|
celadon posted:I dunno I’d personally rather live in a state headed by career criminals all blackmailing eachother that followed all the policies of the Democratic Party platform compared to one led by perfectly upright citizens that followed all the Republican platform policies. That's called the mafia/cartel and let's not go romanticizing that.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
It is kind of invisible-hand of the market, "if people just act in their own selfish interest it'll work out the best for everyone" thinking.
PharmerBoy fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
celadon posted:I dunno I’d personally rather live in a state headed by career criminals all blackmailing eachother that followed all the policies of the Democratic Party platform compared to one led by perfectly upright citizens that followed all the Republican platform policies. I’m sure it works great for Italy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s done in secret, but it’s not a secret that politicians will and have historically done really greasy poo poo to get things done. Let me see if I'm getting your viewpoint right. "Well, I acknowledge that the Democrats need every single vote they can possibly get in the Senate to pass anything and I see that a couple of the Senators are very stridently against the things I want. The fact that the other Democrats can't convince them must mean that the other Democrats (or the leadership, at least) are either incompetent or not actually motivated to accomplish things. I don't know how they would do this, but a truly effective party would find a way to pass policies even when those policies don't have majority support." Is that inaccurate? It seems like an unrealistically difficult standard to reach - even impossible, since there will always be things that you want and most but not all of 50 Democratic Senators would want. It's also a very convenient standard if you've decided going in that nothing the Democrats do will make them worthy of your support. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The dems don't and did not have the power to do that Raenir Salazar posted:You need a 2/3's majority yeah and the GOP was not going to do that; and I'm not sure if there's enough evidence to use the 14th on like two House Reps. This brings up why I don't think the "protecting democracy" angle is really resonating with voters. The Democrats' words and actions don't add up. The Democrats are running on the idea than Jan6 wasn't just a rowdy protest or whatever, it was an insurrection. It was an act so outside of American political norms that it qualifies as an attempt to overthrow the government. At the same time, they're always going on about how we need a strong Republican party and the Republicans need to get out of the sway of Trump and we all need to be more bi-partisan. Those two points aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. We can imagine a world where both of things are coherent together. We know that Matt Gaetz basically cased the joint with protestors beforehand. So clearly he's part of the insurrection, he tried to overthrow the government. But they can't kick him out because rank and file Republicans Reps won't go along with it. We know Donald Trump is insanely popular with the Republican base and just won the Iowa Caucus by a historic landslide. The Republican party is onboard with Trump. Which means those two points Dems talk about are mutually exclusive. If Trump tried to do an insurrection, then pretty much the entire Republican Party, from the voters to the elected leaders, are parties to it. But you have Joe Biden bragging about being bipartisan! The Democrats' actions and words don't match their other actions and words. You can't have it both ways, either bipartisanship is good and we need a strong Republican party, or January 6th was an insurrection and it's vitally important we stop Trump to save democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Back in the day they would get legislators on board with laws they weren't crazy about by putting in spending specifically for their district/state. The legislator could then run for re-election on "look at this nice road/school/hospital I got you guys". This created a set of incentives where the individual legislators' individual interests were also served by keeping Congress humming along and passing laws. We could try doing that again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:This brings up why I don't think the "protecting democracy" angle is really resonating with voters. The Democrats' words and actions don't add up. I responded in an earlier post, its being massively overstated the extent that "strong republican party" is something Dems care about beyond whatever makes a good sound bite to your typical milk toast liberal and you didn't address that point I made in my previous post. If Matt Gaetz was part of the insurrection then there should be solid evidence, if the DoJ didn't prosecute them then maybe that evidence isn't there; you don't just arrest someone on the basis on "I know they're guilty!"; you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in excess of his duties as a member of Congress (remember the free speech and debate clause). Its complete nonsense to state that legally every republican ever is guilty and can be arrested; if you want Dems to do that then don't be surprised if they also turn that against Leftists. You've arrived at a complete false dichotomy here based off of just completely tortured logic that just doesn't support any of this, its just all empty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I responded in an earlier post, its being massively overstated the extent that "strong republican party" is something Dems care about beyond whatever makes a good sound bite to your typical milk toast liberal and you didn't address that point I made in my previous post. OK you're making a lot of stuff up about what I said. I didn't say most of this stuff you're replying to. I said Gaetz should be expelled from the House. You can just do that, you don't need to arrest anyone. You don't need to get the DoJ involved at all. I also didn't say every Republican was legally guilty or they could be arrested. I said they are in lockstep with the insurrectionists. You've arrived at a complete false idea of what i said based off of just complete tortured logic that doesn't support any of this, its just all empty
