|
Ogmius815 posted:It wouldn’t have done poo poo. This same right wing Supreme Court would have decided that Congress lacks the power to mandate legal abortion. This entire codification discourse is a red herring raised in the hope that you will overlook the plain truth that the moment to stop this came and went in November 2016. Many of the mouth breathers now blaming Obama and Biden for what 6 Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents have done told us at that time that it didn’t really matter who won that election, and they need to distract people from how unbelievably wrong they were. These takes are extra insane when you remember Hilary won the popular vote and only lost because we're not a proper democracy. There isn't some contingent of leftists to point at and blame here, in any sane country she won. You live in a country who's government is actively trying to kill you and you still can't see that government as your actual enemy, it's sad.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:There are 11 people and 2 candidates. Everyone votes. It takes 6 votes to win. The greater evil gets 5 votes. The lesser evil wins. Yeah, fewer votes makes the remaining votes count more. It doesn't inherently benefit either candidate A or B though. Rigel posted:No they aren't, not really. The Democrats have effective control of a 48-seat minority of the Senate. 2 people who can't be blocked from running in the Democratic primary and who choose to call themselves Democrats are in favor of doing nothing. No one has control of congress, it lies mostly dead and dormant. You absolutely can. They're literally Democrats
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No they aren't, not really. The Democrats have effective control of a 48-seat minority of the Senate. 2 people who can't be blocked from running in the Democratic primary and who choose to call themselves Democrats are in favor of doing nothing. No one has control of congress, it lies mostly dead and dormant. The Democratic party doesn't have a set ideology or shared belief. We can tell this because of the recent support for anti abortion dems. So if Manchin calls himself a Democrat, is a member of the party, and is recognized as a Democrat by the party, he's a Democrat. Unless you are trying to make "DINO" a thing, Manchin counts as a Democrat in every way we measure being a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:You absolutely can. They're literally Democrats Mormon Star Wars posted:The Democratic party doesn't have a set ideology or shared belief. We can tell this because of the recent support for anti abortion dems. So if Manchin calls himself a Democrat, is a member of the party, and is recognized as a Democrat by the party, he's a Democrat. When 48 Democrats want to do something, a couple other stupid Senators refuse and would rather sit and do nothing, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them into giving in, then how would a person who is smart and educated argue that this then means that all 50 are against doing something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:god. remember back during the primaries, when Joe Biden claimed he planned to support expanding Obamacare, and also that he was going to cure cancer To be fair, Biden did expand the subsidies to private insurers for Obamacare, so as to lower costs to "consumers," but it was another recovery act temporary program, and it ends this year. Democrats assumed would be so popular that it'd be extended. (I think Build Back Better included permanent higher subsidies to private insurers.) As a result, private insurers are projecting a 30 percent increase in premiums for 2023, and those prices will be announced right before the midterms. The more important temporary healthcare program was no-questions-asked Medicaid, which now is terming out for most states. Americans could have a little single-payer, as a treat, during the pandemic, but as with living-wage unemployment comp, expanded SNAP, and student-loan/eviction forbearance, god forbid we permanently join the rest of the world in spending money directly on citizens rather than fattening private corps. (including consultancies & health insurers) and NGOs as grifting middlemen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:When 48 Democrats want to do something, a couple other stupid Senators refuse and would rather sit and do nothing, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them into giving in, then how would a person who is smart and educated argue that this then means that all 50 are against doing something? It's not that you're not describing reality, you are, it's that they can either call themselves a political party or they can be a vague group of people who can't be blamed as a group and have no responsibility for each other. They don't get to be both because the second one is not congruent with what a political party is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Rigel posted:When 48 Democrats want to do something, a couple other stupid Senators refuse, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them into giving in, then how would a person who is smart and educated argue that this then means that all 50 are against that something? What on earth are you talking about "there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them"? Take away their committee assignments. Publicly endorse and fund primary challengers. Madison Cawthorn them for gently caress's sake. Did you miss that whole debacle? That's what Republicans do when someone is an embarrassment to the party. You must understand, and this is a general rule that extends way beyond this specific