|
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 |
http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703
The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied."
Oh my god is this man even capable of doing anything which isn't just straight up moustache twirling evil for his own benefits?
User was warned for this post.
|
On June 08 2018 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 00:37 CatharsisUT wrote:On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: ![[image loading]](https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180404_states_fullwidth.png) This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? You mean other than his votes? Like the one that saved the ACA last year? Do you think they get those votes if they kick Manchin out? I know you're all about the ideological purity, but having someone who votes with you a lot is better than having someone who votes with you never. jfc. You don't get to be condescending and ignorant of the topic/discussion. You have to pick one. Catch up to the discussion where your question is answered, or don't act like you're adding something of value that we didn't know. At least now it's quite clear people are repeating that slogan without really knowing what they are talking about. Show nested quote +Edit: was on prior page when I responded, but I see many others have made the point.
Instead, then, I'll ask this. What's the better alternative for Democrats to Joe Manchin? Do you think having a Republican in the seat would somehow be better for the Democrats? Do you think there is another Democrat who could win the seat? I get not liking him, I'm just not seeing a clear path to improvement.
I'm not supposed to keep telling you to read so I'll just answer again that I'm waiting on what difference it would have made to have a Republican there. So far the only thing we got is "Skinny repeal" would have went back to the House if there was a Republican there. Hardly worth calling him a member of the 'left' party imo.
I've read. You have failed to provide an answer. You just keep saying it's not worth having him there. I think that's silly.
First, your dismissal of the ACA vote seems short-sighted. The House was always the easier sell. They would have either gone to conference (undeniably a step toward repeal) or, if that wasn't going to be fruitful, the House always has the opportunity to go back and just pass the Senate bill. When faced with that alternative or nothing, they certainly might have done it. Acting like the vote that stopped this process was pointless is not reasonable.
Second, you're trying to make this more complicated than it is. In a close Senate, having a Senator who votes with you most of the time is inherently valuable. It doesn't just affect votes that get to the floor, it affects the entire dynamic of the Senate. Acting like one vote in a 51-49 Senate is irrelevant doesn't make sense on its face; even if you only get half of his votes, 51.5-48.5 is better than 52-48. The fact that you can't point to a specific vote where it mattered (ignoring the ACA vote previously discussed) is not evidence that he might as well not be there.
|
On June 08 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 00:44 CatharsisUT wrote:
See edit above. I've caught up. I still don't know what you're proposing as a better alternative for the Democrats. Kick him out...then what? Presumably sleep a little better knowing you didn't spend millions to support a guy who supports Trump. But to give your question more credit than it's due, focus on building a party that doesn't have to support people who support Trump "more than some Republicans" in order to get empty and symbolic 'majorities', or as it sits currently, a minority.
But majorities and minorities aren't just "symbolic." Depending on November, there's a chance that Manchin could be the difference in who holds the majority and determines what bills hit the floor. That's not symbolic at all.
|
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
|
On June 08 2018 00:31 Plansix wrote:
Those online quizzes working to fund some journalism. Apparently there are calls in the German government to eject our ambassador. Never in my life time did I think we would be dumb enough to piss of Germany to the point where they would openly talk about ejecting our ambassador. And congress doesn’t give a shit.
Not inside the government, but by the party leadership of "Die Linke", a leftwing opposition party (at around 10%).
The government parties are way to diplomatic for that. So nothing will happen, but he will get some "serious talk" and then will probably get ignored as much as possible like most of the Trump clowns.
|
On June 08 2018 00:57 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 00:37 CatharsisUT wrote:On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. [quote] www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? You mean other than his votes? Like the one that saved the ACA last year? Do you think they get those votes if they kick Manchin out? I know you're all about the ideological purity, but having someone who votes with you a lot is better than having someone who votes with you never. jfc. You don't get to be condescending and ignorant of the topic/discussion. You have to pick one. Catch up to the discussion where your question is answered, or don't act like you're adding something of value that we didn't know. At least now it's quite clear people are repeating that slogan without really knowing what they are talking about. Edit: was on prior page when I responded, but I see many others have made the point.
Instead, then, I'll ask this. What's the better alternative for Democrats to Joe Manchin? Do you think having a Republican in the seat would somehow be better for the Democrats? Do you think there is another Democrat who could win the seat? I get not liking him, I'm just not seeing a clear path to improvement.
