|
On October 13 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2018 02:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 00:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:40 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 20:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:08 iamthedave wrote:On October 12 2018 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 11:43 xDaunt wrote:
Killing US green card holders is a bigger deal than killing Yemenis.
As for the Democrats, I’m not sure what you expect them to do. They can’t stop the nominations, and they just got their asses handed to them in the Kavanaugh fight. The last thing Democrats need to do is obstruct more judicial nominees before the election. Objectively it isn't, but politically it sure is. It doesn't look like anything about our relationship is changing though. Not just cave to Republicans. Make a deal where you get something in return. Or at least take the L standing up. According to Danglars the Kavanaugh mess has re-energised Republicans, and it doesn't seem to have lit a spark under liberals. So what do you think's going to be the result of more obstructionism? Not much point of being a #Resistance if your resistance galvanises the #EvilEmpire and doesn't galvanise the people to support the Resistance. Apathy and infighting are enormous problems on the left. And maybe in Congress, discipline, seeing as the Democrats seem to struggle to pull in the same direction where the GOP mostly doesn't (all of the problems they've had up to now have come after certain Republicans stated over and over 'if we vote now, I'll vote now' and then, shockingly, did). So don't worry, you'll probably get that Republican win in 2020 that you want. Unless Bernie runs again and pulls a shocker, which would be immensely satisfying. The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh. They need to actually fight (at least as hard as Republicans). I don't want a Republican win though. I'd much prefer Democrats get wise to how terribly their strategy of peeling Republicans off of Trump's base has been and instead focus on fights that energize their base. But the problem is they don't want to pick those fights because they support things like Trump's obscene military budget so they can't draw contrasts other than on stupid things like decorum or things where Trump has a majority support and their messaging is awful. I don't even expect anything more from the politicians at this point, I just can't wrap my head around how people are still buying into the Democratic party's line of BS. Best I can tell most of their voters don't even buy it but simply vote Democrat to protect themselves from Republicans being worse (which is all the Democrats have run on for years and is failing for obvious reasons). Do you have a source for that bolded line? I think that generally people who don't vote just aren't paying attention to politics. Also give Democrats some credit. They managed to hold the line on ACA repeal, and made a real fight out of the tax bill and Kavanaugh nomination. Elections have consequences, and without more Democrats in Congress their ability to obstruct bad legislation is limited. Out of curiosity if Democrats manage to retake the House, what would you like them to spend their energy on? Personally I think that impeaching Trump and/or Kavanaugh would be a disaster for them politically (though doing either is supportable on the merits). I'd also be interested in hearings on the rampant corruption in the administration, but again I don't think the electorate really cares about that. Well, Tens of millions of registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election, and the share who cited a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues” as their main reason for not participating reached a new high of 25%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new Census Bureau data.
While a dislike of the candidates or issues was the most frequently cited reason for not voting, other top reasons included a lack of interest or a feeling that their vote wouldn’t make a difference (15%) I suppose technically it's ~40% of the ~47% that didn't vote, but that's a presidential year. But... being too busy or having a conflicting schedule (14%), having an illness or disability (12%) and being out of town or away from home (8%). www.pewresearch.orgThat 34% is basically saying the same thing, save the truly sick and disabled. Though that's still a matter of shitty voting laws that have long had bipartisan support preventing people from voting. The ACA enshrined insurance profits into law, of course they fought to keep it. Hilary also fought to kill any conversation about universal healthcare despite her being remarkably unpopular while Medicare for All is one of the most popular bipartisan (among the electorate) supported ideas out there but mysteriously is dead in the water with the people that allegedly represent those people. Add it to the list of gun control, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the big banks that despite wide bipartisan support miraculously can't get anywhere in congress. What do they all have in common? Big money lobbying groups paying our politicians to tell us to shove it in a way that manages to get them reelected 90%+ of the time. Democrats taking power would be mostly worthless as they will do even less than protect insurance profits like they did during the Obama administration. But yes impeachment talk is, and has been for a long time, worthless. You said "The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh." A lot of the people who don't vote would vote Republican, and a I'm willing to bet a large percentage of this non-voting group is pretty ignorant about even basic policy issues. Ignorance and apathy prevents these people from voting, not a belief that Democrats won't fight for anything. As a sidenote, the reason Medicare-for-all has polled well is because Democrats haven't widely supported it. Once it becomes a partisan issue the right wing media is going to kick into gear, and soon rank and file Republicans are going to start comparing it to slavery or death panels or something. Most people decide what policies to support based upon what their tribal allies in Congress advocate. They don't evaluate policies on merit. I want Democrats to run on Medicare-for-all but I don't think it will get them many votes. If you thought I literally meant that half the country doesn't vote specifically because they don't think Democrats fight I'm sorry for the confusion. I was making the point that politicians in general don't give a shit about them and they don't give a shit about politicians. Yeah they said the same thing about Bernie, it's crap. What you're really saying is that Democrats are so trash at messaging it's a legitimate excuse for not trying, since they'd lose anyway On October 13 2018 00:43 iamthedave wrote:
GH, do you really think Obama 'duped' the voters? Like he campaigned never intending to follow through? Is it not far more likely that he was sincere but found his ideals increasingly hard to actually put into practice once he was in power? Let's not forget 'my goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President'.
