|
Jaxyon posted:So I assume, libertarians, who all all about privacy and individual rights, are super upset about the impending Roe decision right? It might depend a lot on age. Older libertarians who decided thats what they believed in the 80's, 90's or 2000's maybe. I knew a lot of those people who did care about personal liberty and felt safe voting mostly Republican after abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana seemed settled their way. That limited subset might be upset. People who started calling themselves libertarian in the last 10 years or so are lovely conservatives who want to use a more cool and popular label. Those people will not be bothered much.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Gort posted:US GDP grew faster than it's military budget, perhaps? A lot of it is probably this, plus we spent money on developing a lot of new weapon systems (including the stealth bomber) that was used for decades afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Srice posted:Something to consider is that Black Lives Matter polled poorly when it began, and also had its messaging criticized; back when it started (and even today of course) it sure was easy to see people saying "Shouldn't it be All Lives Matter?" The BLM slogan is objectively good. "Defund the police" as a slogan is, objectively, a horrifically bad slogan. This is because the plain, clear meaning of the phrase is to take the budget for the police all the way down to zero dollars, which makes people advocating for this seem insane. And yes, the plain meaning of "defund X" in every other context does mean to reduce the budget for X to zero, and that wont change no matter how much people try to yell or explain that it doesn't mean that.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Trazz posted:The "BLM slogan is objectively good" until you talk to someone who thinks it's a terrorist organization, how did that happen? I thought it was an "objectively good" slogan? They were, eventually, mostly unsuccessful because the slogan is so good. The meaning is very clear, and difficult to attack. You can beat people down with propaganda, but just taken by itself without any extraneous bullshit, its a good slogan. Defund the Police is a hilariously bad slogan in that the opponents of the movement just merely have to laugh, nod, and agree that the people saying it really do mean those words. The people using the slogan have to twist themselves into knots trying to explain that the words actually somehow mean something else in this specific case, which make them look like lying weasels.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Trazz posted:And then I look out my window and see how many of my neighbors have the Blue Stripe flag, would you like to explain that to me? I'm in a deep dark red state and I very rarely see it anymore aside from the odd bumper sticker or decal on a truck window maybe once a week. I see Trump stickers all day long, but blue stripe not so much. Maybe a couple random houses here and there, thats it.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:"BLM came to be accepted because it was such a sound slogan that nobody could deliberately misconstrue" That would be a pretty stupid opinion if anyone on this board had it, I agree. For a more substantive response, there no longer is a serious attempt to turn people against it anymore aside from fringe groups and the occasional angry politician throwing a tantrum. Hell, Corporate America has spoken and warmly embraced the slogan. Its even gotten the ultimate American cultural blessing from the national football league. Attacking BLM is now just a thing lovely conservatives quietly grumble at each other about.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Trazz posted:The Republican party isn't really a "fringe group" lol The Republican party is no longer spending serious time, effort, or energy trying to convince people that actually BLM is bad. (maybe they can yell at rabid crowds within the safety of a Trumpian rally during a primary, but thats it) Outside their base they have definitively lost that argument and have moved on to other things that sway voters.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1523647950324649984?s=20&t=58s7u3T7NXcBzqUw-WVQxw This person is assuming the filibuster will never be abolished and that the Dems have to get to 60. That assumption is both stupid and wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
selec posted:It's an assumption that's held up until now, and using my magical rubric of "what will produce the stupidest outcome?" it will continue to hold. We have 48 votes and only need 50+1. In a world where we get even halfway to 60, the filibuster would have been long since gone.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:they note that some weird black swan could change things This is about to occur. In my opinion there is absolutely no conceivable event that anyone here could imagine or dream up whatsoever that would fundamentally shift things towards the Democrats more than Roe v Wade getting struck down.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:could you, uh, show your work on this? I recall that recent poll showing that democrats and republicans reported increased enthusiasm to vote as the result of the draft decision, with the republicans slightly more enthusiastic than the democrats. Like obviously thats just one poll but a claim like the one you're making seems like it would need some pretty hefty support! The Republican party does not have a problem getting their religious anti-choice voters to vote. Increased enthusiasm doesn't matter much for the side that already votes reliably. The Dem voter apathy problem and the struggle to get people on the left to vote is extremely well-known and documented. The GOP is outnumbered, when Democrats vote they win.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
selec posted:It makes sense: the GOP delivers for its base and the donors. The Dems just deliver for the donors. So why would the left get fired up for a party who not only doesn’t come through for them, but in fact a lot of times espouses open contempt for their goals? This black swan event is going to completely swamp these assumptions. People ARE NOT going to react by throwing up their hands and going "I quit, there's no point in voting." Dem turnout is going to be immense.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Agreed--the GOP's base will be massively motivated by this victory. So this time when they vote, they will be smiling, instead of just having a normal nondescript expression on their face when they voted in the past? Anti-choice religious extremists are the most reliable voters in the GOP base. You don't get an extra vote for being enthusiastic.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah Trump racking up another 12 million votes that no one expected over his 2016 total suggests that the MAGA vote was not actually capped at 2016 numbers despite what everyone thought. The new MAGA vote was not an untapped pool of strongly anti-choice non-voters. If you care a lot about abortion, you have been voting reliably. Trump is an openly, virulent, mask off, no dog whistle racist. He energized voters who never had an obvious and blatantly racist presidential candidate to vote for before. They didn't care all that much about abortion, and neither did Trump. His only real appeal to the anti-choice crowd during the general election was to smugly and mockingly inform the religious anti-choice crowd who were repulsed by him that they had no choice now but to vote for him. Rigel fucked around with this message at 12:40 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh huh If Jimmy Carter had a crystal ball, he probably would have nominated someone else. Once someone is confirmed to the Fed, there is jack poo poo the president or anyone else can do to stop him from voting the way he wants. By contrast, DeJoy was picked specifically to do what he did, and Trump was pleased with his "service".
