US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1791

On September 08 2019 18:11 Fildun wrote:
To call what that journalist did "asking a question" seems to me like a very generous interpretation of what happened there.
Even if you do want to call it a question it's a pretty shite question.

She then explains her position on the issues surrounding the military budget.
This all seems incredibly standard stuff that literally every politician ever does. Hell, I'd practically do the same on fucking high school tests.

On September 09 2019 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I think all of the major Democratic politicians, figureheads, and candidates should unify and rally behind whoever wins the primary.

Also happy birthday

On September 09 2019 01:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I find it interesting that if politicians don't martyr themselves, they've betrayed the people in some way. Choosing which battles to fight and which to concede is simple concept. Warren raising the military budget is one of those things. Why fight something that will get passed anyway, just to show that you stood on your principles?

We all saw what happened to Obama when he stuck to his principles and it cost him the ability to get a lot of what he campaigned on done. trump is the result of those who think standing by your principles is the best tactic. In this political atmosphere, gaining support and working across the aisle to get things done in the best interests of the citizens takes place. Now, corruption is not what I'm suggesting, but quid pro quo is definitely a tactic that should be employed.

In regards to the Democrats, they have to unify under one nominee, no matter who it is, in order to take back Congress and ultimately the WH. The policies put in place can be undone. But if you stay splintered because of whatever idiotic reason, then you're ensuring the Republicans hold onto power and nothing changes.

To answer JimmiC's question: It shows that you're willing to be taken advantage of. That you choose to abstain from being involved because your candidate failed to get the nomination, is childish. If Warren gets it or Sanders gets it, it doesn't matter. If they don't unify and get the Congressional seats, then it'll be another stalemate and nothing still won't get done. Thinking Sanders will waltz in and a political revolution in terms of policy is going to change anything is fantasy. Obama had to sign executive actions like crazy to get things moving forward. What makes anyone think Sanders or whomever won't have the same problems isn't seeing the reality of the situation.

On September 09 2019 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:
I disagree with reaching across the aisle and quid pro quo.
The Republican party has made it clear time and time again that they will not work with Democrats under pretty much any circumstance.
Until the GOP openly changes its stance there is no point in trying to work with them, even if that means an unworkable situation because the situation is already unworkable.

You talk about Obama getting nothing done because he stood on his principles while he repeatedly tried to get the GOP to work with him, the ACA turned into the watered down system it is because they tried to get Republicans (and right fringe Democrats) on board, instead they have spend the last 10 years pissing on it.
Obama got nothing done because he was a black President while a party controlled by a racist base was in charge of Congress, not because he refused to compromise.

On September 09 2019 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Thanks for the data. It's very frustrating. There are hypothetical solutions to each of these categories; we just need them to be put into practice.

And it keeps our registration rolls accurate (unlike misguided purges, including the one in 2016 that improperly deleted more than 200,000 names from the voter rolls in New York City).