|
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 July 16 2022 14:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2022 08:32 FeatherPlanes wrote:On July 12 2022 16:50 Sermokala wrote:
That's an inane take. Electing more progressives means that the Democrats become more progressive. That they need more progressive ideas in the party to appeal to the part of the party that is actually on the left. Nothing is going to change unless you change something and having someone on one end pull things like the squad allows the conservative dems to remain conservative while allowing them to move left relatively. There is a significant and stark divide between the perceived reality of urban centers, suburban, exurban, and rural areas. You cannot get enough progressives into government because the siloing of political discourse and inequity of representation makes it so. There are countless academic reports about how the urban car-centric development of the United States was an intentional effort to create isolated and selfish communities that are extremely easily to manipulate politically. And that's not even talking about the general media landscape. Progressives, like "The Squad", are stuck in 100% urban safe seats (OK MO1 is technically 99% urban) but urban regions are woefully underrepresented and are also victim to insane gerrymandering in Republican majority states. You can only pull things so far left because Republicans are more than happy to give Cori Bush and Emanuel Cleaver their seats, even making sure Emanuel Cleaver's seat is extra safe too. They want to give Democrats their fiefdoms because that ensures Democrats have absolutely zero avenue to take MO2, the last remaining seat that was within Democrat grasp. This introduces problems for all Federal Democrats because the constituent makeup of Cori Bush's seat and a rural Democratic seat are on completely different planets. Like not even remotely close. Cori Bush can say her shit but a Democrat in a rural seat can't move that way since the public have siloed themselves politically. How do rural Democrats move when they have to field questions on why they're not taking out this serial baby murderer representing a place they couldn't even name? And vice versa, though easier for 100% urban Democrat seats because they're like +30D or greater. I have zero love for conservative Democrats but its a hopeless game because the Republicans know what they're doing and they're absolutely crushing at ensuring minority rule. The solution to this was to not let it get to this point in the first place and let the rot completely set in. Its taken like four/five decades for Republicans to do this but they've finally removed enough of the foundations of the American political and civic system that everything is basically crumbling down all at once. Its really a bit too late to start asking for more progressives to get elected because they really needed to do that decades ago. On July 16 2022 07:00 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2022 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2022 06:06 Erasme wrote:On July 16 2022 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2022 02:10 Erasme wrote:On July 16 2022 01:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 13 2022 20:39 plasmidghost wrote:On July 13 2022 20:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That footage x.x 77 minutes go by before the police decide to actually stop the shooter. "The sound of children screaming has been removed" from the video; I can only hope that politicians and gun rights activists are forced to listen to the unedited version, children and all. The cop browsing his phone that has the Punisher logo while children die a few yards away enraged me so much. What utter cruelty and callousness Turns out that guy was married to one of the teachers who was killed and was trying to contact her. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-officer-uvalde-video-husband-170248586.html And he still didn't try to open the fucking door ? On July 16 2022 02:02 Starlightsun wrote:
How shameful that Biden isn't going to meet with Shereen Abu Aqleh's family. Amazing that the one thing that both parties agree on is that we have to grovel and support Israel no matter what outrages they commit. Now he's off to rub elbows in the other country that murders journalists with impunity. It's going to be hard to forget the rush of her casket as well. Another terror state. Sometimes you have to arm and fund a globally recognized illegal occupation engaged in ethnic cleansing, you know, for freedom and democracy's sake. Don't worry, I have plenty of posts in this very thread condemning Israel, which is unfortunatly as much as I can do. I believe you. It's not a comment about you though, it's a comment about US foreign policy. Specifically, the ongoing illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign the US is arming and supporting politically. What does the US actually gain for its basic unwavering support? While I find many alliances of convenience morally questionable thru repugnant, there’s often at least some pragmatic thread running through them. Israel being ‘America’s greatest ally’ seems absurdly skewed in terms of where the benefits of said alliance are A lot of American political behaviour is not rational. The recent wave of vicious transphobic and anti-abortion legislation should be enough proof of this because the actual thought process behind the laws are based on complete falsehoods and strawmen. If you were to ask some certain groups of Southern Baptists, for instance, they might tell you the gathering of Jews in Israel is a sign of the impending arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Others are philosemitic and see Israel as the only bright spot in a region of rights-hating heathens (i.e. racist). If you are in either group, you really do not see things in a rational economic or geopolitical manner because how could you? In fact, you would probably believe the benefits of the alliance significantly favour yourself and the overall human race. Good post sir, and a welcome new voice to the thread! I get how certain cohorts unwaveringly support Israel, I just don’t get why almost the entire body politic does. Ill-advised or not it’s not like Israel hopped in with various US-led conflicts or anything in the recent past. The relationship doesn’t exactly fit the ‘America first’ ethos for example.
