|
Jagchosis posted:a lot of liberals like to pretend that we don't live in a deeply reactionary country. i mean, look at how vermont rewarded their governor for pushing single payer. vermont. Also look how much Wisconsin and Michigan punished incumbent governors for destroying unions.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:When it comes to not running candidates that would actually get voted for, yes it is their fault. But what if, the candidates that get voted for don't want to support all the liberal issues? Neeksy posted:In terms of the loan rates, they've actually been turning a huge profit from those and have resisted taking action against predatory for-profit unis. So that's not even that strong of an endorsement for him. Plus little of that helps the many people entering their late 20s and early 30s who are still hounded by student loans as well as a job market where the new jobs are mostly minimum wage or just lovely exploitation. Notice the things that require fixing would require congressional action....
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:When it comes to not running candidates that would actually get voted for, yes it is there fault. Not running candidates in a ton of districts was an absolutely ridiculous thing to do this cycle (and every cycle it happens, like didn't one goon report being in swing-state florida, in a swing-county and finding out his ballot was just two R's?  ). But pinning blocking medicaid expansion on state democrats when state republicans are the one blocking it from happening? What mental gymnastics does that take? How can you look at obstructionists and blame the ones they're obstructing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Not running candidates in a ton of districts was an absolutely ridiculous thing to do this cycle (and every cycle it happens, like didn't one goon report being in swing-state florida, in a swing-county and finding out his ballot was just two R's? Honestly, if I had a big complaint it was that national democrats spent too much money on senate races they were sure to lose in 2014 and not enough money on house races they are sure to lose in 2014 but could be competitive for 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:yeah i haven't seen a single person claiming that in this thread and yet you repeatedly characterize everyone here as a demonrat shill. nutranurse posted:lol, if you deign to sift through post histories you'll find me complaining a fair loving share about democrats when they gently caress up. But feel free to set up that straw man to dance around all tribal like. Wow you guys are slow. I was making a strawman in response to the quoted strawman, to show how silly it was to play that game. It's not like I'm a genius or anything but maybe you should slow down and digest posts before replying, I dunno. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Really, what do you guys want that would make you happy with Democrats. Given they're painted as extreme socialists no matter how many warmed over republican ideas they propose, I'd like them to be actual socialists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But what if, the candidates that get voted for don't want to support all the liberal issues? Remember how I said that the two marginalized groups of the dems (the populists and the progressives) need to act as a cohesive force and bend the DLC types to their will? nutranurse posted:Not running candidates in a ton of districts was an absolutely ridiculous thing to do this cycle (and every cycle it happens, like didn't one goon report being in swing-state florida, in a swing-county and finding out his ballot was just two R's? I pin it on the ledership of the Dems, they are the rot in the party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
The Democrat strategy going forward is probably going to be intense concerted effort to paint the GOP as racist, especially once Obama signs an illegal EO for total amnesty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember how I said that the two marginalized groups of the dems (the populists and the progressives) need to act as a cohesive force and bend the DLC types to their will? Would you say there's a "silent majority" of progressives and populists? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember how I said that the two marginalized groups of the dems (the populists and the progressives) need to act as a cohesive force and bend the DLC types to their will? I'm more saying, what if the Democrats that can win in the states and races people want them to win aren't as ideologically pure enough for those factions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:19
|
|
Neeksy posted:In terms of the loan rates, they've actually been turning a huge profit from those and have resisted taking action against predatory for-profit unis. So that's not even that strong of an endorsement for him. Plus little of that helps the many people entering their late 20s and early 30s who are still hounded by student loans as well as a job market where the new jobs are mostly minimum wage or just lovely exploitation. Income based repayment plans allow you to only pay a small percentage of your income and none at all if your income is below a certain threshold or if you're unemployed with forgiveness of the rest after 20 years of payments, 10 if you work for a non-profit. This is amazingly better than what it was prior to Obama's presidency.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Would you say there's a "silent majority" of progressives and populists? Yes I would say that they are a majority. Hell just look at polls of Americans, at least economically are quite willing to push for a system that the DLC types will never even try. Trabisnikof posted:I'm more saying, what if the Democrats that can win in the states and races people want them to win aren't as ideologically pure enough for those factions? So are you suggesting a bunch of weak willed type like Pryor in a state that went for a minimum wage increase was the best the Dems could have had? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
