Omar come out and said that women should cover their hair? Or does she cover her hair quietly in accordance with her religious beliefs? Do you think it would be different if a male Muslim politician came out and said women should cover their hair, though he would not vote for such laws? To me Kaine being a man and still saying this is also a factor. He's never going to need an abortion so his moral personal opposition to abortion completely meaningless except as an influence on the public. Maybe he did it in a calculated electoral fashion but that doesn't change that it will also have other impacts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
In the most "American_Senate.txt" update possible from the official Senate Parliamentarian office: - Chuck Schumer is trying to finish the vote on a "The Bipartisan American Competitiveness Act" so that they can begin the introduction of the vote to codify Roe (and start the inevitable 3 day timer before they can debate it when someone objects). - The bill has bipartisan support, but has been put on hold by John Thune until they have a vote to prevent Biden from rejoining the Iran nuclear deal. - Bernie Sanders has introduced a motion "regarding the elimination of the NASA lunar rover" and is holding the vote until they get a vote on his motion. - John Thune is calling Sanders' amendment out of order and trying to eliminate it, but says they won't object if they let them vote on his Iran motion. - Now Thune and Sanders are both threatening to hold up every other motion if they try to declare either of their motions out of order. - Senate delays votes on motions until 2:30 to find a resolution.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:There is a difference. It cannot be meaningfully measured because Republicans are always bigger assholes and because you can't measure counterfactuals anyway. So we're just back to VBNMW, aren't we? That's like the opposite of VBNW. It's vote for whoever has successfully delivered the thing you want.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's like the opposite of VBNW. It's vote for whoever has successfully delivered the thing you want. I think I see. Here, you are taking the position that the final vote counts are more important than the things said along the way?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
small butter posted:We actually honor it because anti-abortion is based on religious dogma, which is not so much the case with interracial marriage. We LOVE religious beliefs in this country. Which is why I brought up my point about Ilhan Omar: if you're a Muslim woman, you may very well believe that women should cover their hair. You may very well believe that non-Muslims are infidels, as per holy scripture. America doesn't have a history of restricting a women's right to not cover her hair (or at least not that one I'm aware of) so people are going to very understandably care much less about Omar's belief on that regard. Like, whether or not we should care about what someone's beliefs vs. actions mean, I feel like the underlying implications of those beliefs are important, regardless if they're rooted in religion or not. I think to the people who "don't agree with" gay marriage yet don't think it should be illegal, and that's great and all, but it feels like a very shallow "win." and abortion falls into that same issue - it still feels like it lacks a level of actual understanding. Is there any evidence that Omar believes anyone else should be covering their hair? Because It'd be one thing for a politician to say "abortion isn't right for me"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think I see. Here, you are taking the position that the final vote counts are more important than the things said along the way? I'm saying if someone says: - I will deliver X if you vote for me. - I am 100% in favor of the political goals of X and have a 100% history of voting for X. - I will advocate publicly for X and support other candidates and political movements that support X. And then does deliver on all of those, but says in an interview "I wouldn't personally do X, but everyone who wants to should be free to do so without restrictions." It seems wild to call that person "incredibly damaging to X" and "has been responsible for a hugely negative impact on the political goals of X." If you are voting between that person and someone who says they are personally okay with it and would participate themselves, but does "think we have gone a little too far," then the person with the personal opposition + 100% political support is clearly the better choice. If you had a person who was identical to person #1, but said they personally would participate in X, then they would be better on paper than #1. But, whether you partake in your personal life is not a definitive proof of your impact on the issue politically. Obama famously said that weed was not as bad as alcohol, smoked tons of weed in his youth, and said that kids shouldn't be punished for possession of weed. But, politically, he only made good on a small amount of that rhetoric. Phil Murphy (and many of the Democrats in the New Jersey legislature) say they have never smoked weed and wouldn't want their kids to do it. But, they have decriminalized, legalized, and expunged all criminal records relating to weed. Despite having no personal interest or stakes in it. I would say that Murphy has delivered a lot more for supporters of that cause, despite being personally against using it, than the guy who openly spoke about use, said we need to stop thinking of weed as dangerous, and that he went to Harvard and became President despite being in the choom gang, so weed doesn't ruin your life.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
small butter posted:We actually honor it because anti-abortion is based on religious dogma, which is not so much the case with interracial marriage. We LOVE religious beliefs in this country. Which is why I brought up my point about Ilhan Omar: if you're a Muslim woman, you may very well believe that women should cover their hair. You may very well believe that non-Muslims are infidels, as per holy scripture. We let something like hair covering slide because there is no "americans must cover their hair" lobby or groups of any consequence, there is no national conversation on hair covering, there is no harmful, regressive group of people of any scale or impact that is out there calling for covering hair, and there are not 50 years of recent history of women being forced to cover their hair on pain of death. They are not comparable.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's weird that you are blaming voters for Bush becoming president when it's since been proven that Gore won the 2000 election but Democrats let Bush get away with stealing it because they wanted to be nice and not make waves The only reason that incoherent mess of a ruling was possible was because the initial count was a paper-thin margin of a few hundred votes in one of the largest states, and also that it favored the Republican. 