The basis of a lot of the left wing dislike for Israel is their treatment of Palestine and practical genocide that is occurring there. Most Americans truly do not care about that because its too far away and really, really has no immediate impact on their lives because Palestine has very minimal influence on the global economy or culture.
If you don't care about the practical genocide of Palestine, what is there for a normal person with no actual understanding of Middle Eastern politics to really to hate about Israel? This is an extremely callous assessment of the situation but I feel this to be true even if we do not consider the potential racial reasons.
America First in a lot of cases isn't America First but Me First. If you're deeply religious, Israel benefits you because the mere existence of the country is a sign that all heathens will get punished/you and your family will be welcomed into Heaven in the near future. If you're racist, you might say Israel is the only decent country in a region full of worthless shithole countries. If you're philosemitic, of which a lot of people are, you're going to bat for Israel more than the Islamic majority countries around them.
Like I said...most of the country is divided by locale and region. And these regions and locales are politically siloed to the point that they're basically living in different realities. America to a lot of the pubic isn't a big country consisting of double digit states and the landmass almost double the European Union, a lot of the public are basically frogs stuck in the bottom of a well.
A Southern Baptist in a certain type of church might never step outside of their community for more than a couple times in their lifetime. Said person might unironically believe Israel's behavior is benefiting America first and foremost because they literally know nothing about the Middle East beyond what they hear from their family, local news station owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Fox News.
|
On July 17 2022 11:57 Zambrah wrote:
And as Ive said over and over and over and over and over again
Fuck West Virginia.
Focus on places where Democrat policies are genuinely popular instead of trying so fucking hard to protect one senate seat in one state that is going to go pure red as soon as their one remaining blue Senator bounces.
Suppose tomorrow Joe Manchin is a Republican.
Mitch McConnell is now Senate majority leader. How is that not worse for Democrats?
|
I understand where Zambrah is commin from, Obviously i disagree with him on like 99% of things especially when it comes to rhetoric directed at not his side. But he does have a point about Manchin being a net drag for the Dems.
Fuck WV is a stupid but pretty obvious example of a far lefty or far righty call. the old "If that group of people disagree's with me then fuck em" goes both ways.
|
On July 17 2022 10:49 Zambrah wrote:
So youre of the opinion the American public is totally cool with how the country is doing right now?...
Yeah, right, Bidens approval ratings are through the roof because Americans are super satisfied with how Democrats are handling power. In 2020 the House had a ~95% re-election rate, the Senate an ~85% re-election rate. While having an 80% disapproval rating.
The American system is so utterly fucked that there is no connection between what people think and who gets voted in.
|
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On July 17 2022 16:57 Taelshin wrote:
I understand where Zambrah is commin from, Obviously i disagree with him on like 99% of things especially when it comes to rhetoric directed at not his side. But he does have a point about Manchin being a net drag for the Dems.
Fuck WV is a stupid but pretty obvious example of a far lefty or far righty call. the old "If that group of people disagree's with me then fuck em" goes both ways.
It’s unlike Zambrah to take that tone :p
I think there are two things at play here and we’re somewhat going in circles.
Is Manchin currently a bulwark against a Republican majority in a seat no other Dem looks like capable of holding? And is that better than the alternative? Indeed, yes it is (to my sensibilities).
Does the usual cycle of ‘vote for us and we’ll do things’ make the Dems look bad? Especially for the demographics who already turn out to vote less? Also, absolutely yes IMO. Although difficult to gauge empirically.
I mean, both of these things can be true simultaneously.
I’m not even talking my preferred progressive policies, but even getting movement done on broadly popular policies. And, in the longer run doing the groundwork, building impetus and shoot for actually gaining more seats in the long run.
Pragmatically a Manchin can be a necessity now, but ‘vote for us and we won’t do anything’ isn’t exactly an inspirational, turnout-driving message.
I don’t have any particular proof that a ‘show some balls and go for it, you might reap some rewards’ wider strategy may see success. Politics is an unpredictable mistress, perhaps an unambiguous milquetoast approach really is the best option, but intuitively it seems rather flawed to me.
|
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On July 17 2022 17:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 10:49 Zambrah wrote:
So youre of the opinion the American public is totally cool with how the country is doing right now?...
