|
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 |
On November 04 2021 01:03 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +The watering down of the ideal bills is precisely what I'm referring to; we'll need to accept the watered-down versions now, and only by capturing more Senate seats could we ever hope to pass more progressive policies. You're right that with a lot of important pieces of legislature, Manchin and Sinema aren't willing to unify with the other Dems, but they still do unify with the Dems a lot more than Republican alternatives would. And perhaps the liberal constituents from WV or AZ are disincentivized because their Dem Senators aren't playing ball with all Dem proposals, but other purple states can still be mobilized, independent of that.
And, of course, at the end of the day, the blame lies at the feet of 50 Republican Senators too. But when Manchin and Sinema play spoiler you lose the ability to say its the Republicans fault, because then it becomes about how Democrats cant get anything done within their own party. The damage this does to the Democrats electorally is, imo, worse than having two Republicans.
I disagree. When a bill needs 50 out of 100 Senators to pass (ignoring the tiebreaking vote from the VP), and the bill only gets support from 48 Senators, then there are 52 reasons why the bill didn't pass. Not 2 reasons. Manchin and Sinema make up 2/52 of the reasons why a Dem bill doesn't pass. They get 4% of the blame, not 100% of the blame.
Its not like even playing their ball and working to make the bill worse has done Democrats any favors, they just had a super troubling election night and Im almost positive its because of how stupid and incompetent Democrats look right now. People fought tooth and nail to get them both chambers of Congress, they talked up how important and huge that was, and then their voters have to watch them fight amongst themselves while accomplishing nothing.
Why should someone want to give Democrats more seats when Democrats with control over the Senate and House don't seem to accomplish anything?
Thats not a question that gets resolved logically, thats not how voters operate, thats a question you have to answer in terms that will get people to actually get out and vote, and "Sorry, we need an overwhelming majority, anything less is worthless good luck out there though lol" is not an inspiring message and its the message Democrats are sending when their infighting holds up even the most minute progress.
Democrats have a problem with being seen as weak, ineffective, not actually all that interested in doing anything positive so much as signaling it, and his cycle of Making Big Promises, Getting Elected, Manchin Fucking Promises Over, Repeat is not worth his one unsalvageable seat. I mean whats the plan once hes out of Congress anyways, hes old and his seat isn't going to go Blue again like this.
I agree that Dems are seen as ineffective, but it's precisely because they aren't willing to compromise within their own party and pass what they can, no matter how small. Progress is slow, gradual, and incremental, so anyone who assumes that sweeping left-wing legislature is going to be achieved just because Dems control the Senate are misunderstanding the political landscape of both Congress and the general American public. We don't have 50 Bernie Sanderses in Congress, and most American Dems are moderates, not left-wing progressives. The Republicans' job (or, at least, what they perceive their job to be) is much easier than the Democrats' job; Republicans just have to vote against Dem policies without even listening to what they are, let alone understanding the potentially positive outcomes for Americans. In most cases, Republican Senators don't need to actually do anything, and they certainly don't need to communicate among themselves about the finer nuances of a position. They just say No, and that's it. If nothing happens, it's a default win for conservatives. On the other hand, Democratic Senators are faced with the reality that they each fall somewhere upon a spectrum of progress, based on their personal beliefs and their state constituents, and so it's reasonable to expect a need to converse and compromise and figure out what works well for all 50 of them. That's extremely difficult to do - and it's far harder than what Republicans need to do. The bar is set so much higher for the Dems, since it's their job to carry the entire country forward, so when they can't do that, they get shamed for it. And a lot of that shame is deserved, but way more of it should be aimed towards the party that refuses to even play ball in the first place.
|
|
|
On November 03 2021 21:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
While I'm not going to advocate for it, it would be pretty entertaining if Democrats decided to assert "voter fraud" in any election they lost, not because they believed it, but rather just to see Republicans suddenly start backpedaling and defending the integrity and security of our elections.
Given that election officials across the country are being hounded out of their jobs by harassment and threats, possibly to be replaced by partisan hacks, I fear that election fraud may indeed start to become an issue.
|
DPB
+ Show Spoiler +I disagree. When a bill needs 50 out of 100 Senators to pass (ignoring the tiebreaking vote from the VP), and the bill only gets support from 48 Senators, then there are 52 reasons why the bill didn't pass. Not 2 reasons. Manchin and Sinema make up 2/52 of the reasons why a Dem bill doesn't pass. They get 4% of the blame, not 100% of the blame.
