|
Discendo Vox posted:What exactly do you think the democrats did to "let" Johnson take the position? They didn't strategically vote for another republican candidate who would have been easier to work with and less of a threat. Their quixotic votes for Hakeem Jeffries handed Johnson the Speaker's position. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:They didn't strategically vote for another republican candidate who would have been easier to work with and less of a threat. Their quixotic votes for Hakeem Jeffries handed Johnson the Speaker's position. Who is this mythical republican who would work with Dems in the house and had an actual shot at becoming speaker? Can you tell us?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:They didn't strategically vote for another republican candidate who would have been easier to work with and less of a threat. Their quixotic votes for Hakeem Jeffries handed Johnson the Speaker's position. you'd have an easier time arguing this if the vote for johnson wasn't unanimous from republicans
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:you'd have an easier time arguing this if the vote for johnson wasn't unanimous from republicans Was the vote unanimous from the start? I recall there being an ongoing leadership crisis for house republicans. Surely the democrats could have exploited that through strategic voting? Jeffries was never going to be Speaker, why vote for him at all? A protest vote? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
Wasn't each candidate for house leader promising not to work with the Dems at all? Who would the Dems have supported if each candidate promised to tell them to gently caress off?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Was the vote unanimous from the start? I recall there being an ongoing leadership crisis for house republicans. Surely the democrats could have exploited that through strategic voting? Jeffries was never going to be Speaker, why vote for him at all? A protest vote? Which candidate in your view should the Democrats have supported?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
Oh I get it. It’s a really dumb “why vote for a third party” troll. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
The important thing is not whether such a strategy is possible, the important thing is that Dems didn't achieve it and thus are as bad as Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Wasn't each candidate for house leader promising not to work with the Dems at all? Who would the Dems have supported if each candidate promised to tell them to gently caress off? Even if the republicans had explicitly said accomplishing the democrats preferred policy goals was off the table, surely some republicans held better positions than others, or do you believe republicans are an undifferentiated mass?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Even if the republicans had explicitly said accomplishing the democrats preferred policy goals was off the table, surely some republicans held better positions than others, or do you believe republicans are an undifferentiated mass? The Democrats said they were open to a lesser evil vote, but couldn't get any Republican to agree to it. The vote for Johnson was unanimous on the Republican side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Even if the republicans had explicitly said accomplishing the democrats preferred policy goals was off the table, surely some republicans held better positions than others, or do you believe republicans are an undifferentiated mass? Can you list any Republicans you're alluding to? I don't recall any "better" Republicans being discussed during the Speaker race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Even if the republicans had explicitly said accomplishing the democrats preferred policy goals was off the table, surely some republicans held better positions than others, or do you believe republicans are an undifferentiated mass? So seeing the point that you're trying to insinuate here, surely you understand the difference between voting as an individual in an election, and voting as an party in Congress/Parliament for Speaker? Can you point to a single Republican representative, who was running for the role, who offered anything as substantiative to the Democrats in the House as Biden and Dems at large offers to the American people or is this a false equivilence you're arguing here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Democrats said they were open to a lesser evil vote, but couldn't get any Republican to agree to it. It was unanimous in the 4th round of voting, but earlier rounds had several candidates with votes. Jordan, McCarthy, Emmer, Zeldin, Garcia, Scalise, and Massie all received 3rd round votes. Claiming 'it was unanimous, there was nothing the democrats could do' is simply a false statement
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:It was unanimous in the 4th round of voting, but earlier rounds had several candidates with votes. Can you explain which of these candidates were better for Democrats and on which issues specifically? We're aware there were other candidates, but you keep alluding to one of them being the "better" candidate and it's not clear from that list which one it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