Yeah, right, Bidens approval ratings are through the roof because Americans are super satisfied with how Democrats are handling power. In 2020 the House had a ~95% re-election rate, the Senate an ~85% re-election rate. While having an 80% disapproval rating. The American system is so utterly fucked that there is no connection between what people think and who gets voted in.
Those stats always melt my brain, although iirc people tend to approve quite highly of their particular representatives.
|
|
|
On July 17 2022 21:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 12:59 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 12:08 JimmiC wrote:
No one is protecting him, he does not need it, hence the power. He still has his committee seats. My apologies I forgot your propunishment strategy that foes not accomplish solving shat you sre mad at (getting more deals through) but would have real negative consequences (such as lose obama care). But you would sure show him and show others!
No worries, I'm glad we have people like you who are so afraid of risk or effort, without people like you America's journey into Christo-Fascism just wouldn't be possible. Truly mankind has only ever progressed through slow and steady degradation and a grave fear that anything but could backfire! Your ways truly are the solution to these dark times we're living in.
But at this point talking to you is pointless, you have no stake in the way America is, you would just as soon see it's injustices indefinitely perpetuated so long as it was stable enough in your eyes.
Does the usual cycle of ‘vote for us and we’ll do things’ make the Dems look bad? Especially for the demographics who already turn out to vote less? Also, absolutely yes IMO. Although difficult to gauge empirically.
I mean, both of these things can be true simultaneously.
I’m not even talking my preferred progressive policies, but even getting movement done on broadly popular policies. And, in the longer run doing the groundwork, building impetus and shoot for actually gaining more seats in the long run.
Yes, my point of view is semi-longterm (hence why I keep bringing up the fact that
in ~10 years Joe Manchin will almost certainly not be Senator of WV and no Democrat is going to reclaim that seat any time soon,)
so all I'm seeing is trying to cling to a truly mediocre short term boon by shitting on the long term prospects of Democrats in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and Michigan.
Some people are too afraid of anything that conflicts with the Democrat's strategic orthodoxy and it's sad because their strategy is so, so, sooo far from being effective.
That fear leads Democrats to preemptively avoid trying, as I've said before they regularly don't run candidates in local elections in red areas at all. Yes, they would probably lose, but you lose the entire presence of the Democrats in areas that only solidifies their electoral cowardice. They create a self fulfilling prophecy of "we'll lose so we wont run anyone," and lose because they didnt bother to fucking run anyone!
Instead of doing what Republicans have systematically done and kept their presence at the local level consistently (you know allowing them unprecedented levels of power for a minority party in the US) Democrats decided eh thats too scary, what if instead we tried more fundraising or a more moderate candidate in the big elections?!
I don't see how anyone can look at the state of the country and think, "yes, what the Democrats are and have been doing works great and we should just stick to that it'll definitely be great for women, and POC, and the LGBTQ crowd, they definitely will be protected from the rising tide of religious fascism!"
EDIT: Also for anyone who wants to know where my political label falls, Im not a progressive Im a socialist or you can use anti-capitalist, but I favor a world where people own the means of production and I have no patience for capitalism whatsoever. So, to recap, not progressive. Socialist or anti-capitalist, thanks.
Longer Im on this world watching the shit around me the more I inch and inch more completely toward GH's world view.
|
|
|
On July 17 2022 13:26 Kyadytim wrote:Does anybody else remember talking about how there were going to be problems with existing abortion bans and trigger laws not allowing abortions to save the lives of pregnant people and being reassured by conservatives that they shouldn't worry, conservatives would fix this. Yeah, we all knew that was bullshit. Show nested quote +By a nearly four-to-one margin, Idaho Republicans at the state party’s convention in Twin Falls rejected an amendment to the party platform on Saturday that would have provided an exception for a mother who has an abortion to safe her life. idahocapitalsun.com
I'm sure they'll take an honest look at what they've done later on and realize the mistake they made. It'll get fixed eventually!
What a joke. This was never about anything but making women 2nd-class citizens in America. If they have to die to pass the White Fundamentalist's purity test, then so be it.
|
On July 18 2022 02:12 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 13:26 Kyadytim wrote:Does anybody else remember talking about how there were going to be problems with existing abortion bans and trigger laws not allowing abortions to save the lives of pregnant people and being reassured by conservatives that they shouldn't worry, conservatives would fix this. Yeah, we all knew that was bullshit. By a nearly four-to-one margin, Idaho Republicans at the state party’s convention in Twin Falls rejected an amendment to the party platform on Saturday that would have provided an exception for a mother who has an abortion to safe her life. idahocapitalsun.com I'm sure they'll take an honest look at what they've done later on and realize the mistake they made. It'll get fixed eventually! What a joke. This was never about anything but making women 2nd-class citizens in America. If they have to die to pass the White Fundamentalist's purity test, then so be it. What makes you think it's going to stop at women? They're absolutely going to go after Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas to expand the second class citizen status to everyone who is not cisgender and heterosexual.