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The Democrats are running on the idea than Jan6 wasn't just a rowdy protest or whatever, it was an insurrection. It was an act so outside of American political norms that it qualifies as an attempt to overthrow the government. I think you're exaggerating how many people have said "we need a strong Republican party" (who has said that recently, other than Nancy Pelosi?) but assuming you're referring to her I also think you're misunderstanding what "strong" means here - it's not "powerful", it's "ideologically coherent and able to focus itself on a common goal". She said that in the context of McCarthy being unable to rally the House GOP effectively right after becoming Speaker, because if people are going to keep electing Republicans to occasionally have a majority then they need to at least be able to pass a budget to keep the country from burning down around all of us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Let me see if I'm getting your viewpoint right. This is correct. quote:The fact that the other Democrats can't convince them either must mean that they are either incompetent or not actually motivated to accomplish things. I would say "haven't convinced them" which is different than "can't convince them," but yes, getting party members to comply with policy they don't agree with is part of effective party management, whether that's done with carrot or stick. quote:I don't know how they would do this, but a truly effective party would find a way to pass policies even when those policies don't have majority support." A truly effective party leadership is capable of pressuring members with carrots and sticks to get important policy passed. quote:Is that inaccurate? It seems like an unrealistically difficult standard to reach - even impossible, since there will always be things that you want and most but not all of 50 Democratic Senators would want. It's also a very convenient standard if you've decided going in that nothing the Democrats do will make them worthy of your support. It's only impossible if you decide what it takes to get policies that would change the lives of millions of Americans aren't worth what it would take to get them done to the people who have the power to actually get the poo poo done. But you can never trust a wealthy person to do something that wouldn't benefit them directly, so that's why the fun scenario of the standard methods of getting people to comply like your David Boies approach I outlined above are just that--a fantasy. Those tools are only ever turned on rape victims, whistleblowers, and other problems for the ruling class. Manchin and Sinema aren't problems for the working class, they are tools for it. There is no meaningful force to oppose them because they are functioning as intended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
selec posted:A truly effective party leadership is capable of pressuring members with carrots and sticks to get important policy passed. Sure, but the Democratic Party has been passing *some* policies, arguably quite important ones. You're just defining the line of "enough policy for me to think you're not trash" a bit farther out than where they have reached. How do you define where to put that line, especially in the context of the bare majority? Also, "with carrots and sticks" might as well be handwaving here - it seems accurate that you do not have a specific idea how they would do that. e: This bit greatly reinforces my belief that your standard is coming from a place of being intentionally impossible: quote:But you can never trust a wealthy person to do something that wouldn't benefit them directly, so that's why the fun scenario of the standard methods of getting people to comply like your David Boies approach I outlined above are just that--a fantasy. Those tools are only ever turned on rape victims, whistleblowers, and other problems for the ruling class. Manchin and Sinema aren't problems for the working class, they are tools for it. There is no meaningful force to oppose them because they are functioning as intended. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Sure, but the Democratic Party has been passing *some* policies, arguably quite important ones. You're just defining the line of "enough policy for me to think you're not trash" a bit farther out than where they have reached. How do you define where to put that line, especially in the context of the bare majority? Yeah, everybody has their standards, and approaches politics with their own values in tow. The current Dem party is trash to me, just absolute garbage with very little alignment in basic values with how I view the world. And I've said specifically how underhanded political pressure could be applied in this day and age, giving a specific example of a person and firm known to do just those things! You can just go google "david boies black cube" if you want to know more, but I got a probe previously in this thread for just listing out black bag political tricks that have been used in the past in DC, so you're gonna have to do your own research beyond that, people are really weird about discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:What are those pressure points? Main Paineframe posted:What pressure points do you have in mind, besides the usual one that always gets brought up in these conversations? It's generally not easy to force a senator to vote against their will. Selec had a good response to specific examples. I could add some other ones as well. All democratic senators are members of the democratic party, which has a major hand in fundraising. Money is the prime pressure point I hadn't seen mentioned. Threaten to cut off their fundraising opportunities, bribe them with money, positions of power, have debaucherous parties that also happened to include video evidence of Manchin doin straight lines of coke. Hell, fabricate said videos, there are so many ways one could try to ruin a politicians reputation to force them to vote in a way you want. Have a group of protesters follow them around, find someone willing to make salacious claims about them... There are SO many dirty tricks that have been used on politicians throughout the course of history that it is a lack of imagination to say that a politician is so latched on to their ideals they can't be manipulated or forced away from them. All of that is without even mentioning a more direct line, everyone wants to continue living comfortably in safety, is that not a pressure point, Jaxyon? (Mods, I am not advocating for this specifically, I am responding to the question that asked what pressure points exist that could make someone act against their will.) haveblue posted:Plus then you just end up in a situation where congresspeople are allowed to commit crimes so long as they ally with the