The voting public doesnt care though, they see Democrats have control which means Democrats have resonsibility, theres not nearly as much room for nuance in this conversation as there should be, but thats how it is in the US. Democrats have Congress, they have the Presidency, they have the reins and theyre failing which means that as far as the nation is concerned its the Democrats fault. I agree that Dems are seen as ineffective, but it's precisely because they aren't willing to compromise within their own party and pass what they can, no matter how small. But theyre literally doing that right now, they WILL pass a bill, and the entire drawn out process of watching Manchin and Sinema chunk it to shit and back makes them look bad. Progress is slow, gradual, and incremental, so anyone who assumes that sweeping left-wing legislature is going to be achieved just because Dems control the Senate are misunderstanding the political landscape of both Congress and the general American public. We don't have 50 Bernie Sanderses in Congress, and most American Dems are moderates, not left-wing progressives. If Democrat voters accepted this line of reasoning we'd have a lot more Democrats and they wouldnt see such issues electorally. Democrats want to see their leaders govern, period. The problem isnt the leftyness or the rightyness of the legislation, I havent brought that up once, the problem is Manchin and Sinema making the Democrats look stupid. When your party is constantly in the news cycle because it can't agree on how to govern which means they aren't governing it makes your party look stupid. The stupid looking party is not an enticing party to vote for. The Republicans' job (or, at least, what they perceive their job to be) is much easier than the Democrats' job; Republicans just have to vote against Dem policies without even listening to what they are, let alone understanding the potentially positive outcomes for Americans. In most cases, Republican Senators don't need to actually do anything, and they certainly don't need to communicate among themselves about the finer nuances of a position. They just say No, and that's it. If nothing happens, it's a default win for conservatives. On the other hand, Democratic Senators are faced with the reality that they each fall somewhere upon a spectrum of progress, based on their personal beliefs and their state constituents, and so it's reasonable to expect a need to converse and compromise and figure out what works well for all 50 of them. That's extremely difficult to do - and it's far harder than what Republicans need to do. The bar is set so much higher for the Dems, since it's their job to carry the entire country forward, so when they can't do that, they get shamed for it. And a lot of that shame is deserved, but way more of it should be aimed towards the party that refuses to even play ball in the first place. This is all fair, but I cannot impress this enough, it doesn't matter, what you've said here doesnt win Democrats elections the American public doesn't care that Democrats have a harder job, when they fail to do the job they get judged as failures. Democrats can be plenty monolithic when they have an inspiring leader who does change. Obama proved that. Democrats aren't really all that smart as much as Im sure they like to consider themselves compared to the dumb Republicans. A tremendous portion of the Democrats base is just as ill informed as Republicans, they will rally behind change if you present a compelling version of change like Obama did. Americas at large just are not engaged at the kind of level that policy minutiae (minutiae being used generously, most Americans wont know anything at all about whats in bills.) Democrats could present a unified front in favor of Change™ and do a lot better, especially if they follow through on accomplishing things without looking incompetent in the process. When you're a party that needs to govern to succeed letting people in your party fuck up your governance is terrible strategy, it makes you look bad to voters. When I go to the gym three TVs in a row are playing cable news channels, and on CNN and Fox top news stories I see are "Manchin torpedoing Democrat agenda!" and the like. Democrat obstructionists are actively helping make sure that Democrats look bad, which in turn doesnt make people want to vote for Democrats. Like you said, they cant skirt by on doing nothing, they need to accomplish things, and having the news cycle be dominated by "Democrats fighting and doing nothing in the process," is not a good look.
Jimmi
+ Show Spoiler +No focus on what you can change instead of what you can't. People here might want a revolution but that does not matter because to have a revolution you need even more people then you would to do it democratically. If there is going to be a revolution it is going to be on the other side.
The focus needs to be on how do we show all these millions of people who in every other developed country votes toward progress, why they vote that way and how it benefits them. Pushing the people closest to you away does not help you get closer to your goal it just makes you and them angrier. Democrats can't/won't change anything systematically, again they can't even pass voting rights legislation that would greatly help them electorally. That would be a tremendous win for their ability to win elections and they can't even do something so fundamentally important to their election chances. You dont show people they should vote for Democrats by having the Democrats look bad. People don't want to vote for incompetent politicians who spend all of their time fighting amongst themselves, doubly so when the opposition is fascists who don't have nearly this level of disunity. Manchin is in no way closest to allying with the needs of the American people by the way, Sinema either. What the american people NEED is healthcare costs to go down, to be able to afford their medications, guess whos there to 100% end any bill that would help those things? Sinemas there to fuck that up! Minimum wage to address the horrible cost of living? Manchin is there to make sure the US has egregious wealth disparities! Conservative Democrats are in no way, shape, or form a friend of the vast vast majority of Americans.
A question to both of you, if the answer is mild small change over long periods of time, I have to ask what Democrats have to show for that at this point. Its been their MO for a long while now and I don't see what the advantage to them has been. Stagnant wages, ballooning healthcare costs, sky high housing, colossal college debt, what good is this strategy accomplishing overall? Its obviously not giving them any serious electoral dominance.
EDIT: Fucks sake, who cares about revolution, I brought it up because its obviously not going to happen and (EDIT: almost) noone here would advocate for it.
|
The people who are needed for revolution aren't convinced it is a remotely good idea. Pouting when people don't agree is silly. Change their minds and they'll support it. But right now there are a lot of Twitter communists poking working class folks saying "cmonnnnn, why won't you do revolution!!!" and then Tweet about how Manchin is ruining progress.
Democrats need to focus on helping the lower and middle class without anything remotely cultural. Democrats will lose the culture war every single time. So long as white people are a gigantic majority, culture wars are a really stupid idea.
|
On November 04 2021 01:33 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2021 21:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
While I'm not going to advocate for it, it would be pretty entertaining if Democrats decided to assert "voter fraud" in any election they lost, not because they believed it, but rather just to see Republicans suddenly start backpedaling and defending the integrity and security of our elections. Given that election officials across the country are being hounded out of their jobs by harassment and threats, possibly to be replaced by partisan hacks, I fear that election fraud may indeed start to become an issue.
That's really messed up, especially if/when there's no evidence of mishandling votes or neglecting their jobs.
|
On November 04 2021 01:21 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2021 01:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 04 2021 01:03 Zambrah wrote:The watering down of the ideal bills is precisely what I'm referring to; we'll need to accept the watered-down versions now, and only by capturing more Senate seats could we ever hope to pass more progressive policies. You're right that with a lot of important pieces of legislature, Manchin and Sinema aren't willing to unify with the other Dems, but they still do unify with the Dems a lot more than Republican alternatives would. And perhaps the liberal constituents from WV or AZ are disincentivized because their Dem Senators aren't playing ball with all Dem proposals, but other purple states can still be mobilized, independent of that.