It's probably also only a matter of time before they start applying the "the courts shouldn't get involved, people's basic human rights should be left up to the states" logic to segregation or something.
|
Oh, I don't think it stops with women at all. Transgender people have been getting attacked like never before, even in the abortion discussion. It will be an unprecedented era of radical theocratic fascists telling you how you can and can't live your life. And if that life happens to require certain types of healthcare, well now you just die. Not for lack of scientific and medical acumen, just for the beliefs of the few being forced into the many at their expense.
We're just getting started. They've gotten all the power they need, and this will just be a warning shot, in the grand scheme. Free country, indeed.
|
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On July 18 2022 01:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2022 01:25 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 21:39 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 12:59 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 12:08 JimmiC wrote:
No one is protecting him, he does not need it, hence the power. He still has his committee seats. My apologies I forgot your propunishment strategy that foes not accomplish solving shat you sre mad at (getting more deals through) but would have real negative consequences (such as lose obama care). But you would sure show him and show others! No worries, I'm glad we have people like you who are so afraid of risk or effort, without people like you America's journey into Christo-Fascism just wouldn't be possible. Truly mankind has only ever progressed through slow and steady degradation and a grave fear that anything but could backfire! Your ways truly are the solution to these dark times we're living in. But at this point talking to you is pointless, you have no stake in the way America is, you would just as soon see it's injustices indefinitely perpetuated so long as it was stable enough in your eyes. Does the usual cycle of ‘vote for us and we’ll do things’ make the Dems look bad? Especially for the demographics who already turn out to vote less? Also, absolutely yes IMO. Although difficult to gauge empirically.
I mean, both of these things can be true simultaneously.
I’m not even talking my preferred progressive policies, but even getting movement done on broadly popular policies. And, in the longer run doing the groundwork, building impetus and shoot for actually gaining more seats in the long run. Yes, my point of view is semi-longterm (hence why I keep bringing up the fact that in ~10 years Joe Manchin will almost certainly not be Senator of WV and no Democrat is going to reclaim that seat any time soon,) so all I'm seeing is trying to cling to a truly mediocre short term boon by shitting on the long term prospects of Democrats in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and Michigan. Some people are too afraid of anything that conflicts with the Democrat's strategic orthodoxy and it's sad because their strategy is so, so, sooo far from being effective. That fear leads Democrats to preemptively avoid trying, as I've said before they regularly don't run candidates in local elections in red areas at all. Yes, they would probably lose, but you lose the entire presence of the Democrats in areas that only solidifies their electoral cowardice. They create a self fulfilling prophecy of "we'll lose so we wont run anyone," and lose because they didnt bother to fucking run anyone! Instead of doing what Republicans have systematically done and kept their presence at the local level consistently (you know allowing them unprecedented levels of power for a minority party in the US) Democrats decided eh thats too scary, what if instead we tried more fundraising or a more moderate candidate in the big elections?! I don't see how anyone can look at the state of the country and think, "yes, what the Democrats are and have been doing works great and we should just stick to that it'll definitely be great for women, and POC, and the LGBTQ crowd, they definitely will be protected from the rising tide of religious fascism!" EDIT: Also for anyone who wants to know where my political label falls, Im not a progressive Im a socialist or you can use anti-capitalist, but I favor a world where people own the means of production and I have no patience for capitalism whatsoever. So, to recap, not progressive. Socialist or anti-capitalist, thanks. Longer Im on this world watching the shit around me the more I inch and inch more completely toward GH's world view. If you had actual logical arguements you wouldnot have to resort to insulting strawmans. Maybe reflect instead of throwing tantrums.
Reflect on what?
For all their many, many, many, many flaws the Republican machine is delivering stuff their core constituency approves of. Even from a minority position, by virtue of the Supreme Court being as it is.
Democrats, hey it’s Biden not wanting to do too many executive orders, or if there’s attempts in the legislature they’re frequently stomped out by 1-2 legislators.
Who aren’t censured, indeed they still hold positions in prestige committees.
Great, the Democrats can’t defend Roe, they can’t implement their own stated policies because one Senator is a coal baron.
Great, fantastic. What’s the inducement to vote for them?
