|
Bel Shazar posted:With respect, that post seems to be highly relevant context to current events. At least I found it to be and appreciated the detail. It does seem useful to help make sense of a situation in which Biden is out there saying "a recession isn't inevitable" while the Republican Fed chair he could have replaced eyes the big red Volcker Shock button
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think that if we don’t have a lovely society this question eventually goes away. If trans kids don’t have to go through the wrong puberty this ceases to be a question. If there wasn't a trans woman doing well in it, exactly zero of the people upset about it would give a poo poo about women's collegiate swimming. It's a naked cudgel, dude. You're getting roped into reactionary bullshit and entertaining it is pointless because answers don't actually matter to the people asking the question
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean if we just make everybody a police officer it would stop all crime! Not doing anything when you ask unless you're rich is their job, though. Everything else is just marketing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Historically they still have shadow profiles on you even if you don't have an account
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If for some reason I was under an ancient voodoo curse permanently trapping me within the state of Wyoming, then I probably would switch parties for that primary to vote for the anti-insurrectionist. This is just saying some fascists are okay as long as they preserve the illusion of your personal enfranchisement
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
"My enemies are all stupid even though they're kicking my rear end at every turn and have only continued to grow more powerful" is questionable analysis. If it were me I would start from the assumption that my powerful enemies were smart
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:I mean they're smart in the sense that they know how to obtain and wield power, but stupid in the sense that they hate women, minorities and LGBTQ+ people for no good reason and believe that angels are real Hating those people doesn't make them stupid, it makes them bad. In fact, scapegoating politically disenfranchised groups to leverage more power is actually a smart thing to do
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This...really just goes to show how short people's political memories actually are. The Dems did attempt to codify Roe into law after the draft opinion leaked. It failed because Manchin refused to back it. No they didn't, and this is an inaccurate summary of what happened. If you're going to "well actually" people you should get the facts correct They held a vote to invoke cloture. That was all they did. There was never an actual vote on codifying Roe. If Manchin had voted in favor, it still would have failed by 10 votes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Is there any other job where you could fail as miserably as dem leadership and not be expected to resign? Seyser Koze posted:Cop? They're doing their jobs, though. There's a difference between what people think their jobs ought to be and what they actually are
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:indeed, i think a big critical flaw we had was underestimating the republicans. It's not just true of Republicans, though. It's people like Manchin, or Sinema, or Democrat leadership in general. Like if these people are so stupid why don't you just go outsmart them then. Why do they keep winning if they're big dumb dummies Rigel posted:If after all that drama and emotion, the voters then decide to vote for Republicans anyway, *Everyone* should immediately conclude at that point that abortion does not really matter to voters No they shouldn't. This is just a weird way of reasoning backwards into reassuring yourself the US government is tethered to some kind of democracy TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Explain how they are doing their job? Who? Democrat leadership, or the cops? The Democrats leadership are going to raise tons of cash from this, and they're going to defuse any major civil unrest from this by convincing a large portion of the people angry about it that the only possible solution is pressing the placebo button again in November, thereby continuing to stabilize the system as it exists for the immediate future. That completely deranged image of them singing on the steps of the Supreme Court? That's them doing their jobs And cops are cops
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:January 22, 2022 for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (failed 49 - 51) and September 30th, 2021 on a rules committee motion (failed 48 - 52). In other words, they never voting on ending the filibuster Rigel posted:HR1, January 2022 A one-time carveout isn't the same thing as ending the filibuster. You claimed this exact poo poo in the last thread and got corrected and you're still repeating it and it's still wrong
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Do you mean they never successfully ended it? Voting for a carveout isn't the same thing as voting to end it and it's dishonest to claim it is. You'll have to link me to the September vote because I'm looking at senate.gov right now and the only 48-50 vote that entire month I can find was a cloture vote Rigel posted:OK, so? Why does that matter? Carving out votes for filibustered bills that really matter is not a meaningful difference. Because making a single exception in one specific circumstance in a doomed vote isn't reflective of opposition to the filibuster as a whole? Especially given the bill in question was one whose purpose was to give Democrat congresspeople more job security? TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Not really, outside of Senate parliamentary rule nerds. Its OK to shorthand it, and then clarify if someone asks. "Everyone pretty much understands" isn't fact, it's slippery slope poo poo you are just making up in your own head and pretending it is true. They've done carveouts plenty of times before and the filibuster is doing just fine. You're just saying poo poo that is factually false and then shrugging it off because of your feelings
