|
Kalit posted:
technically accurate, but please no
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Grape posted:The democrats don't really control the congress because of Sinema and Manchin effectively being diet-conservative independents who run as D. Sure, but all the recent times the democrats held supermajorities they neglected to take action for establishing abortion. I just don't think this time will be different. I'm not saying electoralism is worthless, just that the democrats aren't really interested in establishing legal abortion--as evidenced by their lack of legislative action in this regard, as well as their willingness to support anti-choice democrats. Who knows, maybe you're right and two more senators is all it would take
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 11:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They are 2 votes short of changing the filibuster to allow a vote on abortion. This isn't a guess or a hypothetical, we got on the record pledges from 48. They'll only make these pledges because they know it'll never happen. If Manchin or Sinema flipped, some of the others would flip back
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Sure, but all the recent times the democrats held supermajorities they neglected to take action for establishing abortion. I just don't think this time will be different. It is extremely difficult to take this post seriously. This honestly looks like you are gaslighting us, trying to provoke an exasperated effortpost response, unless you are only very casually aware of US politics and are making a bi-annual brief check-in with your hot take on the issues of the day. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
slurm posted:They'll only make these pledges because they know it'll never happen. If Manchin or Sinema flipped, some of the others would flip back Explain, in detail, why you believe this unless this is just a gut-level feeling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
A gentle reminder: "Gaslighting" has a definition, and it isn't "when a stranger on the Internet disagrees with you."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:A gentle reminder: "Gaslighting" has a definition, and it isn't "when a stranger on the Internet disagrees with you." Well, yeah. In this case, the first of two possible motivations I speculated on for that post was to drive some of us crazy rather than to have an actual, honest disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
I don't get why 52 is the magic number when they had 60, 59, 54, etc before and weren't able to pass federal abortion protections even though they had promised to do it and the court was actively rolling back abortion rights then. I'm not really sure what guarantee a pledge offers since they pledged that 50 was the magic number in Jan 2020 and then when they won it they just moved the goalposts to 52. There's nothing stopping them from moving the goalposts again if they actually win. They even have an effective excuse: dang Bob Casey or whoever is a bad person, who could have known. But we still have 48 pledges to do it, with 54 senators in 2024 we can make him irrelevant! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
“All the recent times the Democrats had supermajorities”?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Explain, in detail, why you believe this unless this is just a gut-level feeling. Many posters have explained this many times. Do you read the same D&D I do? We may hate it, but politics is full of lying show votes and cards held close to the vest. California needs UHC when R's are in charge, but only when R's are in charge is still the easiest obvious example of this process in our government system. Rigel posted:Well, yeah. In this case, the first of two possible motivations I speculated on for that post was to drive some of us crazy rather than to have an actual, honest disagreement. Yeah that's not what gaslighting means. Gaslighting is lying about visible facts (not interpretation of possible hidden motives)to undermine confidence in reality/sanity. Not "drive you crazy" by disagreeing with your interpretation of things. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, yeah. In this case, the first of two possible motivations I speculated on for that post was to drive some of us crazy rather than to have an actual, honest disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
"All laws that will ever be passed have already been passed" is certainly a take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Xombie posted:"All laws that will ever be passed have already been passed" is certainly a take. It is but is it relevant? Did someone post it here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't get why 52 is the magic number when they had 60, 59, 54, etc before and weren't able to pass federal abortion protections even though they had promised to do it and the court was actively rolling back abortion rights then. The bolded portion is carrying an enormous amount of weight that I do not think it can support. A few individual Senators may have said a few things, but the national party has never made a big push for Federal abortion legislation until this year that I have ever seen. Before this year, it would have been seen by most voters as a stupid, pointless waste of time because of Roe, and the base wasn't really pushing hard for it, again because of Roe. It did not become real for anyone outside of the hard-core abortion rights activists until this year. Even this board, as left and progressive as it is, has never really cared very much about federal abortion legislation codifying Roe until this year, and to pretend that of course Federal abortion legislation was something that was promised and then ignored before now, is not accurate at all. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It is but is it relevant? Did someone post it here? I mean, you and several others just posted that exact argument. "Why would the Democrats pass X law now when they didn't pass X law then" is logic applicable to literally all laws forever until the end of time. The reason why it's probable that they pass abortion protections in the near future is the same reason why they've passed any law, ever, when they didn't pass it at some arbitrary point in time prior. There's nothing that makes abortion rights special in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Many posters have explained this many times. Do you read the same D&D I do? We may hate it, but politics is full of lying show votes and cards held close to the vest. California needs UHC when R's are in charge, but only when R's are in charge is still the easiest obvious example of this process in our government system. You are basically saying, to support the argument that voting and winning elections is not as important as others may think, "I know they are lying about the very specific, very detailed, and very concrete thing they would do early in the year 2023 with a good election outcome in November 2022, where they even specifically defined what a good election outcome would be, that they unambiguously promised, about the single most important issue which they are running hard on, and that their base cares about more than anything else right now. How do I know this? I just know." What are we supposed to do with that in this discussion? This argument doesn't really serve any useful purpose other than shut down discussion. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Many posters have explained this many times. Do you read the same D&D I do? We may hate it, but politics is full of lying show votes and cards held close to the vest. California needs UHC when R's are in charge, but only when R's are in charge is still the easiest obvious example of this process in our government system.  Can you please explain this specific example? If you're talking about when R's are in charge of CA, this has only happened for about a year since the 70s. If you're talking about when R's are in charge of the federal government, how does that prevent CA from passing UHC as a state?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:“All the recent times the Democrats had supermajorities”? The 111th Congress is an example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:The 111th Congress is an example. So the Democrats didn't pass a law for [insert issue here] in 72 days in 2009, therefore they'll never pass any laws again no matter what? Is that what you're saying? Xombie fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
E: wrong source
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Explain, in detail, why you believe this unless this is just a gut-level feeling. To be clear you asked this question and then when I answered you accuse me of breaking debate and discussion rules? It seems like there isn't any good faith response you would accept and that this is an effort to win via moderation action, but maybe I've misunderstood. You and Xombie are welcome to disagree with our analysis, but it is what it is. These bad faith attempts to twist the arguments are clear as day. Maybe some number of Dem politicians want to codify abortion. There's probably mixed opinions weighing that, R control of SCOTUS, and the impact this has had on voting so far. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Dr. Oz has now decided that his strategy seems to be making counter-meme programming, but it seems to be lacking a coherent message. From what I can tell, it seems that Fetterman is always thinking about bongs, construction, and ways to raise gas prices. Also, he spends too much money in his personal life, but bought his house too cheaply. His house is also an embarrassing loft that was a former warehouse and not a house where a normal person would live. Also, the lovely warehouse he lives in is way too fancy. https://twitter.com/davejorgenson/status/1560391001209987073 https://twitter.com/DrOz/status/1559241511170183169
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You and Xombie are welcome to disagree with our analysis, but it is what it is. These bad faith attempts to twist the arguments are clear as day. I didn't twist your argument, I just explained to you how the logic doesn't work, and you haven't responded to my last post about it. "It is what it is" isn't a rebuttal, and my argument isn't "bad faith" just because you can't come up with one. quote:Maybe some number of Dem politicians want to codify abortion. There's probably mixed opinions weighing that, R control of SCOTUS, and the impact this has had on voting so far. This isn't an argument against whether or not they'll pass an abortion law, it's just you being wishy-washy and saying you don't have personal faith in it. Which is objectively irrelevant. Xombie fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
No one said the thing you are claiming. May seem like a logical outcome but no one else here is pretending that our elected representatives are guided by pure logic
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
A sad truth about the state of our very conservative country and the weak candidates in many races.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The bolded portion is carrying an enormous amount of weight that I do not think it can support. A few individual Senators may have said a few things, but the national party has never made a big push for Federal abortion legislation until this year that I have ever seen. https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1184294114319327233 https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1277695835413925888 https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1212922129886388224 https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1220104098969681920 Joe Biden posted:But let’s be clear: Republicans in state legislatures will stop at nothing to get rid of Roe — and we have to be just as strong in our defense of it. They are trying to get these laws appealed to the Supreme Court in the hope that Trump’s justices will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s wrong. It’s pernicious. And, we have to stop it. As President, I will codify Roe v. Wade and my Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate a woman’s protected, constitutional right to choose. No mention of the magic number until after they won the election. They also explicitly promised a lot of other things that never happened, like voting rights, $15 minimum wage, etc. And those promises continued to be made going into the Georgia special elections when the maximum number of senators they could get was 50. Now maybe they just forgot or Biden never learned how the senate works despite being there for a thousand years or something, but it's also quite possible that the promises were puffery to win the election and when they couldn't fulfill them they just moved the goalposts and they could always move them again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
I don't believe Trump will recant his crimes today. Do you feel strongly compelled to argue that he might?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:No one said the thing you are claiming. May seem like a logical outcome but no one else here is pretending that our elected representatives are guided by pure logic It is the exact logic your argument and others relies on, verbatim: "They didn't pass X law so therefore they will never pass X law". Again, this logic would equally apply to X = any law as it would if X = abortion. You're welcome to actually state how I am wrong, but so far you've avoided doing it. Again, you not liking that this pokes a hole in your argument doesn't make it invalid. You haven't given anything special about abortion that would make it more subject to this line of logic than any other issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:To be clear you asked this question and then when I answered you accuse me of breaking debate and discussion rules? Once again, can you please explain your example you provided of Harold Fjord posted:California needs UHC when R's are in charge, but only when R's are in charge is still the easiest obvious example of this process in our government system. I'm confused on if you're talking about R control of CA state or federal level, what specific politicians you're specifically talking about, if you're talking about state-wide or just federal UHC, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It is the exact logic your argument and others relies on, verbatim: "They didn't pass X law so therefore they will never pass X law". Again, this logic would equally apply to X = any law as it would if X = abortion. You're welcome to actually state how I am wrong, but so far you've avoided doing it. Again, you not liking that this pokes a hole in your argument doesn't make it invalid. I think people's past actions are a good indicator of likely future actions. Feel free to argue otherwise. This is specifically directed to you: Harold Fjord posted:I don't believe Trump will recant his crimes today. Do you feel strongly compelled to argue that he might?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