Being slightly less bad than the Republicans? That’s not enough for a lot of people.
I often agree with you but I think you’re catastrophically off on your reading here.
|
On July 18 2022 04:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2022 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 18 2022 01:25 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 21:39 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 12:59 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 12:08 JimmiC wrote:
No one is protecting him, he does not need it, hence the power. He still has his committee seats. My apologies I forgot your propunishment strategy that foes not accomplish solving shat you sre mad at (getting more deals through) but would have real negative consequences (such as lose obama care). But you would sure show him and show others! No worries, I'm glad we have people like you who are so afraid of risk or effort, without people like you America's journey into Christo-Fascism just wouldn't be possible. Truly mankind has only ever progressed through slow and steady degradation and a grave fear that anything but could backfire! Your ways truly are the solution to these dark times we're living in. But at this point talking to you is pointless, you have no stake in the way America is, you would just as soon see it's injustices indefinitely perpetuated so long as it was stable enough in your eyes. Does the usual cycle of ‘vote for us and we’ll do things’ make the Dems look bad? Especially for the demographics who already turn out to vote less? Also, absolutely yes IMO. Although difficult to gauge empirically.
I mean, both of these things can be true simultaneously.
I’m not even talking my preferred progressive policies, but even getting movement done on broadly popular policies. And, in the longer run doing the groundwork, building impetus and shoot for actually gaining more seats in the long run. Yes, my point of view is semi-longterm (hence why I keep bringing up the fact that in ~10 years Joe Manchin will almost certainly not be Senator of WV and no Democrat is going to reclaim that seat any time soon,) so all I'm seeing is trying to cling to a truly mediocre short term boon by shitting on the long term prospects of Democrats in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and Michigan. Some people are too afraid of anything that conflicts with the Democrat's strategic orthodoxy and it's sad because their strategy is so, so, sooo far from being effective. That fear leads Democrats to preemptively avoid trying, as I've said before they regularly don't run candidates in local elections in red areas at all. Yes, they would probably lose, but you lose the entire presence of the Democrats in areas that only solidifies their electoral cowardice. They create a self fulfilling prophecy of "we'll lose so we wont run anyone," and lose because they didnt bother to fucking run anyone! Instead of doing what Republicans have systematically done and kept their presence at the local level consistently (you know allowing them unprecedented levels of power for a minority party in the US) Democrats decided eh thats too scary, what if instead we tried more fundraising or a more moderate candidate in the big elections?! I don't see how anyone can look at the state of the country and think, "yes, what the Democrats are and have been doing works great and we should just stick to that it'll definitely be great for women, and POC, and the LGBTQ crowd, they definitely will be protected from the rising tide of religious fascism!" EDIT: Also for anyone who wants to know where my political label falls, Im not a progressive Im a socialist or you can use anti-capitalist, but I favor a world where people own the means of production and I have no patience for capitalism whatsoever. So, to recap, not progressive. Socialist or anti-capitalist, thanks. Longer Im on this world watching the shit around me the more I inch and inch more completely toward GH's world view. If you had actual logical arguements you wouldnot have to resort to insulting strawmans. Maybe reflect instead of throwing tantrums. Reflect on what? For all their many, many, many, many flaws the Republican machine is delivering stuff their core constituency approves of. Even from a minority position, by virtue of the Supreme Court being as it is. Democrats, hey it’s Biden not wanting to do too many executive orders, or if there’s attempts in the legislature they’re frequently stomped out by 1-2 legislators. Who aren’t censured, indeed they still hold positions in prestige committees. Great, the Democrats can’t defend Roe, they can’t implement their own stated policies because one Senator is a coal baron. Great, fantastic. What’s the inducement to vote for them? Being slightly less bad than the Republicans? That’s not enough for a lot of people. I often agree with you but I think you’re catastrophically off on your reading here.
Do you think that Jackson is confirmed to the supreme court if Manchin is ousted from the party?
On July 17 2022 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 01:34 WombaT wrote:On July 17 2022 01:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 01:08 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 00:39 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 00:31 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 00:26 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 00:18 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 00:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 16 2022 23:45 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
I’ll buy that when I see him removed as the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources committee.
Why is he obstructing the Democrats agenda on energy (among a cavalcade of other things) and allowed to remain as the committee’s chairman?
He’s being a colossal spoiler in a Democrat senate and making his colleagues look like inept morons and he’s allowed to keep all of his committee seats?