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't actually know that, and appointing someone who will take the heat for doing an unpopular thing while you tweet "omg this thing is so bad DO SOMETHING!!" is the oldest trick in the book. The czars loved doing that poo poo. Well, couple things. There is not even the slightest chance in hell Carter wanted the Fed to fight inflation that aggressively right before his re-election, unless you are trying to argue that Carter didn't really care all that much about winning in 1980. Also, sometimes the Fed has to raise interest rates for objectively good reasons and they may even have to do it aggressively. Congress never wants this to happen for purely selfish reasons, which is why they are independent. You want the members to be intelligent and competent, not political cronies who will do your bidding. Finally, what the Fed did in hindsight was absolutely necessary and the correct thing to do. It sucked for Carter, but from his standpoint he would only have preferred that they wait until after his re-election campaign was over, but interest rates had to be jacked up.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Even if they had 60, just one could say "nah, no reason to end the debate on this one" and the bill fails There would not be a cloture vote with a 60-vote minimum if Roe v Wade was such an immense game changing GOP bloodbath that we actually got to 60 Dem Senators.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I think there would still be cloture votes. The GOP would probably hope to peel off the more conservative Dems to prevent them getting to 60 votes to end debate. But I could just be mistaken Well, to be more specific, the filibuster would likely have been eliminated well before the Dems ever got to the absurdly high number of 60. People are still often looking at the number 60 as a vote threshold we have to reach like with Obamacare. It isn't anymore, forget about 60. The new number is now 50 after subtracting idiots who still think we need the filibuster. We have 2, maybe 3 such idiots right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:You have no idea how many would actually support ending the filibuster, you're just making an assumption because two Dem senators are particularly loud about their opposition Bishyaler posted:Eight Dem senators voted against a $15 minimum wage, with all the ghoulishness that implies. Do you think those same people are going to remove the filibuster if it means allowing that to pass? Plus Dick Durbin just showed his rear end on the filibuster today too. So that's 9. And I'd take a bet that there's at least a few more who'd pop out of the woodwork in a pinch. We had a vote last year to eliminate the filibuster just for the civil rights bill, and it was 48-52.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Why would they need security? I assume they uncovered what they decided were credible threats to assassinate justices before the ruling can be released.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Why would you assume that? Because it would not be even the slightest bit surprising.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/HerbieZiskend46/status/1524491379958759424?s=20&t=kxX3WnyvZxCjaJAqDmFBKA Are you expressing the ignorant, uninformed id of regular voters who are too busy to know how things work, and how that is going to be a problem for future elections (which is fine), or is this a serious criticism?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:So what kind of action changes things sooner than the allowable electoral timetable? In order to protect the rights of women (and all gender/sexual/racial/religious/human rights), in order to do that ASAP in our country, what do we do? Because from my admittedly limited electoral understanding it's now state vs state, with an uncertain timetable of Protecting the rights of women sooner than the next election? There is no legal way to do it, given the current Senate. Maybe an armed and violent revolution if you don't count that as being illegal.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
Serious question: white supremacists and neo-nazis seem to have just.... a really weirdly enormous number of symbols associated with their movements and hateful philosophy. Why? It seems to be an excessive number of symbols and letters and phrases, etc. Is there any particular reason why they felt they needed to come up with enough symbols to fill up a small book? Most groups don't go this deep to create things to identify other members of their group. Did they just keep coming up with more to fill their skin with ink and jackets with stupid patches, or what? Rigel fucked around with this message at 17:18 on May 15, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm assuming this might change when the actual ruling is passed down. Yeah, outside our bubble where political nerds like us live, average voters that I've come across have had the attitude of "whats this about? There's some rumor that the court might possibly throw out Roe v Wade? Whatever, I've heard about that for years, and its never actually happened."
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:gee who could have seen this coming Looks like the error mostly benefitted the Democrats, though. 5 out of 6 undercounted states was a red state, and 6 out of 8 overcounted states was a blue state. Not really surprising given how the GOP was making GBS threads on the census while the Democrats were making a big deal within their states about getting everyone to respond.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The immediate bipartisan action to prevent women from protesting at the homes of the justices just shows how much How have they been trying to prevent protesting at homes? Last I heard they were increasing personal security in case some crazy person tried to kill a judge over this while Congressional Democrat leaders were saying protesting at their homes was fine.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 16:41
|
|
is valued by this admin over action. Sorry.
