|
and by "some Democrats" they mean Moulton and Rice
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
anime was right posted:dems have blamed they're trying to fight voter suppression, but they also essentially abandoned state-level politics under Obama, so they no longer hold enough power to do anything besides whine ineffectually when a Republican governor signs a bill that was passed by both houses of the Republican-dominated state legislature hmm, that sounds kind of familiar
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:- bernie was smeared from day 1 as a no-chance upstart 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:jesus loving christ dems are gonna flop in 2018 the first one isnt wrong Pelosi is just fine as a House leader, and most of the House reps pushing for her replacement are conservative Dems whose only stated rationale for replacing her is that she's too demonized by the right and might be scaring off moderate Republican votes i don't think it's sexism, but "we should replace this person because Republicans dislike them" is about the ordinary level of idiocy I'd expect from Bad Dems, and there's more House Dems to her right than to her left so her replacement would likely be to the right of her Gene Hackman Fan posted:https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/876587336162836480 at the height of the Gilded Age, radical leftists were engaging in assassination attempts against CEOs and terrorist bombings on Wall Street, while unions were getting into literal gun battles with strikebreakers and Pinkertons while federal troops were regularly being called to intervene by force in labor disputes ultimately, capital only makes concessions to the left when they fear that the social pressure that's building might explode into outright revolution, and that's been the case regardless of which party is in power
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Zhulik posted:At some point in the early 2000s a member of the Duma argued that measures to reduce state corruption would inevitably backfire. theres no point in replacing a corrupt official when they'll just be replaced by another corrupt official. it's more important to deal with the body or system that's putting corrupt officials in power in the first place in the case of Dem leadership, ousting a generic incompetent centrist from a leadership position is a waste of energy if a solid supermajority of the people involved in choosing their replacement are generic incompetent centrists Brother Friendship posted:the cherry on top of 2016 was harry reid, after witness the complete demolishment of the democrats at every level of government, trotted out of hiding just to say that the Democrats were doing great and didn't need to change anything. remember when the House under Pelosi passed a public option and then Reid's Senate cut it out
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:Take some advice from Republicans, yall! aside from the bit about Perez being too progressive, this reads exactly like something a centrist Dem might have written
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
he's right. the charge in the House to replace Pelosi is being led by conservative Dems worried that she's too leftist and turning off the fabled moderates yes, the left is mad at Pelosi, but the actual threat to her position is coming from folks like Moulton and Rice
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:god moulton sucks dick he's literally a member of the New Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:gonna be funny as poo poo watching another moderate democrat from massachussetts get swift boated in a general election god I hope so probably not though, his district is rich and white and he took the seat by primarying the Dem incumbent
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:https://twitter.com/CathyMyersWI/status/877996969549070336 every word on that website screams "I'm going to hand out bootstraps to the working class"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:what's up with all the campaign websites that have all this "I was born at a truck stop in Iowa" bullshit but no actual policy statements? it tells the voter that they're just another average Joe, not like those ivory tower elites. that way it'll feel more friendly when they cut government services and kick everyone off safety net programs notice how it also repeatedly mentions "hard work", "personal responsibility", and my new favorite phrase "fighting for opportunity". it talks about how hard she had to work and how much debt she had to take on so you know that when she votes to cut welfare and privatize everything, she's been there, and she knows that all you need is a pair of bootstraps
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
ThndrShk2k posted:If you look at one and then the other really fast it looks like he's giving you bedroom eyes.  this is so beautiful I think it's finally time for me to dump this redtextpunk rebel ecks posted:Is it true that a few establishment Dems attempted to reach across the aisle with the GOP, in which that they'd agree to Medicaid cuts, in exchange for sanctions against Russia. nah, it was Iran sanctions they'd agree to Iran sanctions (which would totally topple the Iran deal) in exchange for russia ssanctions
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Zhulik posted:Agreed, but jeez, the initial gotcha premise is so weird. "Aha! You want your political views to be represented by your government!" seems like a very bizarre vector for owning someone. the unspoken implication is that your political views are electorally ineffective or politically impossible, and thus you are dooming the Dems to irrelevance and failure by selfishly wanting to be represented unlike their political views, which are naturally the ideal thing to campaign on and are sure to lead to great wins
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:more local party officials will do this and it will be hilarious if the ~decorum~ keeps up didn't they immediately fire that guy
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
President Donald Trump weighed in Thursday morning on the brewing debate in the Democratic Party about the future of Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the party’s minority leader, writing online that her ouster “would be very bad” for the Republican Party. “I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party - and please let Cryin' Chuck stay!” Trump said, referring to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer by a nickname he has pinned on the New York Democrat in the past. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who once held the suburban Atlanta seat that Ossoff fell short of this week, essentially agreed with Ryan that Pelosi has become a powerful weapon for Republicans to use against Democrats running in competitive districts. The GOP plans to use that line of attack, Gingrich said, for as long as it can. “I hope they keep Nancy for 10 more years. I want her there for at least another decade. I mean, we have all the ads done. They work perfectly in Georgia,” he said. “We know exactly how to run against a Nancy Pelosi-run party. We'd love to have the question be in 2018 Nancy Pelosi versus Paul Ryan, and I hope that the Democrats keep her right where she is for a long, long time. At least a decade.”
