EPTShould Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4100
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22983 Posts
Should Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10637 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13811 Posts
On December 06 2023 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Should Democrats continue trying to tie Ukraine funding to aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign? Should Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding? Do you want to contribute to the discussion are are you "just asking questions"? We know you don't care about us politics so you need to at least give some effort if you want something out of it. Do you care about the next election suddenly or are you just trying to stir the pot for whatever next you'll blame on dems? If Dems decouple Ukraine funding to Isreal funding then reps will simply slide through isreal funding and stop funding Ukraine. If dems do not compromise on immigration they don't get Ukraine funding. Do you have an interest on what people think what is best for dems or what dems should morally do? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22983 Posts
On December 06 2023 02:50 Sermokala wrote: Do you want to contribute to the discussion are are you "just asking questions"? We know you don't care about us politics so you need to at least give some effort if you want something out of it. Do you care about the next election suddenly or are you just trying to stir the pot for whatever next you'll blame on dems? If Dems decouple Ukraine funding to Isreal funding then reps will simply slide through isreal funding and stop funding Ukraine. If dems do not compromise on immigration they don't get Ukraine funding. Do you have an interest on what people think what is best for dems or what dems should morally do? I'm honestly curious if people here support Democrats continuing trying to tie Ukraine funding to aiding and abetting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign and/or Democrats agreeing (they haven't yet) to Republican's crackdown on immigration to get Ukraine funding. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42249 Posts
On December 06 2023 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Should Democrats continue trying to tie Ukraine funding to aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign? Should Democrats accept Republicans proposal on immigration if it's the only way to get Ukraine funding? Yes | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22983 Posts
Are there any Republican policy proposals (instead of immigration, like policing, abortion rights, etc.) that could turn that into a no for anyone that otherwise would say "yes" (yourself included)? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24627 Posts
On December 06 2023 04:51 JimmiC wrote: Well tubberville is ending one of the stupidest hold ups in American political history. He accomplished nothing and cost who knows how much money. But I’m sure his people will be happy that he fought the bad fight. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/tommy-tuberville-releases-holds/index.html There are exceptions though. My next boss is still held lol. With only a handful remaining, they probably won't be that hard to vote through manually, though. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13811 Posts
Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24373 Posts
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead. Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president. Plus you don’t have a bunch of candidates throwing all the shit they have in their arsenal at each other, which I imagine can be advantageous depending on other circumstances. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22983 Posts
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead. Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president. While I find the Dem supporter denialism around polling concerning for plenty of reasons personally (it's especially bad on Reddit), it's also not a great electoral strategy for them imo. Polls aren't perfect, and it is far out, but Biden's 11+ points behind where he was in 2020 at this point in the race and indications are that's he's also struggling in the handful of states that will really matter in 2024 where Biden squeaked by on 10's of thousands of votes. Biden's also has the worst favorability of any US President at this point in their presidency, that's including Trump then and his favorability now. Trump also overtook Biden as the betting favorite back in September and has grown his lead there since. If the ~7 million more votes Biden got in 2020 were in the swing states for 2024 then I'd say the polling is bad, but not really that concerning. Knowing he actually only barely won those states by tens of thousands of votes means this should be hair on fire concerning to Dems imo. | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany306 Posts
On December 06 2023 11:25 BlackJack wrote: Biden says he's not sure he would even be seeking re-election if Trump wasn't running, suggesting that Democracy is at risk and the stakes are too high for him to sit out. Does anyone else find that a little ironic considering he's perhaps the only candidate that Trump could beat? A NYTime poll shows Trump leading in 5 of 6 swing states and polling at record numbers among black voters (for a Republican). Simply replacing Biden with an "Unnamed Democrat candidate" causes a 12 point swing, going from a 4 point lead for Trump to an 8 point deficit. It's hard to believe that nobody can convince Biden to do the decent thing and step aside instead of being just another RBG, Diane Feinstein, Mitch McConnell, etc. that sticks around longer than they are welcome. When you're polling well behind "somebody else" even among your own party you should have some humility and pack it in. That's a great point. Looking from the other side of the pond, the list of candidates is pretty small. There is Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg. Sanders is too old as well. Did I miss someone? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
On December 06 2023 11:55 Sermokala wrote: I find your faith in the legitimacy of modern polls odd. They've been categorically wrong for a few cycles now and a year out there's a lot of road ahead. Incumbant advantage is a very real and serous thing. The fact is that the dems don't have to spend money in a primary campaign and also don't need to spend money on 94 federal indictments for their candidate. You get big candidates that have to support you on the campaign trail and never wound you along the way. You get a sense of party unity and can look presidential when you're actually the president. Even his own party wants someone else. Even his own party thinks he is too old to run. Even his own party thinks he is failing on the border and migrant crisis. People are struggling to afford groceries and buying a house is completely out of the question. Unbelievably, his running mate is somehow even more unpopular. But.. but.. incumbent advantage...  | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
On December 06 2023 12:57 Hildegard wrote: That's a great point. Looking from the other side of the pond, the list of candidates is pretty small. There is Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg. Sanders is too old as well. Did I miss someone? Lots of people. There are plenty of governors, congress people, mayors, etc. that are qualified if Biden is qualified. Naturally nobody wants to create waves and try to primary their own incumbent so the field isn't going to materialize in the first place. If Biden stepped aside there's no reason to believe we wouldn't have a field of 8-12 serious contenders that we've had in all the past elections without an incumbent. Obviously we're kind of at the "too late" point though. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42249 Posts
On December 06 2023 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote: Are there any Republican policy proposals (instead of immigration, like policing, abortion rights, etc.) that could turn that into a no for anyone that otherwise would say "yes" (yourself included)? They won democratic elections. They have to be listened to and worked with in order for the government to function. The American people and the American constitution are the problem, deal with those and we’ll talk. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22983 Posts
On December 06 2023 14:18 KwarK wrote: They won democratic elections. They have to be listened to and worked with in order for the government to function. The American people and the American constitution are the problem, deal with those and we’ll talk. My first impression is that's a "no" (which obviously I find concerning), but I'm hoping that's just because nothing immediately came to mind and you didn't want to figure one out. While I think you have at least wrestled with the implications of a "no" and rationalizations like "thems the rules", I don't think most people who are going to be part of the "vote blue or else" crowd really have. I can't speak to you really, but my impression is that many Dem supporters are overestimating how effective that threat will be on the "American people" you referenced (especially those giving Trump a lead in the polls currently). | ||
|
KwarK
United States42249 Posts
On December 06 2023 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote: My first impression is that's a "no" (which obviously I find concerning), but I'm hoping that's just because nothing immediately came to mind and you didn't want to figure one out. While I think you have at least wrestled with the implications of a "no" and rationalizations like "thems the rules", I don't think most people who are going to be part of the "vote blue or else" crowd really have. I can't speak to you really, but my impression is that many Dem supporters are overestimating how effective that threat will be on the "American people" you referenced (especially those giving Trump a lead in the polls currently). You're GHing very hard these days. You should work on that. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10637 Posts
On December 06 2023 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote: My first impression is that's a "no" (which obviously I find concerning), but I'm hoping that's just because nothing immediately came to mind and you didn't want to figure one out. While I think you have at least wrestled with the implications of a "no" and rationalizations like "thems the rules", I don't think most people who are going to be part of the "vote blue or else" crowd really have. I can't speak to you really, but my impression is that many Dem supporters are overestimating how effective that threat will be on the "American people" you referenced (especially those giving Trump a lead in the polls currently). You don't like deomcracy, we know. No need to constantly affirm it. | ||
| ||
