|
Twincityhacker posted:Not voting at the federal level is just going to give the christofacists permenant majority rule, and turn the senate from "locked in a stalemate" to "actively working against us". If the plan really is keep Democrats at at least a tie in the Senate forever, and if that slips by even one seat for even one term we're screwed forever, then that is clearly not going to work. We need to come up with something else. At the very least we need to stop being emotionally invested in that clearly doomed-to-failure plan.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
quote:resulting in things like an abject refusal to take part in the political process at all Yeah the problem is that the dems are just welcoming the left with open arms and us ungrateful fucks won't jump in!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:And what party does Joe Manchin belong to? Could you please respond to the arguments I'm actually making? It seems like you're perceiving me as taking a particular stance that I'm trying to be very clear about not taking. Main Paineframe posted:In other words, if just two Republican senators (or Manchin and Sinema) were to be replaced with Democrats who were willing to overturn the filibuster, then the filibuster could be ended. Main Paineframe posted:That's exactly why I didn't just say "more Democrats": I said "more Democrats who support codifying Roe".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Most people didn't see this coming until it was far too late. Sure it became obvious once Trump started winning primaries that he could win the whole thing and give his base what they want, but it was far too late at that point. The freedom of choice act was 8 pages long. The ACA is almost 3000 pages long. They absolutely had capacity to work on both at thr same time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:lol are we talking about the same Joe Manchin who spent all of 2021 coming up with increasingly absurd and contradictory conditions for BBB until it was officially dead in the water and then admitted afterward that he never intended to vote for the bill and was just bullshitting everyone? That Joe Manchin? I understand it's convenient for you to take him at face value in this specific instance but the dude has said from his own mouth that he straight-up lies about this poo poo for tactical utility Yeah, it's gobsmacking that people take -anything- said by the brutally venal party leadership with any level of good faith at this point. Fool me eleven thousand times, shame on me, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Could you please respond to the arguments I'm actually making? It seems like you're perceiving me as taking a particular stance that I'm trying to be very clear about not taking. But the party supports people like Manchin and Cuellar who don't want to overturn the filibuster or protect abortion. We desperately need to elect Democrats, but the Democratic party actively works to stop the Democrats who will do the things we need to elect Democrats to do from being elected. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Abandon the party en masse, let a different faction seize control or a new party fill the vacuum. Nothing good will happen in America unless the Democratic party as it is currently being destroyed. That is the only possible first step towards progress that I can see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
John Kasich posted:The freedom of choice act was 8 pages long. Hey, an actual politician interested in moving his or her agenda along might even use that to their advantage, using one to cover for the other. The right uses smokescreen measures all the time, throwing out a loud/controversial project for people to bitch about, then passing other stuff in the background. Because they want to win. Crap, should have done it during the Stimulus. "Hey, Roe is settled, has been for decades, why are you even whining now? We have to fight the financial crisis, get with the program!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm not sure what you're talking about. 15 years dates it back to 2007, so are you talking about the Obama campaign machine? If so, then you have profoundly misunderstood what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to a temporary organization to rally people behind a single national candidate who completely controls that organization. I'm talking about a movement to shift people's politics, a movement to convince people that progressivism isn't just pie-in-the-sky bullshit from idealistic fools who don't understand the first thing about politics. From a bit ago but still catching up, but yes I mean specifically Obama for America and the Bernie 2020 setup. In both cases a victorious Dem candidate inherited the keys to these networks that were ALREADY fired up, active in every state, stuffed to the gills with people who are the natural base of the party, and deploying an organizational ideology that had proven to get results. In both cases when they got the keys, they plucked out whoever would make a good fit in their existing NGO ecosystem, added everybody on those lists to their own fundraising systems, then shuttered the entire thing because they (rightly) recognized they couldn't maintain complete ideological control over their structures without keeping promises they made to get the keys. So whenever I hear calls for grassroots organizing my first thought is that they must be running out of progressives to pump money from, yeah. Which is why any structure intending to do what you say here must be prepared to defend itself against this tactic. A temporary movement based around a single, electorally-driven goal is doomed because the center has become an apex predator of that sort of structure. These things are temporary specifically because they are dismantled the second the center gets what they want from them. There were a whole lot of really mad people in 2009 when Obama told them to pound sand!