|
Harold Fjord posted: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: The bolded part is the problem here, because you aren't talking about what PEOPLE will or won't do, you are talking about what "DEMOCRATS" will or won't do. The past actions you are basing assumptions around aren't the actions of the current set of people who belong to "the democrats", but a previous set with pretty minimal overlap. I ran through this analysis before some number of months ago for an argument about healthcare and why we don't have public option, and while I don't precisely remember the number that I ended up with, the number of continuity members of the Dem Senate for that period is definitely less 40 and therefore you can't really use it as evidence that the beliefs then would persist if we add 2 more new people to the pool. If the argument is that individuals tend to behave the same way, wouldn't it be much more internally consistent to be talking about the same set of people, i.e. the 48 that voted for a filibuster change out of the current 50, or at least observing voting records for the specific people that were actually around at the time of the last wave instead of handwaving that past and present Dems are identical? Edit: specifically there are 23 current senators who were sworn in by end of 2009, with Manchin, Coons, and Blumenthal being the three from the 2010 election cycle and everyone else being fresher BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Aug 19, 2022 |
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted: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? You could, oh I don't know, use objective reasoning and facts to argue, instead of nebulous feelings and biases?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
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. Just a slight clarification, I don't think we have 48 votes to outright eliminate the filibuster entirely. At least 2 of the 48 Senators want to have it both ways, by just slightly altering the parliamentary precedents to make two very arbitrary and absurd-looking carveouts just for two specific issues to say "from now on, the filibuster no longer applies to voting rights legislation or abortion legislation" so that they can then claim that they really were willing to do everything necessary to pass them, but they did not have to eliminate the filibuster. See, the filibuster is still standing right over there, just with two really big new holes in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Xombie posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't see those posts could you quote the person who said " they'll never pass any laws again no matter what", because either I missed some wild posts That's what you're saying when you say "they won't pass abortion laws because they've never passed abortion laws". Here, I'll quote myself: quote: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 tell me how this doesn't apply or how abortion is special, but complaining that I'm making the argument doesn't really cut it. quote:or the rule against strawmanning is enforced extremely inconsistently by the mod team Breaking down your logical reasoning isn't what a "strawman" is, and last I checked didn't break any rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You could, oh I don't know, use objective reasoning and facts to argue, instead of nebulous feelings and biases? It sure seems like "objective reasoning and facts" are, in fact, being used to argue--I agree with Harold that past actions are a good predictor of future ones. It just seems like you disagree and so are trying to shut down their argument by shutting down the relevance of discussing the issue at all. "It's gonna happen or not, doesn't matter what you think!" BougieBitch posted:The bolded part is the problem here, because you aren't talking about what PEOPLE will or won't do, you are talking about what "DEMOCRATS" will or won't do. The past actions you are basing assumptions around aren't the actions of the current set of people who belong to "the democrats", but a previous set with pretty minimal overlap. This is a fair point, but it sounds like around 3/4 of the Senate Dem Caucus is the same? So while there is new blood in there, it's mostly the same people who didn't seize on an opportunity when it was available?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:It sure seems like "objective reasoning and facts" are, in fact, being used to argue--I agree with Harold that past actions are a good predictor of future ones. Once again, the "past action" (or more accurately, lack thereof) being purported to happen here isn't factual. The Democrats have passed laws during recent majorities that they did not in previous ones. The argument that "they haven't passed X before therefore they never will pass X" relies on this having never occurred. But it has. quote:It just seems like you disagree and so are trying to shut down their argument by shutting down the relevance of discussing the issue at all. "It's gonna happen or not, doesn't matter what you think!" Arguing against you isn't "shutting down argument" just because you don't have a counter-argument. And how you personally "feel" isn't something that's debatable. It's not the basis of any argument. I could "feel" that the sky is green, that doesn't make it green.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Xombie posted:That's what you're saying when you say "they won't pass abortion laws because they've never passed abortion laws". Here, I'll quote myself:
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Once again, the "past action" (or more accurately, lack thereof) being purported to happen here isn't factual. The Democrats have passed laws during recent majorities that they did not in previous ones. The argument that "they haven't passed X before therefore they never will pass X" relies on this having never occurred. But it has. The whole conversation started about Roe. I'm talking about Roe, and presumable Harold is, too. You're the one that came up with the "all laws" strawman: Xombie posted:"All laws that will ever be passed have already been passed" is certainly a take. Which laws have Dems passed protecting abortion before the Dobbs decision?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I already did, it's not equivalent to arguing "they will never pass any laws no matter what" because other processes can and have been used to pass other laws: reconciliation, bipartisan agreement, getting 60 Democrat senators, to name a few And once again, I responded to this: changing or eliminating the filibuster is another avenue to use. You simply hand-waved it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:The whole conversation started about Roe. I'm talking about Roe, and presumable Harold is, too. You're the one that came up with the "all laws" strawman: Again, breaking down your reasoning isn't what a "strawman" is. quote:Which laws have Dems passed protecting abortion before the Dobbs decision? What is special about abortion that makes it so that the Democrats will never pass a law about it just because they didn't before? I'll quote myself, again: 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.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
I know we’re all old millennials here and 1990 will forever be 10 years ago, but 2009 was actually a long time ago. The leader of the Democrats didn’t even support gay marriage in 2009. We had conservative senators who are no longer part of the caucus: Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh, just to name a few off the top of my head. “They did [x] in 2009” isn’t any more relevant than what they did in 1995 was in 2009 - which is to say, it is, a little, but it’s really far from where you should be ending your analysis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Xombie posted:And once again, I responded to this: changing or eliminating the filibuster is another avenue to use. You simply hand-waved it. Right, so the argument is whether 54 Democrats will guarantee the elimination of the filibuster, which is not equivalent to the words you're putting in people's mouths to dismiss what they are saying, is my point. However since mods don't seem to be enforcing the rules I'm going to stop here since I'm beginning to worry that this means I'll get punished if I continue to belabor it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Again, breaking down your reasoning isn't what a "strawman" is. Posting Xombie posted:"All laws that will ever be passed have already been passed" is certainly a take. In response to a discussion about one issue in particular is not "breaking down [one's] reasoning," it's a strawman. A classic example of one, even! 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. I don't know about never, what about unlikely?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:And once again, I responded to this: changing or eliminating the filibuster is another avenue to use. You simply hand-waved it. Please try to keep the slapfighting to a minimum (this isn't directed just at you Xombie, but I quoted your post because it was the most recent one in the chain). It's fine to talk about what may or may not happen legislatively, but the argument is going to go around in circles because nobody can definitively prove what is in the mind of all the new Senators or what the situation will look like. Re: Roe, they have explicitly said they would codify it legislatively in January and currently have 48 votes to do so (but, do not have 48 commitments to eliminate the filibuster entirely), which is a first. But, it also is likely that they will lose the House and be unable to do so or possible that they won't bother doing regardless. But, the argument is going to go back and forth endlessly because nobody can prove it one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:In response to a discussion about one issue in particular is not "breaking down [one's] reasoning," it's a strawman. A classic example of one, even! Maybe if the argument only applied to one issue in particular, but I keep asking how it only applies to abortion and everyone, including you, refuses to answer how. Maybe you feel like it's a "strawman" because you think that it's an absurd thing to say, that no laws will ever be passed again. But that's the entire point, that the line of logic doesn't make any objective sense. quote:I don't know about never, what about unlikely? Then you're going to have to argue how it's unlikely that a law gets passed because it didn't get passed before, but then you're stuck with the exact same problem of the exact same logic where it's therefore "unlikely that any laws get passed ever again". Until, of course, you establish what is so special about abortion. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right, so the argument is whether 54 Democrats will guarantee the elimination of the filibuster,[quote] which is not equivalent to the words you're putting in people's mouths to dismiss what they are saying, is my point. What's equivilent to what I'm saying is stating that "if they're going to do it after the midterms why didn't they do it when they had majority in [X arbitrary year they had a majority]". The filibuster tangential to this, but if you're going to argue they won't get rid of the filibuster, you'll similarly have to come up with something stronger than that they didn't do it before. I didn't "dismiss" what anyone said. I made an argument against it. Saying you're wrong isn't dismissing you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
What's special about abortion is all the votes they might get as long as it remains credibly threatened
