|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 15 2018 02:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:20 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 02:18 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 01:40 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 01:08 Plansix wrote:
Senate Democrats are lining up in opposition. So it’s like every nomination and appointment since the inauguration? lol. You really didn’t think very hard about this post before you wrote it, did you? You sure you want stand by that assertion? Senate Democrats have been doing that for a slew of nominees, even moderate Democrats showing their true colors for all to see. You could blindly predict Senate Democrats lining up to oppose a Trump appointment and have an excellent batting average. But maybe you’re still sore about Scalia’s seat? Who knows these days. A “slew of nominees” is not “every nomination and appointment since the inauguration”, so I’ll take that as you correcting your mistake. Thank you for doing so. The response has been so massive and so massively different than Republican Senators during Obama’s appointments to very truly be called “like every nominee and appointment.” It’s the culmination of #Resist, so own it.
It is almost like things changed in 8 years, it is a different president and Trump’s nominees are nowhere near as qualified as Obama’s. And most of Trumps nominees have been total disasters, so it’s not like the opposition didn’t have merit. You might have to consider the possibility that Obama just better at being president that Trump.
|
On March 15 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:22 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 02:20 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 02:18 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 01:40 Danglars wrote:Senate Democrats are lining up in opposition. So it’s like every nomination and appointment since the inauguration? lol. You really didn’t think very hard about this post before you wrote it, did you? You sure you want stand by that assertion? Senate Democrats have been doing that for a slew of nominees, even moderate Democrats showing their true colors for all to see. You could blindly predict Senate Democrats lining up to oppose a Trump appointment and have an excellent batting average. But maybe you’re still sore about Scalia’s seat? Who knows these days. A “slew of nominees” is not “every nomination and appointment since the inauguration”, so I’ll take that as you correcting your mistake. Thank you for doing so. The response has been so massive and so massively different than Republican Senators during Obama’s appointments to very truly be called “like every nominee and appointment.” It’s the culmination of #Resist, so own it. It is almost like things changed in 8 years, it is a different president and Trump’s nominees are nowhere near as qualified as Obama’s. And most of Trumps nominees have been total disasters, so it’s not like the opposition didn’t have merit. You might have to consider the possibility that Obama just better at being president that Trump.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that admission may be a long time in coming.
|
Almost every cabinet position Trump has nominated has gotten Democratic votes. I don't even understand why this is an argument.
|
Democrats are bad at whipping their party members.
The sky is blue.
|
The Republicans would have the same problem if the Democrats controlled the Senate. They get to dodge that issue because Lord Turtle can just prevent a bill or nominee from coming to the floor for a vote.
|
On March 15 2018 02:42 farvacola wrote:
Democrats are bad at whipping their party members.
The sky is blue.
So you see why this argument about how fiercely Democrats are opposing Trump nominees doesn't make any sense?
On March 15 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:
The Republicans would have the same problem if the Democrats controlled the Senate. They get to dodge that issue because Lord Turtle can just prevent a bill or nominee from coming to the floor for a vote.
Did they when Democrats controlled the senate?
EDIT: I'm guessing your lack of response to this is a 'no, i just think it will be different this time'
|
The Dems who represent the aspects of the party that I approve of have been pretty consistent with their opposition. The rest are either corporate shills or not actually to the left, so meh.
|
On March 15 2018 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The Dems who represent the aspects of the party that I approve of have been pretty consistent with their opposition. The rest are either corporate shills or not actually to the left, so meh.
If they don't represent the party, they shouldn't be in/supported by it, no? Corporate shills wouldn't be a part of a party I was.
|
Specifically what a party represents is a fluid and changing concept that turns, in part, on the input of its members, including both mainstreamers and boundary pushers.
|
On March 15 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:50 farvacola wrote:
The Dems who represent the aspects of the party that I approve of have been pretty consistent with their opposition. The rest are either corporate shills or not actually to the left, so meh. If they don't represent the party, they shouldn't be in/supported by it, no?
Considering that the US parties are basically broad coalitions already, I disagree with your premise.
'The party' is not some single minded group nor should it be in the context of the US political system.
|
You have to include as many right-wing individuals as you can GreenHorizon! How else will you win elections so spectacularly, overwhelmingly and consistently?
|
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side.
|
On March 15 2018 02:55 a_flayer wrote:
You have to include as many right-wing individuals as you can GreenHorizon! How else will you win elections so spectacularly, overwhelmingly and consistently?
Nice strawman but no one even mentioned right wing.
'The left' is not a single data point. You can be left wing and to the right of another persons position.
|
It is a weird criticism, because the Democrats just picked up a seat with a conservative, pro-labor candidate in deep red country. Unions generally not socially liberal.
|
On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side.
As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions.
Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process.
|
On March 15 2018 02:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:55 a_flayer wrote:
You have to include as many right-wing individuals as you can GreenHorizon! How else will you win elections so spectacularly, overwhelmingly and consistently? Nice strawman but no one even mentioned right wing. 'The left' is not a single data point. You can be left wing and to the right of another persons position.
I would say 'center' to avoid the semantic argument, but Democrats are the 'left' by way of social issues only. They are 'right-wing' by any reasonable economic measure that isn't wholly self-absorbed.
On March 15 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:
It is a weird criticism, because the Democrats just picked up a seat with a conservative, pro-labor candidate in deep red country. Unions generally not socially liberal.
The (formerly, circa 2003 D) seat, opened up by a disgraced Republican that won't exist next election?
Keep tootin that horn...
On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process.
Or the people currently sharing a party with them can leave them in irrelevance. But I suppose if you absolve the populace of any responsibility in their democracy, your way works too.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37055 Posts
On March 14 2018 07:31 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 02:10 xDaunt wrote:
Only an imbecile would think that Trump has no vision. He very clearly does. Whether you agree with that vision is another story. Only an imbecile would think that trump has a vision. He very clearly does not. Whether or not you try to fit his fumbling around into a vision is another story.
Let's drop the "imbecile" talk now.
|
On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process.
Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven this tactic to be highly effective. Not participating does nothing but assure the victory of the other side.
|
On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing.
Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs.
Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely.
|
On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely.
Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