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
 : "gee, Democrats, I sure hope you don't replace Pelosi! that would really hurt my chances and guarantee you wins next year. gosh, I sure hope Democrats don't hear about how helpful she is to us, it would just be terrible if they caught on that I want her to stay and then fire her just to spite me!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:it's amazing how easy it'd be to break the wrong way the wait time to get a doctors appointment is a lot shorter when half the people in your area can't even afford a yearly checkup healthcare in the US is great if you're really rich. that's why rich people from other countries sometimes fly here to get the elite treatment, instead of going through their own country's single-payer healthcare where they can't cut the line by dispensing more money, can't get caviar in their post-surgery penthouse, and might have to share a hospital room with someone who works for a living
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
docbeard posted:The thing about Zuckerberg is that he's pretty much a cipher. He could do some good or he could be a monster or he could just be an ineffective plastic leader who rubber-stamps some vaguely progressive stuff while keeping the current power dynamic firmly in place, or he could just flail around uselessly, or he could usher in the technological singularity, or he could be a full-on revolutionary and there's no actual way to know ahead of time. zuck is just gonna be a generic somewhat-neoliberal technocrat who farms out the actual business of coming up with policy to the same flock of aides, consultants, and lobbyists that've been writing Dem policy since 1996 he'll be very slightly center-left on social issues, heavily pro-business, somewhat anti-worker, neutral on poor people in general, and he'll leave the wonks to decide pretty much everything else for him (i.e., status quo or whatever the highest and best-connected bidder wants)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:^^^ ah yes, the "don't believe your lying eyes; believe my construct of dese-dose voters." even among Republicans, not many people actually oppose social safety nets in principle. it's just that the few who do have convinced the rest of them that badly-run and poorly-regulated social safety nets are covering tons of people who don't genuinely need them. that's why you see high support for Medicaid but also high support for changing the program to make it stricter, cut its funding, and squeeze as many people off of it as possible Venom Snake posted:If Zuck runs on a nominally left new deal democrat platform I'm going to grit my teeth harder than I ever have in my life if he's the most far left primary candidate "maybe the billionaire CEO will be leftist and pro-worker" - the suck zone he's a walking incarnation of "social liberal, fiscal conservative", I guarantee it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Generally personal wealth has had little to do with where presidents fall on the left/right axis historically. The issue with ZUCK is he's a creepy techlord not that he's rich. the issue isn't how much money he had, it's how he made it. he was born to parents that made six or seven figures each, never had a job where he wasn't the boss, and didn't even finish his first Harvard degree before starting his own business that eventually made him into a billionaire. there's never been any indication that he realizes the massive advantages his parents and upbringing afforded him, and typically those types end up believing that they're self-made men who bootstrapped themselves to riches by being smart and working hard, with no help from anyone. and people who honestly believe in bootstraps are generally not known for being kind and understanding toward the poor
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:the ~math~ is basically if you're gonna take it as a given that talking about a tax increase = a whole bunch of seats lost, then why even bother with the ballot proposition?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:it was the consistent polling that got, and still gets me. pollsters' likely voter models were way off they assumed that, compared to 2012, minorities would come out in force to vote overwhelmingly against the openly racist corncob, while white people turnout would be lower than usual because they wouldn't be enthusiastic about the sexist goblin. that was pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened. for some dumb reason a bunch of people assumed that the black turnout in 2008 and 2012 was the new normal rather than outliers caused by Obama specifically so their estimates were way off, Hispanics weren't as pro-Hillary as expected, and white turnout was basically as usual.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Wasn't it the lowest turnout election for a long time? Or just real bad nah, not really. it's more that the last couple elections had unusually high turnout. 2004 turnout was way higher than 2000, and 2008 turnout was the highest in decades. numbers vary wildly for some reason but 2016 turnout probably turned out at about the same level as 2013
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:confused as to what the problem here is looks like he's just saying it as a way to reframe the popularity numbers kind of a "sure, it polls incredibly badly, but not everyone hates it from the right. some people hate it from the left and therefore don't support the right-wing effort to repeal" thing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:It's amazing how Democrats have a 10 vote handicap in the senate. Seems a little unfair to me that any good progressive policies need a supermajority, whereas repubs can destroy the country with a simple majority yeah, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans don't have to worry about ideologically-impure defectors potentially torpedoing their major health legislation or single-handedly demanding large changes that make it significantly worse. there's just no way they'll ever have a slim majority upset by a couple of defectors of course, the difference is that conservative superPACs are already airing attack ads against GOP senators who've said they won't vote for AHCA