Trump's had trouble getting his agenda through while he has control of everything, same as Obama did, Yes and also yes. Is that going to be your opinion of Bernie Sanders if he gets into power and gets almost nothing done? I mean, it's highly likely he wouldn't be able to change much. Especially if the Senate is GOP controlled. I think it's safe to say Mitch is going to stonewall Bernie at least as hard if not harder than he did Obama. Obama was at least not a dirty commie. Depends on the circumstances but I'm not a big Bernie fan at this point already if you hadn't noticed. He's miles better than a typical Democrat but he's still pro imperialism and his foreign policy hasn't improved much if at all with feedback so I wouldn't expect him to change that. If he got in and signed legislation enshrining insurance profits and called that his one major achievement we could expect, then hell yes I'd think the same thing. I have to say that this "But the Republicans will stop them" isn't some sort of legitimate excuse for Democrats failing, it's simply an indictment of how bad they are at their alleged jobs.
But that is literally how your government 'works'. The legislature is a check on the power of the President; if the legislature is controlled by the other party, and the other party decides it's going to stop the President doing anything, the President can't get anything done.
It sounds like you're blaming individuals for inherent structural weaknesses in the American political system (i.e. that it falls apart when there's only two parties and those parties are at war). The Democrats had the President but not the power to do much with that President during a fair bit of Obama's term.
You reckon Trump would have been able to pass all the stuff he's passed if the Dems had a big majority in the Senate? He would have probably argued them into some things, but they'd have blocked him left and right.
|
On October 13 2018 17:30 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 02:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 00:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:40 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 20:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:08 iamthedave wrote:On October 12 2018 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Objectively it isn't, but politically it sure is. It doesn't look like anything about our relationship is changing though.
Not just cave to Republicans. Make a deal where you get something in return. Or at least take the L standing up. According to Danglars the Kavanaugh mess has re-energised Republicans, and it doesn't seem to have lit a spark under liberals. So what do you think's going to be the result of more obstructionism? Not much point of being a #Resistance if your resistance galvanises the #EvilEmpire and doesn't galvanise the people to support the Resistance. Apathy and infighting are enormous problems on the left. And maybe in Congress, discipline, seeing as the Democrats seem to struggle to pull in the same direction where the GOP mostly doesn't (all of the problems they've had up to now have come after certain Republicans stated over and over 'if we vote now, I'll vote now' and then, shockingly, did). So don't worry, you'll probably get that Republican win in 2020 that you want. Unless Bernie runs again and pulls a shocker, which would be immensely satisfying. The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh. They need to actually fight (at least as hard as Republicans). I don't want a Republican win though. I'd much prefer Democrats get wise to how terribly their strategy of peeling Republicans off of Trump's base has been and instead focus on fights that energize their base. But the problem is they don't want to pick those fights because they support things like Trump's obscene military budget so they can't draw contrasts other than on stupid things like decorum or things where Trump has a majority support and their messaging is awful. I don't even expect anything more from the politicians at this point, I just can't wrap my head around how people are still buying into the Democratic party's line of BS. Best I can tell most of their voters don't even buy it but simply vote Democrat to protect themselves from Republicans being worse (which is all the Democrats have run on for years and is failing for obvious reasons). Do you have a source for that bolded line? I think that generally people who don't vote just aren't paying attention to politics. Also give Democrats some credit. They managed to hold the line on ACA repeal, and made a real fight out of the tax bill and Kavanaugh nomination. Elections have consequences, and without more Democrats in Congress their ability to obstruct bad legislation is limited. Out of curiosity if Democrats manage to retake the House, what would you like them to spend their energy on? Personally I think that impeaching Trump and/or Kavanaugh would be a disaster for them politically (though doing either is supportable on the merits). I'd also be interested in hearings on the rampant corruption in the administration, but again I don't think the electorate really cares about that. Well, Tens of millions of registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election, and the share who cited a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues” as their main reason for not participating reached a new high of 25%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new Census Bureau data.
While a dislike of the candidates or issues was the most frequently cited reason for not voting, other top reasons included a lack of interest or a feeling that their vote wouldn’t make a difference (15%) I suppose technically it's ~40% of the ~47% that didn't vote, but that's a presidential year. But... being too busy or having a conflicting schedule (14%), having an illness or disability (12%) and being out of town or away from home (8%). www.pewresearch.orgThat 34% is basically saying the same thing, save the truly sick and disabled. Though that's still a matter of shitty voting laws that have long had bipartisan support preventing people from voting. The ACA enshrined insurance profits into law, of course they fought to keep it. Hilary also fought to kill any conversation about universal healthcare despite her being remarkably unpopular while Medicare for All is one of the most popular bipartisan (among the electorate) supported ideas out there but mysteriously is dead in the water with the people that allegedly represent those people. Add it to the list of gun control, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the big banks that despite wide bipartisan support miraculously can't get anywhere in congress. What do they all have in common? Big money lobbying groups paying our politicians to tell us to shove it in a way that manages to get them reelected 90%+ of the time. Democrats taking power would be mostly worthless as they will do even less than protect insurance profits like they did during the Obama administration. But yes impeachment talk is, and has been for a long time, worthless. You said "The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh." A lot of the people who don't vote would vote Republican, and a I'm willing to bet a large percentage of this non-voting group is pretty ignorant about even basic policy issues. Ignorance and apathy prevents these people from voting, not a belief that Democrats won't fight for anything. As a sidenote, the reason Medicare-for-all has polled well is because Democrats haven't widely supported it. Once it becomes a partisan issue the right wing media is going to kick into gear, and soon rank and file Republicans are going to start comparing it to slavery or death panels or something. Most people decide what policies to support based upon what their tribal allies in Congress advocate. They don't evaluate policies on merit. I want Democrats to run on Medicare-for-all but I don't think it will get them many votes. If you thought I literally meant that half the country doesn't vote specifically because they don't think Democrats fight I'm sorry for the confusion. I was making the point that politicians in general don't give a shit about them and they don't give a shit about politicians. Yeah they said the same thing about Bernie, it's crap. What you're really saying is that Democrats are so trash at messaging it's a legitimate excuse for not trying, since they'd lose anyway On October 13 2018 00:43 iamthedave wrote:
GH, do you really think Obama 'duped' the voters? Like he campaigned never intending to follow through? Is it not far more likely that he was sincere but found his ideals increasingly hard to actually put into practice once he was in power? Let's not forget 'my goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President'.