I just caught up with some of the posts from last night and this morning. Please try to keep the 2022 Midterm thread discussion on or around the 2022 Midterms, and not the 2008 election, 2020 election, Trump's legal arguments, or the concept of electoralism/"does voting matter?" in general. There is an electoralism thread, an abortion thread, and a current events thread for those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think people's past actions are a good indicator of likely future actions. Feel free to argue otherwise. Sure, I'd be glad to: the Democrats have passed laws in recent years with majorities that they did not pass during past majorities. Your argument rests entirely on the idea that this doesn't happen, or that there is something special about abortion. You haven't established either of these things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It is the exact logic your argument and others relies on, verbatim: "They didn't pass X law so therefore they will never pass X law". Again, this logic would equally apply to X = any law as it would if X = abortion. You're welcome to actually state how I am wrong, but so far you've avoided doing it. Again, you not liking that this pokes a hole in your argument doesn't make it invalid. This is pretty poor logic. They've passed a bunch of laws, all of which either only required 51 votes under the budget reconciliation process, or had enough Republican support to overcome the filibuster. Abortion does not qualify for reconciliation and does not have enough Republican support to overcome the filibuster. Pretty different. Note that no other law that has the same obstacles as abortion has passed either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is pretty poor logic. The bolded part is where your counterargument fails. Because you're relying on the idea that they won't eliminate the filibuster to do it. Which goes back to the exact same "they didn't do it before therefore they won't do it ever" faulty logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Xombie posted:So the Democrats didn't pass a law for [insert issue here] in 72 days in 2009, therefore they'll never pass any laws again no matter what? Is that what you're saying? This argument comes up often, and it's very weak and not at all thoughtful or thought-through. The argument: "Democrats had a super-majority in the Senate for 72 days in 2009, therefore if they didn't pass anything that any Democrat has ever claimed to want / that the Democratic Party has ever wanted then they never will, even if given another super-majority today". This argument rests on some extremely weak load-bearing assumptions: 1) They didn't do it then so they won't do it now. Trivially easy to prove false. Democrats in 2009 wanted to pass infrastructure spending. Democrats in 2009 wanted to pass climate change legislation. They didn't do it in 2009, but they did do it over the past year. Like, the actions the Democrats have taken in the last 20 months prove this argument wrong on its face. 2) Political parties operate in lock-step unison with unanimous agreement of what they want to pass, the priority of what should pass, and there is total ideological consistency across all members of that party. If you are making the argument "Democrats had a super-majority in the Senate for 72 days in 2009 and therefore if they didn't pass something then they never wanted to pass it and never will" then these are load-bearing assumptions, because otherwise you're ignoring the reality of the diversity of thought in the Democratic party in 2009 (and today as well), the political backgrounds and personal politics of the Democratic Senators that made up the 2009 72 day super-majority, etc. All of the realities of governance and national + local politics must be handwaved away to get to the conclusion "they would have done it if they wanted to, therefore they don't want to and never will". This can also be easily disproven by looking at, I don't know, any other political party in the US and probably most of the world. Even today's fascist MAGA Republicans disagree on things that they want and the priority of passing those things. Republicans are about as unified as they have ever been, and they still have these disagreements. Or look to the left. Everybody looks to the left as consistent, unified idealogues who 100% agree with each other on exactly what they want, what they will always want, and the priority of each of those ironclad, eternal policy goals, right? 3) "They say they want it, but they're lying and if we give them more Senators then others will switch their votes and it will fail, because they're intentionally and directly lying to us about what they will vote for." This just conspiracy theory thinking. There's not really a way that I know of to make an argument to somebody who believes in conspiracies. e: welp I posted this without seeing Leon's post. I'll drop it. How are u fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
It would be very nice if they got rid of the filibuster. You aren't going to logic people out of thinking it is unlikely
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It would be very nice if they got rid of the filibuster. You aren't going to logic people out of thinking it is unlikely Again, your personal confidence in something happening or not happening doesn't have any bearing on wether or not it will actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The bolded part is where your counterargument fails. Because you're relying on the idea that they won't eliminate the filibuster to do it. Which goes back to the exact same "they didn't do it before therefore they won't do it ever" faulty logic. Right, so "54 Democrats is probably not enough to eliminate the filibuster" is quite different from the argument you were strawmanning everybody with, which if you've already forgotten was: Xombie posted:So the Democrats didn't pass a law for [insert issue here] in 72 days in 2009, therefore they'll never pass any laws again no matter what? Is that what you're saying?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Again, your personal confidence in something happening or not happening doesn't have any bearing on wether or not it will actually happen. No point in discussing anything, then! If things are gonna happen or not happen regardless of what we say, why talk about it at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right, so "54 Democrats is probably not enough to eliminate the filibuster" is quite different from the argument you were strawmanning everybody with That's not a strawman. It's literally what you and others have argued, verbatim. You're welcome to explain how it isn't, but so far you (and others) have not. In fact you're just continuing to repeat it in different ways. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:15
|
|