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Gay Horney posted:So what was the deal with that CNN producer video. a random nobody who had absolutely nothing to do with CNN political coverage
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:probably something to do with politics loving over most people and the facist police state murdering dissenters and suburban car culture spreading us out enough to discourage meetings it's more that we've gone all-in on a capitalist culture in which our only purpose is to produce things for the wealthy and then buy those things from the wealthy, while American society has been redivided into nothing more than advertising demographics
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
holy moly, there's quite a gender divide on gun rights
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:remember when hillary said she'd put coal miners out of work, big lmao there's more bankers than miners qed motherfucker
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:lol remember when Obama killed an American citizen it was a nice change of pace from the hundreds of Middle Easterners he killed
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
a pro-life Dems group has issued a bunch of demands to Perezquote:In addition to a request for a statement direct from Perez that the party does not have a litmus test, Democrats for Life’s list calls for the party to make resources available to support pro-life Democrats. The list asks for “the establishment of a Democratic Pro-Life Political Action Committee to be used specifically to support pro-life Democratic candidates.” It also requests that the 2020 Democratic Party platform be “inclusive to Democrats who oppose abortion,” and calls for eliminating language currently in the 2016 platform “opposing the Hyde Amendment.” the DNC has been tight-lipped about it, but Democrats For Life is suggesting they heard things that make them believe that the DNC is willing to back away from the "simplistic abortion orthodoxy of the coastal elites" and show "tolerance" as they embrace the "big tent" "50-state strategy" of hating women's rights
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Subjunctivitis posted:quick question: of course they haven't offered any, that's not how Dems work. it's not ~pragmatic~ or ~wonkish~ to offer up solutions you don't have the votes to pass, and the ~consultants~ and ~focus groups~ say it's a bad idea to admit that basically your only significant legislative accomplishment in the last decade has big problems of course, they can't exactly campaign on ACA improvements, because if they ever get a Congressional majority again, a fifth of Dem senators will immediately flip and vote against any ACA improvements and the Dems will refuse to do anything about it, so 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:but what's the point of bodycams on the police if the footage is all kept hidden? we already have 500 officers to lie about what happened in an encounter, is another 500 lying about the contents of video footage really helping anything at all? makes people feel better about the police without any actual change. also, police departments that have actually deployed bodycams love them. it massively decreases the number of complaints against cops and gives plenty of evidence they can cherrypick from to undermine the complaints that remain. and if an officer does manage to get into real trouble, the footage can be "lost" or the camera can be "broken" once they get over the sheer anarchic hatred of anyone telling them what to do, cops are actually finding that body cameras work out just fine for them
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:The problem isn't if an individual cop is racist but that our police departments are trained, armed, and instructed to perpetuate for-profit, systematically racist institutions. The private prisons are contractually guaranteed a minimum number of full beds both as a source of revenue and slave labor. The police department and city council needs more money in it's coffers from fines and fees because god forbid that be funded through taxes. So they are sent out to get money and smash in heads. They target black communities because they are our suppressed, dehumanized, and exploited underclass that Capitalism requires to function. Harassing, arresting, robbing, and killing black people isn't a side effect of policing. It's their primary function. it goes beyond that. in the US, the concept of having an actual "police department" dates back to the mid-19th century, and that's when the first official police departments were formed in the US think about what else was happening in the US from 1850-1870 or so, and it shouldn't be any surprise that many Southern police departments directly evolved from the "slave patrols" that existed prior to the Civil War, and the main function of the newly-founded police departments was to enforce Jim Crow. meanwhile, the police departments being formed in Northern cities around the same time were created mainly to rein in labor unrest. fundamentally, the creation of professional police forces wasn't actually about dealing with crime, it was dealing with the lower classes who were perceived to be crime-prone, and protecting the interests of local elite politicians and businessmen from people disgruntled about increasing inequality racism is baked into police culture at a very deep level, and police procedures and training are often still designed to reinforce it this is a good series of articles that talks more about that. some samples: quote:The only effective political strategy available to exploited workers was what economic elites referred to as "rioting," which was actually a primitive form of what would become union strikes against employers (Silver 1967). The modern police force not only provided an organized, centralized body of men (and they were all male) legally authorized to use force to maintain order, it also provided the illusion that this order was being maintained under the rule of law, not at the whim of those with economic power. quote:State police agencies emerged for many of the same