Trump's had trouble getting his agenda through while he has control of everything, same as Obama did, Yes and also yes. Is that going to be your opinion of Bernie Sanders if he gets into power and gets almost nothing done? I mean, it's highly likely he wouldn't be able to change much. Especially if the Senate is GOP controlled. I think it's safe to say Mitch is going to stonewall Bernie at least as hard if not harder than he did Obama. Obama was at least not a dirty commie. Depends on the circumstances but I'm not a big Bernie fan at this point already if you hadn't noticed. He's miles better than a typical Democrat but he's still pro imperialism and his foreign policy hasn't improved much if at all with feedback so I wouldn't expect him to change that. If he got in and signed legislation enshrining insurance profits and called that his one major achievement we could expect, then hell yes I'd think the same thing. I have to say that this "But the Republicans will stop them" isn't some sort of legitimate excuse for Democrats failing, it's simply an indictment of how bad they are at their alleged jobs. But that is literally how your government 'works'. The legislature is a check on the power of the President; if the legislature is controlled by the other party, and the other party decides it's going to stop the President doing anything, the President can't get anything done. It sounds like you're blaming individuals for inherent structural weaknesses in the American political system (i.e. that it falls apart when there's only two parties and those parties are at war). The Democrats had the President but not the power to do much with that President during a fair bit of Obama's term. You reckon Trump would have been able to pass all the stuff he's passed if the Dems had a big majority in the Senate? He would have probably argued them into some things, but they'd have blocked him left and right.
You seem to be implying congress and past presidents somehow don't have responsibility for their failures because that's how it works.
It's like saying "The other fighter is punching me in the face! How is it MY FAULT I'm losing?!?" They all know the rules and the game, Democrats just suck and have somehow convinced people that it's not their fault.
|
On October 13 2018 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2018 17:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 02:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 00:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:40 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 20:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:08 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
According to Danglars the Kavanaugh mess has re-energised Republicans, and it doesn't seem to have lit a spark under liberals. So what do you think's going to be the result of more obstructionism? Not much point of being a #Resistance if your resistance galvanises the #EvilEmpire and doesn't galvanise the people to support the Resistance.
Apathy and infighting are enormous problems on the left. And maybe in Congress, discipline, seeing as the Democrats seem to struggle to pull in the same direction where the GOP mostly doesn't (all of the problems they've had up to now have come after certain Republicans stated over and over 'if we vote now, I'll vote now' and then, shockingly, did).
So don't worry, you'll probably get that Republican win in 2020 that you want. Unless Bernie runs again and pulls a shocker, which would be immensely satisfying. The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh. They need to actually fight (at least as hard as Republicans). I don't want a Republican win though. I'd much prefer Democrats get wise to how terribly their strategy of peeling Republicans off of Trump's base has been and instead focus on fights that energize their base. But the problem is they don't want to pick those fights because they support things like Trump's obscene military budget so they can't draw contrasts other than on stupid things like decorum or things where Trump has a majority support and their messaging is awful. I don't even expect anything more from the politicians at this point, I just can't wrap my head around how people are still buying into the Democratic party's line of BS. Best I can tell most of their voters don't even buy it but simply vote Democrat to protect themselves from Republicans being worse (which is all the Democrats have run on for years and is failing for obvious reasons). Do you have a source for that bolded line? I think that generally people who don't vote just aren't paying attention to politics. Also give Democrats some credit. They managed to hold the line on ACA repeal, and made a real fight out of the tax bill and Kavanaugh nomination. Elections have consequences, and without more Democrats in Congress their ability to obstruct bad legislation is limited. Out of curiosity if Democrats manage to retake the House, what would you like them to spend their energy on? Personally I think that impeaching Trump and/or Kavanaugh would be a disaster for them politically (though doing either is supportable on the merits). I'd also be interested in hearings on the rampant corruption in the administration, but again I don't think the electorate really cares about that. Well, Tens of millions of registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election, and the share who cited a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues” as their main reason for not participating reached a new high of 25%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new Census Bureau data.