case, just because the Democrats are doing nothing doesn't mean there isn't anything they can do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's not that you're not describing reality, you are, it's that they can either call themselves a political party or they can be a vague group of people who can't be blamed as a group and have no responsibility for each other. They don't get to be both because the second one is not congruent with what a political party is. I get that busy uneducated average voters who are not political nerds and who don't know any better may be frustrated about the party, and that is a problem. We presumably know better here, so when someone argues that not passing laws mean "The Democrats" don't want to pass laws (not Manchin or Sinema, but "The Democrats", meaning the whole party), then I have to conclude that maybe they just don't know any better and are unaware of how the Senate works and how very little leverage anyone has over a couple morons. If they do know better, then they might not be arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I struggle to imagine an outcome to the left rolling over and letting conservatives win that results in anything good. both at home and abroad If you think the republicans are getting everything they want now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I get that busy uneducated average voters who are not political nerds and who don't know any better may be frustrated about the party, and that is a problem. You have to prove that's true before it's bad faith. Otherwise it's just a disagreement of beliefs. It seems like the party has leverage over party members and have options here. Biden is in constant negotiations with Manchin just as one example. They've gotten him to move on other legislature. He can be manipulated so they should. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I don’t think people are deluding themselves at all. They just don’t want to support the Democrats who have shown themselves to be ineffectual time and time again. The democrats are literally in control of Congress and the White House but can’t pass abortion rights, voting rights, healthcare reform, LGBT civil rights, and so on. The promises of 2020 election have been broken. This really has nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about? I legit do not care about the dems or who people vote for. The dems are exactly what they are and have been for a long time and honestly I'm perplexed that people are still tricking themselves into seeing whatever they want to see there. I really do not get where peoples' idea that a government fully controlled by the right is going to give the left space to breathe. Figuratively or literally. That has literally nothing to do with the dems and no one has brought up anything tangible to explain how the left is going to exist in a world that the right wing fully controls. I agree that the dems are whatever, but they have zero bearing on what the right will do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:What on earth are you talking about "there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them"? Take away their committee assignments. Publicly endorse and fund primary challengers. Madison Cawthorn them for gently caress's sake. Did you miss that whole debacle? That's what Republicans do when someone is an embarrassment to the party. They will switch parties, and would actually politically benefit. These are people who campaign at home promising to stand up to Schumer for Arizona/West Virginia and not let the party get everything they want. If you want to argue that maybe driving them out is a good thing (thus giving up the ability to pass a budget or confirm judges) to make it clear to the average voter that the Dems are not in control for non-budget legislation, fine but just say so. Don't try to pretend that the Democrats could pass these laws if they really wanted to. They have absolutely no leverage to speak of whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I get that busy uneducated average voters who are not political nerds and who don't know any better may be frustrated about the party, and that is a problem. Let's take this out of the realm of a group you already look favorably on. Let's say I am part of a Muslim civil rights group, and our members are debating whether to support a same sex marriage bill. The majority of our group is okay with supporting it, many are political quietists and won't vote, and a minority is against it. Because of that makeup, despite the majority, we can't, as a group, pass any form of support for the issue. Now let's say you come into a discussion about this, and I say that the group supports gay marriage, and you can't say it doesn't based on a minority of votes in the org. Does this sound like a legitimate excuse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They will switch parties, and would actually politically benefit. These are people who campaign at home promising to stand up to Schumer for Arizona/West Virginia and not let the party get everything they want. The Democrats should really not allow vocal and intentional wreckers into the party and allow them to gain positions of power. The real problem with Manchin is that he's a problem that needed to be solved years ago but instead a vocal and open wrecker was encouraged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No they aren't, not really. The Democrats have effective control of a 48-seat minority of the Senate. 