If they’re whipping him they’re doing the most utterly piss poor job possible. If you thought of him like he is, a moderate Republican, you would have much less stress. The options where he is are moderate Rep or batshit crazy Trumper. You can not think that there could be a more left dem their. It is not possible. How is any of this related to whipping because you need leverage to whip someone in your system. The Dems have none on Manchin because it is him or worse. Or how do you think it works? Your anger should be at the WV voters since Machin is actually left of most of them, and anyone left of Manchin would lose. No point scapegoating because that solves nothing. No, they have leverage because Manchin has all sorts of committee appointments you could take away from him and give to someone who actually supports the party’s policy in those areas. You have a Democrats preemptive quitter mindset of “there’s nothing to do so just accept it,” and I firmly disavow that mentality. There are always levers to pull in government and even if they might not work it’s better than sitting around not even trying like Democrats do. Republicans are happy to throw their weight around on things even if they lose, Democrats don’t even bother trying. You think that if they did that he would vote with them or Run red next election? His electorate does not want what you want, that is the problem. I do not get how this comes up like every 2 months and people post all sorts of stats about how much a difference he actually makes in as far as voting left of his voters and then you just keep disregarding it and pretend like if just the Dems "whipped" harder all his votes would line up and there would be no negative consequences. He’s doing such a good job voting with them right now, I see your point! You still laboring under the delusion that American politicians actively give a shit about what their electorate wants is also baffling to me, people have linked endless polls and popular things in this country are well and proven to not be enacted unless its also convenient for moneyed interests, see the ACA. I want Democrats to whip him at fucking all, all they do is compromise with him endlessly only for him to go “eh never mind fuck you.” I’ve reiterated countlessly how he acts as a net loss by depressing turnout and making every other Democrat look inept and powerless. Fucking. TRY. Why are you so allergic to trying? Why would you rather do nothing and fail instead of trying and failing? Where does this mentality come from? So whats your logic, that they are too dumb to figure out this simple whipping concept? Or are evil secret council that pretends to want things but uses manchin to block them? Not that Manchin is voting the way that keeps in him power and the dems are willing to deal with it because the options otger than him are way way worse. It is so crazy tot hink they are not trying to convimce him. It makes them look bad. Think this through logically. Well largely they don’t appear to be. Look at the Republicans. Sadly it’s an often insane line, but they toe the fucking line. If Manchin largely toed the line and diverged from the Dems for issues of particular importance to his constituents that’s one thing. He diverges on almost every other issue. Part of party politics is party discipline. Figure it out. The Republicans have, it’s how they push things through even if they don’t have the broad support of the average citizen. Like that time they whipped McCain into voting to repeal the ACA right? The Republicans didn't pass any more major legislation than the current government with their majority when Trump was president.
I'm guessing you were asleep and the thread has moved on, but I'd like some thought on this as well from you.
You can whine and bitch and moan about how Manchin is a net negative to the Democrats, but some of us live in reality where we know what he voted for and point it out which is ignored to make hyperbole like this.
On July 17 2022 08:53 Zambrah wrote:
I look forward to that 70+ Democrats that we’ll have in the Senate after the midterms! Since Americans are so super able to navigate national politics with such great nuance and patience and all.
If Democrats ousted Manchin and won every senate election in 2022 they wouldn't have 70 seats. Even an optimistic Democrat gain is something like 54. This is the strawmen that Jimmy is pointing out.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On July 18 2022 07:01 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2022 04:51 WombaT wrote:On July 18 2022 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 18 2022 01:25 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 21:39 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 12:59 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 12:08 JimmiC wrote:
No one is protecting him, he does not need it, hence the power. He still has his committee seats. My apologies I forgot your propunishment strategy that foes not accomplish solving shat you sre mad at (getting more deals through) but would have real negative consequences (such as lose obama care). But you would sure show him and show others! No worries, I'm glad we have people like you who are so afraid of risk or effort, without people like you America's journey into Christo-Fascism just wouldn't be possible. Truly mankind has only ever progressed through slow and steady degradation and a grave fear that anything but could backfire! Your ways truly are the solution to these dark times we're living in. But at this point talking to you is pointless, you have no stake in the way America is, you would just as soon see it's injustices indefinitely perpetuated so long as it was stable enough in your eyes. Does the usual cycle of ‘vote for us and we’ll do things’ make the Dems look bad? Especially for the demographics who already turn out to vote less? Also, absolutely yes IMO. Although difficult to gauge empirically.
I mean, both of these things can be true simultaneously.