burnishedfume posted:Can you list any Republicans you're alluding to? I don't recall any "better" Republicans being discussed during the Speaker race. Im actually not aware of other republican positions, I mostly ignore American politics now and world politics is more pressing anyways, which is why I posed the question to begin with. But news reporting on Mike Johnson is inescapable. He's a young earth creationist and overall a terrible person, surely there was a better option?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Im actually not aware of other republican positions, I mostly ignore American politics now and world politics is more pressing anyways, which is why I posed the question to begin with. But news reporting on Mike Johnson is inescapable. He's a young earth creationist and overall a terrible person, surely there was a better option? You're the one who listed a bunch of possibilities, pick one
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
As you seem to be incapable of doing any research on it, take my word for it. Nope! No better options, case closed. Next topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
mannerup posted:if this is your dumb position, why didn’t democrats just save McCarthy from the original motion to vacate vote from Gaetz in the first place for nothing in return? If they had they wouldnt have a young earth creationist who supported the very real coup attempt on Jan 6th as speaker, so I guess the democrats made a mistake there
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:39
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Im actually not aware of other republican positions, I mostly ignore American politics now and world politics is more pressing anyways, which is why I posed the question to begin with. But news reporting on Mike Johnson is inescapable. He's a young earth creationist and overall a terrible person, surely there was a better option? Not to my knowledge, there was no better choice as they were all Republicans. Glad to help!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:42
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:If they had they wouldnt have a young earth creationist who supported the very real coup attempt on Jan 6th as speaker, so I guess the democrats made a mistake there And this is a problem for the democrats because…?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
The notion that somehow Jim Jordan or Kevin McCarthy were preferable to Johnson just because he’s the new lovely Republican we’re learning about is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
The idea that there's a good Republican option anymore is laughable. Oh no, this new guy might open a bogus impeachment hearing and shut down the January 6th committee!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:The idea that there's a good Republican option anymore is laughable. Oh no, this new guy might open a bogus impeachment hearing and shut down the January 6th committee! burnishedfume posted:Not to my knowledge, there was no better choice as they were all Republicans. Glad to help! STAC Goat posted:The notion that somehow Jim Jordan or Kevin McCarthy were preferable to Johnson just because he’s the new lovely Republican we’re learning about is absurd. Thanks for the insights. I feel the same way about the democrats, so I understand where you're coming from
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:They didn't strategically vote for another republican candidate who would have been easier to work with and less of a threat. Their quixotic votes for Hakeem Jeffries handed Johnson the Speaker's position. There was no Republican candidate who would have been easier to work with and less of a threat. It actually doesn't really matter who ends up Speaker, because all of them openly reject the idea of working with Democrats, and that leaves them completely beholden to all the most extreme elements of their caucus. The Dems took the position that they weren't going to help resolve the GOP's leadership strife for free. If a candidate was willing to approach them and work with them and make real, hard concessions that weren't just empty promises, then they would have been open to discussing a deal, but they weren't going to jump in on their own and beg for favors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Thanks for the insights. I feel the same way about the democrats, so I understand where you're coming from I'm sorry to hear the lives of LGBT people, women, and other in this country don't bother you at all. I'm afraid for my safety and for the safety of all other trans people in this country because of the Republican party's platform that includes the explicit eradication of transgender people but at least you got to get a snappy reply out of it I guess. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Thanks for the insights. I feel the same way about the democrats, so I understand where you're coming from You know in your rush to gotcha everyone you missed the posts about the real things the democrats do that are better than the republicans and the real people that get hurt by people pretending to be above it all and not voting, you provided no such example hence why people kept asking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:while talking up this victory, the uaw leadership has said the plan is now to use this massive win to lever open the non-union shops and focus on massively expanding membership. the goal is that next time around they won't be doing this with just the big three, but five or six of the major manufacturers Pretty much all the unions this year have been clear that part of their strategy is to win big enough that they can use that to expand their membership. UAW is gunning for more auto manufacturers, and The Teamsters were very vocal that after they beat UPS they were coming for Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