president, which is... not an improvement on today Selec answered this one too, but I have to question your definition of crime. To you, is a crime only what a legislative body decides is a crime? If our government said congresspeople have Qualified Immunity because they gotta get into the capitol asap, and on the way there they splattered some pedestrians would you just shrug and go no, not a crime? Does your definition of crime include only the subjective belief of those who made the law? No outside sense of right and wrong? Would you tut at the abolitionist freeing people because that was a crime at the time too? We must accept that to achieve the goal of a country that tends to the needs and cares of its citizens is not going to come about without doing morally grey things (ending slavery and the civil war anyone?) against those who wish to stop us. Because what matters is that we have a government that provides for all, it shouldn't matter that we blackmailed/intimidated/forced out of office some lovely people to get there. Dull Fork fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
selec posted:And I've said specifically how underhanded political pressure could be applied in this day and age, giving a specific example of a person and firm known to do just those things! You can just go google "david boies black cube" if you want to know more, but I got a probe previously in this thread for just listing out black bag political tricks that have been used in the past in DC, so you're gonna have to do your own research beyond that, people are really weird about discussing it. Uh, well, from a bit of reading along those lines - if your suggestion is "hire a P.I. firm to blackmail the target" then I think it's extremely obvious both (1) why that might not be as effective on a sitting U.S. Senator as on some young actresses, and (2) why that might cause some undesirable blowback if discovered. It seems like a pretty silly idea to me and I don't think that the other U.S. Senators discarding it out of hand means that they are incompetent or unmotivated. e: Was it even effective on the actresses? I mean, Weinstein was exposed shortly after he (well, Boies Schiller) signed the contract with Black Cube from what I see in the first article I'm reading. Seems both risky and ineffective TBH. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Uh, well, from a bit of reading along those lines - if your suggestion is "hire a P.I. firm to blackmail the target" then I think it's extremely obvious both (1) why that might not be as effective on a sitting U.S. Senator as on some young actresses, and (2) why that might cause some undesirable blowback if discovered. It seems like a pretty silly idea to me and I don't think that the other U.S. Senators discarding it out of hand means that they are incompetent or unmotivated. It’s not blackmail, that’s a crime. You get guys like David Boies or Dershowitz on your team to keep it all legal, and to keep the illegal parts off the record. That’s how the ruling class does it, do you think if the people who have the power and resources to hire those kinds of people couldn’t get it done? I don’t think Joe Manchin or Sinema are inviolate in that they have behaved with such moral uprightness no dirt exists. I just know that the ruling class, the people with the power to make plans like this happen, have no real interest in getting rid of either one of them. The bosses like them just fine, so the rest of us just have to read tea leaves and pretend it’s all because the system is so strong and ethical that they persist dang it if only we could just make the right argument to convince them, rather than the reality which is the system is decaying and unable to halt corruption and influence peddling, the institutions which are ostensibly charged with doing that entirely neutered or co-opted from go by that same ruling class. Edit: quote:
It was and is incredibly effective. They don’t advertise their successes, because you don’t advertise a successful cover up. And they don’t get paid millions and have working relationships with fixers like Boies because they don’t produce results. Weinstein had victims that were ultimately too powerful in their own right to be able to silence, but those weren’t the only women he victimized. Plenty out there we never heard of, who didn’t have the resources to do anything about it. selec fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
Bolding mine:selec posted:It’s not blackmail, that’s a crime. You get guys like David Boies or Dershowitz on your team to keep it all legal, and to keep the illegal parts off the record. That’s how the ruling class does it, do you think if the people who have the power and resources to hire those kinds of people couldn’t get it done? This is the great thing about being a conspiracy theorist, you get to claim that the total lack of any evidence for your argument is part of the results of the conspiracy. I mean, there's nothing for me to really respond to here. Cool, you "just know" that the Democrats' inability to make grand strides (grand enough for you, personally) with a bare majority is because they're all poo poo. Literally anyone reading your posts in this thread would have long since picked it up already, but here we are again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:OK you're making a lot of stuff up about what I said. I didn't say most of this stuff you're replying to. I said Gaetz should be expelled from the House. You can just do that, you don't need to arrest anyone. You don't need to get the DoJ involved at all. You didn't say much of anything coherent as far as I can tell then, just a lot of nonsense. First of all it is still incorrect to suppose you can "just" expel Gaetz, you even admit this in your post: quote:We know that Matt Gaetz basically cased the joint with protestors beforehand. So clearly he's part of the insurrection, he tried to overthrow the government. But they can't kick him out because rank and file Republicans Reps won't go along with it. You don't even say that "Gaetz should be expelled from the House" although its implied I suppose; but you clearly weren't trying to make the point "Gaetz should be expelled" its your premise to go "Gaetz should face consequences but won't because Dems are bad" is your actual argument here, and this argument is generally nonsense. quote:I also didn't say every Republican was legally guilty or they could be arrested. I said they are in lockstep with the insurrectionists. Then I think this is unclear because: quote:If Trump tried to do an insurrection, then pretty much the entire Republican Party, from the voters to