While a dislike of the candidates or issues was the most frequently cited reason for not voting, other top reasons included a lack of interest or a feeling that their vote wouldn’t make a difference (15%) I suppose technically it's ~40% of the ~47% that didn't vote, but that's a presidential year. But... being too busy or having a conflicting schedule (14%), having an illness or disability (12%) and being out of town or away from home (8%). www.pewresearch.orgThat 34% is basically saying the same thing, save the truly sick and disabled. Though that's still a matter of shitty voting laws that have long had bipartisan support preventing people from voting. The ACA enshrined insurance profits into law, of course they fought to keep it. Hilary also fought to kill any conversation about universal healthcare despite her being remarkably unpopular while Medicare for All is one of the most popular bipartisan (among the electorate) supported ideas out there but mysteriously is dead in the water with the people that allegedly represent those people. Add it to the list of gun control, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the big banks that despite wide bipartisan support miraculously can't get anywhere in congress. What do they all have in common? Big money lobbying groups paying our politicians to tell us to shove it in a way that manages to get them reelected 90%+ of the time. Democrats taking power would be mostly worthless as they will do even less than protect insurance profits like they did during the Obama administration. But yes impeachment talk is, and has been for a long time, worthless. You said "The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh." A lot of the people who don't vote would vote Republican, and a I'm willing to bet a large percentage of this non-voting group is pretty ignorant about even basic policy issues. Ignorance and apathy prevents these people from voting, not a belief that Democrats won't fight for anything. As a sidenote, the reason Medicare-for-all has polled well is because Democrats haven't widely supported it. Once it becomes a partisan issue the right wing media is going to kick into gear, and soon rank and file Republicans are going to start comparing it to slavery or death panels or something. Most people decide what policies to support based upon what their tribal allies in Congress advocate. They don't evaluate policies on merit. I want Democrats to run on Medicare-for-all but I don't think it will get them many votes. If you thought I literally meant that half the country doesn't vote specifically because they don't think Democrats fight I'm sorry for the confusion. I was making the point that politicians in general don't give a shit about them and they don't give a shit about politicians. Yeah they said the same thing about Bernie, it's crap. What you're really saying is that Democrats are so trash at messaging it's a legitimate excuse for not trying, since they'd lose anyway On October 13 2018 00:43 iamthedave wrote:
GH, do you really think Obama 'duped' the voters? Like he campaigned never intending to follow through? Is it not far more likely that he was sincere but found his ideals increasingly hard to actually put into practice once he was in power? Let's not forget 'my goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President'.
Trump's had trouble getting his agenda through while he has control of everything, same as Obama did, Yes and also yes. Is that going to be your opinion of Bernie Sanders if he gets into power and gets almost nothing done? I mean, it's highly likely he wouldn't be able to change much. Especially if the Senate is GOP controlled. I think it's safe to say Mitch is going to stonewall Bernie at least as hard if not harder than he did Obama. Obama was at least not a dirty commie. Depends on the circumstances but I'm not a big Bernie fan at this point already if you hadn't noticed. He's miles better than a typical Democrat but he's still pro imperialism and his foreign policy hasn't improved much if at all with feedback so I wouldn't expect him to change that. If he got in and signed legislation enshrining insurance profits and called that his one major achievement we could expect, then hell yes I'd think the same thing. I have to say that this "But the Republicans will stop them" isn't some sort of legitimate excuse for Democrats failing, it's simply an indictment of how bad they are at their alleged jobs. But that is literally how your government 'works'. The legislature is a check on the power of the President; if the legislature is controlled by the other party, and the other party decides it's going to stop the President doing anything, the President can't get anything done. It sounds like you're blaming individuals for inherent structural weaknesses in the American political system (i.e. that it falls apart when there's only two parties and those parties are at war). The Democrats had the President but not the power to do much with that President during a fair bit of Obama's term. You reckon Trump would have been able to pass all the stuff he's passed if the Dems had a big majority in the Senate? He would have probably argued them into some things, but they'd have blocked him left and right. You seem to be implying congress and past presidents somehow don't have responsibility for their failures because that's how it works. It's like saying "The other fighter is punching me in the face! How is it MY FAULT I'm losing?!?" They all know the rules and the game, Democrats just suck and have somehow convinced people that it's not their fault.
I was under the impression that past Presidents generally had better relations with Congress, and were thus able to get more things past them.
As for your second part, we'll see how things go if the Democrats get full control during Trump's reign.
|
On October 14 2018 03:00 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2018 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 17:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 02:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 00:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:40 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 20:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh. They need to actually fight (at least as hard as Republicans). I don't want a Republican win though. I'd much prefer Democrats get wise to how terribly their strategy of peeling Republicans off of Trump's base has been and instead focus on fights that energize their base.
But the problem is they don't want to pick those fights because they support things like Trump's obscene military budget so they can't draw contrasts other than on stupid things like decorum or things where Trump has a majority support and their messaging is awful.
I don't even expect anything more from the politicians at this point, I just can't wrap my head around how people are still buying into the Democratic party's line of BS. Best I can tell most of their voters don't even buy it but simply vote Democrat to protect themselves from Republicans being worse (which is all the Democrats have run on for years and is failing for obvious reasons).
Do you have a source for that bolded line? I think that generally people who don't vote just aren't paying attention to politics. Also give Democrats some credit. They managed to hold the line on ACA repeal, and made a real fight out of the tax bill and Kavanaugh nomination. Elections have consequences, and without more Democrats in Congress their ability to obstruct bad legislation is limited. Out of curiosity if Democrats manage to retake the House, what would you like them to spend their energy on? Personally I think that impeaching Trump and/or Kavanaugh would be a disaster for them politically (though doing either is supportable on the merits). I'd also be interested in hearings on the rampant corruption in the administration, but again I don't think the electorate really cares about that. Well, Tens of millions of registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election, and the share who cited a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues” as their main reason for not participating reached a new high of 25%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new Census Bureau data.