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Most people didn't see this coming until it was far too late. Sure it became obvious once Trump started winning primaries that he could win the whole thing and give his base what they want, but it was far too late at that point. lol. So what you're saying here is that it doesn't matter if the voters deliver a legislative supermajority because the majority party senators are still not going to cooperate? But it's still the fault of the lazy electorate for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Again, you are defending complete and utter incompetence. “The dems where so terrible they could only get one piece of garbage legislation passed while having a supermajority.” Is not a good defense. They had the supermajority from September until Scott Brown was elected shortly after, and 1 of those people was Lieberman, who Manchin before there was a Joe Manchin. John Kasich posted:The freedom of choice act was 8 pages long. You try convincing Senators running scared from the health care bill because people are yelling them they are killing grandma to also go and codify Roe vs. Wade, because you know - your approval numbers haven't hit single digits yet. Most Senators only had the stomache to do 1 controversial thing, and health care was the priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:If the plan really is keep Democrats at at least a tie in the Senate forever, and if that slips by even one seat for even one term we're screwed forever, then that is clearly not going to work. We need to come up with something else. At the very least we need to stop being emotionally invested in that clearly doomed-to-failure plan. We do need to come up with something else but the only other plan for the federal level I've seen in this thread is "don't vote" which does less for us than a tied senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:1 of those people was Lieberman, who Manchin before there was a Joe Manchin. Are you trying to suggest here that Lieberman would have interfered with passing FoCA
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The supermajority that persisted for a few months when they were focused on passing a healthcare bill? Then, or during any of the periods of time that I mentioned in a previous post in which they held strong majorities or supermajorities: Majorian posted:The Democrats had strong majorities or supermajorities in Congress during the following years: 1975-1981, 1989-1995, and 2010-2011. (House breakdowns here, Senate breakdowns here) Given that Candidate Obama promised to sign such a piece of legislation into law first thing after he was inaugurated, clearly he didn't think it would take too long for it to pass. Yet when the rubber met the road, he said it was "not [his] highest legislative priority." The Dems had a lot of time and many opportunities to get abortion rights codified into law; they failed to make the most of those opportunities. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:lol. So what you're saying here is that it doesn't matter if the voters deliver a legislative supermajority because the majority party senators are still not going to cooperate? But it's still the fault of the lazy electorate for some reason? They had it for 2-3 months and used those 2-3 months to do a healthcare bill. Between the Great Recession and passing a healthcare bill, Washington was pretty occupied during that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you want to get poo poo done politically, you don't just sit there and wait for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to spoonfeed a course to you. That is literally the loving point of leaders. Main Paineframe posted:You get out there yourself and start pushing for policies you support, whether by convincing the people around you, by getting out there and supporting potential candidates who back your preferred policies, or hell, if you really can't find anyone, go run for office yourself! How do you I haven't done this already? So have thousands of others. Abortion is still getting killed. For all the words you're posting its still just "VOTE" platitudes. "Just uh quit your job and run for office" is some condescending bullshit, gently caress you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:We do need to come up with something else but the only other plan for the federal level I've seen in this thread is "don't vote" which does less for us than a tied senate. The answer is in not spending your time and effort fighting pointless battles in a system rigged to only ever produce the outcomes the rulemakers want. You aren't going to get the outcome you want no matter which team has the ball, so stop going to the stadium. Look local, help someone out, be there for them so they can be there for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Then, or during any of the periods of time that I mentioned in a previous post in which they held strong majorities or supermajorities: The public barely cares about womens rights in 2022, what do you think they thought back in 1975? A whole lot of rights aren't codified because people assumed the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn these landmark rulings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:That is literally the loving point of leaders, "uh actually just run for office about it" is some extremely stupid