|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Legalization of weed, etc. It's still illegal
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 11:22 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:07 |
|
May have already been posted but The New Yorker did a great deep dive on Ron Desantis that's well worth a read https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/can-ron-desantis-displace-donald-trump-as-the-gops-combatant-in-chief Of particular interest to me is how FOX News bascially pushed him and repeatedly had him on to cement his position as a rising star and give him tons of exposure.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 13:37 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:May have already been posted but The New Yorker did a great deep dive on Ron Desantis that's well worth a read -Blackadder- posted:The New Yorker recently did probably the most comprehensive deep dive on DeSantis. Some truly amazing stuff, including how he started out as relatively reasonable for a Republican with even some good policy but abandoned that when he realized that voters are basically the Colosseum crowd from Spartacus. Anyway one of the great highlights, completely unrelated to DeSantis, is how barefaced and calculating, and with no loyalty to their voters, the GOP is... In addition to the critical point you make about DeSantis being platformed by Fox News, BB, recently all of the GOP mega donors have been leaving Trump high and dry and are making a massive beeline for DeSantis. So now he has them in his camp now too. DeSantis convenes top donors, fellow GOP govs as 2024 chatter builds Donald Trump Fundraising Dips Below DeSantis As Strategist Blames 'Fatigue' The GOP could be heading towards a problem. The establishment is undeniably all in on DeSantis for 2024. But the Frankenstein that effortlessly burned down their playhouse on live television during the 2016 Republican Primary debates seems to still be in play. The funny thing is, people close to Trump have mentioned several times, that the thing he cares about most is MONEY so the GOP could probably literally pay him off to stay out of 2024, but they still don't understand him, so everyone; Fox News, GOP Mega Donors, and other R influencers are all just packing up shop and going to stand behind DeSantis like they normally would to indicate a shift in support. It's obviously best for the GOP if these two don't fight and if it were any other normal candidate in Trump's position I would expect Trump/DeSantis 2024 to be a locked in R ticket. But when has Trump ever given two shits about what's best for the GOP? It takes almost nothing to set him off. Look at what happened with Elon Musk. One tiny perceived insult could snowball into an all out war. As that big DeSantis article from the New Yorker points out, Trump already has his people doing oppo research on how to take DeSantis down. Nothing we've seen from Trump indicates that he will ever, ever back down. If the GOP try to do an end run around Trump without paying him fealty he'll run against DeSantis out of spite. The GOP's best play is to get Trump and DeSantis on the same ticket. They definitely could if they play it right, and it seems like the most likely scenario. If Trump feels bodied enough by the Jan 6 hearings and the repositioning of the GOP donors he might be more willing to take DeSantis as a VP. Presidents and VP's traditionally don't spend a lot of time together in office. So it could work. Either way I don''t see Trump just stepping aside for DeSantis, no matter how much support DeSantis gets, unless the GOP wises up and starts showering Trump with money. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 15:38 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:Yes it's an excellent article, with a great inside look at the GOP as well. From DeSantis' point of view, there's a lot of risk to running. He's only 43, very young by late American empire-politician standards - he could have a very long career as a fascist ahead of hime. However, if he does run, and he loses against Trump, he's basically done forever. The alternative is to keep doing what he's doing, cementing his reputation and building loyalty, and he'd be a shoo-in to replace Trump in 2028.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 15:48 |
|
cat botherer posted:I don't think there's really a conflict between the two, and I highly doubt DeSantis would challenge Trump. Our favorite big boy would absolutely steamroll DeSantis in the primaries due to the loyalty he commands. Keep in mind Trump has been less visible of late. Once he starts campaigning, he'll get that free media attention again because he is so good for ratings - just like 2016. This is what I was thinking too. He's got plenty of time. There's no reason for him to go against Trump now. But I keep reading people saying that he'll be out of office for a few years by 2028 and may miss his window, but I don't know if that really matters. Maybe it's different today, but Nixon was around in politics for a long time before he finally won POTUS so I don't see the big deal with DeSantis waiting until 2028, I feel like it's the smart play for him. But he's getting a big push from the GOP establishment who clearly fear a rehash of 2020 if Trump runs again. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 15:56 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:This is what I was thinking too. He's got plenty of time. There's no reason for him to go against Trump now. But I keep reading people saying that he'll be out of office for a few years by 2028 and may miss his window, but I don't know if that really matters. Maybe it's different today, but Nixon was around in politics for a long time before he finally won POTUS so I don't see the big deal with DeSantis waiting until 2028, I feel like it's the smart play for him. But he's getting a lot of play from the GOP establishment who clearly fear a rehash of 2020 if Trump runs again. Being in the Trump admin always brings a big risk of getting on Trump's bad side and being denounced, so I'm sure that's something that will weight his decision as well.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 16:07 |
|
cat botherer posted:Yeah, its possible he could get a cabinet appointment. I'm not sure if Trump would be comfortable with him as VP. How do you see Trump 2024 playing out for the GOP though? Does the economy stay terrible enough for another 2 years to put Trump over the top? The same moderate R's that skipped his name in 2020 could be even more likely to do so, given he'll be facing the headwinds of Abortion-rage and Jan 6 hearing clips. The campaign commercials will write themselves, and the Dems won't lack the money to play them 24 hours a day. Plus Abortion is looking like it's really going to energize Dem turnout. Republicans have the tiger by the tail. It's only been 3 weeks, they've got another 2 whole years of stories like these coming at them... Politico posted:‘Oh, God, no’: Republicans fear voter backlash after Indiana child rape case -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 16:17 |
|
I am firmly convinced that Trump is not going to win the nomination. He may be the only major candidate in the conceivable field who could lose to Biden (again), he will likely be fighting felony charges by then, and I do believe the GOP primary voters are going to want to win the election.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 16:20 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:Definitely, that and #ETTD. Another four years of Trump, especially after Jan 6, will be a complete shitshow. DeSantis would be wise to just steer clear of the radioactive fallout and just stay in Florida until 2028. Now we're staring down stagflation which will probably wind up being worse that what Carter had going into 1980. There probably will be a big asset crash at some point too, so I think it will last a while. There's also the factor of the absolutely wild voter suppression which will be in play by then. Way too many stars have to align for Biden to win after that. To make that worse, SCOTUS is taking a case next year testing the "independent state legislature theory", which used to be basically a crank legal theory. If it gets adopted, it would state legislatures total authority over federal elections. e: Most people really don't care about the Jan 6 hearings, especially because undecided/swing voters tend to be low-information. Tangible material things and emotional appeal are way more important. ee: Rigel posted:I am firmly convinced that Trump is not going to win the nomination. He may be the only major candidate in the conceivable field who could lose to Biden (again), he will likely be fighting felony charges by then, and I do believe the GOP primary voters are going to want to win the election. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 16:27 |
|
cat botherer posted:I'd like to see Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam! Yeah, this. Over and over, none of the poo poo Democrats for some reason think should hurt Trump actually does in the slightest. The 10 year old pregnancy case is an annoyance to them, I'd be surprised if it changed literally a single vote.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 16:49 |
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Yeah, this. Over and over, none of the poo poo Democrats for some reason think should hurt Trump actually does in the slightest. The 10 year old pregnancy case is an annoyance to them, I'd be surprised if it changed literally a single vote. I don't want Trump to lose the primary. He lost to Joe Biden. That is never going to stop being pathetic. I just don't think we're lucky enough for him to win again.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 17:15 |
Crosby B. Alfred posted:They do respect the results of their primaries. Bernie Sander lost Michigan. If they've done so in the past, it was purely discretionary, given that they successfully argued in court that they are a private organization and have no legal obligation to actually do that. There's nothing actually compelling them to do so and if it's ever more beneficial to not do so, you can't actually force them to