reasons. The Pennsylvania State Police were modeled after the Phillipine Constabulary, the occupation force placed in the Philipine Islands following the Spanish-American War. This all-white, all-"native," paramilitary force was created specifically to break strikes in the coal fields of Pennsylvania and to control local towns composed predominantly of Catholic, Irish, German and Eastern European immigrants. They were housed in barracks outside the towns so that they would not mingle with or develop friendships with local residents. In addition to strike-breaking they frequently engaged in anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic violence, such as attacking community social events on horseback, under the pretense of enforcing public order laws. Similarly, the Texas Rangers were originally created as a quasi-official group of vigilantes and guerillas used to suppress Mexican communities and to drive the Commanche off their lands. quote:From the beginning American policing has been intimately tied not to the problem of crime, but to exigencies and demands of the American political-economy. From the anti-immigrant bashing of early police forces, to the strike breaking of the later 1800s, to the massive corruption of the early 20th century, through professionalism, Taylorization and now attempts at amelioration through community policing, the role of the police in the United States has been defined by economics and politics, not crime or crime control. As we look to the 21st century, it now appears likely that a new emphasis on science and technology, particularly related to citizen surveillance; a new wave of militarization reflected in the spread of SWAT teams and other paramilitary squads; and a new emphasis on community pacification through community policing, are all destined to replay the failures of history as the policies of the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:I wager that there is some entrenched resistance (ie not just big donor money or whatever) from Dems who viewed ACA as their signature big career legislative accomplishment being told it kind of sucks. I don't know if that goes away if they get more public feedback/yelling about it or if you have to elect people divorced from the original process. the real problem is that the lanyard types have convinced them that admitting that their signature big career legislative accomplishment sucks would be political suicide, not only reflecting badly on them but also feeding into Republican messaging to support the repeal effort. the consultant types have decided that everyone has to pretend that Obamacare is perfect until the Dems win a majority, at which point they can start talking about fixing it. can't campaign on fixing Obamacare problems because they're convinced that admitting the existence of flaws in the bill they helped write would make them look like stupid and bad legislators who voted for a bad bill the problem with that logic, of course, is that it's elitist garbage that relies on the assumption that no one will notice the problems with Obamacare unless they're told about it by politicians and media. unfortunately, Obamacare affects real people, who have already figured out that the law has real problems because those problems are having a direct impact on their daily lives. pretending the flaws don't exist won't make them go away or fly under the radar
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I have to backtrack. Reducing wasteful spending is definitely good, but you don't make it the central loving pillar of your hot new campaign. Obama made it the central pillar of his presidency punk rebel ecks posted:Jesus loving Christ! the healthcare market is profoundly sick and the government absolutely refuses to do anything to rein in prices
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Why would OD deaths go up after a crackdown? all the addicts who'd been on prescriptions of carefully labeled and regulated pharmecutical opiods for years suddenly got cut off by the crackdown, and with no accompanying push to treat their addictions, they stayed addicted and turned to the streets to get their fix instead
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:our legislators are morons Moulton is a prominent example of "lovely right-wing Dem who inexplicably holds seat in deep-blue state" i live in his district so all these reminders of how poo poo he is are especially painful 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I'll never understand how people don't understand that having debt is not a bad thing; rich people, all rich people, if they're smart, have debt. The only way you can max out a personal credit score is by having debt, and lots of it compared to your income. Rich people don't pay cash up front for a home, a car, or just about anything else. The strategic use of debt by smart, rich households should be pointed out to any idiot that believes a balanced budget is a good idea. poor people have debt too, and there's a considerable difference between poor person debt and rich person debt for households that are teetering on the edge of poverty but fancy themselves to be "middle-class", debt is the great destroyer, the temptation that could destroy them and the albatross around their necks. for people with hundreds of thousands to spare, debt is just another strategic tool to turn money into even more money. but for people who only have hundreds to spare at most, debt is the curse that means the bank gets to take your house and your car if you face the slightest economic disruption
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Condiv posted:basically, companies are not beholden to racial justice or any kind of equity, and rather fire employees if it looks like they might hurt their pocketbook. doxxing and reporting racists to get them fired seems like a good idea until you realize the right is way better at cooking up outrage than the center, and will likely turn this tactic against us. they've been turning that tactic against the left for the last *checks watch* 150 years or so, it's about loving time the left caught on to it and started using it themselves
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 22:18
|
|