And, of course, at the end of the day, the blame lies at the feet of 50 Republican Senators too. But when Manchin and Sinema play spoiler you lose the ability to say its the Republicans fault, because then it becomes about how Democrats cant get anything done within their own party. The damage this does to the Democrats electorally is, imo, worse than having two Republicans. Its not like even playing their ball and working to make the bill worse has done Democrats any favors, they just had a super troubling election night and Im almost positive its because of how stupid and incompetent Democrats look right now. People fought tooth and nail to get them both chambers of Congress, they talked up how important and huge that was, and then their voters have to watch them fight amongst themselves while accomplishing nothing. Why should someone want to give Democrats more seats when Democrats with control over the Senate and House don't seem to accomplish anything? Thats not a question that gets resolved logically, thats not how voters operate, thats a question you have to answer in terms that will get people to actually get out and vote, and "Sorry, we need an overwhelming majority, anything less is worthless good luck out there though lol" is not an inspiring message and its the message Democrats are sending when their infighting holds up even the most minute progress. Democrats have a problem with being seen as weak, ineffective, not actually all that interested in doing anything positive so much as signaling it, and his cycle of Making Big Promises, Getting Elected, Manchin Fucking Promises Over, Repeat is not worth his one unsalvageable seat. I mean whats the plan once hes out of Congress anyways, hes old and his seat isn't going to go Blue again like this. The problem is that the Dems are not a uniform team, nor are they meant to be, it frustrating that they are not and it leads to people blaming the party but that is not how it works in your system. Now the Reps look more cohesive because they span a much smaller portion of the political spectrum, but you still have the RINO silliness. Its being mad at the symptom instead of the cause. The issue is not manchin, he is one of the senators that votes most left of his state, the issue is that you have so few states (and people) that are left. Hell compared to canada you have very few who are even right of center. So quit and pray that more states just decide to go left? The US is doomed to accomplish nothing or regress, its just how it is? We can't address causes without either some sort of revolution or a political party willing to get itself together and bust ass to address those causes, I think its safe to say people here dont want revolution, but at the same time theres this fatalistic sort of "we can only hope things turn out well, we can't do anything meaningfully different strategically, ust play the same old plays year by year and hope!" mentality here that bugs me. The US has a really fascist looking party right now and just accepting that we're going to go back and forth letting them have power like we've done in the past does not sit right with me. One day they're going to firmly tip the scales in their favor and once thats done all of this lovely democracy business is gone. Yes? I know I tend to be a pessimist but seeing how thin the margins between Trump and Biden were after 4 years of that moron in power? For now I would consider America a lost cause.
Without large fundamental changes in populational ideology America is simply to conservative to change.
Look a state like Florida where the governor is actively trying to kill people by stopping any preventive measures during a pandemic. Or Texas once again trying to ban abortions and tell me there is hope for America to move left in the next decade or 2.
|
Yes? I know I tend to be a pessimist but seeing how thin the margins between Trump and Biden were after 4 years of that moron in power? For now I would consider America a lost cause.
Without large fundamental changes in populational ideology America is simply to conservative to change.
Look a state like Florida where the governor is actively trying to kill people by stopping any preventive measures during a pandemic. Or Texas once again trying to ban abortions and tell me there is hope for America to move left in the next decade or 2.
I mean, I relate intensely to the pessimism, I can't pretend like I actually expect anything to get better in this capitalistic shitscape, but at the same time it does bother me that people are just resigned to letting it get worse and worse. I mean people die of poverty, lack of healthcare, starvation, state violence, homelessness, you name it, thats horrible for the richest country in the world. Its cruel and horrible and it just gets dismissed as "nothing you can do about it, pray God himself descends to help you out at some point lol."
Part of why we have to rely on God is because we've given up believing that people can do the job in the US.
|
On November 04 2021 01:40 Zambrah wrote:DPB + Show Spoiler +I disagree. When a bill needs 50 out of 100 Senators to pass (ignoring the tiebreaking vote from the VP), and the bill only gets support from 48 Senators, then there are 52 reasons why the bill didn't pass. Not 2 reasons. Manchin and Sinema make up 2/52 of the reasons why a Dem bill doesn't pass. They get 4% of the blame, not 100% of the blame.
The voting public doesnt care though, they see Democrats have control which means Democrats have resonsibility, theres not nearly as much room for nuance in this conversation as there should be, but thats how it is in the US. Democrats have Congress, they have the Presidency, they have the reins and theyre failing which means that as far as the nation is concerned its the Democrats fault. I agree that Dems are seen as ineffective, but it's precisely because they aren't willing to compromise within their own party and pass what they can, no matter how small. But theyre literally doing that right now, they WILL pass a bill, and the entire drawn out process of watching Manchin and Sinema chunk it to shit and back makes them look bad. Progress is slow, gradual, and incremental, so anyone who assumes that sweeping left-wing legislature is going to be achieved just because Dems control the Senate are misunderstanding the political landscape of both Congress and the general American public. We don't have 50 Bernie Sanderses in Congress, and most American Dems are moderates, not left-wing progressives. If Democrat voters accepted this line of reasoning we'd have a lot more Democrats and they wouldnt see such issues electorally. Democrats want to see their leaders govern, period. The problem isnt the leftyness or the rightyness of the legislation, I havent brought that up once, the problem is Manchin and Sinema making the Democrats look stupid. When your party is constantly in the news cycle because it can't agree on how to govern which means they aren't governing it makes your party look stupid. The stupid looking party is not an enticing party to vote for. The Republicans' job (or, at least, what they perceive their job to be) is much easier than the Democrats' job; Republicans just have to vote against Dem policies without even listening to what they are, let alone understanding the potentially positive outcomes for Americans. In most cases, Republican Senators don't need to actually do anything, and they certainly don't need to communicate among themselves about the finer nuances of a position. They just say No, and that's it. If nothing happens, it's a default win for conservatives. On the other hand, Democratic Senators are faced with the reality that they each fall somewhere upon a spectrum of progress, based on their personal beliefs and their state constituents, and so it's reasonable to expect a need to converse and compromise and figure out what works well for all 50 of them. That's extremely difficult to do - and it's far harder than what Republicans need to do. The bar is set so much higher for the Dems, since it's their job to carry the entire country forward, so when they can't do that, they get shamed for it. And a lot of that shame is deserved, but way more of it should be aimed towards the party that refuses to even play ball in the first place. This is all fair, but I cannot impress this enough, it doesn't matter, what you've said here doesnt win Democrats elections the American public doesn't care that Democrats have a harder job, when they fail to do the job they get judged as failures. Democrats can be plenty monolithic when they have an inspiring leader who does change. Obama proved that. Democrats aren't really all that smart as much as Im sure they like to consider themselves compared to the dumb Republicans. A tremendous portion of the Democrats base is just as ill informed as Republicans, they will rally behind change if you present a compelling version of change like Obama did. Americas at large just are not engaged at the kind of level that policy minutiae (minutiae being used generously, most Americans wont know anything at all about whats in bills.) Democrats could present a unified front in favor of Change™ and do a lot better, especially if they follow through on accomplishing things without looking incompetent in the process. When you're a party that needs to govern to succeed letting people in your party fuck up your governance is terrible strategy, it makes you look bad to voters. When I go to the gym three TVs in a row are playing cable news channels, and on CNN and Fox top news stories I see are "Manchin torpedoing Democrat agenda!" and the like. Democrat obstructionists are actively helping make sure that Democrats look bad, which in turn doesnt make people want to vote for Democrats. Like you said, they cant skirt by on doing nothing, they need to accomplish things, and having the news cycle be dominated by "Democrats fighting and doing nothing in the process," is not a good look. Jimmi + Show Spoiler +No focus on what you can change instead of what you can't. People here might want a revolution but that does not matter because to have a revolution you need even more people then you would to do it democratically. If there is going to be a revolution it is going to be on the other side.