While a dislike of the candidates or issues was the most frequently cited reason for not voting, other top reasons included a lack of interest or a feeling that their vote wouldn’t make a difference (15%) I suppose technically it's ~40% of the ~47% that didn't vote, but that's a presidential year. But... being too busy or having a conflicting schedule (14%), having an illness or disability (12%) and being out of town or away from home (8%). www.pewresearch.orgThat 34% is basically saying the same thing, save the truly sick and disabled. Though that's still a matter of shitty voting laws that have long had bipartisan support preventing people from voting. The ACA enshrined insurance profits into law, of course they fought to keep it. Hilary also fought to kill any conversation about universal healthcare despite her being remarkably unpopular while Medicare for All is one of the most popular bipartisan (among the electorate) supported ideas out there but mysteriously is dead in the water with the people that allegedly represent those people. Add it to the list of gun control, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the big banks that despite wide bipartisan support miraculously can't get anywhere in congress. What do they all have in common? Big money lobbying groups paying our politicians to tell us to shove it in a way that manages to get them reelected 90%+ of the time. Democrats taking power would be mostly worthless as they will do even less than protect insurance profits like they did during the Obama administration. But yes impeachment talk is, and has been for a long time, worthless. You said "The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh." A lot of the people who don't vote would vote Republican, and a I'm willing to bet a large percentage of this non-voting group is pretty ignorant about even basic policy issues. Ignorance and apathy prevents these people from voting, not a belief that Democrats won't fight for anything. As a sidenote, the reason Medicare-for-all has polled well is because Democrats haven't widely supported it. Once it becomes a partisan issue the right wing media is going to kick into gear, and soon rank and file Republicans are going to start comparing it to slavery or death panels or something. Most people decide what policies to support based upon what their tribal allies in Congress advocate. They don't evaluate policies on merit. I want Democrats to run on Medicare-for-all but I don't think it will get them many votes. If you thought I literally meant that half the country doesn't vote specifically because they don't think Democrats fight I'm sorry for the confusion. I was making the point that politicians in general don't give a shit about them and they don't give a shit about politicians. Yeah they said the same thing about Bernie, it's crap. What you're really saying is that Democrats are so trash at messaging it's a legitimate excuse for not trying, since they'd lose anyway On October 13 2018 00:43 iamthedave wrote:
GH, do you really think Obama 'duped' the voters? Like he campaigned never intending to follow through? Is it not far more likely that he was sincere but found his ideals increasingly hard to actually put into practice once he was in power? Let's not forget 'my goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President'.
Trump's had trouble getting his agenda through while he has control of everything, same as Obama did, Yes and also yes. Is that going to be your opinion of Bernie Sanders if he gets into power and gets almost nothing done? I mean, it's highly likely he wouldn't be able to change much. Especially if the Senate is GOP controlled. I think it's safe to say Mitch is going to stonewall Bernie at least as hard if not harder than he did Obama. Obama was at least not a dirty commie. Depends on the circumstances but I'm not a big Bernie fan at this point already if you hadn't noticed. He's miles better than a typical Democrat but he's still pro imperialism and his foreign policy hasn't improved much if at all with feedback so I wouldn't expect him to change that. If he got in and signed legislation enshrining insurance profits and called that his one major achievement we could expect, then hell yes I'd think the same thing. I have to say that this "But the Republicans will stop them" isn't some sort of legitimate excuse for Democrats failing, it's simply an indictment of how bad they are at their alleged jobs. But that is literally how your government 'works'. The legislature is a check on the power of the President; if the legislature is controlled by the other party, and the other party decides it's going to stop the President doing anything, the President can't get anything done. It sounds like you're blaming individuals for inherent structural weaknesses in the American political system (i.e. that it falls apart when there's only two parties and those parties are at war). The Democrats had the President but not the power to do much with that President during a fair bit of Obama's term. You reckon Trump would have been able to pass all the stuff he's passed if the Dems had a big majority in the Senate? He would have probably argued them into some things, but they'd have blocked him left and right. You seem to be implying congress and past presidents somehow don't have responsibility for their failures because that's how it works. It's like saying "The other fighter is punching me in the face! How is it MY FAULT I'm losing?!?" They all know the rules and the game, Democrats just suck and have somehow convinced people that it's not their fault. I was under the impression that past Presidents generally had better relations with Congress, and were thus able to get more things past them. As for your second part, we'll see how things go if the Democrats get full control during Trump's reign.
I don't know what the first one has to do with my point, but the only chance for the second part is if Trump gets a second term. But most of what Trump has done has gotten Democratic support.
The most bipartisan being obscene military funding while the actual veterans get shit care/wages. Lots of profit for the same people arming the Saudi's and Israel to help them continue their ethnic cleansing campaigns though.
Manchin being the worst, actually supporting Trump more frequently than Democrats, and getting Democrat party money and support to do it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's certainly true that there hasn't been a meaningful dissenting voice to "give everyone more money and fund everything" in Congress, and that military has been first in line for the big payday. It certainly can't last, because this is way too much money just being thrown around, but it's very much to my benefit to see this continuing so I suppose I'm better off ignoring the greater good for now. Haha.
Year-to-year debt seems to have increased by $1.5 trillion if my numbers are correct.
|
On October 14 2018 10:08 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly true that there hasn't been a meaningful dissenting voice to "give everyone more money and fund everything" in Congress, and that military has been first in line for the big payday. It certainly can't last, because this is way too much money just being thrown around, but it's very much to my benefit to see this continuing so I suppose I'm better off ignoring the greater good for now. Haha.