Personally, I don't think that Democrats should vote for Republicans. In fact, I don't think anyone should vote for the far right, but I'm not really that leftist anymore I suppose. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Democrats did in fact all vote for the better candidate in each vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Pretty much all the unions this year have been clear that part of their strategy is to win big enough that they can use that to expand their membership. UAW is gunning for more auto manufacturers, and The Teamsters were very vocal that after they beat UPS they were coming for Amazon. Good, I hope we see a massive influx of unions and membership increases. Workers regaining some protections can only be a net good. A union in every pot and a chicken in every garage, I say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
I was kind of hoping that the voting derail would be over by now, but for what little it matters I think all the "blood on your hands" kind of stuff is pretty tedious in either direction. It's "we live in a society" or "no ethical consumption under capitalism". If people want to just not vote then fine - don't post about literally doing nothing at us and just don't vote. There isn't anything added to the conversation by making it about you not voting because of <<topic>>, if you want to talk about <<topic>> just do it. That applies whether we are talking about Israel or not getting your pandemic check, or whatever the topics in between those two were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 03:34
|
|
|
I agree with BougieBitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
burnishedfume posted:I'm sorry to hear the lives of LGBT people, women, and other in this country don't bother you at all. I'm afraid for my safety and for the safety of all other trans people in this country because of the Republican party's platform that includes the explicit eradication of transgender people but at least you got to get a snappy reply out of it I guess. I know you're probed and can't respond to this but this is for the thread in general. The governor of California, a Democrat, recently vetoed a law that would protect trans kids. I know that's just one state but it's always brought up as the most progressive state that chuds hate the most. And to extend that to women, the Democrats got leaked a Supreme Court decision that was going to overturn Roe vs Wade and they did nothing. They had a majority and could have codified abortion as being legal nationwide but instead they said "hey donate a bunch of money and maybe we'll do something". They did not codify abortion as legal in this country because they did not want to. Democrat party leaders are also on record multiple times endorsing anti-choice Democrats who are running against pro-choice Democrats in certain House races Voting for all these useless donation collectors has done nothing good for this country on a grand scale except for us pulling out of Afghanistan and as others have mentioned that whole things started under Trump unfortunately Voting for Democrats does not result in good things. It results in slightly less bad things and the difference between what Democrats deliver and what Republicans deliver is almost imperceptible. And when they do get a majority they don't listen to anyone. All of a sudden villainous traitors like Manchin and Sinema suddenly appear. And then when those dummies agree to do something good then all of a sudden we have the Parliamentarian that nobody ever mentioned in the last however many decades of politics. I've been following politics since high when I voted for Clinton in my first election and I have never once heard of that role and it hasn't been mentioned since because again, it is very obvious that Democrats invent artificial evils when it suits them to do so because they don't want to piss off the billionaires that control every single one of them. All of their kids can get abortions if necessary with no problems. If any of them have LGBTQ family members they're perfectly safe because of money and power. They do not actually care about you or the women in your life or any of the immigrants at the Mexican border because all those camps are still there under the "less bad" party
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:the difference between what Democrats deliver and what Republicans deliver is almost imperceptible. Do you think this would be happening if Republicans controlled the Department of Labor right now? Or is it "imperceptible"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:
This just isn't factually true on any level. First the "rotating villain" theory is childish and stupid and only works if you somehow don't think politicians are individuals or that big tent parties aren't real things. Also despite not doing nearly enough the Democrats have done many things economically and socially, sayings its "imperceptible" is some bullshit privileged position bullshit where you aren't one of the many many minorities hurt more by Republican administrations. Are Democrats perfect or even really good? No, but they are better than the alternative and voting for them doesn't mean you can't do other things to move the needle, but from what I've seen most people who believe "both sides are equally bad" don't really do anything to help and are waiting for some sort of revolution to manifest that is not going to happen and if it does will cost a large amount of innocent lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Misunderstood posted:There is discussion on this very page of major gains being made in the union movement, and massive concessions won by the UAW, with plans to expand. This was done with the direct support of the President, who has supported unions for his entire 50-year career and walked the picket line with workers. I mean even if you just use one of the examples in their post, if you can't perceive the difference in trans rights between California and, say, Florida, your eyes must be closed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 04:19
|
|