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Folks, determining that the constitution doesn't empower congress to institute a nationwide right to abortion is going to be an easier decision for the supreme court than overturning Roe was. That doesn't mean democrats shouldn't try, and there are related secondary issues (protecting the right to travel across state lines for an abortion, preventing states from outlawing sending abortifacients through the mail, etc.) that might survive review, so I'm not saying "voting doesn't matter" or whatever. But y'all are getting heated over a potential law that wouldn't even be allowed to go into effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:What's special about abortion is all the votes they might get as long as it remains credibly threatened The fact that they're running on the issue doesn't make it any different from any other issue they're running on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Folks, determining that the constitution doesn't empower congress to institute a nationwide right to abortion is going to be an easier decision for the supreme court than overturning Roe was. You are correct, and it would actually be very easy to come up with a plausible non-crazy 10th amendment argument to knock it down. The SCOTUS has already demonstrated that they don't really have a lot of respect anymore for the interstate commerce clause, so it wouldn't even be surprising. Fine, the focus would then shift towards attacking SCOTUS directly. It is difficult to do that now because you first actually have to "show the body" to the voters and really prove that the Supreme Court is going to block everything. Keep in mind, we are talking about a hypothetical future timeline where the Democrats win such an astonishingly resounding victory that they keep the house and crush the GOP in the Senate and Governor races. (any scenario where they keep the house means the GOP is getting wrecked elsewhere) In this hypothetical future timeline, there would probably be more than a few shocking, unexpected upsets no one is calling like Rand Paul inexplicably losing or something. In that hypothetical future world, there would be a massive, powerful pro-abortion mandate. This would not be just a base get out the vote type of issue, it would be the people unambiguously giving the Dems a free pass to do anything they have to do. Supreme Court reform proposals that may seem radical and implausible now would be a viable issue at that point. Rigel fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The fact that they're running on the issue doesn't make it any different from any other issue they're running on. By your logic, every issue every politician runs on is exactly the same as every other issue then? Wow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:By your logic, every issue every politician runs on is exactly the same as every other issue then? Wow. In regards to how simply being a campaign issue makes it more or less likely it makes them to pass it? Yes. Again, what's special about abortion? Because it being a campaign issue isn't unique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Xombie posted:In regards to how simply being a campaign issue makes it more or less likely it makes them to pass it? Yes. Again, what's special about abortion? Because it being a campaign issue isn't unique. Is it not unique among campaign issues in any way?  I would say there aren't many, possibly any!, other campaign issues which are inspiring large turnout due to a recent SCOTUS decision, but maybe you would argue otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Is it not unique among campaign issues in any way? I keep asking you this question of "how" and so far you keep dancing around it. quote:I would say there aren't many, possibly any!, other campaign issues which are inspiring large turnout due to a recent SCOTUS decision, but maybe you would argue otherwise. This thread is still around because midterms haven't actually occurred yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I keep asking you this question of "how" and so far you keep dancing around it. Read some news from this year and my post again maybe because I already spelled it out. It's hard to take you seriously if you don't know what's happening with abortion of late Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Aug 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Read some news from this year and my post again maybe because I already spelled it out. Just checked the news, and I'm right, midterms are still in November. You're going to have to make your own argument and not say "google it". Where exactly has it driven turnout that translates to Democrats retaining or gaining power? Until the midterms actually occur, all we have is polling and speculation on how it will translate to voting for Democrats. And even beyond that, it's still speculative that they would simply not follow through so they can run on it again, in a way that doesn't separate it from the entire plank of any reason why a person would vote for a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Well if you can't figure out on your own what's different about abortion after I explicitly told you I'm not sure I can trust any of the logic you've applied so far in this thread is all. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
The other fundamental question is can Congress meaningfully legislate AT ALL without a sufficient majority to impeach justices. SCOTUS can strike anything with no limits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
slurm posted:The other fundamental question is can Congress meaningfully legislate AT ALL without a sufficient majority to impeach justices. SCOTUS can strike anything with no limits. Also true and probably an important part of how they decide what to pass. But ultimately politicians mysterious, unknowable creatures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Well if you can't figure out on your own what's different about abortion after I explicitly told you I'm not sure I can trust any of the logic you've applied so far in this thread is all. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree So far the reasons you've come up with are: -It hasn't been passed yet. -The Democrats are running on the issue. -It's important to people. Which don't differentiate it from the entire slate of laws and issues that Democrats are running on passing in the future or have run on in the past. Other than that you feel like it will cause big turnout and you feel like Democrats won't pass it. Neither of which are substantive arguments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Obviously you didn't understand my posts. And that's ok. I'm not claiming perfect prediction of what will definitely happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