I’m not even talking my preferred progressive policies, but even getting movement done on broadly popular policies. And, in the longer run doing the groundwork, building impetus and shoot for actually gaining more seats in the long run. Yes, my point of view is semi-longterm (hence why I keep bringing up the fact that in ~10 years Joe Manchin will almost certainly not be Senator of WV and no Democrat is going to reclaim that seat any time soon,) so all I'm seeing is trying to cling to a truly mediocre short term boon by shitting on the long term prospects of Democrats in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and Michigan. Some people are too afraid of anything that conflicts with the Democrat's strategic orthodoxy and it's sad because their strategy is so, so, sooo far from being effective. That fear leads Democrats to preemptively avoid trying, as I've said before they regularly don't run candidates in local elections in red areas at all. Yes, they would probably lose, but you lose the entire presence of the Democrats in areas that only solidifies their electoral cowardice. They create a self fulfilling prophecy of "we'll lose so we wont run anyone," and lose because they didnt bother to fucking run anyone! Instead of doing what Republicans have systematically done and kept their presence at the local level consistently (you know allowing them unprecedented levels of power for a minority party in the US) Democrats decided eh thats too scary, what if instead we tried more fundraising or a more moderate candidate in the big elections?! I don't see how anyone can look at the state of the country and think, "yes, what the Democrats are and have been doing works great and we should just stick to that it'll definitely be great for women, and POC, and the LGBTQ crowd, they definitely will be protected from the rising tide of religious fascism!" EDIT: Also for anyone who wants to know where my political label falls, Im not a progressive Im a socialist or you can use anti-capitalist, but I favor a world where people own the means of production and I have no patience for capitalism whatsoever. So, to recap, not progressive. Socialist or anti-capitalist, thanks. Longer Im on this world watching the shit around me the more I inch and inch more completely toward GH's world view. If you had actual logical arguements you wouldnot have to resort to insulting strawmans. Maybe reflect instead of throwing tantrums. Reflect on what? For all their many, many, many, many flaws the Republican machine is delivering stuff their core constituency approves of. Even from a minority position, by virtue of the Supreme Court being as it is. Democrats, hey it’s Biden not wanting to do too many executive orders, or if there’s attempts in the legislature they’re frequently stomped out by 1-2 legislators. Who aren’t censured, indeed they still hold positions in prestige committees. Great, the Democrats can’t defend Roe, they can’t implement their own stated policies because one Senator is a coal baron. Great, fantastic. What’s the inducement to vote for them? Being slightly less bad than the Republicans? That’s not enough for a lot of people. I often agree with you but I think you’re catastrophically off on your reading here. Do you think that Jackson is confirmed to the supreme court if Manchin is ousted from the party? Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 17 2022 01:34 WombaT wrote:On July 17 2022 01:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 01:08 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 00:39 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 00:31 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 00:26 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2022 00:18 Zambrah wrote:On July 17 2022 00:03 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
If you thought of him like he is, a moderate Republican, you would have much less stress. The options where he is are moderate Rep or batshit crazy Trumper. You can not think that there could be a more left dem their. It is not possible.
How is any of this related to whipping because you need leverage to whip someone in your system. The Dems have none on Manchin because it is him or worse. Or how do you think it works? Your anger should be at the WV voters since Machin is actually left of most of them, and anyone left of Manchin would lose. No point scapegoating because that solves nothing. No, they have leverage because Manchin has all sorts of committee appointments you could take away from him and give to someone who actually supports the party’s policy in those areas. You have a Democrats preemptive quitter mindset of “there’s nothing to do so just accept it,” and I firmly disavow that mentality. There are always levers to pull in government and even if they might not work it’s better than sitting around not even trying like Democrats do. Republicans are happy to throw their weight around on things even if they lose, Democrats don’t even bother trying. You think that if they did that he would vote with them or Run red next election? His electorate does not want what you want, that is the problem. I do not get how this comes up like every 2 months and people post all sorts of stats about how much a difference he actually makes in as far as voting left of his voters and then you just keep disregarding it and pretend like if just the Dems "whipped" harder all his votes would line up and there would be no negative consequences. He’s doing such a good job voting with them right now, I see your point! You still laboring under the delusion that American politicians actively give a shit about what their electorate wants is also baffling to me, people have linked endless polls and popular things in this country are well and proven to not be enacted unless its also convenient for moneyed