2 people who can't be blocked from running in the Democratic primary and who choose to call themselves Democrats are in favor of doing nothing. No one has control of congress, it lies mostly dead and dormant. This is wrong. The Democrats are in control. They are in power. They control the Senate and they control the House. In the Senate, Schumer is the Senate Majority Leader. You don't get to be the Senate Majority Leader if your party is not in power. Rigel posted:They will switch parties, and would actually politically benefit. These are people who campaign at home promising to stand up to Schumer for Arizona/West Virginia and not let the party get everything they want. Herstory Begins Now posted:This really has nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about? I legit do not care about the dems or who people vote for. The dems are exactly what they are and have been for a long time and honestly I'm perplexed that people are still tricking themselves into seeing whatever they want to see there. I really do not get where peoples' idea that a government fully controlled by the right is going to give the left space to breathe. Figuratively or literally. That has literally nothing to do with the dems and no one has brought up anything tangible to explain how the left is going to exist in a world that the right wing fully controls. I agree that the dems are whatever, but they have zero bearing on what the right will do. Do you think that these supposed deluded people are going out to vote for the GOP?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Does this sound like a legitimate excuse? To make this analogy comparable you need to include the fact that those members are needed to enable good things to happen and that driving them out costs you those good things. Perhaps those members are wealthy and their contributions enable local programs for the homeless to continue but losing those members mean those programs end. Or if you are unhappy with that, come up with something else, its your analogy. With that modification, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Let's take this out of the realm of a group you already look favorably on. No, because the outcome is non-support of gay marriage from the group. If a group's governance prevents it from supporting something, then the group does not support it. The individual member's attitudes are irrelevant to that outcome. You could say a majority of individual members support gay marriage, and I could say the group does not, and we could both be correct. But if the *group's* support is what we're measuring, then it doesn't matter what the majority thinks if it can't produce the outcome it wants. e: Someone posted earlier about systems thinking and how the purpose of a system is the outcomes it produces. Same principle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Going by your other post, having them switch parties wouldn't mean anything and change nothing, right? You said that the Democrats are not in power. If those two switch parties, the Democrats would still not be in power, right? They would likely block judicial nominees and reconciliation votes. Every time a Senator switched parties in the past, their votes after the switch also moved substantially left or right towards their new party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
Someone brought up reservations as a work around and I had a really stupid idea. There are tons of "casino boats" where they sail out to international waters and then they're allowed to legally gamble. SLots, blackjack, the whole deal. I don't know the logistics of setting up a hospital environment on a ship and the concept of an "abortion cruise" is obviously a non starter but it was something that popped in my mind. No idea how that could ever work though. Maybe just smaller yachts that can be set up for the procedure somehow, head out 5 or 10 miles offshore and then perform the abortion? Far fetched I know and, of course, would be very VERY expensive but I DO think it's an actual way to circumvent the law. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
Manchin and Sinema are democrats. The party materially supports people with conservative ideologies. The party openly embraces people with conservative ideologies. They are not sabotaging the democrats, they ARE the democrats. This is not an inconvenient roadblock to progress, it is a feature of the democratic party platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
Rigel posted:To make this analogy comparable you need to include the fact that those members are needed to enable good things to happen and that driving them out costs you those good things. Perhaps those members are wealthy and their contributions enable local programs for the homeless to continue but losing those members mean those programs end. Or if you are unhappy with that, come up with something else, its your analogy. I figured that was a given - after all, as a civil rights group, they would contribute to the initiatives the group is meant to support. Even with that modification, though, I posit it would be incredibly dishonest to say that the group supported gay marriage if they didn't have the votes to actually support it. Outside of the context of defending the Democratic party, I don't think you'll find people willing to give any organization the benefit of doubt that they totally, as a group, oppose bigotry, but can't actually make that opposition manifest because of a few bad votes. For anyone but the Democratic party, those voices preventing the group from doing the thing absolutely means the group itself doesn't do the thing. Sailor Video Games posted:No, because the outcome is non-support of gay marriage from the group. If a group's governance prevents it from supporting something, then the group does not support