0.009%. At 0.5% or something a recount is a formality, but that close? It turned the count into a coin toss and a recount into double-or-nothing. Maybe best of three seeing as there were multiple recount methods being pushed that were themselves trending toward different results. And that part was only possible, even with blatantly biased results from conservative courts, because of a tiny Republican margin in the initial vote. A handful of votes in the other direction would have massively changed the game, even if it did no more than reverse the ratio of the initial count. As it was we got a situation where the initial count very narrowly favored Bush, immediately narrowing the Gore victory path to both "get a recount" and "hope that recount gives a different result." Flip that and the bar for Republicans playing Calvinball with the results goes up a lot: they would have been also fishing for a recount that gave them the numbers they want, rather than having an assumed winning position to negotiate from. Since that's the key here. Calvinball with recounts and court decisions is only an option when the vote is that close, and even then it just lets you flip the coin twice and take the best result. Voter suppression is more powerful and predictable, but the types currently practiced in the US only look to move the peg a percentage or two. However unfair these are, they only become possible when the natural turnout is close enough to be in striking distance, and voters absolutely decide whether that happens. Though since I've seen it a lot, I've gotta notice how "It's weird how", "Strange that", and various relatives have become a catchphrase for "I'm gonna dismiss this whole uncomfortable line of thought with an incredibly facile or misleading one-liner." Not you specifically to be clear. Anyone else notice that?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:He absolutely could have, the same as he stage-managed seating a new Justice for Trump two weeks before the election. Was McConnell actually all that effective at pushing his party's platform? Aside from tax cuts and a bit of deregulation, I don't really remember the 115th Congress doing very well at pushing new far-right legislation. That's part of why Trump relied so heavily on executive actions. Again, McConnell as Senate Majority Leader mostly excelled at not letting bills come to the floor. Which isn't very impressive, since that's a power the Senate Majority Leader can unilaterally exercise on their own. He was certainly bold about how much he was willing to block, but when the GOP got hold of the presidency and both houses of Congress at the same time, they pretty quickly demonstrated that the tale of the amazingly effective Mitch McConnell was more narrative than fact. Ultimately, what it came down to is that he blocked bills from coming to the floor because he couldn't effectively enforce party discipline. As long as the Dems controlled the Presidency or the House, he could look effective by simply stonewalling everything. But when his turn came to actually pass legislation, he proved to be no better at it than the Dems were. And of course the idea that the GOP is more able to enforce party discipline just completely falls apart if you so much as glance at the House. Absolute loving mess over there.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
I spent way too much time digging into this, but if we define "deciding" as a situation where if Manchin voted the opposite way of his vote the outcome would have changed, he believes: In not funding the republican trolling sandbox. Confirming democratic nominees. American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 I am not comfortable stating one way or the other whether Manchin believes or does not believe every bit of this, a bit like saying if you believe a forest should exist every tree inside it should exist. Whatever this is? Establishing a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to prohibiting the teaching of critical race theory in prekindergarten programs and elementary and secondary schools. Is that the same as not believing CRT should be taught? Allowing reconciliation legislation to include trillions of dollars in job-killing tax hikes? In conclusion, Joe Manchin is a land of contrasts, thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nobody who is so into politics that they are following Tim Kaine's personal life and voting record is going to radically redefine their personal values and become pro-life due to the raw charisma and lived experience of Senator Tim Kaine's anecdotes. I understand why you're using hyperbole to stretch the point, but you're missing it. When a response to "killing babies should not be legalized" is "it's wrong, but I won't personally vote against it" you're establishing a frame that abortion is a shameful, if a necessary evil, among the party that ostensibly defends women's bodily autonomy. (And that's leaving entirely aside of optics like Pelosi & Clyburn actively campaigning for anti-choice incumbents.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Can a Democrat-whisperer explain the meaning of this tweet?  https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1521574819556470789 because I'm totally baffled at what constitutes the "clear" point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
small butter posted:We actually honor it because anti-abortion is based on religious dogma, which is not so much the case with interracial marriage. We LOVE religious beliefs in this country. Which is why I brought up my point about Ilhan Omar: if you're a Muslim woman, you may very well believe that women should cover their hair. You may very well believe that non-Muslims are infidels, as per holy scripture. That doesn't really work in this situation though, because there's nothing that suggests that Tim Kaine's anti-abortion position is religiously motivated. There are really two ways you could interpret the Bible: 1. Fetuses aren't babies. Mainstream translations of Exodus suggest that causing a miscarriage requires nothing more than paying a fine to the father like you would do if you damaged his property. So there's no real moral argument presented by the bible that would lead Tim Kaine to oppose elective abortion. -or- 2. Fetuses are babies. If Tim Kaine truly believes that (he doesn't), then there is no moral argument for permitting what, according to his beliefs, would be infanticide. Anyone who tells you they believe interpretation 2 who isn't currently in prison for firebombing a doctor's house is lying, either to you or themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
That Dem tweet is mphasizing for low info people that the supreme Court did not actually ban abortion in any state yet
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
^^^ lol, I guess that makes sense.Ciprian Maricon posted:What our political leaders believe has an impact on the discourse and matters, it impacts their priorities, it impacts what they say to the public what causes they do and do not champion. The impact of a politician is greater than just the votes they cast and Tim Kaine's regressive and backwards view on abortion is hurtful to the goal of protection bodily autonomy even if he never voted against it directly in the senate. And this is especially true given that he was chosen to run as veep as recently as a few years ago on a ticket that everyone expected to win. What does it say about the Democratic Party that they were expecting to elect an anti-choicer to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:11
|
|