the elected leaders, are parties to it Being a "party" to something, implies culpability and liability. You're clearly implying that "votes, elected leaders, everyone in the Republic party, and Trump" are all guilty of insurrection. All to make the point that "The Democrats' words and actions don't add up." Specifically you claim: quote:The Democrats are running on the idea than Jan6 wasn't just a rowdy protest or whatever, it was an insurrection. It was an act so outside of American political norms that it qualifies as an attempt to overthrow the government. That Dems are running/messaging that Jan 6 was an insurrection (which is factually true). But are claiming that Dems are contradicting themselves because: quote:At the same time, they're always going on about how we need a strong Republican party and the Republicans need to get out of the sway of Trump and we all need to be more bi-partisan. Which as I said, isn't true, which you still haven't addressed. You're taking a quote from Pelosi out of context, as well as some of Biden's actions with specific individual GOP politicians which even Lincoln did. So what then is the point of your earlier claim if not that fundamentally the issue is that Dems aren't doing enough to stop Republicans? Which is again, your argument is incoherent when you say: quote:You can't have it both ways, either bipartisanship is good and we need a strong Republican party, or January 6th was an insurrection and it's vitally important we stop Trump to save democracy. Trump did an insurrection, and Dems are trying to stop Trump and saying we should stop Trump, but you don't really give any evidence or provide any grounds that Dems are contradicting themselves by occasionally playing optics/politics by talking up bipartisanship. You neglect the possibility entirely that bipartisanship with the opposition that's reasonable and willing to listen to compromise can be good while objecting to the fact that insurrectionists have taken control of the opposition. It's called "driving a wedge", you know, the thing fascists like to do in nerd communities. Its good politics to drive a wedge between the more "centrist" business Republicans and the insane far right maga republicans. Even if ultimately fruitless, its worth the attempt. So it doesn't really make sense to claim all Republicans and Republican voters are a party to insurrection unless the problem is that Dems aren't doing enough to substantially see consequences meted out because of the self-evidently provided probable cause. But this claim is in of itself massively unsupported, and doesn't really make sense. Your claim that "Nonono I didn't mean to say they are liable, only in lock step" doesn't really make sense because Dems aren't making that claim either and doesn't really support your stated position at all. quote:You've arrived at a complete false idea of what i said based off of just complete tortured logic that doesn't support any of this, its just all empty For the reasons I outlined above the problem is your post lacks any coherency or substantiated argument. You just assert random untrue things, and I'm refuting those random untrue things as untrue and random.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Bolding mine: I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, because I'm not positing secret meetings or secret plans or secret motivations. Rich people are rich, have the most resources, are able to corrupt governing structures through that wealth and influence, and continue to pursue more wealth and influence in part by advantages gained via that corruption. They hire black hat "investigation" firms to help make their problems go away. What's the conspiracy, that they secretly do have grievances against Manchin and Sinema? That rich people are a class and tend to have some overriding class interests?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Selec had a good response to specific examples. I could add some other ones as well. All democratic senators are members of the democratic party, which has a major hand in fundraising. Money is the prime pressure point I hadn't seen mentioned. Threaten to cut off their fundraising opportunities, bribe them with money, positions of power, have debaucherous parties that also happened to include video evidence of Manchin doin straight lines of coke. Hell, fabricate said videos, there are so many ways one could try to ruin a politicians reputation to force them to vote in a way you want. Have a group of protesters follow them around, find someone willing to make salacious claims about them... There are SO many dirty tricks that have been used on politicians throughout the course of history that it is a lack of imagination to say that a politician is so latched on to their ideals they can't be manipulated or forced away from them. 1) Cutting off Fundraising? Manchin isn't running for re-election, and even if he wasn't, he's not likely to win re-election, fundraising or not. Not to mention cutting off funds will result only in a Republican winning the seat, which is a worse outcome for the Democratic party. 2) Just straight up hand Manchin a fat bribe? Ignoring the fact that seems illegal (and thus would require whoever the briber is to put their own neck on the line), how big a bribe would it take and who would be providing the funds? 3) Attempted Blackmail? Also illegal and it relies on the mark being foolish enough to willingly perform an act worthy of being blackmailed, and to do so in an area they do not control. This is unreliable. 4) Blackmail with falsified video? Illegal and for that to stick, you need to be damned sure they couldn't provide an alibi for themselves. Risky. And again, you'd need someone to put their neck on the line for this. 5) Follow them around with protestors? Has that traditionally worked against Republican politicians? They'd just get a security detail or the police if they got too close, and if not, they'd elude or ignore the protestors. 6) More false claims? Once again, to get those to stick, you'd need to make sure the mark can't disprove the false claims. 7) Threatening physical harm or death? If Manchin's seat becomes free, it'll become R, so that threat is a weak bluff. Threatening non-lethal physical violence runs the risk of Manchin just retiring on the spot and handing the seat over to the Republicans. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s not blackmail, that’s a crime. You get guys like David Boies or Dershowitz on your team to keep it all legal, and to keep the illegal parts off the record. You do get how these two sentences don't work, right? I mean, I've got lots of issues with this whole scheme, it's just that this strikes me as not well thought out when you contradict yourself in your first two sentences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