I'm not supposed to keep telling you to read so I'll just answer again that I'm waiting on what difference it would have made to have a Republican there. So far the only thing we got is "Skinny repeal" would have went back to the House if there was a Republican there. Hardly worth calling him a member of the 'left' party imo. I've read. You have failed to provide an answer. You just keep saying it's not worth having him there. I think that's silly. First, your dismissal of the ACA vote seems short-sighted. The House was always the easier sell. They would have either gone to conference (undeniably a step toward repeal) or, if that wasn't going to be fruitful, the House always has the opportunity to go back and just pass the Senate bill. When faced with that alternative or nothing, they certainly might have done it. Acting like the vote that stopped this process was pointless is not reasonable. Second, you're trying to make this more complicated than it is. In a close Senate, having a Senator who votes with you most of the time is inherently valuable. It doesn't just affect votes that get to the floor, it affects the entire dynamic of the Senate. Acting like one vote in a 51-49 Senate is irrelevant doesn't make sense on its face; even if you only get half of his votes, 51.5-48.5 is better than 52-48. The fact that you can't point to a specific vote where it mattered (ignoring the ACA vote previously discussed) is not evidence that he might as well not be there.
Are you sure you read?
First, the house said they weren't passing it. It wasn't "an easier sell". They were both passing bills back and forth trying to leave the blame for it dying on the other body. Ryan didn't want it back so he signaled to the senators that were considering voting for it "hey, if you pass this you're not getting the repeal, the house will send something back, and you'll have commercials running against you for both supporting it and opposing the shit heap we send back".
Second, no I'm trying to make this very simple. Several people repeat the platitude about it being better to sell out alleged party values in order to have a Trump supporter with a D instead of an R next to his name and the only thing they can point to they are getting in return was that vote. '
What's not quite clear (but seems pretty certain at this point) is if that's (the vote to send a bill back to the house) the best/only example of why it's worth it
On June 08 2018 01:03 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 00:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 00:44 CatharsisUT wrote:
See edit above. I've caught up. I still don't know what you're proposing as a better alternative for the Democrats. Kick him out...then what? Presumably sleep a little better knowing you didn't spend millions to support a guy who supports Trump. But to give your question more credit than it's due, focus on building a party that doesn't have to support people who support Trump "more than some Republicans" in order to get empty and symbolic 'majorities', or as it sits currently, a minority. But majorities and minorities aren't just "symbolic." Depending on November, there's a chance that Manchin could be the difference in who holds the majority and determines what bills hit the floor. That's not symbolic at all.
I'm reading this as a concession on the previous point on his vote not meaning much.
So the abandoning of party values to support a Trump supporter are in the hopes that Democrats win a majority that will hopefully get the Trump supporter not to switch sides after he's milked all he can out of the party and can now switch parties and go full Republican before retiring into a career as a lobbyist for the corporations he worked for as a Senator?
Not that it was worth it having him all these years, but rejecting the idea they should have been building a more progressive party, for the hope that Manchin would do something useful by existing with a D next to his name.
|
On June 08 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. Evacuates Multiple Employees From Chinese Consulate Over Mysterious Illness
The U.S. State Department has sent "a number of individuals" from the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China, back to the U.S. after screenings showed they may have been affected by mysterious health problems similar to what diplomats experienced in Cuba.
Two weeks ago, the agency said one government employee in Guangzhou experienced "vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure," similar to the unexplained incidents — sometimes described as "sonic attacks" — that recently sickened staffers in Cuba.
The State Department says it sent a medical team to Guangzhou to screen any employees or family members who requested a test.
On Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said the employees were sent to the U.S. for a "further evaluation and a comprehensive assessment of their symptoms and findings."
A department spokesperson said the agency was not specifying the exact number of people evacuated, saying it was due to medical privacy concerns.
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a task force to respond to the "unexplained health incidents."
He said that as of now, 24 government employees or family members who worked in Cuba had confirmed symptoms "similar to those noted following concussion or minor traumatic brain injury." The Guangzhou employee was found to have similar symptoms on May 16.
The symptoms, which first appeared in late 2016 in Havana, include "dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, cognitive issues, visual problems, ear complaints and hearing loss, and difficulty sleeping."
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in March that a study of 21 former Havana staffers found "most experienced persistent cognitive, balance, hearing, oculomotor dysfunction, or all 4, as well as sleep impairment and headaches."
One of the study's authors, Randel Swanson, described the symptoms as being "like a concussion without a concussion."
The government says it still doesn't know the cause.
In February, the nonprofit news organization ProPublica detailed the frustrations of U.S. government officials investigating the mysterious illnesses in Cuba:
"After nearly a year of investigation that has drawn on intelligence, defense and technology expertise from across the U.S. government, the FBI has been unable to determine who might have attacked the diplomats or how. Nor has the bureau ruled out the possibility that at least some of the Americans weren't attacked at all. Officials who have been briefed on the inquiry described it as having made strikingly little progress in answering the basic questions of the case, with frustrated FBI agents reporting that they are running out of rocks to overturn."
The U.S. first pulled out all nonessential staff in Cuba in September, followed shortly after by the expulsion of 15 Cuban diplomats from their U.S. post. Cuba has denied involvement.