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:'Authoritarian' is yet another useless term from the Cold War panoply of snarl words and catchphrases. Not really. We have a few nations that are clearly and unambiguously authoritarian, even if that list does not (yet) include the usa
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:It's definitely authoritarian, it's just controlled by a different group of people than traditionally expected. The word has a very clear meaning which some people itt just don't want to accept because its a cool word they want to use. Authoritarian requires a widespread and harsh crackdown on every citizen who merely expresses an illegal political opinion (not counting things like terrorist threats or plots) In Russia, China, North Korea, etc you can be grabbed from your apartment and thrown in jail for posting criticism of the government on the internet, not by a rogue cop, not against a small group but as a matter of government policy against every person. THAT is an authoritarian government. I know you want to use the word, but its simply not applicable to the United States right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:She wasn't even the only Dem to do the performative thumbs-down against a living wage. Thumbs up or down is extremely common in the senate, but its usually quick and no big deal. What made sinema's performance weird was her.... half curtsy, dramatic showey thing, whatever the hell that was.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Unless they desired to be performative showboats they could have pressed the buttons at their desks instead of marching up in lockstep as the rear end in a top hat Twins in front of the cameras. The senate does not have electronic voting, you have to tell the clerk your vote. They often use their thumb along with saying it to eliminate doubt. As for sinema's performance, I personally didn't focus on it, but you were wondering why sinema was singled out when senators do thumbs all the time. Well, thats why, she did a weird dramatic thumbs down in a vote the left really cared about, just sticking it to them that much more.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:However, at this point Mitch will dump the filibuster the moment he can glean a political advantage from doing so, so that will be fun. The GOP is never going to eliminate the filibuster. They can get almost everything (tax cuts, spending cuts, program cuts, etc) they want through a majority, while almost everything the Democrats want is blocked by the filibuster.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Usually what people mean with "better things aren't possible" is the kind of capitalist realism of "this is the best possible world, so just lie down and accept the status quo". That's different from accurately pointing out that our current form of government cannot deliver the changes that we need, and more radical action will be necessary to achieve them. Where does the crowd who say "we have to wait for old people with incurable brainworms to die before we can have better things" fall? They basically say better things aren't possible now, but eventually will be in some unknown and constantly changing future date.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So what's in the pipe? Anyone planning on passing anything? Anyone talking about packing courts? Theres a ton of ideas ready to be passed into law. Gotta win elections first. We effectively are outnumbered in the senate 48-52
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:No, we have 50-50 plus the VP, and a party that is unwilling or unable to enforce discipline among its members. They can do things now if they actually want to. unable, which means that yes we are effectively at 48-52. We do not have a way to bar politicians from running for re-election in the party they want to run in, like in other countries with parliamentary systems. Its not a lame excuse, it is simple point-blank reality. We do not have a governing majority. If you don't like the obvious option of "win elections", then the alternatives include things like secession or armed revolution. The alternatives DO NOT include "yell at Democratic party leaders until they get their members in line", because they do not have a way to do that.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:We literally just had Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn campaigning for a pro-gun, anti-abortion shithead, and their campaigning more than likely pushed him over the line ahead of his progressive challenger. Dem leadership absolutely has a way of getting their members in line, it's just that they choose to keep them more conservative than progressive. That means absolutely nothing whatsoever for the 2 relevant Senators who neither need nor want enthusiastic support from leadership. Manchin and Sinema are actually planning to use "I stand up to Schumer and don't let him get everything he wants" as a selling point to convince their moron voters to vote for them. If Manchin and Sinema needed support from their leaders for re-election you might have a point, but they do not, so you do not. edit: In the case of Sinema, we may be able to primary her because she seemed to have concluded that she has the primary election in the bag and pissed off the base, but replacing her with a Dem who is not poo poo is just a subset of the "win elections" option. Rigel fucked around with this message at 20:38 on May 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:OK, then it's still a failure of leadership for not making sure that Manchin and Sinema are dependent on their support! How can we be sure that any senate seats that dems manage to flip won't be even more conservative "maverick" assholes who campaign on giving Schumer the bird? The law has generally been interpreted as not allowing party bosses to block ballot access for specific candidates on a whim in a primary election, because they are using government resources to hold their election. Once you set the requirements (signatures, paying a fee) to get on the ballot, anyone can try to do it. You could instead do away with primaries and have caucuses or nominating conventions in all 50 states, but that would be wildly unpopular and undemocratic.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Which votes The 48 Senators which already voted in favor of setting aside the filibuster to vote on something they wanted last year.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:The answer is simple: This is not a serious response. You seem to agree with Trump that the DOJ (and presumably the FBI) should be the president's personal secret police.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:There are not 48 senators ready to pass progressive legislation. There are, at very best, somewhere around 44. We're not flipping that many seats now or in the foreseeable future. Bet nothing on the Senate because all political action will have to happen independently of it. The governing coalition is a minority of 48. What they could pass if they had the ability to pass anything that all 48 could agree on is a separate question.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 23:11
|
|