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How is either statement the wrong takeaway? Tbf the system absolutely does work. The system we're living in is working incredibly well today. It's just not actually a system for things like enacting popular opinion or protecting human rights, unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't see anything in this that contradicts anything I said? The Dems did attempt to codify Roe into law, and they did in fact send a bill to the floor of the Senate and vote on whether to move it forward, and the effort was in fact doomed from the start because Manchin didn't like the bill and refused to back it. It's relevant because it skips a bunch of steps to just conclude "Manchin!!!  " while eliding the actual dynamics at play during that vote by presenting it as a straight up-or-down decision that failed by a razor-thin margin. Failing a cloture vote with 50 vs failing a cloture vote with 49, especially on arguably the most high-profile individual issue, signals to everyone that yeah actually you could pass the bill if the filibuster wasn't in the way, but you need to get rid of it first, which then puts a lot of pressure on Democrats who aren't named Joe Manchin who were otherwise completely protected from having to make any difficult decisions. Manchin's goofball explanation for "not liking the bill" or whatever meant nothing, and it wasn't what decided his vote. It was just filibuster defense, and it workedSimply saying "well the bill failed 49-51" isn't an accurate presentation of what actually happened and implies a level of action that didn't actually occur
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:hold on let me check this 250-year-old document written by rich white slaveowners and i'll get back to you The funniest part of this is "the council of ancient wizards has ultimate power over everything" wasn't even in the really long slaver essay everyone believes controls everything in this country--the wizards themselves just declared they had this power decades later and everybody else was like "huh ok cool I guess" TyrantWD posted:A majority of people may want abortion to stay legal, but polls were done that asked people if the overturning of Roe v Wade made them more likely to participate in the mid-terms and 57% of voters said no. Only a third said yes. Alternatively, people may just be looking at history and the things people are telling them and concluding that even if they want to protect women's rights, voting in the midterms isn't gonna do poo poo on that front
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:That is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess No it didn't lol. This is a high school social studies level take. Voter apathy is downstream of the general public's disconnection from the levers of power, not upstream of it. You could certainly argue that the general public is responsible for assenting to a system that keeps power away from them by not physically dismantling it and I wouldn't call that categorically untrue, but the claim "this mess" is a direct consequence of people not earnestly participating hard enough in a system set up to disempower them is goofy
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Manchin's explanation for opposing the bill actually matters, because he didn't say "I support this bill but I don't believe in overturning the filibuster for it". He gave the same explanation that Collins and Murkowski give: claiming that he'd vote for a bill that only codified Roe and nothing else, but that the Democrats' bill went too far. lol are we talking about the same Joe Manchin who spent all of 2021 coming up with increasingly absurd and contradictory conditions for BBB until it was officially dead in the water and then admitted afterward that he never intended to vote for the bill and was just bullshitting everyone? That Joe Manchin? I understand it's convenient for you to take him at face value in this specific instance but the dude has said from his own mouth that he straight-up lies about this poo poo for tactical utility Is there a compelling reason to believe he's telling the truth this time, especially since his specific objection to the bill was something that he literally made up
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Most people didn't see this coming until it was far too late. Sure it became obvious once Trump started winning primaries that he could win the whole thing and give his base what they want, but it was far too late at that point. lol. So what you're saying here is that it doesn't matter if the voters deliver a legislative supermajority because the majority party senators are still not going to cooperate? But it's still the fault of the lazy electorate for some reason?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:1 of those people was Lieberman, who Manchin before there was a Joe Manchin. Are you trying to suggest here that Lieberman would have interfered with passing FoCA
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:They had it for 2-3 months and used those 2-3 months to do a healthcare bill. Between the Great Recession and passing a healthcare bill, Washington was pretty occupied during that time. lol Obama had already publicly surrendered on it in April 2009 dude, and explicitly stated it was because he didn't want to make right wingers mad This is just Democrat excuse bingo right now. Invoking Lieberman in particular to defend inaction on FoCA just makes it obvious you're not chewing what you've been fed before you regurgitate it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Not like anything was happening in 2009 that would be a higher priority to the politicians of that time. Can you explain the connection you are drawing between a busy schedule and not wanting Republicans to be upset with you