selec posted:You don’t have the president order it, that’s silly. You have an in-person conversation with a loaded, motivated donor, you have no paper trail, and that donor hires a firm packed with ex-Mossad blackmailers or similarly situated goons. The loaded donor doesn’t do it themselves, they typically have a seasoned fixer like Davis Boies, who knows how to get away with poo poo like this, and then he’ll go and hire your dirt diggers and life-fucker-uppers at a firm like Black Cube. With the really big firms the answer to “how much can you dig up?” is a question of “how much are you willing to spend?”. They’ll get into your phones, they’ll be in your email if you can afford that level of service. This is one of those things that really doesn't make any sense if you actually stop and think about it for a moment. If sufficient blackmail material existed on Manchin, then why would independent outside actors be waiting on Democratic politicians' permission to dig it up? Presumably, the many wealthy Republican megadonors, especially the ones in deep-red West Virginia, would have searched it up ages ago and used it ages ago to push the blue incumbent out of the deep-red seat and hand the Senate back to McConnell. Your fundamental premise here - that many politicians are blackmailable and that megadonors can easily use their wealth to find that blackmail material if they choose to - would imply that most of the Democratic party is already being blackmailed. After all, there's plenty of big Republican megadonors, and it's quite unlikely that they'd have any "decorum poisoning" that might prevent them from doing such a thing. The Top G posted:I’m sure our elected officials could think of some kind of pressure to be applied, the specifics don’t really matter. For some recent examples, see former Rep Cawthorn and whatever Pelosi told AOC to bring her to tears and to change her vote on Iron Dome funding: Because Pelosi was able to convince one specific House member to change their vote, that means that party leadership is capable of changing anyone's vote if they feel like it? Legislative politics is, by nature, highly individual - there's a relatively small number of members, each with their own views, interests, priorities, and closets. What works on one may not work on another, and some may be vastly more vulnerable to pressure than others. It's like asking why they don't just Santos him - the reason all that dirt got dug up on Santos wasn't because party leadership hated him, it was because he was dirty as hell. The problem with Manchin isn't that he's a jerk - it's that he's got absolute tons of leverage, because no other Dem can win his seat and the Senate is too evenly-split for Dems to be able to afford to write off his vote. As for Sinema, she seems to be completely set on torching her career and legacy already (either that or she's completely deluded), which doesn't leave all that many angles for attack. Dull Fork posted:Selec had a good response to specific examples. I could add some other ones as well. All democratic senators are members of the democratic party, which has a major hand in fundraising. Money is the prime pressure point I hadn't seen mentioned. Threaten to cut off their fundraising opportunities, bribe them with money, positions of power, have debaucherous parties that also happened to include video evidence of Manchin doin straight lines of coke. Hell, fabricate said videos, there are so many ways one could try to ruin a politicians reputation to force them to vote in a way you want. Have a group of protesters follow them around, find someone willing to make salacious claims about them... There are SO many dirty tricks that have been used on politicians throughout the course of history that it is a lack of imagination to say that a politician is so latched on to their ideals they can't be manipulated or forced away from them. Before you go accusing other people of a "lack of imagination", I'd really like for you to think these things through a little more. The real world's a little more complicated than The West Wing or whatever. Suppose the party cuts off all fundraising and support from official party organs. Maybe they invent a fake scandal or two just to make sure. What happens then? There's only two real outcomes:
Either way, the Dems end up worse off than they were before! That kind of thing is why Manchin is seemingly invulnerable - the party desperately needs every Senate seat it can hold onto right now, and there's basically zero chance of him being replaced by someone better, so they can't threaten his electoral prospects. The same goes for the rest. Think about how it would actually work in practice. Say you've made a fake video of Manchin doing lines of coke at an orgy, or convinced someone to falsely accuse him of adultery or sexual assault ("salacious claims" is quite a fun little euphemism for this, though). In order to change his vote with that, you have to directly contact him and threaten to release this material if he doesn't vote the way you want. But this approach is a double-edged sword! First off, you obviously can't actually release the information, because (as noted above) Dems can't afford to actually do anything that might help his campaign, so it's all empty threats. Second, what if he goes to the press and tells them that somebody threatened to release faked accusations against him if he doesn't vote the way they want? Boom, big political gift to Republicans right there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:I feel obligated to point out the distinction between federal and local governments here - the "just arrest for petty crimes" tendency is not really something the federal government does to anywhere near the same extent as localities can. Considering this is in the context of "just arrest the members of Congress you don't like," that's an important distinction. Then you should also know that this isn't a matter of "just arrest the members of Congress you don't like." It's "arrest the members of Congress who tried to overthrow the government." Why pretend that that's not the case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
MTG is the J6 pipe bomber
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