China's government said Thursday that it investigated and could not find anything to cause the described symptoms, NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports from Beijing. The foreign ministry said it takes its obligation to protect foreign diplomats seriously and is open to conducting further investigations if requested by the U.S.
The Associated Press reported that the evacuated staff members from China are being sent to the University of Pennsylvania for testing, where doctors have tested former employees stationed in Havana.
The U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, in southern China, officially opened in 1979 and moved to its current location in 2013. It's one of five consulates the U.S. operates in China, along with its main embassy in Beijing, according to the State Department's website.
SourceIf people didn't follow the weird story from Cuba where our people U.S. Consulate heard a weird, loud noise and then got sick, it has happened again in China. No one can figure out what is causing the employees to get sick. It could be anything, but the single factor that seems to link the two is the strange noise that is quickly followed by employees getting sick to the point where they need to be sent back to the US. This is some metal gear level non-sense. It could just be the food, but the noise just makes just feeds the "maybe its communist nanomachines?"
I've mentioned this before, but I know the NK embassy is pretty close to the US embassy in Cuba. And it seems like the NK in Gangzhou is also pretty close to the US Embassy. Now that may be far-fetched, but there is some deeper level politics at play here from these "Communist" countries. Now not saying it's NK, but who knows at this point.
|
On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
it's not likely to do that; the wing of the dems that would be pleased by booting manchin is the far left wing. Those places are Dem strongholds already.
and it might annoy some of the more centrist/blue collar Dems which could cost them in swing states.
|
On June 08 2018 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The continued focus on Manchin by some progressives I know really confuses me. It seems like a fruitless fight with nothing to gain. They aren’t going to win W.V. with some progressive labor candidate, especially if the well is poisoned by forcing Manchin out. W.V. has to be one of the most hostile states for outside influence on their voting. It just seems like a fight that is least likely to result in any movement towards what the progressives want.
Certainly have a better chance of doing that than with a non-Trumpian liberal, for obvious reasons.
But I mean, that's one of the discussions where this forum is quite useless. They've tried this time and they got 30% starting from nowhere, that's pretty good. Hopefully they try again next time and get higher. Their problem is that even in WV a decent percentage of the democratic voters are going to be liberal rather than progressive because they run in the same primary and that's absurd, but such are the rules. What is thought about those things here won't change much.
|
On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests.
|
On June 08 2018 00:57 Excludos wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703Show nested quote +The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied." Oh my god is this man even capable of doing anything which isn't just straight up moustache twirling evil for his own benefits?
I was going to write a post about how Republicans in Congress are complicit in shit like this because they could take action to reign Trump in, in this case by forcing the EPA to consider asbestos already in the environment, but definitely won't. Then I realized that instead of just giving passive statements when asked about it, we can definitely expect some GOP congress members to join this idea wholeheartedly.
A new front in their war on science? Check.
A new front in attacking regulations that keep average Americans safer but make things more expensive and more difficult for corporations? Check.
A way to kiss Trump's ass without actually breaking with their ideology? Check.
Keeps the mortality rate of poor people from coming down without negatively* affecting the wealthy? Check. *Like with the ACA repeal, letting asbestos slide is good for the bank accounts of the wealthy.
I definitely will not be surprised to read about Republicans talking reexamining the science on asbestos or something like that in the next couple of weeks.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 07 2018 20:55 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 20:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 19:55 Gahlo wrote:On June 07 2018 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 18:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 07 2018 17:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 17:04 iamthedave wrote:On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Why? Is what I'm asking. If he wants to keep the D and he's the better candidate fine, but he shouldn't' be on committees representing the party, especially on something like "Energy". What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Of course they would lol. I assume they get his vote on matters of import elsewhere on the agenda? Which is why I'm trying to figure out what those are. Not having much luck though. I think that might just be something people repeat without thinking about. How do you not have luck with the first Google result for "Joe Manchin Voting Record"? I thought this was all public information. And yeah, first result. First page shows him voting with Democrats against healthcare repeal and tax cut bills, which were like the only two big bills of last year? I'm familiar with the votes. I'm not clear what you're trying to say though? Those votes are supposed to be worth the ones I mentioned? If the Dems don't back him and then they lose the seat to a Republican who will always vote against them, then yes. What difference would that have made? Keeping in mind I'm familiar with the already mentioned votes. For one, ACA would have straight up died when the Republicans first tried to repeal it if Manchin wasn't around. It only got beaten back because McCain took one for the team and crossed the floor. You can argue that it should have died because the ACA was deeply flawed and it dying is good for accelerationism purposes but we're not really arguing that right now. His vote was crucial to keep the ACA around. Again. I don't disagree with you, Manchin is horrible but your system of government is horribly inflexible and the Democrats feel like they have to compromise with fossil fuel state Democrats like Heitkamp and Manchin to maximize any chance of obtaining or maintaining a majority. This isn't getting any easier with demographic shifts and brain drains from these states. Though, you have a political class who are all right wing as heck and things are going to continue to get worse in the USA. I dunno how you break a stranglehold where both parties are producing candidates to the right of a lot of our right wing candidates both socially and economically. Even Bernie Sanders has a nationalist streak like his support for tarrifs that seem awfully mercantile when described. Speaking of economic stances, its pretty concerning that the Democrats might legitimately be to the economic right of some Republicans right now. Republican methods of stimulating the economy with tax cuts and military spending are horribly inefficient and disproportionately benefit the already wealthy but its arguably preferable than zero sum spending policies that Pelosi is suggesting with paygo. Regarding your edit, Clinton got slammed in West Virginia as she was directly tied to Obama and his anti-coal policies. She also wasn't a strongman like Obama could be or what Trump appears to be, something that is appealing to the "political moderate". You could primary him but the last person who did got body slammed 70-30 with no one relevant in the state endorsing her. If you're not selling your soul for coal, you're not winning.