|
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 17:17 |
|
While I think that Trump would be a better matchup for Biden in 2024 than DeSantis (assuming Biden even runs), it's definitely important to consider how dire Biden's approval ratings have been. Obviously anything can happen in the next two years (and by then I feel like Biden's numbers will be better than they are now because the supply chain will be ina better spot) but it seems safe to assume that "I'm not Trump" wouldn't be a winning strategy the second time around.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 17:25 |
|
Srice posted:Obviously anything can happen in the next two years (and by then I feel like Biden's numbers will be better than they are now because the supply chain will be ina better spot) but it seems safe to assume that "I'm not Trump" wouldn't be a winning strategy the second time around. It does feel like Trump is losing influence in the party, and I agree with what was posted previously that it's probably fatigue. Voters don't care about all of his dumb petty complaints, they want to Own the Libs.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 17:32 |
|
The SCOTUS ruling on the North Carolina independent legislature case next term may make a possible future Democratic President null and void anyway.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 17:34 |
|
Crows Turn Off posted:The SCOTUS ruling on the North Carolina independent legislature case next term may make a possible future Democratic President null and void anyway. And centrist and moderate Dems will be happier with that because it’ll continue to protect capital as well as being the same thing as republicans anyway That way they don’t have to worry about the uppity left/progressive wing of their party. If they win big then people would expect them to actually do something
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 18:34 |
|
Gatts posted:And centrist and moderate Dems will be happier with that because it’ll continue to protect capital as well as being the same thing as republicans anyway Doomposting aside there is no evidence “Centrist Dems” try to lose federal elections and a lot of evidence they focus too much effort that could go to state/local.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 18:43 |
|
Fritz the Horse posted:this seems like we're heading toward relitigating 2016/2020 primaries. let's not do that for the umpteenth time Noted. lil poopendorfer posted:It's still illegal And the Federal Government isn't enforcing Federal Law which was started by Obama. It's only legal in states due to progressives, liberals, etc. petitioning their government and voting. TheIncredulousHulk posted:If they've done so in the past, it was purely discretionary, given that they successfully argued in court that they are a private organization and have no legal obligation to actually do that. There's nothing actually compelling them to do so and if it's ever more beneficial to not do so, you can't actually force them to Both parties have done so including Republicans in the 1990s with Pat Buchanan. No political party - a private organization - is ever going to have another organization decide or enforce their own rules. Voters are certainly compelling them to do so, can you imagine if Trump won the 2016 primary but the governing body of the GOP simply decided against his victory? It would be been a bloodbath. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 19:46 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's 100% not going to stop them from running that same playbook for the 80th time I was thinking about this the other day as well. I think it's a mirage, it appears he's losing influence because he's not getting the airtime he was getting before. A presidential run will change that as the 24/7 media cycle just can't quit him.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 20:12 |
|
yronic heroism posted:Doomposting aside there is no evidence “Centrist Dems” try to lose federal elections and a lot of evidence they focus too much effort that could go to state/local. Lack of effort on state and local plus unwillingness to allow their insiders to be primaried are big reasons were in this mess. And it’s not a problem that can be fixed in under a decade.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 20:13 |
|
yronic heroism posted:Doomposting aside there is no evidence “Centrist Dems” try to lose federal elections and a lot of evidence they focus too much effort that could go to state/local. Are dems doing anything regarding voter rights, vote suppression, gerrymandering and such? I'm legitimately asking, because the topic seems to have mostly dropped off the media's radar. There was a blip when a distric change was reversed weeks back but it's back in te memory hole. And if the answer is just "well you see they can't because they lack votes", then we arrived at a catch-22, haven't we? Gotta get more reps elected, but we can't elect them because the system has been rigged, and to unrig it we need more reps, that we can't elect because....
