EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1180
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2019 10:12 micronesia wrote: If the senators are so clearly pro-infanticide, why do they need to define themselves a bit better? Do you mean, they need to change their position and clearly state that they are not pro-infanticide? The point is that they are going to need to distance themselves from that foolish vote that they made a week or two ago. Catering to the most radical elements of abortion lobby is not a winning position in a general election. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35146 Posts
On March 05 2019 10:15 xDaunt wrote: The point is that they are going to need to distance themselves from that foolish vote that they made a week or two ago. Catering to the most radical elements of abortion lobby is not a winning position in a general election. Literally the only people who care about this are already anti-abortion anyway. Nobody is going to flip their vote over this. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 05 2019 10:03 xDaunt wrote: Don’t forget about the Green New Deal. AOC dropped a giant turd in the DNC punch bowl. Yeah that's another thing that is denting their chances in crucial states. But it's kind of always been the long term play and short term albatross. Dems for years have been investing in telling people that major, costly actions are justified now, because AGW is going to kill us all later if we don't do some big government scheme today. AOC's GND (and flubbed retraction) just went a little too honest and too big for this current time. It feels more like a plan that they hope will be taken seriously in ten years, but today's electorate won't buy into. That having been said, the damage control effort in the wake of its unpopularity was an unforced error. Govenor Northam (Democrat-Virginia) shocked the country by stating in an interview that a born alive infant would be kept comfortable while the mother and her doctors decided what to do with the baby. That news was soon overtaken when a pissed off medical colleague released some blackface photos from medical school. The infanticide position soon prompted legislation to preserve babies born before abortionists can do a dismemberment, which was voted down by every Democratic Senator in the 2020 race, 53-44. It's a very extreme measure in current polling on late-term abortions and infants born alive. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Frankly, I hope the Dem candidate makes a huge issue out of climate change. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2019 10:23 On_Slaught wrote: You guys are crazy if you dont think the climate is a winning issue for Dems. Sure Republicans will try and shit all over the specifics of the AOC stuff, but let's not pretend like being the party of science denial is a strong look for Republicans. The less it is talked about the better for them. Frankly, I hope the Dem candidate makes a huge issue out of climate change. The climate is not a winning issue for Dems because polling consistently shows not only that people don’t give a fuck compared to other issues, but that they give even less of a fuck when they learn what addressing climate change actually means and costs. AOC’s Green New Deal has a $50 to 90 trillion price tag per the CBO. Good luck getting people to approve that kind of expenditure when they have trouble approving tax hikes to fund healthcare expansion. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 05 2019 10:12 micronesia wrote: If the senators are so clearly pro-infanticide, why do they need to define themselves a bit better? Do you mean, they need to change their position and clearly state that they are not pro-infanticide? I used the language "define themselves a bit better." You have previously said "I gave up on discussing other political topics with danglars" when stating how you gave up on me. Given my recent temp ban without warning for a duration of five months, I'm going to have decline here until I know your intent with this question. | ||
|
ThaddeusK
United States231 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2019 11:22 ThaddeusK wrote: Honestly theres no point in engaging with Danglars about what democrats should do to win, his stance has always been and will always be they should become republicans to win. He’s not wrong that Democrats are going to be forced to moderate come the general election. The nominee is not going to win openly supporting stuff like the Green New Deal. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On March 05 2019 09:57 xDaunt wrote: There’s nothing conservative about a decision that redefines statutory terms and breaks from decades of established precedent. That said, the reasoning in Hively isn’t bad as far as judicial activism goes. You mean like what the five most "conservative" members of the supreme court did in District of Columbia v. Heller | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12176 Posts
On March 05 2019 11:22 ThaddeusK wrote: Honestly theres no point in engaging with Danglars about what democrats should do to win, his stance has always been and will always be they should become republicans to win. Generally speaking you want to look at what Danglars advocates here and do the exact opposite; Danglars doesn't just want the democrats to become republicans, he also wants them to keep losing to republicans even as they become republicans and republicans move further right. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2019 11:58 Kyadytim wrote: You mean like what the five most "conservative" members of the supreme court did in District of Columbia v. Heller There is nothing comparable between the Heller and Hively decisions. Different subjects, different forums, different reasoning, different types of precedent. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 05 2019 11:42 JimmiC wrote: Wasn't it you that no way someone like Trump wins the republican nomination before you started drinking the kool-aid. Fool you once shame on you..... I think someone not moderate is exactly what people want after the brutishness and anger of the Trump era. People don't want to compromise with a man like that. They want someone as different as possible. Like just about everyone else, I didn’t know what to make of Trump at first. He was radically different from past politicians, so excuse me if I call a mulligan on my initial assessment. At least I got it right eventually. And no, running a radical is the worst thing that the democrats can do. That will simply lead to a repeat of the 1984 election. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
A reminder that the Democrats won the last election by some pretty staggering numbers. And the Republicans lost house seats when Trump won in 2016. Republicans are hoping Clinton will be in the ballot a second time and that isn’t going to happen. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
But, hey, tell yourselves whatever fairy tales you want to comfort yourselves. It worked in 2016 until election night, right? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 05 2019 12:02 Nebuchad wrote: Generally speaking you want to look at what Danglars advocates here and do the exact opposite; Danglars doesn't just want the democrats to become republicans, he also wants them to keep losing to republicans even as they become republicans and republicans move further right. It's not exactly rocket science to deduce all Democrats need is a moderate to win back the White House. Trump's approval ratings are still low. I detailed two policies and xDaunt detailed one that put candidates on the extremes. You and ThaddeusK can insist that I want Democrats to become Republicans and to lose to Republicans even as they become Republicans, but the reality is far more mundane. I suggest you not let your partisanship cloud your judgment. | ||
| ||