Year-to-year debt seems to have increased by $1.5 trillion if my numbers are correct.
That's not exactly true. Things like Universal Healthcare get bipartisan opposition based on spending (despite probably costing us less as a population overall).
As long as there's profit in it there's support. Take the profit out and make it about providing something that materially improves citizens lives without profit and suddenly its patently unaffordable. Doesn't matter if the for-profit version actually ends up costing more and being worse either.
|
On October 14 2018 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2018 03:00 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 17:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 02:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 00:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2018 20:40 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
Do you have a source for that bolded line? I think that generally people who don't vote just aren't paying attention to politics.
Also give Democrats some credit. They managed to hold the line on ACA repeal, and made a real fight out of the tax bill and Kavanaugh nomination. Elections have consequences, and without more Democrats in Congress their ability to obstruct bad legislation is limited.
Out of curiosity if Democrats manage to retake the House, what would you like them to spend their energy on? Personally I think that impeaching Trump and/or Kavanaugh would be a disaster for them politically (though doing either is supportable on the merits). I'd also be interested in hearings on the rampant corruption in the administration, but again I don't think the electorate really cares about that. Well, Tens of millions of registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election, and the share who cited a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues” as their main reason for not participating reached a new high of 25%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new Census Bureau data.
While a dislike of the candidates or issues was the most frequently cited reason for not voting, other top reasons included a lack of interest or a feeling that their vote wouldn’t make a difference (15%) I suppose technically it's ~40% of the ~47% that didn't vote, but that's a presidential year. But... being too busy or having a conflicting schedule (14%), having an illness or disability (12%) and being out of town or away from home (8%). www.pewresearch.orgThat 34% is basically saying the same thing, save the truly sick and disabled. Though that's still a matter of shitty voting laws that have long had bipartisan support preventing people from voting. The ACA enshrined insurance profits into law, of course they fought to keep it. Hilary also fought to kill any conversation about universal healthcare despite her being remarkably unpopular while Medicare for All is one of the most popular bipartisan (among the electorate) supported ideas out there but mysteriously is dead in the water with the people that allegedly represent those people. Add it to the list of gun control, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the big banks that despite wide bipartisan support miraculously can't get anywhere in congress. What do they all have in common? Big money lobbying groups paying our politicians to tell us to shove it in a way that manages to get them reelected 90%+ of the time. Democrats taking power would be mostly worthless as they will do even less than protect insurance profits like they did during the Obama administration. But yes impeachment talk is, and has been for a long time, worthless. You said "The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh." A lot of the people who don't vote would vote Republican, and a I'm willing to bet a large percentage of this non-voting group is pretty ignorant about even basic policy issues. Ignorance and apathy prevents these people from voting, not a belief that Democrats won't fight for anything. As a sidenote, the reason Medicare-for-all has polled well is because Democrats haven't widely supported it. Once it becomes a partisan issue the right wing media is going to kick into gear, and soon rank and file Republicans are going to start comparing it to slavery or death panels or something. Most people decide what policies to support based upon what their tribal allies in Congress advocate. They don't evaluate policies on merit. I want Democrats to run on Medicare-for-all but I don't think it will get them many votes. If you thought I literally meant that half the country doesn't vote specifically because they don't think Democrats fight I'm sorry for the confusion. I was making the point that politicians in general don't give a shit about them and they don't give a shit about politicians. Yeah they said the same thing about Bernie, it's crap. What you're really saying is that Democrats are so trash at messaging it's a legitimate excuse for not trying, since they'd lose anyway On October 13 2018 00:43 iamthedave wrote:
GH, do you really think Obama 'duped' the voters? Like he campaigned never intending to follow through? Is it not far more likely that he was sincere but found his ideals increasingly hard to actually put into practice once he was in power? Let's not forget 'my goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President'.
Trump's had trouble getting his agenda through while he has control of everything, same as Obama did, Yes and also yes. Is that going to be your opinion of Bernie Sanders if he gets into power and gets almost nothing done? I mean, it's highly likely he wouldn't be able to change much. Especially if the Senate is GOP controlled. I think it's safe to say Mitch is going to stonewall Bernie at least as hard if not harder than he did Obama. Obama was at least not a dirty commie. Depends on the circumstances but I'm not a big Bernie fan at this point already if you hadn't noticed. He's miles better than a typical Democrat but he's still pro imperialism and his foreign policy hasn't improved much if at all with feedback so I wouldn't expect him to change that. If he got in and signed legislation enshrining insurance profits and called that his one major achievement we could expect, then hell yes I'd think the same thing. I have to say that this "But the Republicans will stop them" isn't some sort of legitimate excuse for Democrats failing, it's simply an indictment of how bad they are at their alleged jobs. But that is literally how your government 'works'. The legislature is a check on the power of the President; if the legislature is controlled by the other party, and the other party decides it's going to stop the President doing anything, the President can't get anything done. It sounds like you're blaming individuals for inherent structural weaknesses in the American political system (i.e. that it falls apart when there's only two parties and those parties are at war). The Democrats had the President but not the power to do much with that President during a fair bit of Obama's term. You reckon Trump would have been able to pass all the stuff he's passed if the Dems had a big majority in the Senate? He would have probably argued them into some things, but they'd have blocked him left and right. You seem to be implying congress and past presidents somehow don't have responsibility for their failures because that's how it works. It's like saying "The other fighter is punching me in the face! How is it MY FAULT I'm losing?!?" They all know the rules and the game, Democrats just suck and have somehow convinced people that it's not their fault. I was under the impression that past Presidents generally had better relations with Congress, and were thus able to get more things past them. As for your second part, we'll see how things go if the Democrats get full control during Trump's reign. I don't know what the first one has to do with my point, but the only chance for the second part is if Trump gets a second term. But most of what Trump has done has gotten Democratic support. The most bipartisan being obscene military funding while the actual veterans get shit care/wages. Lots of profit for the same people arming the Saudi's and Israel to help them continue their ethnic cleansing campaigns though. Manchin being the worst, actually supporting Trump more frequently than Democrats, and getting Democrat party money and support to do it.