it. The individual member's attitudes are irrelevant to that outcome. This is the point I am making, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone brought up reservations as a work around and I had a really stupid idea. I think there is actually a group that literally does that for nations which ban abortion. https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone brought up reservations as a work around and I had a really stupid idea. Pretty sure that these were used as a way to provide abortions in Ireland (boats, not floating casinos) before the country legalized abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Pretty sure that these were used as a way to provide abortions in Ireland (boats, not floating casinos) before the country legalized abortion. RIght, I wasn't suggesting using the gambling boats, just the idea of reaching international waters Rigel posted:I think there is actually a group that literally does that for nations which ban abortion. Interesting. Of course, this doesn't help women who are landolocked in red states and I know it's a wild idea but full on Vegas st;e gambling is allowed on those casino boats and they aren't governed by gambling laws once they're like 10 miles out to sea or something so it was just some thing I thought of and wondered if there might be a loop hole there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:To make this analogy comparable you need to include the fact that those members are needed to enable good things to happen and that driving them out costs you those good things. Perhaps those members are wealthy and their contributions enable local programs for the homeless to continue but losing those members mean those programs end. Or if you are unhappy with that, come up with something else, its your analogy. This is a poor excuse because we need to be intolerant of intolerance. If those members don't believe in human rights then while their money is used for good things it is also used as a trojan horse for them to unfairly take over the group and use a minority to help deny human rights from a majority. No matter what good thing you come up with in your example it still ends with "and also they're fascists who deny human rights".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:When 48 Democrats want to do something, a couple other stupid Senators refuse and would rather sit and do nothing, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them into giving in, then how would a person who is smart and educated argue that this then means that all 50 are against doing something? Where is this number 48 coming from? When asked about ending the filibuster to protect a women's right to an abortion, Dick Durbin did not voice support: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1524394909851176966?lang=en I was curious where other Democratic Senators stand, and happened upon a page that has lists where each Democratic senator currently stands. Here's a summary: Support - 23 Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Cantwell Cardin Gillibrand Hasan Hirono Klobuchar Leahy Lujan Markey Murray Padilla Sanders Shaheen Smith Stabenow Van Hollen Warren Warnock Whitehouse Wyden Oppose - 2 Manchin Sinema Wants "Talking" Filibuster - 2 Cortez Masto Merkley Unclear - 20 Booker Brown Carper Casey Coons Duckworth Durbin Feinstein Heinrich Hickenlooper Kaine Kelly King Ossoff Reed Rosen Schatz Schumer Tester Warner Over half of the Democrats in the Senate haven't made their position clear, just want to return to a talking filibuster, or outright oppose changes to the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I don't think you'll find people willing to give any organization the benefit of doubt that they totally, as a group, oppose bigotry, but can't actually make that opposition manifest because of a few bad votes. I agree that average uneducated voters who don't know how the Senate works will be confused and that is a problem. We should not have that same level of confusion here on this board. The fact remains that it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that "the Democrats" actually oppose abortion and election reform when the House literally passed those bills which the president wants to sign and we just have a couple idiots in the Senate preventing the legislature from functioning. We should be smart enough to not blame "the Democrats", but that would be inconvenient for those who out of rage and frustration just want to vent that there's actually no point in voting anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
B B posted:Over half of the Democrats in the Senate haven't made their position clear, just want to return to a talking filibuster, or outright oppose changes to the filibuster. We literally had a vote on this in January. It failed 48-52. It was a big deal on this board. Manchin and Sinema supported the bill that was being filibustered but opposed changing the rules because they are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I agree that average uneducated voters who don't know how the Senate works will be confused and that is a problem. We should not have that same level of confusion here on this board. The fact remains that it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that "the Democrats" actually oppose abortion and election reform when the House literally passed those bills which the president wants to sign and we just have a couple idiots in the Senate preventing the legislature from functioning. At this point I agree with you that you're right. There are 2 Democrats who are wreckers and then a whole lot more who listened to openly fascists wreckers who are open about