selec posted:I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, because I'm not positing secret meetings or secret plans or secret motivations. Rich people are rich, have the most resources, are able to corrupt governing structures through that wealth and influence, and continue to pursue more wealth and influence in part by advantages gained via that corruption. They hire black hat "investigation" firms to help make their problems go away. What's the conspiracy, that they secretly do have grievances against Manchin and Sinema? That rich people are a class and tend to have some overriding class interests? The conspiracy is the idea that the bills you like aren't passing because their purported supporters in the Senate aren't motivated or skilled enough to pull the right dirty tricks (or worse, don't really support those bills), vs. the simple truth that those bills do not have majority support and Americans will need to elect more Senators who are in favor of them for them to pass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You don't even say that "Gaetz should be expelled from the House" c'mon man Gripweed posted:Does the failure to expel any of the House Representatives associated with Jan6 count? You literally quoted and responded to that post! So you should know I never said Gaetz should be expelled from the House. My point was that expelling Gaetz from the House would be logically coherent with believing that January 6th was an insurrection. I do say that it can't happen because the Republicans wouldn't be able to go along with it. (I'm not sure how you're trying to bend that around to undermining my point, you're being a bit incoherent there) So therefore, the majority of Republican legislators are protecting, or at the very least opposed to punishing, people involved with January 6. So if you're really worried about insurrection, Trump is merely the face of the problem. The problem is the entire Republican party. Democrats should be running against the entire Republican party. That would be the position to take if you really believed January 6th was an insurrection. The Republican party wholesale is a threat to democracy, and must be fought root and branch. Anything less than that suggests an unwillingness to tackle the problem or an ignorance of the extent of the problem. I will give you that President Lincoln occasionally played nice with Republican legislators. You are absolutely correct on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:You can't have it both ways, either bipartisanship is good and we need a strong Republican party, or January 6th was an insurrection and it's vitally important we stop Trump to save democracy. The electorate in general can want bipartisanship. The Democratic electorate can want Jan 6 punished as an insurrection. Both of those things can very easily be true and not contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:The conspiracy is the idea that the bills you like aren't passing because their purported supporters in the Senate aren't motivated or skilled enough to pull the right dirty tricks (or worse, don't really support those bills), vs. the simple truth that those bills do not have majority support and Americans will need to elect more Senators who are in favor of them for them to pass. You’re really close here, but I think this synthesis gets to how I feel about it: Effective leadership means getting majority support, and that includes being greasy if you have to. Usually this is carrots; horse trading to get what you want. But if a priority is important enough, you can also use sticks. It’s not either/or, it’s both, as the actual history of how the sausage gets made has shown. LBJ was a big “both” guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
I haven't been following the thread closely, but did America's Sluttiest Cum Dump Twinks ever successfully Rein It In?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I haven't been following the thread closely, but did America's Sluttiest Cum Dump Twinks ever successfully Rein It In? I think we're arguing about how we could get that to happen
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:c'mon man No, you should "cmon man" you didn't quote the whole sentence, you cut off the actual argument being made. quote:but you clearly weren't trying to make the point "Gaetz should be expelled" its your premise to go "Gaetz should face consequences but won't because Dems are bad" is your actual argument here, and this argument is generally nonsense. Additionally, just because that something might logically align doesn't mean that it didn't happen means we can draw completely absurd conclusions. Would arresting Republicans who are guilty of insurrection align with messaging that they did insurrection? Of course! As would expelling Republicans from the House who participated; But there isn't a 2/3's majority to do that, Dems don't have 2/3's majority; they did the whole Jan 6 commission to investigate who did what in the insurrection and made referrals to the DOJ! Anyone can construct a proposition that sounds logically but really isn't; "Eating lemons is good for you, anyone who doesn't eat lemons is evil." Is one such example. quote:I do say that it can't happen because the Republicans wouldn't be able to go along with it. (I'm not sure how you're trying to bend that around to undermining my point, you're being a bit incoherent there) So therefore, the majority of Republican legislators are protecting, or at the very least opposed to punishing, people involved with January 6. So if you're really worried about insurrection, Trump is merely the face of the problem. The problem is the entire Republican party. Democrats should be running against the entire Republican party. That would be the position to take if you really believed January 6th was an insurrection. The Republican party wholesale is a threat to democracy, and must be fought root and branch. You keep plagiarizing parts of my posts which is very weird of you and only really serves to show just how off base you are here because if you were being logically sound and were making some kind of valid point you wouldn't just be engaging in such pettiness. In any case I've already refuted this: 1. Dems are generally running against the Republican party, that's what an election is. 2. Just because Dems might say, "so and so is a good friend" doesn't mean they don't think Republicans aren't a problem. 