Currently Trump is on course for a second term and we both believe that.
He has all the metrics in his favour; the economy is on the up, people are seeing general better living standards vs the prior regime, he's getting much of his platform into action, and his key policies seem to be reaping dividends. If this trade war business works out in his favour - and he's successfully spinning it as such so far and it at least hasn't done any damage - he'll have a rock solid base to campaign on.
It's already established that 'Trump is the worst' (despite being true) is not a campaign strategy. What can a theoretical Democrat do that beats 'I am making you richer day by day - here's proof aside from your own payslips - and making America great again - see this awesome trade deal even the Libs admit is good'?
There's still two years for things to go sour, but so far it's all trending upwards for Team Trump.
|
On October 14 2018 19:44 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2018 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2018 03:00 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 17:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 02:30 iamthedave wrote:On October 13 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2018 00:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 12 2018 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Well, [quote] I suppose technically it's ~40% of the ~47% that didn't vote, but that's a presidential year. But... [quote] www.pewresearch.orgThat 34% is basically saying the same thing, save the truly sick and disabled. Though that's still a matter of shitty voting laws that have long had bipartisan support preventing people from voting. The ACA enshrined insurance profits into law, of course they fought to keep it. Hilary also fought to kill any conversation about universal healthcare despite her being remarkably unpopular while Medicare for All is one of the most popular bipartisan (among the electorate) supported ideas out there but mysteriously is dead in the water with the people that allegedly represent those people. Add it to the list of gun control, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the big banks that despite wide bipartisan support miraculously can't get anywhere in congress. What do they all have in common? Big money lobbying groups paying our politicians to tell us to shove it in a way that manages to get them reelected 90%+ of the time. Democrats taking power would be mostly worthless as they will do even less than protect insurance profits like they did during the Obama administration. But yes impeachment talk is, and has been for a long time, worthless. You said "The half of the country that doesn't vote doesn't believe Democrats will fight anything other than theatrically like Kavanaugh." A lot of the people who don't vote would vote Republican, and a I'm willing to bet a large percentage of this non-voting group is pretty ignorant about even basic policy issues. Ignorance and apathy prevents these people from voting, not a belief that Democrats won't fight for anything. As a sidenote, the reason Medicare-for-all has polled well is because Democrats haven't widely supported it. Once it becomes a partisan issue the right wing media is going to kick into gear, and soon rank and file Republicans are going to start comparing it to slavery or death panels or something. Most people decide what policies to support based upon what their tribal allies in Congress advocate. They don't evaluate policies on merit. I want Democrats to run on Medicare-for-all but I don't think it will get them many votes. If you thought I literally meant that half the country doesn't vote specifically because they don't think Democrats fight I'm sorry for the confusion. I was making the point that politicians in general don't give a shit about them and they don't give a shit about politicians. Yeah they said the same thing about Bernie, it's crap. What you're really saying is that Democrats are so trash at messaging it's a legitimate excuse for not trying, since they'd lose anyway On October 13 2018 00:43 iamthedave wrote:
GH, do you really think Obama 'duped' the voters? Like he campaigned never intending to follow through? Is it not far more likely that he was sincere but found his ideals increasingly hard to actually put into practice once he was in power? Let's not forget 'my goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President'.
Trump's had trouble getting his agenda through while he has control of everything, same as Obama did, Yes and also yes. Is that going to be your opinion of Bernie Sanders if he gets into power and gets almost nothing done? I mean, it's highly likely he wouldn't be able to change much. Especially if the Senate is GOP controlled. I think it's safe to say Mitch is going to stonewall Bernie at least as hard if not harder than he did Obama. Obama was at least not a dirty commie. Depends on the circumstances but I'm not a big Bernie fan at this point already if you hadn't noticed. He's miles better than a typical Democrat but he's still pro imperialism and his foreign policy hasn't improved much if at all with feedback so I wouldn't expect him to change that. If he got in and signed legislation enshrining insurance profits and called that his one major achievement we could expect, then hell yes I'd think the same thing. I have to say that this "But the Republicans will stop them" isn't some sort of legitimate excuse for Democrats failing, it's simply an indictment of how bad they are at their alleged jobs. But that is literally how your government 'works'. The legislature is a check on the power of the President; if the legislature is controlled by the other party, and the other party decides it's going to stop the President doing anything, the President can't get anything done. It sounds like you're blaming individuals for inherent structural weaknesses in the American political system (i.e. that it falls apart when there's only two parties and those parties are at war). The Democrats had the President but not the power to do much with that President during a fair bit of Obama's term. You reckon Trump would have been able to pass all the stuff he's passed if the Dems had a big majority in the Senate? He would have probably argued them into some things, but they'd have blocked him left and right. You seem to be implying congress and past presidents somehow don't have responsibility for their failures because that's how it works. It's like saying "The other fighter is punching me in the face! How is it MY FAULT I'm losing?!?" They all know the rules and the game, Democrats just suck and have somehow convinced people that it's not their fault. I was under the impression that past Presidents generally had better relations with Congress, and were thus able to get more things past them. As for your second part, we'll see how things go if the Democrats get full control during Trump's reign. I don't know what the first one has to do with my point, but the only chance for the second part is if Trump gets a second term. But most of what Trump has done has gotten Democratic support. The most bipartisan being obscene military funding while the actual veterans get shit care/wages. Lots of profit for the same people arming the Saudi's and Israel to help them continue their ethnic cleansing campaigns though. Manchin being the worst, actually supporting Trump more frequently than Democrats, and getting Democrat party money and support to do it. Currently Trump is on course for a second term and we both believe that. He has all the metrics in his favour; the economy is on the up, people are seeing general better living standards vs the prior regime, he's getting much of his platform into action, and his key policies seem to be reaping dividends. If this trade war business works out in his favour - and he's successfully spinning it as such so far and it at least hasn't done any damage - he'll have a rock solid base to campaign on. It's already established that 'Trump is the worst' (despite being true) is not a campaign strategy. What can a theoretical Democrat do that beats 'I am making you richer day by day - here's proof aside from your own payslips - and making America great again - see this awesome trade deal even the Libs admit is good'?There's still two years for things to go sour, but so far it's all trending upwards for Team Trump.