interests, see the ACA. I want Democrats to whip him at fucking all, all they do is compromise with him endlessly only for him to go “eh never mind fuck you.” I’ve reiterated countlessly how he acts as a net loss by depressing turnout and making every other Democrat look inept and powerless. Fucking. TRY. Why are you so allergic to trying? Why would you rather do nothing and fail instead of trying and failing? Where does this mentality come from? So whats your logic, that they are too dumb to figure out this simple whipping concept? Or are evil secret council that pretends to want things but uses manchin to block them? Not that Manchin is voting the way that keeps in him power and the dems are willing to deal with it because the options otger than him are way way worse. It is so crazy tot hink they are not trying to convimce him. It makes them look bad. Think this through logically. Well largely they don’t appear to be. Look at the Republicans. Sadly it’s an often insane line, but they toe the fucking line. If Manchin largely toed the line and diverged from the Dems for issues of particular importance to his constituents that’s one thing. He diverges on almost every other issue. Part of party politics is party discipline. Figure it out. The Republicans have, it’s how they push things through even if they don’t have the broad support of the average citizen. Like that time they whipped McCain into voting to repeal the ACA right? The Republicans didn't pass any more major legislation than the current government with their majority when Trump was president. I'm guessing you were asleep and the thread has moved on, but I'd like some thought on this as well from you. You can whine and bitch and moan about how Manchin is a net negative to the Democrats, but some of us live in reality where we know what he voted for and point it out which is ignored to make hyperbole like this. Show nested quote +On July 17 2022 08:53 Zambrah wrote:
I look forward to that 70+ Democrats that we’ll have in the Senate after the midterms! Since Americans are so super able to navigate national politics with such great nuance and patience and all. If Democrats ousted Manchin and won every senate election in 2022 they wouldn't have 70 seats. Even an optimistic Democrat gain is something like 54. This is the strawmen that Jimmy is pointing out.
It’s not really Manchin specifically, indeed he has a pretty unique set of constituency circumstances.
As I said, as things stand, preferable than the alternative.
I don’t think there’s as pressing a need in the medium thru long term to actually get things done in the GOP as there is the Dems, crudely speaking.
With this particular incarnation of the GOP anyway. Fight the good fight in terms of optics, seems enough to placate folks. Lucking out and flipping the Supreme Court to actually accomplish some of their talking points, yeah that’s a bonus.
With Dem voters, especially latent non-voters I’d wager lack of policy progress is a big voter suppressant. ‘Not the GOP’ isn’t exactly inspiring.
In terms of raw numbers Manchin does rather tow the party line, I looked as per your mention, but there’s a notable enough series of instances where he doesn’t play ball, and that’s frequently impactful to boot. And often the optics are awful.
That said, there’s a whole slew of systematic problems, it’s not a Manchin issue.
Aside from those, the Democratic Party is a hopelessly wide and diffuse coalition, that encompasses way too many viewpoints and somebody will always be displeased. Usually the likes of me or Zambrah but hey.
In a more optimal system a Manchin would be an independent to be courted, or part of some sane centre-right party, the filibuster wouldn’t be so potent etc etc.
I haven’t really answered anything posed, mostly spitballing. Ultimately if your President campaigns talking about a big infrastructure/green bill that is gutted because a Senator from his own party has coal interests, it doesn’t look good and it doesn’t exactly inspire oneself.
Don’t promise what you can’t deliver is general good life advice, and it’s on Biden here, but politics is one realm where being unambitious and openly realistic is an active impediment.
|
On July 18 2022 12:06 WombaT wrote:
In terms of raw numbers Manchin does rather tow the party line, I looked as per your mention, but there’s a notable enough series of instances where he doesn’t play ball, and that’s frequently impactful to boot. And often the optics are awful.
Raw numbers can also mislead, because AFAIK the majority leader rarely schedules a vote unless they already know it'll pass.
|
On July 18 2022 13:22 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2022 12:06 WombaT wrote:
In terms of raw numbers Manchin does rather tow the party line, I looked as per your mention, but there’s a notable enough series of instances where he doesn’t play ball, and that’s frequently impactful to boot. And often the optics are awful.
Raw numbers can also mislead, because AFAIK the majority leader rarely schedules a vote unless they already know it'll pass.
Schumer seems to think it would be bad optics to say, “Okay, we’re going to vote once a week on simple, basic economic issues, starting with extending the Expanded Child Tax Credit indefinitely. In the coming weeks we’ll vote to peg the federal minimum wage to inflation / make capital gains regular income / make your rent tax deductible / etc. We’ll probably lose most of these votes, but at least you’ll all see what you’re missing by having all these Republicans in the Senate.” IMO it would be great optics, but what do I know.
|
Or it would just paint the democrats as weak losers that can't get anything done. I feel like you understimate how much people like "winning".
|
Not as much as they despise "not even trying".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