The focus needs to be on how do we show all these millions of people who in every other developed country votes toward progress, why they vote that way and how it benefits them. Pushing the people closest to you away does not help you get closer to your goal it just makes you and them angrier. Democrats can't/won't change anything systematically, again they can't even pass voting rights legislation that would greatly help them electorally. That would be a tremendous win for their ability to win elections and they can't even do something so fundamentally important to their election chances. You dont show people they should vote for Democrats by having the Democrats look bad. People don't want to vote for incompetent politicians who spend all of their time fighting amongst themselves, doubly so when the opposition is fascists who don't have nearly this level of disunity. Manchin is in no way closest to allying with the needs of the American people by the way, Sinema either. What the american people NEED is healthcare costs to go down, to be able to afford their medications, guess whos there to 100% end any bill that would help those things? Sinemas there to fuck that up! Minimum wage to address the horrible cost of living? Manchin is there to make sure the US has egregious wealth disparities! Conservative Democrats are in no way, shape, or form a friend of the vast vast majority of Americans. A question to both of you, if the answer is mild small change over long periods of time, I have to ask what Democrats have to show for that at this point. Its been their MO for a long while now and I don't see what the advantage to them has been. Stagnant wages, ballooning healthcare costs, sky high housing, colossal college debt, what good is this strategy accomplishing overall? Its obviously not giving them any serious electoral dominance. EDIT: Fucks sake, who cares about revolution, I brought it up because its obviously not going to happen and (EDIT: almost) noone here would advocate for it. Finding 30 (random number out of my ass) Democrats willing to fight for real Change doesn't do anything other then be a minority party that can stop stuff from happening if the Dems have a majority but no ability to actually do anything themselves. See the Tea Party. They could stop the GoP from getting stuff done but nothing more, fortunately for them they were elected to get nothing done but 'Democrats for real Change' won't have that luxury.
What has incremental change done for America sofar? Obamacare exists because of it. The position of non-white Americans isn't great today but its better then it was 60 years ago.
|
On November 04 2021 02:07 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +Yes? I know I tend to be a pessimist but seeing how thin the margins between Trump and Biden were after 4 years of that moron in power? For now I would consider America a lost cause.
Without large fundamental changes in populational ideology America is simply to conservative to change.
Look a state like Florida where the governor is actively trying to kill people by stopping any preventive measures during a pandemic. Or Texas once again trying to ban abortions and tell me there is hope for America to move left in the next decade or 2. I mean, I relate intensely to the pessimism, I can't pretend like I actually expect anything to get better in this capitalistic shitscape, but at the same time it does bother me that people are just resigned to letting it get worse and worse. I mean people die of poverty, lack of healthcare, starvation, state violence, homelessness, you name it, thats horrible for the richest country in the world. Its cruel and horrible and it just gets dismissed as "nothing you can do about it, pray God himself descends to help you out at some point lol." Part of why we have to rely on God is because we've given up believing that people can do the job in the US.
You are misunderstanding the situation. There is an enormous majority of people who do not think revolution is necessary. It isn't them deciding "Oh well, I'll be miserable", it is a complete lack of motivation. Those people need to be motivated. People who are suffering do not necessarily understand they are suffering. They don't know what is possible and they need to be convinced.
|
Are you trying to classify the Civil Rights movement as "incremental change?" If thats incremental change then what the Democrats are going is cosmically slow. Obamacare sucks, premiums are high, as an uninsured person I cannot afford Obamacare, tens of thousands die yearly from a lack of healthcare. Obamacare is... something, but its not nearly the accomplishment people seem to think it is, especially given it was passed by a Democratic supermajority.
If you kick out the Democrats that DONT fight for real change then you'll wind up with a party hovering around 50/50 (thats how the US works with a two party system after all) and that party will actually fight for change and might actually get around to doing some serious positive change that gets them more and more votes. I know we havent tried that in decades, but I don't see how the current Democrat strategy is really working out for the average american.
Democrats will always have a big Vote Blue No Matter Who Base that will get them a very base line amount of power, what you do with that is build on it by proving you're worth voting for in places that aren't so staunchly blue. Places where Democrats used to dominate but have systematically alienated via neglect.
You are misunderstanding the situation. There is an enormous majority of people who do not think revolution is necessary. It isn't them deciding "Oh well, I'll be miserable", it is a complete lack of motivation. Those people need to be motivated. People who are suffering do not necessarily understand they are suffering. They don't know what is possible and they need to be convinced.
Noone is convincing them because noone is doing anything to truly meaningfully impact their lives. The frog in the pot doesn't know its being boiled. People do not feel small incremental change easily, it is not easy to sell to them, doubly so when to achieve that change you have to show your better intentions and see them slowly chopped down to scraps by your own party.
|
On November 04 2021 02:07 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +Yes? I know I tend to be a pessimist but seeing how thin the margins between Trump and Biden were after 4 years of that moron in power? For now I would consider America a lost cause.
Without large fundamental changes in populational ideology America is simply to conservative to change.
Look a state like Florida where the governor is actively trying to kill people by stopping any preventive measures during a pandemic. Or Texas once again trying to ban abortions and tell me there is hope for America to move left in the next decade or 2. I mean, I relate intensely to the pessimism, I can't pretend like I actually expect anything to get better in this capitalistic shitscape, but at the same time it does bother me that people are just resigned to letting it get worse and worse. I mean people die of poverty, lack of healthcare, starvation, state violence, homelessness, you name it, thats horrible for the richest country in the world. Its cruel and horrible and it just gets dismissed as "nothing you can do about it, pray God himself descends to help you out at some point lol." Part of why we have to rely on God is because we've given up believing that people can do the job in the US. I can be resigned because I don't live in America. If I did live there I would want to live in a safe Democratic state and attempt to ignore how bad things are, or failing that work to no longer have to live in America. Because America isn't gonne change.