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If the Democrats lose this election and further conservative bullshit continues they’ll just say “Well people have spoken and they want this. It’s democracy.” Considering we've got an ardent Democrat already posting that excuse ITT and it hasn't even happened yet, I think you're right TyrantWD posted:Well in the middle of the Great Recession, it was common for people to have more pressing priorities than codifying something everyone thought was settled and untouchable anyway. What does that have to do with Obama's stated reason for not doing it, which was because Republicans would be mad? You keep repeating they were busy but that's not what Obama said when he surrendered on it Obama posted:I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on Why did he say this? Explain how it connects to being too busy to pass an 8 page bill that did nothing but reaffirm the status quo TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I can’t tell you what was going on in 1995 or 1975 (although a cursory glance at those time periods tells you that most of the rest of those periods fell under a GOP president). You still haven't told me what the connection is between spring 2009 being busy and Obama explicitly surrendering on the codification of Roe in order to appease perceived anti-choice anger roughly six months after winning a landslide victory as a pro-choice candidate. Are you ever going to explain?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If their demands are not going to be met by voting, then that means they are unpopular, the politicians and people in power will not fear or care about them at all, and there will not be ends met by "other means". Your "other means" (unless you are talking a serious going for broke violent revolution) would result in a lot of people being chased by the FBI and going to prison for a long time, sharing cells with the 1/6 insurrection idiots. This isn't historical analysis, it's just you framing your boilerplate white moderate fears beneath a veneer of pragmatist affectation. It's shockingly obvious you don't know poo poo about actual history(or politics for that matter), and perhaps you should consider reading some books or something instead of regurgitating a slurry of early 2010s liberal blog comments you drank from a blender Rigel posted:maybe I try to help that along instead of leaving lmaooooo you absolutely would not, come on dude. Your posts are all centered around convincing yourself of a fictional reality where you're an effective political actor from the comfort of your gooncave. In this scenario, you'd be tripping over yourself to snitch (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:The party is only too happy to waste tons of cash on conservative losers like McGrath I agree with the broad points of your post, but just feel like I need to nitpick your word choice a little bit here. It's important when doing analysis on this poo poo to remember that, much like imperial wars and other things that might feel like a senseless allocation of resources if you're coming at it from a sound moral perspective, there isn't actually money being "wasted." It's not being set on fire, it's going exactly where the stewards of whatever subsystem want it to go. All the money that is often described as "wasted" in the GWoT got funneled into the war industry, and the money that gets "wasted" by Democrats likewise gets funneled into the politics industry. PACs, consultants, friendly ad agencies, legal firms--that whole sprawling apparatus packed with Democrat failkids gets fat off losers like McGrath. The overturn of Roe is an incredibly bountiful harvest for that entire ecosystem. Individual members of it may feel personally unhappy about it, but collectively they're fixing to make some fuckin BANK brother
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Harris being weak and unpopular is a feature for the party power brokers, not a bug. The more help a candidate needs to stay afloat, the more leverage you have if you're in a position to provide that help, and the more compliant the candidate will be toward your goals
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 08:46
|
|
|
Tbh assuming that Pete got his appointment by dropping out to endorse a guy he was beating actually makes the Democrats look significantly more competent, because otherwise they just put this random mayor from the middle of nowhere whose most prominent skill is faking Obama Voice in a meaningful cabinet position, and his prior experience in that realm as mayor resulted in a couple of Black kids getting run over by cars I mean maybe they did just do that, who can really say. It's a lot dumber and less defensible as a merit-based choice than a political horse trade though (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't actually pass in a polarized party system. While the democrats had a supermajority, Lyndon Johnson relied more on republican support. The "Bully Pulpit" and that guy he leaned over in that picture didn't really get him anything. Pelosi's probably right that it would be a lot easier to govern if the parties had less discipline in their voting habits, but it's obviously an attempt to complain about the senate without complaining about the filibuster or its procedure in general. The Civil Rights Act passed because they were scared of more riots, not because of reasonable bipartisan compromise lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:This is a largely unverifiable assertion, but what is verifiable is that the CRA votes happened along geographic lines, mostly, rather than along party lines. You can verify it by examining a calendar and doing a small amount of critical thinking Eric Cantonese posted:I may be wrong, but a lot of the riots you might be thinking of happened after 1966. If anything, having those riots (and the fear that it put into white people) would have crippled any chances of passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 I am talking about the 1968 CRA which was passed after a week of massive riots after MLK was assassinated, which itself had been preceded the year prior by so many riots that LBJ made a commission to figure out what the gently caress to do about it(and they recommended "pass legislation to improve conditions for Black people") HonorableTB posted:People don't protest and riot now because they have too much to lose but at the rate this is going people won't HAVE anything left to lose before long so imo it's a matter of time before the lumpenprole are so beaten and stolen from that they don't have money, food, jobs, meds, all they have left is a bunch of time and anger. I don't really disagree but I also think you're missing an element of social conditioning involved here, because all the people in the right age range for it in this country have also spent their entire lives having their brains sandblasted with the propaganda that rioting isn't an effective or moral political action