Minor correction but Obama didn’t have any anti-coal policies. The coal workers got displaced by machinery while coal itself is getting displaced by fracking. Coal is just not very good. You don’t need to do anything to kill it.
|
On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests.
Don't frame it as one and the public won't notice.
|
On June 08 2018 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Don't frame it as one and the public won't notice.
Manchin, all center leaning democrats and the opposing party will do it for them. Doing stuff like this makes other members of the party worry what happens if they don't tow the party line. And it likely won't do anything but secure Manchin the seat, as he is reasonably popular in his state. Lisa Murkowski and Joe Liberman have shown how hard it is to primary a sitting senator that is willing to run without party backing.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 07 2018 23:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:So I posted earlier about the ambassador to Germany being under fire for his comments to Breitbart. So now a State Department spokeswoman, came to explain that in fact there is a good relationship: Show nested quote +“Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government of Germany.” So now I'm not sure if this is a 'Libya model' style threat for a new invasion of Europe or she's just this oblivious to quote D-day as a good example of the strong relationship with the Germans. She did get hired straight from Fox so it's probably the latter. source
Well Canada, Germany, and the US were there at D-Day. Canada is now the enemy so presumably Germany were the good guys. Logic. Britain no longer exists beyond being a proto-Canada.
|
On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests.
Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power
+ Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens"
How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before.
I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone?
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 08 2018 00:57 Excludos wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703Show nested quote +The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied." Oh my god is this man even capable of doing anything which isn't just straight up moustache twirling evil for his own benefits?
1980s Real Estate baron says asbestos already in buildings is fine, and nobody anywhere is surprised.
|
On June 08 2018 01:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Don't frame it as one and the public won't notice. Manchin, all center leaning democrats and the opposing party will do it for them. Doing stuff like this makes other members of the party worry what happens if they don't tow the party line. And it likely won't do anything but secure Manchin the seat, as he is reasonably popular in his state. Lisa Murkowski and Joe Liberman have shown how hard it is to primary a sitting senator that is willing to run without party backing.
Let them worry. Murkowski is still a Republican last time I checked. But the party can say they didn't support that 'liberal RINO'
|
On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone?
No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so.
On June 08 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:27 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Don't frame it as one and the public won't notice. Manchin, all center leaning democrats and the opposing party will do it for them. Doing stuff like this makes other members of the party worry what happens if they don't tow the party line. And it likely won't do anything but secure Manchin the seat, as he is reasonably popular in his state. Lisa Murkowski and Joe Liberman have shown how hard it is to primary a sitting senator that is willing to run without party backing. Let them worry. Murkowski is still a Republican last time I checked. But the party can say they didn't support that 'liberal RINO'
Murkowski is invincible now. The leadership can't threaten her with anything. She won a write in that that last name, which required it to be spelled out perfectly to count as a vote. So she can cross party lines any times she wants and give zero shits. That could be the outcome with Manchin. He would given even fewer shits and control more influence in the party because they need his vote with the thin margin in the senate.
|
On June 08 2018 01:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Don't frame it as one and the public won't notice. Manchin, all center leaning democrats and the opposing party will do it for them. Doing stuff like this makes other members of the party worry what happens if they don't tow the party line.
And when they do, you fight back with your own narrative. That's kind of how it works. People who disagree with you politically paint what you do in a bad light and you react with a defense. You could talk about unity and how Manchin refuses to stand with you against Trump which is weird considering he's supposed to be part of the opposition party, for starters, then you move into the details. As long as you promote a defense of what is happening the framing isn't just "purity" and we're going to be fine.
Conservative democrats already worry about what happens if they don't tow the party line, they've seen it be done and have done it themselves to progressive candidates for years now. It's not like they're going to suddenly discover that the party can be mean to you if you have ideas that it doesn't like, they know that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