I've mentioned this before but my break point was Sandy Hook. Classrooms of dead children were not enough to move America into action against school shootings. If something like that doesn't compel action, what else is left?
|
On November 04 2021 01:40 Zambrah wrote:DPB + Show Spoiler +I disagree. When a bill needs 50 out of 100 Senators to pass (ignoring the tiebreaking vote from the VP), and the bill only gets support from 48 Senators, then there are 52 reasons why the bill didn't pass. Not 2 reasons. Manchin and Sinema make up 2/52 of the reasons why a Dem bill doesn't pass. They get 4% of the blame, not 100% of the blame.
The voting public doesnt care though, they see Democrats have control which means Democrats have resonsibility, theres not nearly as much room for nuance in this conversation as there should be, but thats how it is in the US. Democrats have Congress, they have the Presidency, they have the reins and theyre failing which means that as far as the nation is concerned its the Democrats fault. I agree that Dems are seen as ineffective, but it's precisely because they aren't willing to compromise within their own party and pass what they can, no matter how small. But theyre literally doing that right now, they WILL pass a bill, and the entire drawn out process of watching Manchin and Sinema chunk it to shit and back makes them look bad. Progress is slow, gradual, and incremental, so anyone who assumes that sweeping left-wing legislature is going to be achieved just because Dems control the Senate are misunderstanding the political landscape of both Congress and the general American public. We don't have 50 Bernie Sanderses in Congress, and most American Dems are moderates, not left-wing progressives. If Democrat voters accepted this line of reasoning we'd have a lot more Democrats and they wouldnt see such issues electorally. Democrats want to see their leaders govern, period. The problem isnt the leftyness or the rightyness of the legislation, I havent brought that up once, the problem is Manchin and Sinema making the Democrats look stupid. When your party is constantly in the news cycle because it can't agree on how to govern which means they aren't governing it makes your party look stupid. The stupid looking party is not an enticing party to vote for. The Republicans' job (or, at least, what they perceive their job to be) is much easier than the Democrats' job; Republicans just have to vote against Dem policies without even listening to what they are, let alone understanding the potentially positive outcomes for Americans. In most cases, Republican Senators don't need to actually do anything, and they certainly don't need to communicate among themselves about the finer nuances of a position. They just say No, and that's it. If nothing happens, it's a default win for conservatives. On the other hand, Democratic Senators are faced with the reality that they each fall somewhere upon a spectrum of progress, based on their personal beliefs and their state constituents, and so it's reasonable to expect a need to converse and compromise and figure out what works well for all 50 of them. That's extremely difficult to do - and it's far harder than what Republicans need to do. The bar is set so much higher for the Dems, since it's their job to carry the entire country forward, so when they can't do that, they get shamed for it. And a lot of that shame is deserved, but way more of it should be aimed towards the party that refuses to even play ball in the first place. This is all fair, but I cannot impress this enough, it doesn't matter, what you've said here doesnt win Democrats elections the American public doesn't care that Democrats have a harder job, when they fail to do the job they get judged as failures. Democrats can be plenty monolithic when they have an inspiring leader who does change. Obama proved that. Democrats aren't really all that smart as much as Im sure they like to consider themselves compared to the dumb Republicans. A tremendous portion of the Democrats base is just as ill informed as Republicans, they will rally behind change if you present a compelling version of change like Obama did. Americas at large just are not engaged at the kind of level that policy minutiae (minutiae being used generously, most Americans wont know anything at all about whats in bills.) Democrats could present a unified front in favor of Change™ and do a lot better, especially if they follow through on accomplishing things without looking incompetent in the process. When you're a party that needs to govern to succeed letting people in your party fuck up your governance is terrible strategy, it makes you look bad to voters. When I go to the gym three TVs in a row are playing cable news channels, and on CNN and Fox top news stories I see are "Manchin torpedoing Democrat agenda!" and the like. Democrat obstructionists are actively helping make sure that Democrats look bad, which in turn doesnt make people want to vote for Democrats. Like you said, they cant skirt by on doing nothing, they need to accomplish things, and having the news cycle be dominated by "Democrats fighting and doing nothing in the process," is not a good look. Jimmi + Show Spoiler +No focus on what you can change instead of what you can't. People here might want a revolution but that does not matter because to have a revolution you need even more people then you would to do it democratically. If there is going to be a revolution it is going to be on the other side.
The focus needs to be on how do we show all these millions of people who in every other developed country votes toward progress, why they vote that way and how it benefits them. Pushing the people closest to you away does not help you get closer to your goal it just makes you and them angrier. Democrats can't/won't change anything systematically, again they can't even pass voting rights legislation that would greatly help them electorally. That would be a tremendous win for their ability to win elections and they can't even do something so fundamentally important to their election chances. You dont show people they should vote for Democrats by having the Democrats look bad. People don't want to vote for incompetent politicians who spend all of their time fighting amongst themselves, doubly so when the opposition is fascists who don't have nearly this level of disunity. Manchin is in no way closest to allying with the needs of the American people by the way, Sinema either. What the american people NEED is healthcare costs to go down, to be able to afford their medications, guess whos there to 100% end any bill that would help those things? Sinemas there to fuck that up! Minimum wage to address the horrible cost of living? Manchin is there to make sure the US has egregious wealth disparities! Conservative Democrats are in no way, shape, or form a friend of the vast vast majority of Americans. A question to both of you, if the answer is mild small change over long periods of time, I have to ask what Democrats have to show for that at this point. Its been their MO for a long while now and I don't see what the advantage to them has been. Stagnant wages, ballooning healthcare costs, sky high housing, colossal college debt, what good is this strategy accomplishing overall? Its obviously not giving them any serious electoral dominance. EDIT: Fucks sake, who cares about revolution, I brought it up because its obviously not going to happen and (EDIT: almost) noone here would advocate for it.