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 20:26 |
|
Sephyr posted:Are dems doing anything regarding voter rights, vote suppression, gerrymandering and such? I'm legitimately asking, because the topic seems to have mostly dropped off the media's radar. There was a blip when a distric change was reversed weeks back but it's back in te memory hole. You know that the american electoral system has always been full of manipulation and suppression? The amount of physical threats and voter disenfranchisement 110 years ago puts completely to shame anything happening now. And still people managed to force progress. I don't buy that the existence of efforts to suppress votes makes it impossible to have an election. Every election ever has had people going all out trying to subvert it.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 20:39 |
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Both parties have done so including Republicans in the 1990s with Pat Buchanan. No political party - a private organization - is ever going to have another organization decide or enforce their own rules. Voters are certainly compelling them to do so, can you imagine if Trump won the 2016 primary but the governing body of the GOP simply decided against his victory? It would be been a bloodbath. Uh okay? Both-sidesing does nothing to argue against my post and make it look like you're just engaging in reflexive Democrat apologia. I didn't make any claim that they were unique, simply that you as a voter do not actually have a mechanism to force party leadership to obey you if they opt to put their collective foot down. You just don't, and DNC lawyers have said this in plain language. Honoring a primary result is not an indication that you have bent them to your will, it is that they have deemed the outcome of the primary acceptable on their terms. Should a scenario arise where the outcome of primaries is completely unacceptable as would likely be the case in the "progressive takeover" fantasy bandied about here, they can simply say "we're not doing that, sorry" and that's that. "Voters are compelling them" isn't true, and at best it is a single variable in a much more complex equation Citing your imagination is not strong evidence, and bringing up Trump in the 2016 primary suggests that you don't really understand the dynamics being discussed here. Why would they have decided against honoring his primary victory? Trump may have buried a few of the GOP's special boys on the mic en route to his primary victory, and some may have found him personally distasteful, but he didn't threaten the GOP power structure in any meaningful way nor did he significantly conflict with them from the standpoint of broad policy. That was not a scenario in flexing their actual authority was necessary The kind of sea change that left-libs fantasize about with the Democrats, however, would threaten the Democrat power structure, and it would conflict with Democrat policy. "Oh but it would be a bloodbath if they did that!!!!" or whatever but in that scenario, why would they give a poo poo? If they're trying to maintain their own power, they would be absolute fools to consent to a leftist insurgency permanently displacing them rather than, worst case, eating poo poo for a cycle while still maintaining control of the organization and recovering later But since you want to imagine things, imagine this scenario, forums poster Crosby B. Alfred: what would you personally do in the hypothetical event that the Democrats responded to a decisive progressive primary surge by openly tossing the results and running their own backroom-selected candidates? Would you vote for the Republicans instead? Would you not vote and let the Republicans win? How would you navigate this situation as a voter?
|
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 20:57 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:You know that the american electoral system has always been full of manipulation and suppression? The amount of physical threats and voter disenfranchisement 110 years ago puts completely to shame anything happening now. And still people managed to force progress. The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 20:58 |
|
-Blackadder- posted:
Did the full article cite any polls or anything? Because if the basis for the article is "three nameless, not even a job cited, "republican strategists" whining then I'm not going to assume this will make a blind bit of difference. Has there been any indication of it having an impact with the people who actually decide things?
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:05 |
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Uh okay? Both-sidesing does nothing to argue against my post and make it look like you're just engaging in reflexive Democrat apologia. I didn't make any claim that they were unique, simply that you as a voter do not actually have a mechanism to force party leadership to obey you if they opt to put their collective foot down. You just don't, and DNC lawyers have said this in plain language. Honoring a primary result is not an indication that you have bent them to your will, it is that they have deemed the outcome of the primary acceptable on their terms. Should a scenario arise where the outcome of primaries is completely unacceptable as would likely be the case in the "progressive takeover" fantasy bandied about here, they can simply say "we're not doing that, sorry" and that's that. "Voters are compelling them" isn't true, and at best it is a single variable in a much more complex equation. I'm not "both-siding" anything. It's how political parties or how any independent organization fundamentally function. The organizations runs itself and cannot be controlled by any other source. Leadership controls the organization and they're allowed to make even dumb decisions. Remember, this a primary not a general election. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Citing your imagination is not strong evidence, and bringing up Trump in the 2016 primary suggests that you don't really understand the dynamics being discussed here. Why would they have decided against honoring his primary victory? Trump may have buried a few of the GOP's special boys on the mic en route to his primary victory, and some may have found him personally distasteful, but he didn't threaten the GOP power structure in any meaningful way nor did he significantly conflict with them from the standpoint of broad policy. That was not a scenario in flexing their actual authority was necessary I'm not citing my imagination. Trump was an outlier. The Republican Old Guard was never, ever supported him by senior including Mitch McConnel, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Gram, Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney, etc. They didn't even want him to run in the first place, saw him as a joke of candidate but nevertheless he won. He absolutely has threatened the existing power structure of the GOP but they had go through it otherwise they're risking the entire collapse of the whole Republican Party. The only reason he wasn't impeached because they know if they did go through with it GOP voters would stay home in 2022 during midterms and even longer. TheIncredulousHulk posted:The kind of sea change that left-libs fantasize about with the Democrats, however, would threaten the Democrat power structure, and it would conflict with Democrat policy. "Oh but it would be a bloodbath if they did that!!!!" or whatever but in that scenario, why would they give a poo poo? If they're trying to maintain their own power, they would be absolute fools to consent to a leftist insurgency permanently displacing them rather than, worst case, eating poo poo for a cycle while still maintaining control of the organization and recovering later. I guess? They let Bernie Sanders run along with other members of the Squad who absolutely threaten the existing power structure. And fund them to this day with DNC dollars. TheIncredulousHulk posted:But since you want to imagine things, imagine this scenario, forums poster Crosby B. Alfred: what would you personally do in the hypothetical event that the Democrats responded to a decisive progressive primary surge by openly tossing the results and running their own backroom-selected candidates? Would you vote for the Republicans instead? Would you not vote and let the Republicans win? How would you navigate this situation as a voter? I might stay home and not vote. It would depend on who's running on the opposition and my options for alternative candidates. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:09 |
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California. And both votes are meaningless for legislation compared to donor dollars and lobbyist activities.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:10 |
|
bird food bathtub posted:And both votes are meaningless for legislation compared to donor dollars and lobbyist activities. Yes and no. Citizen United was a terrible, horrible decision, etc. but if companies want legislation passed at the end of the day they need candidates in office that support exactly that. And to get them in office they need votes.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:36 |
|
some plague rats posted:Did the full article cite any polls or anything? Because if the basis for the article is "three nameless, not even a job cited, "republican strategists" whining then I'm not going to assume this will make a blind bit of difference. Has there been any indication of it having an impact with the people who actually decide things? Here's the link. They reference a 538 article which is pretty interesting. It's more along the midterm election lines but we're seeing some post-decision indication of movement in the polls in that thread too. I'd say it's still early to be sure about exactly how much it will impact things, the midterms will be a helpful barometer so we'll have to see how those play out. It's certainly possible that the SC's Abortion decision just ends up being not as big of a deal as everyone assumed it would be (perhaps because it's not yet a national ban, which could change the dynamic significantly) but anecdotally from my experience, it seems to be have been a pretty major system shock to people, even to the point of being traumatizing for some. I do think a national Abortion ban would set people off in a way that Republicans are not even remotely prepared for. But it's not necessarily a sure thing that they'd have the votes to pass one. e: On the other hand if the Trumpist crazies keep buzzsawing their way through the establishment GOP like they recently did in the Nebraska, the nutters are going to have a lot more sway in the party than they did during Trump's first term and we could start seeing some truly crazy legislation that the Business Republicans would never have been insane enough to let pass. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 16, 2022 |
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:40 |
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I'm not "both-siding" anything. It's how political parties or how any independent organization fundamentally function. The organizations runs itself and cannot be controlled by any other source. Leadership controls the organization and they're allowed to make even dumb decisions. Remember, this a primary not a general election. Responding to simple description with "The GOP does it too!!!!!" for the purpose of backhandedly discrediting the description is absolutely both-sidesing lol Crosby B. Alfred posted:I'm not citing my imagination. Trump was an outlier. The Republican Old Guard was never, ever supported him by senior including Mitch McConnel, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Gram, Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney, etc. They didn't even want him to run in the first place, saw him as a joke of candidate but nevertheless he won. He absolutely has threatened the existing power structure of the GOP but they had go through it otherwise they're risking the entire collapse of the whole Republican Party. You're describing personal distaste, dude. He didn't displace any of those people you listed, nor even threaten to displace them. He certainly didn't disrupt the organizational structure as a whole. Trump was perfectly simpatico with the aims of the GOP and party leadership, they just thought he was a gross buffoon rather than an ideological enemy who threatened their grasp on power Ironically the most threatening thing Trump actually did to the GOP was January 6th, since their long-term plan has been humming along uninterrupted in the background and in the event Trump had managed to overturn the apple cart it would have spoiled half a century of work Crosby B. Alfred posted:I guess? They let Bernie Sanders run along with other members of the Squad who absolutely threaten the existing power structure. And fund them to this day with DNC dollars. They don't threaten the existing power structure in the slightest lol, they are part of it. That is an absurd claim. Whining on Instragram isn't threatening. If anything, someone like AOC has proven to be a lot more useful to the Democrats as an organization than a Joe Crowley because a Joe Crowley can't con left-libs into thinking entryism is achieving anything for them Crosby B. Alfred posted:I might stay home and not vote. It would depend on who's running on the opposition and my options for alternative candidates. So you'd let the fascist death cult win?