APRIL 29, 2009 https://www.reuters.com/article/obama-abortion/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUKN2946642020090430 Obama says abortion rights law not a top priority quote:WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he favored abortion rights for women but that passing a law guaranteeing those rights was not his top priority, trying to avoid inflaming divisions over the issue. Yeah, people are still angry about this. And yes, this was a Obama campaign promise. quote:In 2007, when Barack Obama was running for president, he promised that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” which would affirm abortion rights and effectively codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that guaranteed abortion rights as constitutionally protected. https://moguldom.com/406482/fact-check-obama-had-chance-to-codify-roe-v-wade-but-chose-not-to-prioritize-it/
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Xombie posted:So far the reasons you've come up with are: insisting that Lucy says she's gonna let you kick the football: sober, fact based analysis pointing out the unbroken history reaching back fifty years of Lucy invariably pulling it away at the last minute, then laughing at your dumb rear end for believing her: vibes we're all learning a great deal about what facts and feelings are today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
The Kansas turn out does give me some hope that the GOP doesn't get the house this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
If we compare to other issues, Biden said in no uncertain terms in December 2020, when democrats had 48 senators, that 2 more senators were needed to get voting rights done:Joe Biden posted:I think Georgia is going to shock the nation with the number of people who vote by January 5th. Some of that did indeed happen. And some of it, like voting rights, did not and they moved the goalposts to 52 senators. Nothing that I can see prevents them from moving the goalposts again to 55 or 57 or however many. It's unknowable, but arguing that they won't is just a hope, not anything based on facts or evidence. That hope may well turn out to be correct! Or ya know, it may not, just like it did in Jan 2020 when plenty of people on this board were sure that 50 Democrats were enough to pass a new voting rights act.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Friends, I posted twice that "They will." "No, they won't." arguments aren't provable and just devolve into slap fights since nobody can prove the other wrong and nobody will change their mind. Please keep the 2022 Midterm Elections thread about the 2022 Midterm Elections. If you have something new or interesting to say about what the Democrats did in 2009, Democrat's positions on abortion, or whether electoralism matters or not, then please post in the electoralism thread, the Roe thread, or the current events thread, whichever is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Friends, I posted twice that "They will." "No, they won't." arguments aren't provable and just devolve into slap fights since nobody can prove the other wrong and nobody will change their mind. How about you suck my dick (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
Maybe if the Democrats weren't constantly about how the lower class are all idiotic bums who need "brilliant" rich people to push them to work, we wouldn't be in this situation? Just saying. The loving republicans keep winning because they know the right language to talk to poor people about. They're fascist idiots, too, but they've always pretended to be other wise, and unsurprisingly, the people who they've dumbed down with years of budget cuts to schools and creationism buy it. gently caress this poo poo. If there's a civil war, whoever's fighting on the side of Human Rights needs to MASTER propaganda, not "lmao red states are all racist idiots". loving ben sharpo needs to be defeated with facts and logic before we can ever have a chance of defeating the trump empire. The sooner everyone left of hitler and ice stops treating poor white people as "white trash", stops ignoring the minorities who are victimized by voter suppression, and STOPS listening to neoliberalism, the sooner we can free ourselves from this bullshit that's characterized america since it's foundation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Directly relevant midterm content: ‘It’s a rip-off’: GOP spending under fire as Senate hopefuls seek rescue The downside of putting one of America's most prolific fraudsters in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars is that money tends to get spent in deeply questionable ways. quote:In a highly unusual move, the National Republican Senatorial Committee this week canceled bookings worth about $10 million, including in the critical states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona. A spokesman said the NRSC is not abandoning those races but prioritizing ad spots that are shared with campaigns and benefit from discounted rates. Still, the cancellations forfeit cheaper prices that came from booking early, and better budgeting could have covered both. The upside of putting one of America's most prolific fraudsters in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars is that you have the world's most convenient scapegoat for your own fuckups quote:“If they were a corporation, the CEO would be fired and investigated,” said a national Republican consultant working on Senate races. “The way this money has been burned, there needs to be an audit or investigation because we’re not gonna take the Senate now and this money has been squandered. It’s a rip-off.” quote:The NRSC’s chairman, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, has already taken heat from fellow Republicans for running ads featuring him on camera and releasing his own policy agenda that became a Democratic punching bag — leading to jokes that “NRSC” stood for “National Rick Scott Committee” in a bid to fuel his own presumed presidential ambitions. I do love the audible  from WaPo at the damage control effortsquote:After The Washington Post discussed this story with the NRSC on Friday, five Senate campaigns reached out to praise the committee’s help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 02:20
|
|
more than $12 million to American Express credit card payments, whose ultimate purpose isn’t clear from the filings