Some of your responses are in the spoiler tags and some aren't, so I'm just going to separately paste/quote the statements that I'm responding to:
"The voting public doesnt care though, they see Democrats have control which means Democrats have resonsibility, theres not nearly as much room for nuance in this conversation as there should be, but thats how it is in the US. Democrats have Congress, they have the Presidency, they have the reins and theyre failing which means that as far as the nation is concerned its the Democrats fault. But theyre literally doing that right now, they WILL pass a bill, and the entire drawn out process of watching Manchin and Sinema chunk it to shit and back makes them look bad. ... Democrats want to see their leaders govern, period. The problem isnt the leftyness or the rightyness of the legislation, I havent brought that up once, the problem is Manchin and Sinema making the Democrats look stupid."
I think the "responsibility" of the Dem Party includes working with Manchin and Sinema and elucidating the "nuance". Yeah, it's hard to educate the public on what it means to actually collaborate and compromise, especially when Republicans campaign against exactly that, but that's yet another reason why Dems have a harder job to do. Dems have to do a better job of explaining why passing a smaller bill is still a victory, and not a failure. Some constituents will never be happy, regardless of how big a bill is, but getting something done is necessarily better than getting nothing done. This is all part of the process of leaders "governing". Working together is "governing". I think the main reason why Dems are looking stupid here is because they didn't first feel out the situation with what Manchin and Sinema would be okay with signing. If you make a bold claim and promise something that can't be delivered - even if it's something that ought to be done, for the good of the American public, and really shouldn't be a major point of contention - you'll automatically look weak and silly when it doesn't end up happening. Overpromising is a huge issue, especially for the optics of the Dem Party (apparently, Republicans don't actually care that Trump never locked up Hillary, or built a wall, or kept any of his promises).
"A question to both of you, if the answer is mild small change over long periods of time, I have to ask what Democrats have to show for that at this point. Its been their MO for a long while now and I don't see what the advantage to them has been. Stagnant wages, ballooning healthcare costs, sky high housing, colossal college debt, what good is this strategy accomplishing overall? Its obviously not giving them any serious electoral dominance."
I don't think this is a political strategy or MO created by the Democratic Party; I think this is the reality of what the American public wants, and how progress operates here. Personally, I think more drastic changes need to happen, and much faster than "over long periods of time" (let's add Climate Change to your list of very legitimate concerns, too!), but the overwhelming majority of Americans are not willing to vote for extreme changes:
-They'd prefer small changes to student debt (some loan forgiveness, etc.) rather than wiping everyone's college bill clean and having "free" (i.e., paid through taxes) college moving forward;
-They can maybe stomach mask mandates in certain locations, but go ballistic over vaccinate mandates;
-They're much more open to a slight minimum wage increase than a huge one (or, even more extreme, UBI);
-They'd prefer adjusting healthcare one small piece at a time (e.g., making sure people can't be turned away for pre-existing conditions first, then another slight tweak, rather than jumping straight into Medicare For All).
I think the general logic behind being more open to small, gradual changes, is that if the change ends up being detrimental in practice, it's easier to hit the Undo button. Small change = small positives/negatives vs. big changes = big positives/negatives, and people are often risk-averse in these cases. I'm not saying I agree with it, and I'm not saying it's right, but I think that this is what generally happens in America, in practice.
|
|
|
When we are at a point where we are using spoiler tags to reply to different people, I think double posting is by far preferred. I'm not a mod, but I imagine they would agree. Replying to giant posts with spoiler tags is a disaster.
|
I think the "responsibility" of the Dem Party includes working with Manchin and Sinema and elucidating the "nuance". Yeah, it's hard to educate the public on what it means to actually collaborate and compromise, especially when Republicans campaign against exactly that, but that's yet another reason why Dems have a harder job to do.
They are working with Manchin and Sinema though, that is exactly whats happening and working with them is making Democrats look stupid. The Democrats have been huge on the whole Working With People Who Set Them Up To Fail deal and its just not a good look for them. It doesnt inspire Democrats to vote like they need to vote. Its a losing strategy at a time when we cannot afford to employ losing strategies.
Dems have to do a better job of explaining why passing a smaller bill is still a victory, and not a failure. Some constituents will never be happy, regardless of how big a bill is, but getting something done is necessarily better than getting nothing done.
I generally agree its better to do something than nothing, but the problem is that having Manchin and Sinema is like promising to take your kid to Disney World but then one parent goes, "Ahhh, no, we're not doing that, we're actually going to walk around the local park instead." Yeah, the kid would in a vacuum be happy with going to the park, but they were just offered Disney World so the park just makes them feel bitter now.
Manchin is consistently a problem with this and it makes selling wins as a Democrat a lot harder.
This is all part of the process of leaders "governing". Working together is "governing". I think the main reason why Dems are looking stupid here is because they didn't first feel out the situation with what Manchin and Sinema would be okay with signing. If you make a bold claim and promise something that can't be delivered - even if it's something that ought to be done, for the good of the American public, and really shouldn't be a major point of contention - you'll automatically look weak and silly when it doesn't end up happening. Overpromising is a huge issue, especially for the optics of the Dem Party (apparently, Republicans don't actually care that Trump never locked up Hillary, or built a wall, or kept any of his promises).
I agree, it wouldnt be nearly as much of a problem if they'd keep their mouths shut the entire time and would hammer this out beforehand. Overpromising is definitely a colossal problem, agreed with that as well.
Personally I dont think incremental change in any capacity will ever truly win over the American public, as Ive said before people have to really feel that change and a bunch of small changes is really hard to feel. Americans have had a ton of huge QoL factors get systematically degraded over the decades, and thats something Democrats are going to have to do better than incremental change to deal with. Democrats are complicit in all of the innumerable societal ills Americans face at almost every level and if they're going to really win the hearts of the public they're going to need to address that, but they never will if they let an aggressive agenda capable of helping the American people die at the hands of Manchins and Sinemas more interested in protecting the financial interests of their owners and sponsors.
|
On November 04 2021 02:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2021 01:40 Zambrah wrote:DPB + Show Spoiler +I disagree. When a bill needs 50 out of 100 Senators to pass (ignoring the tiebreaking vote from the VP), and the bill only gets support from 48 Senators, then there are 52 reasons why the bill didn't pass. Not 2 reasons. Manchin and Sinema make up 2/52 of the reasons why a Dem bill doesn't pass. They get 4% of the blame, not 100% of the blame.