condescending poo poo gently caress you. It's also important to note that if you want to get something done, you don't vote for Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi TyrantWD posted:A whole lot of rights aren't codified because people assumed the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn these landmark rulings. And now we are living through the discovery that that was a very bad assumption. Beyond even abortion, the Democrats should have a plan for everything that was granted to us by the Supreme Court. Marriage, contraception, not being sterilized, all of that is back on the table. The Supreme Court has said what they're doing next. Have the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:That is literally the loving point of leaders, "uh actually just run for office about it" is some extremely stupid condescending poo poo gently caress you. "Leaders of 400 million people" isn't a tenable concept, and isn't a job that should exist in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:no, at least not peacefully. We're all going to be dead or wishing we were by 2040 so I dunno why people are acting like we have time to change these things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:"Leaders of 400 million people" isn't a tenable concept, and isn't a job that should exist in the first place. Actually youll find they are leaders of a political party, specifically leaders of those members in the federal legislature and this number is a lot lower than 400 million.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:"Leaders of 400 million people" isn't a tenable concept, and isn't a job that should exist in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Denial, mostly, with a side order of social media disinformation. People descending into Twitter echo chambers and closing their eyes to the poo poo that is actually happening in the government is hardly unique to liberals, and results in leftists being excessively disillusioned, resulting in things like an abject refusal to take part in the political process at all, or loudly complaining that the Dems didn't try to do a thing that they actually in reality did try to do. They sat on their hands for fifty years, through several periods in which they held supermajorities or large majorities in Congress, the White House, and a more favorable balance on the Court. During that time party leaders like Pelosi supported anti-choice candidates like Cuellar, and Presidents like Carter, Clinton, and Obama failed to pass or even push for legislation protecting reproductive rights. So no, I don't agree that it's denial on the left or social media disinformation. The Democratic Party has fully earned the lack of faith and trust that its voters feel for them on this issue. TyrantWD posted:The public barely cares about womens rights in 2022, what do you think they thought back in 1975? Women are legally allowed to vote, and often do care about women's rights. A large majority of voters supported keeping abortion legal in 1975; I posted a poll to that effect a few posts ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:They had it for 2-3 months and used those 2-3 months to do a healthcare bill. Between the Great Recession and passing a healthcare bill, Washington was pretty occupied during that time. lol Obama had already publicly surrendered on it in April 2009 dude, and explicitly stated it was because he didn't want to make right wingers mad This is just Democrat excuse bingo right now. Invoking Lieberman in particular to defend inaction on FoCA just makes it obvious you're not chewing what you've been fed before you regurgitate it
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They sat on their hands for fifty years, through Electorate is radically different from fifty years ago. That’s mid seventies. Way more white Christian and religious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Where's the utility in blaming voters, is this a tactic that will bear fruit? Roe being killed is a huge victory for voters as well as a huge disappointment for voters, and no voter had any input on it nor do they have any way to undo it beyond "*waving hands* just give it another 50 years and it will fix itself" Why should anybody have to tolerate being blamed for all of this because they didn't vote hard enough when neither party seems too overly concerned with activating non-voters? They're happy to court donors and let lobbyists write their bills though, seems like a rational analysis would say that that's where the power to influence lies. Didn't Yale do a study on this that basically came down to "among those who work instead of own things for a living, 0% and 100% both had the same correlation to whether or not something passes whereas if you're rich it's a diagonal line going up and to the right"? Every mechanism of government that is able to deliver swift or even any amount of change at all is profoundly undemocratic by design, the most power a vote has if you're not a landlord or jet ski dealership owner is as a loud and public refusal to do it as a challenge to those who feel entitled to it. Tea Party freaks knew this which is why they're pumping their fists and doing victory laps. The reason congressional progressives spend all their time on the sidelines except when they're being tasked with shooting their own dog to make the moderates happy is precisely because they are the bloc in all of American politics that holds their nose at the highest rate. If Libertarians fell in line as hard as progressives do we'd have uninterrupted Republican rule