3. Just because Republicans are uncooperative in dealing with extremists doesn't mean the entire party should be treated like cancer, because at the end of the day the US is a democracy and its really bad to say the opposition party is cancer, the Democratic base typically doesn't like it when Dems act like Republicans so their hands are tied here. 4. Just because Dems aren't actively or uniformly saying Republicans are cancer doesn't mean they aren't taking real steps in both campaigning and in Congress and in the Federal government to try to have people responsible face consequences; but this has to work within a process and system where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and have legal and constitutional protections. Thus the claim Dems aren't taking the matter seriously just isn't well supported by this argument, there's too many counter arguments it has to make it through. However that's taking your argument at face value; it falls apart under scrutiny. 1. GOP politicians are generally unwilling to punish other GOPers because they're being held hostage by the base; if they turned against their colleagues their careers would be over. 2. The above isn't guilty of any crime, even if it is cowardly. And it doesn't make sense to conflate those GOP reps with the handful of Reps who may have flirted with insurrectionists. 3. You keep saying qualifiers "if you really believed" but there isn't really any evidence to suggest that Dems don't believe that Jan 6 is an insurrection, you're just being overly uncharitable even if we took everything else at face value, this conclusion just isn't supported. 4. How do you suggest the Republican Party be fought "root and branch" you keep contradicting yourself here by stating on one hand they're an insurrection and that Dems should be doing "something" (unspecified) if they really believe this, but you won't say what this something should be, and then say it shouldn't be arresting them; then what? Especially when you keep saying, yes you don't just means the house reps but the entire party and their voters; how are dems supposed to win elections attacking GOP swing voters? 5. How can they be ignorant of the problem when you're claim requires the fact that they claim to be aware of the problem? How can they be ignorant of something they're advocating for? 6. Thus the political reality is that one can believe that Jan 6 is an insurrection and that a lot of Republicans have some degree of responsibility while still trying to drive a wedge and pretend they aren't affiliated with the extremists; that's just how politics is done. You try to drive a wedge, "This is one of the good republicans, we can work together if only you weren't chained to this tiger over here." To try to pry them away; just because this can or might be happening doesn't mean Dems don't think Jan 6 is an insurrection. It just means a lot of Republicans are cowards and Dems just need to play with a bad hand. You still haven't address my arguments in the previous post(s), you just keep asserting your argument with slightly different words. quote:I will give you that President Lincoln occasionally played nice with Republican legislators. You are absolutely correct on that. You're misreading what I wrote here for a cheap gotcha, its clear from my previous post on the topic that Lincoln was on friendly terms with confederate politicians and opposed politicians; that's the point. Yet Lincoln was clearly not contradicting himself. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
I still feel like my "put special spending for districts/states of reticent legislators in to bills so they have a personal interest in getting the bill passed" scheme could work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I think we're arguing about how we could get that to happen You have to understand that the Sluttiest Cum Dump Twinks function as controlled opposition, if they actually wanted to "Rein It In" there are many things they could do. [JoeManchin_HotPants_HalterTop.webp]
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:21
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:The conspiracy is the idea that the bills you like aren't passing because their purported supporters in the Senate aren't motivated or skilled enough to pull the right dirty tricks (or worse, don't really support those bills), vs. the simple truth that those bills do not have majority support and Americans will need to elect more Senators who are in favor of them for them to pass. Yeah this is exactly what it always boils down to but it seems people don't like accepting this fact and instead come up with insane conspiracies about how if you don't just blackmail sitting senators then you are a monster who cares not for the policies you want to pass, it really makes me wonder what media environments people are in to get to this line of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
selec posted:You’re really close here, but I think this synthesis gets to how I feel about it: Right, and that will work for some bills. Again, the Democratic Party has passed some pretty significant and useful legislation recently - not nearly as much as any of us would like, but impressive in my book considering the tiny majorities they have to work with. However, there will always be some policies which are a bridge too far and by hook or by crook, they won't be able to get 50 votes together. That's the nature of political consensus and having a decision-making body with a spectrum of beliefs. If you are motivated to find something to point at and say "Well, the Democrats are useless or they would have fixed this already", you will never have to work very hard. So, if that's as deep as your argument goes then it stands to reason that there might be no pleasing you. e: This feels like the comedy sketch where an engineer is trying to explain to a PM that he can't draw a four sided triangle, or a red triangle using a blue pen. Sometimes things just aren't possible. You can't "use sticks", whatever that means, on someone who has truly resolved that they absolutely won't support the thing you want. We accept this with the Republicans (or at least I think we do, maybe we'd still be having this discussion even if the Democrats hadn't had a majority recently) but somehow there's the idea that Schumer et al. could totally flip Manchin and Sinema to support whatever if they Just Cared Enough. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