The voting public doesnt care though, they see Democrats have control which means Democrats have resonsibility, theres not nearly as much room for nuance in this conversation as there should be, but thats how it is in the US. Democrats have Congress, they have the Presidency, they have the reins and theyre failing which means that as far as the nation is concerned its the Democrats fault. I agree that Dems are seen as ineffective, but it's precisely because they aren't willing to compromise within their own party and pass what they can, no matter how small. But theyre literally doing that right now, they WILL pass a bill, and the entire drawn out process of watching Manchin and Sinema chunk it to shit and back makes them look bad. Progress is slow, gradual, and incremental, so anyone who assumes that sweeping left-wing legislature is going to be achieved just because Dems control the Senate are misunderstanding the political landscape of both Congress and the general American public. We don't have 50 Bernie Sanderses in Congress, and most American Dems are moderates, not left-wing progressives. If Democrat voters accepted this line of reasoning we'd have a lot more Democrats and they wouldnt see such issues electorally. Democrats want to see their leaders govern, period. The problem isnt the leftyness or the rightyness of the legislation, I havent brought that up once, the problem is Manchin and Sinema making the Democrats look stupid. When your party is constantly in the news cycle because it can't agree on how to govern which means they aren't governing it makes your party look stupid. The stupid looking party is not an enticing party to vote for. The Republicans' job (or, at least, what they perceive their job to be) is much easier than the Democrats' job; Republicans just have to vote against Dem policies without even listening to what they are, let alone understanding the potentially positive outcomes for Americans. In most cases, Republican Senators don't need to actually do anything, and they certainly don't need to communicate among themselves about the finer nuances of a position. They just say No, and that's it. If nothing happens, it's a default win for conservatives. On the other hand, Democratic Senators are faced with the reality that they each fall somewhere upon a spectrum of progress, based on their personal beliefs and their state constituents, and so it's reasonable to expect a need to converse and compromise and figure out what works well for all 50 of them. That's extremely difficult to do - and it's far harder than what Republicans need to do. The bar is set so much higher for the Dems, since it's their job to carry the entire country forward, so when they can't do that, they get shamed for it. And a lot of that shame is deserved, but way more of it should be aimed towards the party that refuses to even play ball in the first place. This is all fair, but I cannot impress this enough, it doesn't matter, what you've said here doesnt win Democrats elections the American public doesn't care that Democrats have a harder job, when they fail to do the job they get judged as failures. Democrats can be plenty monolithic when they have an inspiring leader who does change. Obama proved that. Democrats aren't really all that smart as much as Im sure they like to consider themselves compared to the dumb Republicans. A tremendous portion of the Democrats base is just as ill informed as Republicans, they will rally behind change if you present a compelling version of change like Obama did. Americas at large just are not engaged at the kind of level that policy minutiae (minutiae being used generously, most Americans wont know anything at all about whats in bills.) Democrats could present a unified front in favor of Change™ and do a lot better, especially if they follow through on accomplishing things without looking incompetent in the process. When you're a party that needs to govern to succeed letting people in your party fuck up your governance is terrible strategy, it makes you look bad to voters. When I go to the gym three TVs in a row are playing cable news channels, and on CNN and Fox top news stories I see are "Manchin torpedoing Democrat agenda!" and the like. Democrat obstructionists are actively helping make sure that Democrats look bad, which in turn doesnt make people want to vote for Democrats. Like you said, they cant skirt by on doing nothing, they need to accomplish things, and having the news cycle be dominated by "Democrats fighting and doing nothing in the process," is not a good look. Jimmi + Show Spoiler +No focus on what you can change instead of what you can't. People here might want a revolution but that does not matter because to have a revolution you need even more people then you would to do it democratically. If there is going to be a revolution it is going to be on the other side.
The focus needs to be on how do we show all these millions of people who in every other developed country votes toward progress, why they vote that way and how it benefits them. Pushing the people closest to you away does not help you get closer to your goal it just makes you and them angrier. Democrats can't/won't change anything systematically, again they can't even pass voting rights legislation that would greatly help them electorally. That would be a tremendous win for their ability to win elections and they can't even do something so fundamentally important to their election chances. You dont show people they should vote for Democrats by having the Democrats look bad. People don't want to vote for incompetent politicians who spend all of their time fighting amongst themselves, doubly so when the opposition is fascists who don't have nearly this level of disunity. Manchin is in no way closest to allying with the needs of the American people by the way, Sinema either. What the american people NEED is healthcare costs to go down, to be able to afford their medications, guess whos there to 100% end any bill that would help those things? Sinemas there to fuck that up! Minimum wage to address the horrible cost of living? Manchin is there to make sure the US has egregious wealth disparities! Conservative Democrats are in no way, shape, or form a friend of the vast vast majority of Americans. A question to both of you, if the answer is mild small change over long periods of time, I have to ask what Democrats have to show for that at this point. Its been their MO for a long while now and I don't see what the advantage to them has been. Stagnant wages, ballooning healthcare costs, sky high housing, colossal college debt, what good is this strategy accomplishing overall? Its obviously not giving them any serious electoral dominance. EDIT: Fucks sake, who cares about revolution, I brought it up because its obviously not going to happen and (EDIT: almost) noone here would advocate for it. Im not sure what you mean by have to show? I wouldnt be happy with them if I was american, i just dont blaim manchin. I blame all the people that are voting for right of manchin and those that think him and ones like him are preffered candidates. I would think its shitty to have 2 bad choices, i would hokd my nose and make thr beeter one. But I would also volunteer for my local candidates who were actually competent. And i would evaluate my own beliefs because it is strange how many "left" americans hold beliefs around guns and other topics that give excuses to the people who I want change their minds. And I wouldnt give my opponents even the morale win, and new ideas on how to take down the better of the choices. And I wouldnt become apothletic because it can, and is most certainly getting worse. A minority of people are controlling your countries policy because of in part the system, but more than that its a mix of apathy and self defeat that is keeping the majority at home. Its not just here, but I swear there is more progressives who celebrate democrats not making progress then there is republicans. Im not sure if it is some self fufilling prophecy thing or that I told you so's matter too much or a mix of both. But I am certain that no progress was ever achieved in this manner.