Was that a serious question or an expression of how hosed we are?
|
So Elizabeth Warren apparently went out and proved that she is between 1/512 and 1/32 Native American. This definitely does not strike me as the action of someone who is a serious contender for president.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 15 2018 22:32 xDaunt wrote:
So Elizabeth Warren apparently went out and proved that she is between 1/512 and 1/32 Native American. This definitely does not strike me as the action of someone who is a serious contender for president.
To be honest I just kind of don't really care. Her shot to prove herself contender-worthy was DNC 2016 and as you said, she kind of just showed that she was a one trick pony in her speech there.
|
On October 15 2018 22:32 xDaunt wrote:
So Elizabeth Warren apparently went out and proved that she is between 1/512 and 1/32 Native American. This definitely does not strike me as the action of someone who is a serious contender for president.
It couldn't have been more typical of a particular strain of Democrats that are some of the core of what's wrong with their version of "identity politics".
Not to be one-upped on obliviousness...
The funny part of this is it's exposing how fraudulent the entire system has been when it comes to Saudi Arabia.
|
Trump’s tweet isn’t a sign of him being oblivious. He is sending Pompeo over there precisely because he knows what likely happened and is taking it seriously. He is simply managing the optics of his intervention.
|
On October 15 2018 22:51 xDaunt wrote:
Trump’s tweet isn’t a sign of him being oblivious. He is sending Pompeo over there precisely because he knows what likely happened and is taking it seriously. He is simply managing the optics of his intervention.
I mean you can read it as that if you want, reads more like he's pretending to be serious about something he doesn't understand beyond Saudi's have a lot of money and he wants it to me.
As to Warren, she recently said:
“My mother’s family was part Native American. And my daddy’s parents were bitterly opposed to their relationship. So, in 1932, when Mother was 19 and Daddy had just turned 20, they eloped.”
Which has so much to unpack I'll just point out it's perfectly possible it's the story she was told and it's just bullshit like most people believe their parents stories until they have kids (or close friends do) and realize how much parents lie to them.
|
As you pointed out, Fauxcahontas' statements about her Native American heritage show a big chunk of what is wrong with Democrat identity politics. It's more about checking a box than anything else. I'm not at all surprised that she is guilty of this. This particular problem has completely infested higher academia. Maybe the ridicule that Warren is going to receive, plus the lawsuit that Asians are bringing against Harvard, will start to stamp it out.
|
Warren checked a box for educational advancement when it could help her. She doubled down back in the day instead of saying she saw an opportunity and seized it, and didn’t really know how much of her ancestry was Native American. Now, she’s that schoolmarmy hectoring left winger that considers herself a white Native American and that’s about as much as people will care about her.
This MBS stuff is interesting. Saudi Arabian relations are in flux with what he’s done in power and Iran reasserting itself in the region. The chunk of the world is in flux with the #resistance vs Trump and UK vs EU. New rules of the international order (or lack thereof, or old rules remade) are in effect. It’s a cool time to be alive.
|
Warren wouldn't get the support we need anyway. I mean, she has some good sides and she's certainly better than Hillary Clinton if that's the bar, but she can't really rally the left in the way that is required.
|
On October 16 2018 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:
Warren wouldn't get the support we need anyway. I mean, she has some good sides and she's certainly better than Hillary Clinton if that's the bar, but she can't really rally the left in the way that is required.
There certainly has been no shortage of Democrats who think that Warren is the solution. But yeah, I've never seen it.
|
Drudge is reporting that the Saudis are about to admit to killing the journalist. Should be interesting.
|
She publicly released the 1/1024+ findings thinking it would help her image recover and stick it to Trump. That makes her remarkable in possessing less political acumen than Hillary Clinton.
She might not even be top 5 right now.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
She feels like the “party prescribed progressive” at this point. The lack of charisma and the sense that she’s just a one trick pony is a problem in and of itself, but at the last election I remember it being said (very likely sourced to party officials) that they wanted to put in Warren to appeal to the Sanders voters but that they were too sexist to accept her or something. I am inclined to roll my eyes at that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
