US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7381

On April 23 2017 01:01 ChristianS wrote:

Right now there's no reason for Republicans to nuke the filibuster to get Obamacare repeal passed because they're using reconciliation to do it anyway (by the way, remember the ruckus Republicans raised when Dems talked about maybe possibly using reconciliation to pass the ACA?). A number of the reforms they want are quite evidently not budgetary, so reconciliation doesn't seem like it should apply - but there's no cause for outrage about their unscrupulousness just yet because so far it seems to be outstripped by their ineptitude.

Happy bday btw

On April 23 2017 02:16 Falling wrote:

During the Gorsusch hearing, it seemed the other way around as far as who was slaying it. Franken kept trying to bait Gorsuch into making political commentaries on current events, trying one tack then the other. Gorsuch quite tactfully (and in my opinion in a very classy way) refused to bite, reminding Franken that it is the duty of the judge to remain above the political fray. I went from being pretty dubious about the fellow to rather respectful of him.

Incidentally, I'm halfway through the Count of Monte Christo for the first time... why of all people did you choose to call yourself Danglars? Or is it not in reference to that story?

On April 23 2017 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah, see, Democrats see calling out billionaires trying to manipulate the government to get even more billions, donating countless sums into both parties to protect their bottom lines, even if that comes at the direct expense of the people the politicians are supposed to represent, etc... as "demagogy".

Bernie supporters see it as a small but necessary step if we're ever going to actually do things with overwhelming bipartisan support (outside of the people getting the money) like getting money out of politics (the root of what's preventing pretty much all other progress).

Then there's the nonsense about "being easy to be popular" as if no one but Bernie is trying, or that the unrelenting unpopularity of the Democratic party is just a result of having to be the opposition party and not genuinely being dislike by most of the country as opposed to Bernie who a majority of the country likes, trusts, etc... Like he hasn't been in DC for decades.

Some point you all will have to come to grips that the reason why he's popular isn't the long list of bullshit you guys attribute it to, it's that he's sincere and people support what he's saying.

On April 23 2017 05:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
someone should conduct a study on whether there's a connection between choosing heroic or villainous nicknames and political affiliation.

On April 23 2017 05:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
someone should conduct a study on whether there's a connection between choosing heroic or villainous nicknames and political affiliation.

On April 23 2017 05:42 zlefin wrote:

the notion that the billionaires are the main thing preventing all other progress is naive; and another aspect of the effects of the demagogic scapegoating; rather than recognizing the complicated realities of the situation.
while I would like to cut down on the money in politics (as indeed the democratic party itself has been pushing for to an extent), it's not so simple as that.
And it's not nonsense about being easy to be popular, it's quite well founded. if you're going to ignore that amply documented reality that it's easier when you're not trying to actually govern then there's little point in talking.
that you can't see the demagogy for what it is shows why it's so dangerous. A lot of Trump supporters also couldn't see the demagogy for what it was (or chose to ignore it). unlike Trump, Bernie is far saner, and has a much better sense of the political realities of the situations. but I still dislike the trend.
attacking a maligned group is easy. actual well thought out workable solutions are hard.

at any rate we seem to be veering back into unproductive territory.

On April 23 2017 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


As you seem incapable of even being able to distinguish billionaires from "money in politics" indicates you are correct to assume this will be a wholly unproductive exchange.

On April 23 2017 06:01 zlefin wrote:

since your first two paragraphs were
"Yeah, see, Democrats see calling out billionaires trying to manipulate the government to get even more billions, donating countless sums into both parties to protect their bottom lines, even if that comes at the direct expense of the people the politicians are supposed to represent, etc... as "demagogy".

Bernie supporters see it as a small but necessary step if we're ever going to actually do things with overwhelming bipartisan support (outside of the people getting the money) like getting money out of politics (the root of what's preventing pretty much all other progress).
"

then it's entirely justified to say you're calling that a major part of the problem.
so no, you're trolling, and ignoring your own statements to make yourself better. your argumentation is of poor quality, as usual.

that the billionaires are the main thing preventing all other progress

so i'm done dealing with your ignorance and trying to educate you. good day sir.

On April 23 2017 06:00 LegalLord wrote:

You have a problem with sarcastic complaining one-liners and you make it known... with a sarcastic complaining one-liner?

In this case, though, the means and point are quite appropriate. Trump's talking points about the depleted military and budget are quite self-contradictory and the contradiction is best pointed out through sarcastic mockery.

On April 23 2017 06:06 zlefin wrote:
your two paragraphs either don't go with each other, or they do, either you contradict yourself one way, or the other. and it's demagogy either way. so as I said, good day sir.

On April 23 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:


lol no, they don't I'm saying calling out billionaires for the role they are playing is a small but necessary step and you seem to not understand what that means.

On April 23 2017 06:10 zlefin wrote:

perhaps you are right ona few of the points, but you've spewed far too many bad ones, so I stand by my attempt to disengage.

On April 23 2017 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


Roflmao, com'on maan.

I'll take a vague admission that you were wrong with a vague and aimless accusation that I was too as a good faith attempt to disengage.

On April 23 2017 06:14 zlefin wrote:

good, I'm glad you agree to disengage then.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) is the country’s most popular active politician, underscoring his importance to the Democratic Party as it seeks to rebuild in the wake of a disastrous 2016 election cycle.

Sanders is viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters, according to data from a Harvard-Harris survey provided exclusively to The Hill. Sanders is the only person in a field of 16 Trump administration officials or congressional leaders included in the survey who is viewed favorably by a majority of those polled.

Still, no other Democrat comes close to matching Sanders’s popularity.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a progressive and potential presidential candidate in 2020, is in positive territory at 38 percent favorable and 32 unfavorable.

Clinton is at 42 percent positive and 53 percent negative. That’s down from a 44-51 split in same poll in February.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed favorably by 31 percent of registered voters and unfavorably by 48 percent, while Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is at 27 percent positive and 35 percent negative.