|
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:45 |
|
Bellmaker posted:I was thinking about this the other day as well. I think it's a mirage, it appears he's losing influence because he's not getting the airtime he was getting before. A presidential run will change that as the 24/7 media cycle just can't quit him.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 21:47 |
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Responding to simple description with "The GOP does it too!!!!!" for the purpose of backhandedly discrediting the description is absolutely both-sidesing lol No. That wasn't my reply either. No private entity is going to let another control their own business. The Republican Party did it in the 1990s because they're private organization with their own rules responsible to no one expect themselves. My argument isn't they did it it too. My argument is this is how these organization function on a fundamental level and here's an example Republican Party doing it as well in the 1990s. TheIncredulousHulk posted:You're describing personal distaste, dude. He didn't displace any of those people you listed, nor even threaten to displace them. He certainly didn't disrupt the organizational structure as a whole. Trump was perfectly simpatico with the aims of the GOP and party leadership, they just thought he was a gross buffoon rather than an ideological enemy who threatened their grasp on power. I'm not describing personal distaste. He absolutely flipped the GOP around and has successfully pushed out Old Guard GOP Republicans - see the amount of GOP retirees - with his preferred fiercely loyal MAGA candidates. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc. are likely going to lose their own primaries or simply not run again which is crazy of conservative leaning states. TheIncredulousHulk posted:They don't threaten the existing power structure in the slightest lol, they are part of it. That is an absurd claim. Whining on Instragram isn't threatening. If anything, someone like AOC has proven to be a lot more useful to the Democrats as an organization than a Joe Crowley because a Joe Crowley can't con left-libs into thinking entryism is achieving anything for them You're going to have to explain to me how Bernie, AOC or other members of the squad are a part of the existing power structure. I don't understand what any of this has to with whining on Instagram. TheIncredulousHulk posted:So you'd let the fascist death cult win? No, I said it depend on my options.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 22:00 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We see this all the time though, which is that especially on the right, the window continually shifts to the right in what discourse is acceptable, and Trump is behind on things like the vaccines which the GOP is strongly 100% against. But Trump likes to tout his claims that he is the reason that they exist (which is bullshit but he does this all the time). A correction: the GOP is not strongly 100% against vaccines. A majority of Republican voters are vaccinated. However a majority of Republicans (though not 100%) do oppose vaccine mandates, according to the most recent polling I could find. The national GOP platform doesn't mention anything about vaccines or mandates.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 22:30 |
Crosby B. Alfred posted:No. That wasn't my reply either. No private entity is going to let another control their own business. The Republican Party did it in the 1990s because they're private organization with their own rules responsible to no one expect themselves. Why bring the Republicans up at all in response to a description of the Democrats unless you are attempting to deflect? Crosby B. Alfred posted:My argument isn't they did it it too. My argument is this is how these organization function on a fundamental level and here's an example Republican Party doing it as well in the 1990s. That would be great if my post had been claiming the behavior was unique to the Democrats, or made claims that hinged on only Democrat primaries being nonbinding, but I didn't. I didn't even say it was abnormal or remarkable. It is just something of which some posters did not appear aware because their political theorycrafting hinged on the idea that with sufficient public persuasion, the party would have to give up the steering wheel, but they don't have to, and again their lawyers have acknowledged this in plain language in court. The GOP has absolutely zero to do with that in context Bringing up the GOP in response to that is a complete non sequitur and I don't know why someone would do that other than to muddy the discussion. That we are now spending most of these back-and-forths arguing about the GOP when I was originally posting about the efficacy of Democrat entryism does make it look like you were successful though, so good job Crosby B. Alfred posted:I'm not describing personal distaste. He absolutely flipped the GOP around and has successfully pushed out Old Guard GOP Republicans - see the amount of GOP retirees - with his preferred fiercely loyal MAGA candidates. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc. are likely going to lose their own primaries or simply not run again which is crazy of conservative leaning states. Individuals cashing in their chips to get their private sector payday isn't remotely the same thing as a hostile left takeover forcibly seizing the reigns and eliminating those paydays. But even supposing that it was--what have the replacements done that GOP leadership didn't want them to do? In what way has the GOP flipped besides demeanor? What policies have the GOP been forced to implement by Trump that they were opposed to implementing? I personally have not observed a meaningful difference It is funny to me that posters ITT keep bringing up Liz Cheney as an example of someone falling on her sword and sacrificing everything when she had a lot more actual power as a blob queen in the Bush administration than she does as a rinkydink House rep from an uninhabited state. Even if she loses her primary she is absolutely not leaving the power structure lol Crosby B. Alfred posted:You're going to have to explain to me how Bernie, AOC or other members of the squad are a part of the existing power structure. I don't understand what any of this has to with whining on Instagram. Because they vote for the bills party leadership tells them to and do all kinds of PR work for the party? We're barely two years removed from these same people (correctly) describing proposed Democrat policies as weak-rear end half-measures and those proposals they poo poo on before were all more ambitious than the stuff they tout now. The most hostile they ever get toward the party is some mild social media whining when the party does something really lovely but that's it. They still fall in line every time So I'll throw it back to you: what have they materially done to subvert the existing power structure? What steps toward actually seizing control have they taken? What actions have they forced the party to take that the party did not want to take? Simply replacing the odd House rep with yourself is not inherently threatening, especially when all you actually do is cooperate Crosby B. Alfred posted:No, I said it depend on my options. But in the scenarios where you didn't like your options, you would let the fascist death cult win
|
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 22:42 |
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:You're going to have to explain to me how Bernie, AOC or other members of the squad are a part of the existing power structure. I don't understand what any of this has to with whining on Instagram. Because every single time push comes to shove they fall in line. Bernie dropped out to support and campaign for his "good friend" Joe Biden and handed over his email lists and donor details to the DNC, the squad fall in line and don't oppose money for the cops, weapons and funding for Israel, war in Ukraine, etc., in what sense are they not part of the existing power structure? In what meaningful ways have they ever opposed it?
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 22:43 |
|
It may be helpful to define exactly what the power structure of a party is, and what sort of changes would be brought about by someone who opposes or threatens it.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 23:22 |
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California. 110 years ago women couldn't vote and the klan was at the height of its power
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 23:25 |
|
some plague rats posted:Because every single time push comes to shove they fall in line. Bernie dropped out to support and campaign for his "good friend" Joe Biden and handed over his email lists and donor details to the DNC, the squad fall in line and don't oppose money for the cops, weapons and funding for Israel, war in Ukraine, etc., in what sense are they not part of the existing power structure? In what meaningful ways have they ever opposed it? They are a small faction within the Democratic caucus. One of the best ways for them to be successful is to expand the size of that faction, so they have more votes. The more votes they have, the more ability they have to resist the rest of the party, and steer the agenda. The line of attack you and Hulk are describing here seems counterproductive to your overall goal.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 23:26 |
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The difference now is that your vote is significantly diluted. A voter in Wyoming has 64x more power than a voter in California. Do you have a source for this?
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 23:32 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:07 |
|
Koos Group posted:Do you have a source for this? Population of CA: 39.35 million Population of WY: 0.581 million Number of electors for CA: 55 Number of electors for WY: 3 3/55=0.054 electors/million 55/39.35=1.4 electors/million 1.4/0.054 is about 26X, so that'd be my back of the envelope estimate for the value of a WY vote vs a CA one in a presidential election. I might be missing something though.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2022 23:38 |