I've spoken to some people who feel this way; they're very far on the left (for Americans) and they feel that the entire system needs to be blown up / burned down, which requires the Dem party to fail so miserably that the only thing left to do is basically have some crazy far-left revolution. They don't want to see small victories for the Dem party, because that would just prolong the too-slow pace that too many people still believe in; it's better to just acknowledge that neither party works - as quickly as possible - and just try something completely different (according to their logic).
I don't know if their rationalization would be better for America or not, but I do know that it lacks support.
|
Im not sure what you mean by have to show? I wouldnt be happy with them if I was american, i just dont blaim manchin. I blame all the people that are voting for right of manchin and those that think him and ones like him are preffered candidates. I would think its shitty to have 2 bad choices, i would hokd my nose and make thr beeter one. But I would also volunteer for my local candidates who were actually competent.
And i would evaluate my own beliefs because it is strange how many "left" americans hold beliefs around guns and other topics that give excuses to the people who I want change their minds.
And I wouldnt give my opponents even the morale win, and new ideas on how to take down the better of the choices. And I wouldnt become apothletic because it can, and is most certainly getting worse.
A minority of people are controlling your countries policy because of in part the system, but more than that its a mix of apathy and self defeat that is keeping the majority at home.
Its not just here, but I swear there is more progressives who celebrate democrats not making progress then there is republicans. Im not sure if it is some self fufilling prophecy thing or that I told you so's matter too much or a mix of both. But I am certain that no progress was ever achieved in this manner.
You can't just blame voters though, voters are voting how they are for a reason, like you mentioned thats a symptom not a cause. They're being fed immense amounts of propaganda whilst living in a system that has been made more and more hostile to them, to owning homes, to getting medical care, to having savings, to having disposable income, you name it. Democrats have been in power for a lot of these problems continuing to get worse, they have culpability for their inadequacy or downright unwillingness to address these problems.
What about Democrats is supposed to be so inspiring to vote for? A huge number of americans have the Gorsameth mentality of giving up, after all, if your life has been slowly eroding in quality and you're starting to really feel the boil and both parties have failed to address your material concerns why would you want to get up early before your day of work during your 60 hour work week of manual labor and go and vote?
Democrats just aren't offering and delivering on meaningful effectual change that people can feel in their day to day lives and given how depressed and apathetic many americans are they're not going to want to make their lives harder in order to be told, "sorry we tried but uh parliamentarian said no, better luck next time."
If we want voters to vote we have to give them a good reason to believe voting is going to provide them genuine benefit to their lives. We're so far from that being the case that theres very little incentive to vote.
|
On November 04 2021 02:46 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +I think the "responsibility" of the Dem Party includes working with Manchin and Sinema and elucidating the "nuance". Yeah, it's hard to educate the public on what it means to actually collaborate and compromise, especially when Republicans campaign against exactly that, but that's yet another reason why Dems have a harder job to do. They are working with Manchin and Sinema though, that is exactly whats happening and working with them is making Democrats look stupid. The Democrats have been huge on the whole Working With People Who Set Them Up To Fail deal and its just not a good look for them. It doesnt inspire Democrats to vote like they need to vote. Its a losing strategy at a time when we cannot afford to employ losing strategies. Show nested quote +Dems have to do a better job of explaining why passing a smaller bill is still a victory, and not a failure. Some constituents will never be happy, regardless of how big a bill is, but getting something done is necessarily better than getting nothing done. I generally agree its better to do something than nothing, but the problem is that having Manchin and Sinema is like promising to take your kid to Disney World but then one parent goes, "Ahhh, no, we're not doing that, we're actually going to walk around the local park instead." Yeah, the kid would in a vacuum be happy with going to the park, but they were just offered Disney World so the park just makes them feel bitter now. Manchin is consistently a problem with this and it makes selling wins as a Democrat a lot harder. Show nested quote +This is all part of the process of leaders "governing". Working together is "governing". I think the main reason why Dems are looking stupid here is because they didn't first feel out the situation with what Manchin and Sinema would be okay with signing. If you make a bold claim and promise something that can't be delivered - even if it's something that ought to be done, for the good of the American public, and really shouldn't be a major point of contention - you'll automatically look weak and silly when it doesn't end up happening. Overpromising is a huge issue, especially for the optics of the Dem Party (apparently, Republicans don't actually care that Trump never locked up Hillary, or built a wall, or kept any of his promises). I agree, it wouldnt be nearly as much of a problem if they'd keep their mouths shut the entire time and would hammer this out beforehand. Overpromising is definitely a colossal problem, agreed with that as well. Personally I dont think incremental change in any capacity will ever truly win over the American public, as Ive said before people have to really feel that change and a bunch of small changes is really hard to feel. Americans have had a ton of huge QoL factors get systematically degraded over the decades, and thats something Democrats are going to have to do better than incremental change to deal with. Democrats are complicit in all of the innumerable societal ills Americans face at almost every level and if they're going to really win the hearts of the public they're going to need to address that, but they never will if they let an aggressive agenda capable of helping the American people die at the hands of Manchins and Sinemas more interested in protecting the financial interests of their owners and sponsors.
I definitely wouldn't promise my (future) kids a trip to Disney World until I made sure that my wife was on board with it, that we could afford it, that there wasn't a global pandemic, etc. because I would feel really shitty for getting my kids' hopes up and then telling them it couldn't happen. It's a pretty good analogy for Dems potentially overpromising what they can't deliver, and how they could lose the trust of their constituents. I also agree with you that Senate Dems share some of the blame for ineffective leadership and societal ills, although I think the Joe Manchins of the country are not nearly as at fault as the Mitch McConnells.
|
Zambrah can you elaborate on your proposed mechanism of bypassing the parliamentarian?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