not supporting human rights and decided that they needed these people and had to support them as they gained power. We can be smart and recognize that the failure is on all the Democrats but that they have failed at is different. Manchin doesn't want to pass laws, everyone else allowed him to have control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I agree that average uneducated voters who don't know how the Senate works will be confused and that is a problem. We should not have that same level of confusion here on this board. The fact remains that it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that "the Democrats" actually oppose abortion and election reform when the House literally passed those bills which the president wants to sign and we just have a couple idiots in the Senate preventing the legislature from functioning. Whether it's 2 people or 20 people preventing the group from reaching consensus, the end result is the same: the group has not reached a consensus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Sailor Video Games posted:No, because the outcome is non-support of gay marriage from the group. If a group's governance prevents it from supporting something, then the group does not support it. The individual member's attitudes are irrelevant to that outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
true.spoon posted:If you understand "the Democrats don't support the right to abortion" in this way then arguments like "the Democrats don't support the right to abortion and therefore there is no point voting for them if you want ensure the right to abortion" become really stupid. Makes sense to me. Voting for different faces if the organizational goals don't change doesn't achieve the goal. Or are you convinced the Democratic Party's decision making isn't top-down?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They would likely block judicial nominees and reconciliation votes. Every time a Senator switched parties in the past, their votes after the switch also moved substantially left or right towards their new party. So the Dems are indeed in power
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Makes sense to me. Voting for different faces if the organizational goals don't change doesn't achieve the goal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
I'm going to say something that might be uncomfortable. This is the most important mid-term election of your lifetime. If you are eligible, register and vote. If you are not, ask somebody you can how you can help. opening arguments podcast was working on something since the leak. When it's released, I will post the link here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
If Manchin and Sinema truly aren't democrats then it should be a cinch to get them removed from their committee assignments because the rest of the party surely opposes them, no? Would be real awkward if they were representing democrats on a committee assignment without being a democrat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
shades of eternity posted:I'm going to say something that might be uncomfortable. Every loving election is the "most important election of our lifetime" and even when the people who are supposed to change things in favor of the right side of history, they don't loving do anything. Sorry if I genuinely feel like literally all of it is a sham at this point, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Srice posted:If Manchin and Sinema truly aren't democrats then it should be a cinch to get them removed from their committee assignments because the rest of the party surely opposes them, no? Would be real awkward if they were representing democrats on a committee assignment without being a democrat. Democrats and republicans aren't too far removed from one another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
shades of eternity posted:I'm going to say something that might be uncomfortable. Every election is the most important election of our lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We literally had a vote on this in January. It failed 48-52. It was a big deal on this board. Manchin and Sinema supported the bill that was being filibustered but opposed changing the rules because they are idiots. not idiots, Rigel. They're doing their jobs. they were backed by the party as the best the party was willing to accept in their respective territories, and as a result are permitted- encouraged, even- to publicly oppose democratic legislation. as a bonus, this allows them to serve as ablative armor for the ~20 senators who have left their positions on the issue tactfully obscured, as long as there is someone else willing to be the public face of Democratic unwillingness to govern. this is not the system broken by accidentally putting people who are just so gosh-darned silly into a position to stop all action. this is the system functioning as designed. it has just reaped a tremendous fundraising windfall, and the people involved didn't have to so much as lift a finger to make it happen. you look at the tremendous amount of suffering these peoples inaction will cause and consider it some kind of failure. understand that they do not see it that way. they are looking at one of the system's crowning successes, and feeling quite content with the outcome. they are spitting in your face, and you are thanking them for the gift of rain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Every election is the most important election of our lifetime. For the last half-century, at least!  Democrats need to come up with some fresh tropes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2022 15:31
|
|