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I was, in fact, referring to the 1964 CRA, though the voting patterns of the 1968 CRA were not that different. You're right that there's more evidence behind that as why the '68 CRA passed than there was for '64. Though, honestly, the political dynamic of weak parties contributed it to being able to pass by enough to defeat filibusters. Idk I think the introduction of the two-track system and the silent filibuster probably have a lot more to do with the modern inability to defeat the filibuster than the strengthening/polarization of parties, especially given the constant excuse for why Democrats can't do much of anything right now despite holding the trifecta is that the national party has no enforcement mechanisms for its heterodox "moderates"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I still haven't been able to figure out with 100% certainty if the reason the Dem's failed to pass some of the good stuff in the last 2 years was Manchin and Sinema alone or if they were the tip of a very large iceberg running cover for everyone else. Nobody can figure it out with 100% certainty and that's the tactical point of them playing it like this. There are ample reasons to suspect others would oppose it if their opposition was necessary(including Sinema herself literally saying it out loud) but there's no way to be totally sure what any of the others are truly willing to do without them actually being in a position where it counts. Plenty have made noncomittal noises about maybe, someday, being forced into some nebulous "reform" but there's always a giant layer of deniability maintained at all times
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Sinema actually said the opposite. Oh? I've never seen the version of the quote you're describing. Can you link a source? I'd be interested in reading it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Archive.is tends to be pretty good at bypassing paywalls. Seems like a good move by McConnell if he's getting a judge he wants through an opposing trifecta while undermining what remains of Biden's public support. I don't see any reason to assume he's giving away much of anything in return, given McConnell's history of absolutely fleecing Biden quote:Biden's surprising nomination comes even as he has fiercely defended women's right to abortion, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last Friday when it overturned Roe v. Wade. This line from the article made me chuckle though. Not sure about some of those word choices
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
Considering Biden's history of getting absolutely took in deals with Republicans generally and McConnell in specific, idk why you'd ever give him the benefit of a doubt on a deal like this Refer back to this anecdote on page 1 of this thread if you need a reminder of his negotiation savvy: some plague rats posted:To lighten the mood, I was reading one of the bad threads and I ran across this extremely darkly funny excerpt from Yesterday's Man: ...yeah. Should probably not assume he extracted a reasonable deal until he proves it to you
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:It's hard to tell who public figures are through the media filter and in reality people can't really be summed up as one thing as they often are anyway. So I don't know how reliably accurate it is, but the general narrative from all the Biden stories certainly seems to be that Biden wants to be seen as a "shrewd deal maker". Perhaps out of altruism or maybe he just thinks it would make him look cool (I think it's the latter). Whether or not he's gotten any better at it over time is TBD. Well he completely hosed the dog on the fiscal cliff negotiations and in the 2020 debates aggressively characterized that debacle as "beating Mitch McConnell" so yeah altruism seems unlikely. From my vantage point he just seems like a dumb guy who wants to look smart and can be tricked very easily by people who know how to work him
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That was the deal Democrats struck with Republicans when Trump was President. What's your source for this, exactly? The reporting today is that the deal has Biden getting two US attorneys confirmed for Kentucky in exchange, which needless to say is a horrible trade BiggerBoat posted:Agree again about the Democrats' problem with messaging and that the GOP is much better at it. The RWM/GOP approach is the same as any other ubiquitous company or product like Coke, McDonalds, Budweiser, etc. who spend millions of dollars to remind people that they exist on every Super Bowl. Why? The Democrats are great at messaging though is the thing. They just use it to condition their own base and it's worked incredibly well. Like just picking a random example that's come up recently, but "Lieberman singlehandedly crippled Obama's supermajority" was so successfully propagated as an idea that people invoke his name(in this very thread, even) to defend Obama's abandonment of FoCA despite Lieberman being ardently pro-choice and having zero conceivable reason to object to codifying what was considered settled law TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Then Biden shoots it down and nothing changes. Either ends the same way basically because the current judge is relatively young for a judge and isn’t dying any time soon and probably won’t be replaced by Biden or whoever comes after by their choice. Or, hear me out, Biden could simply just not do a deal that involves getting peanuts in return for he himself personally legitimizing a Federalist Society psycho right after that org just successfully overturned Roe Also can you explain by what definition Pete is "ok"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Cimber posted:They got what they wanted, but did they _really_ want it? I don't think they actually wanted the SC to ban abortion, I think they wanted to be able to run on banning abortion. I suspect that a good number of republican strategists are quietly swearing under their breaths after this week. "The Republicans never actually wanted to get rid of Roe and winning is going to backfire on them" is just liberal coping strategy. Saying you're going to do something and then doing it when you have the chance makes your base trust you. Running on things you don't actually want to do and then throwing up excuses when you're in position to do so demoralizes your base. Like you can just hop on Twitter right now and watch in real time as many of the staunchest historical Dem defenders slide into despair at how feeble and insincere the Democrat response is. Maybe they'll all fall back in line by November but right now next to nobody actually expects the Democrats to do anything about this even if they win poo poo, even these boomerang theory posts seem to tacitly imply that the Democrats aren't really doing anything on their own and hope they're simply the beneficiary of backlash to Republican actions rather than actors themselves
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 23:59
|
|