When you account for the supermajority Johnson enjoyed in both houses and the fact that the Republican party of the day, in general, was far more willing to vote for Democratic initiatives, he wasn't particularly notable in his ability to strongarm Congress. He's not as lovely an example of Green Lantern Theory as FDR's disastrous push for court packing, but his major initiatives didn't really have notably more pressure than Biden's and had significantly more opposing votes in his own party. A lot of people want a louder, angrier guy in charge, and I guess I get that. There's a lot to be loud and angry about. Just like I kinda understand why people on both sides of the aisle have been suckered for years by "what if we got a monster who pinky-swears that he's OUR monster." I even understand why people like to imagine a president that gets it all done himself while imagining Congress is just whipped along based on how strong the big guy is. After all, I only get to vote for one representative and two senators, and they're not gonna sway the nation on their own. At the same time, even if that all worked, I think most of the people, the voters, who really want a country that works that way are either already in for Trump or are more gettable by him than by even loud and angry Democrats anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:No, you should "cmon man" you didn't quote the whole sentence, you cut off the actual argument being made. I have to keep repeating myself because you keep coming at me with weird poo poo. Like, you keep saying I'm demanding Democrats arrest people. I never said Democrats should arrest people. Other people in this thread had talked about arrests and maybe you got that confused with stuff I said, but that's hardly a flaw in my argument. You know what Democrats could do to convince me that their position on Jan6 is coherent? Just say that the problem is the Republican party. Not extremists in the party, not some party takeover, because that's clearly not true, the party as a whole is a threat to democracy and must be defeated at every level. But they don't do that, they stay focused on Trump as the problem, if Trump becomes president again it'll be the end of democracy. And that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Raenir Salazar posted:You're misreading what I wrote here for a cheap gotcha, its clear from my previous post on the topic that Lincoln was on friendly terms with confederate politicians and opposed politicians; that's the point. Yet Lincoln was clearly not contradicting himself. I went for the easy gotcha because your argument was facile. It's easy to be nice to some Democrats after the South already seceded. Yeah no poo poo Lincoln was nice to Benjamin Franklin Butler, because he didn't join the secessionist side. By the time Lincoln got there it was pretty clear which Democrats he could be cool with. So it's at best irrelevant to the current discussion. At worst it actually supports my side because we could use the second Trump impeachment as the marker for which Republicans are worth Biden's time, with any of them who didn't vote against Trump having outed themselves as Enemies of Democracy
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I haven't been following the thread closely, but did America's Sluttiest Cum Dump Twinks ever successfully Rein It In? no
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
gently caress me, man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:gently caress me, man. Hey, trying to rein it in!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Gripweed posted:I have to keep repeating myself because you keep coming at me with weird poo poo. Like, you keep saying I'm demanding Democrats arrest people. I never said Democrats should arrest people. Other people in this thread had talked about arrests and maybe you got that confused with stuff I said, but that's hardly a flaw in my argument. What are you demanding they do? Maybe you shouldn't say outrageous things like: quote:If Trump tried to do an insurrection, then pretty much the entire Republican Party, from the voters to the elected leaders, are parties to it And continuing to defend that framing by constantly reasserting it like: quote:The Republican party wholesale is a threat to democracy, and must be fought root and branch. Because your argument isn't really an argument, its just complaining. So by constantly saying this, you are implying that they should be arrested or face consequence; you definitely think Matt Gaetz should be expelled from congress, but its seems contradictory to your alleged point if that's the end of it given your continued framing of Republicans as a whole. quote:You know what Democrats could do to convince me that their position on Jan6 is coherent? Just say that the problem is the Republican party. Not extremists in the party, not some party takeover, because that's clearly not true, the party as a whole is a threat to democracy and must be defeated at every level. But they don't do that, they stay focused on Trump as the problem, if Trump becomes president again it'll be the end of democracy. And that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's not really about convincing you, I can refute you without convincing you. The point is your claim isn't about you, you're claim is that this isn't resonating with voters and there's no evidence that what is unconvincing to you has any relevance to the priorities of voters; who may very well not care about Republicans being a threat to democracy at all. quote:I went for the easy gotcha because your argument was facile. It's easy to be nice to some Democrats after the South already seceded. Yeah no poo poo Lincoln was nice to Benjamin Franklin Butler, because he didn't join the secessionist side. By the time Lincoln got there it was pretty clear which Democrats he could be cool with. So they already seceded but you think it was okay that Lincoln was nice to them? But Republicans are a threat to democracy who did Jan 6 but its bad Democrats are sometimes a little nicer to some of them some of the time? quote:So it's at best irrelevant to the current discussion. At worst it actually supports my side because we could use the second Trump impeachment as the marker for which Republicans are worth Biden's time, with any of them who didn't vote against Trump having outed themselves as Enemies of Democracy I'd say its pretty relevant; because the Federal government had to play nice to avoid alienating some of the border states like Kentucky, and other political concerns like avoiding Congress insisting on hearing out a confederate peace proposal. And you're still not actually addressing my arguments, this has been multiple posts in a row now. You are only responding to the lowest of hanging fruit. In any case, how is merely saying Republicans are a threat to democracy actually help? There isn't any evidence that this is whats preventing the message from "resonating" with voters; especially when maybe economic concerns like the price of groceries are naturally more pressing to many Americans. Which seems like a much simpler and more likely explanation than whatever this whole exchange has been.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:39
|
|