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Electorate is radically different from fifty years ago. That’s mid seventies. Way more white Christian and religious. Not as different as you may think:  e: source for that image - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-has-public-opinion-about-abortion-changed-since-roe-v-wade Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
So how does abortion work in a blue state? If you needed one in California, CO, NY etc what is the process? How hosed are you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:and prolonging the time these nitwits suck up all the non-fascist oxygen in this country isn't going to fix that - except maybe by accelerating the collapse and balkanization of this country. Then we'd only have leaders of fiefdoms. I mean they're especially bad at what they're supposed to be doing, I'm just not convinced it's a job that any human being could actually be qualified for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So how does abortion work in a blue state? If you needed one in California, CO, NY etc what is the process? How hosed are you? Depends on how much money you have they call it "access" for a reason Barreft fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:I mean they're especially bad at what they're supposed to be doing, I'm just not convinced it's a job that any human being could actually be qualified for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:And now we are living through the discovery that that was a very bad assumption. Beyond even abortion, the Democrats should have a plan for everything that was granted to us by the Supreme Court. Marriage, contraception, not being sterilized, all of that is back on the table. The Supreme Court has said what they're doing next. Have the Democrats? Unless someone knows how to mind control Manchin and Sinema into eliminating the filibuster, there is literally nothing, outside of performative pieces, that the Democrats can do. TheIncredulousHulk posted:lol Obama had already publicly surrendered on it in April 2009 dude, and explicitly stated it was because he didn't want to make right wingers mad Not like anything was happening in 2009 that would be a higher priority to the politicians of that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
Barreft posted:We're all going to be dead or wishing we were by 2040 so I dunno why people are acting like we have time to change these things. you are completely wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Didn't Yale do a study on this that basically came down to "among those who work instead of own things for a living, 0% and 100% both had the same correlation to whether or not something passes whereas if you're rich it's a diagonal line going up and to the right"? Profs aren't from Yale but I'm betting you're referencing this one: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf quote:What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:you are completely wrong Sorry but I'm in the sub $100k earners, so I'm absolutely not wrong. You lawyer and government types will last a lot longer for sure I'm not stupid
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Not like anything was happening in 2009 that would be a higher priority to the politicians of that time. Congressional majorities aren't somehow limited to handling only one issue at a time. They're often able to pass multiple things in the same brief time period if they want to. Abortion rights didn't have to literally be the number 1 top priority of the Dems or the Obama White House for them to still get it done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So how does abortion work in a blue state? If you needed one in California, CO, NY etc what is the process? How hosed are you? Same as it was on Thursday. This decision does not directly alter federal abortion policy, it just allows individual states to go hog wild internally. How much state policy can affect other states' policy is one of the fun new discoveries we're going to make over the next few years so there's no definitive answer to that yet. haveblue fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Women are legally allowed to vote, and often do care about women's rights. A large majority of voters supported keeping abortion legal in 1975; I posted a poll to that effect a few posts ago. People have soft support for women's rights. Even now, only 1 in 5 voters said they will vote based on the repeal of Roe v Wade. At a time, when its really important who is running your state, the majority of people don't give a poo poo about Roe v Wade. Women's rights, gay marriage and interracial marriage fall under the category of things the American people view as "nice to have", not "need to have".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:People have soft support for women's rights. Even now, only 1 in 5 voters said they will vote based on the repeal of Roe v Wade. At a time, when its really important who is running your state, the majority of people don't give a poo poo about Roe v Wade. None of this is an excuse for the Dems not to follow through on their promises to protect abortion rights legislatively.  Could you please actually address the argument I'm making?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:The answer is in not spending your time and effort fighting pointless battles in a system rigged to only ever produce the outcomes the rulemakers want. You aren't going to get the outcome you want no matter which team has the ball, so stop going to the stadium. This is flat out "lay down and rot" talk. gently caress that, a better world is possible. And it's not like "acting locally" and "voting in elections" are mutually exclusive activities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 03:12
|
|