We already knew in August why the nation and G-d was ready to pass stewardship to the GOP:
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The Democrat strategy going forward is probably going to be intense concerted effort to paint the GOP as racist, especially once Obama signs an illegal EO for total amnesty. Non-violent racism isn't a liability in large swaths of the country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Well if you're unemployed or just employed and poor in general, here's some free Medicaid! If your state accepted it. All the problems with healthcare and insurance remain, and it makes Dems seem incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Also whooooaaaa what's with the murder and civil war talk War is the continuation of politics by other means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:If your state accepted it. All the problems with healthcare and insurance remain, and it makes Dems seem incompetent. Seem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:In terms of the loan rates, they've actually been turning a huge profit from those and have resisted taking action against predatory for-profit unis. So that's not even that strong of an endorsement for him. Plus little of that helps the many people entering their late 20s and early 30s who are still hounded by student loans as well as a job market where the new jobs are mostly minimum wage or just lovely exploitation. Yes, reduced rates are another terrible non-solution to an actual problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
effectual posted:War is the continuation of politics by other means. i have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Keystone is basically 100% going to happen now, right? It has to have 60 votes in the Senate after last night. Obama could veto, I suppose. Will he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
How bad was last night for Democrats? Well, Carl DeMaio (R), who had multiple staffers quit his campaign because he kept masturbating in front of them, beat incumbent Representative Scott Peters (D) in California's 52nd Congressional District.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Yes, reduced rates are another terrible non-solution to an actual problem. what would be an actual solution to the student loan crisis? causing a financial crisis by total loan forgiveness or something? Joementum posted:How bad was last night for Democrats? Well, Carl DeMaio (R), who had multiple staffers quit his campaign because he kept masturbating in front of them, beat incumbent Representative Scott Peters (D) in California's 52nd Congressional District. okay WHAT IS THE DEAL with san diego politicians?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Keystone is basically 100% going to happen now, right? It has to have 60 votes in the Senate after last night. Obama could veto, I suppose. Will he? It probably would have passed if democrats had retained the senate. I'm almost positive that the pipeline enjoys considerable bipartisan support (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Keystone is basically 100% going to happen now, right? It has to have 60 votes in the Senate after last night. Obama could veto, I suppose. Will he? Obama was asked that at his press conference today and said that they're waiting on a few open court cases to conclude before revisiting the authorization. His tactic all along has been to just delay, rather than outright kill it. I think a pocket veto is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:It probably would have passed if democrats had retained the senate. I'm almost positive that the pipeline enjoys considerable bipartisan support (correct me if I'm wrong, though). Drill Baby Drill is something that will be taught in history classes, because most Americans agree, oil and gas loving own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The Democrat strategy going forward is probably going to be intense concerted effort to paint the GOP as racist, especially once Obama signs an illegal EO for total amnesty. As if they would take the risk. They would rather make vague noncommital noises than risk alienating even a single racist voter. They didn't condemn Ferguson, for god's sake. They treat the opposition with kid gloves, despite constantly being handed perfect material on a silver platter. And that suits the party establishment just fine. They've already got a nice cozy spot as the GOP's alternative, so why risk it to stand up for something their neoliberal asses don't even care about? Why risk alienating their main voter block? They're not representing us, they govern for the spineless, two-faced suburban white assholes who don't have anything against the poor, no sir, but have you seen what those urban youths are wearing these days? The Democrats stand for all the people who want the appearance of equality, all the truth-is-in-the-middle cowards who want the benefits of seeming like good people, but who don't actually give a poo poo about their fellow human beings. They're the values of the old GOP with a layer of plausible deniability. As long as the GOP and Tea Party are around, they can be used as excuses for not being progressive, while getting what their real voters wanted all along. So why rock the boat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Obama was asked that at his press conference today and said that they're waiting on a few open court cases to conclude before revisiting the authorization. His tactic all along has been to just delay, rather than outright kill it. I think a pocket veto is a possibility. Didn't the decision on recess appointments effectively kill the pocket veto?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So are you suggesting a bunch of weak willed type like Pryor in a state that went for a minimum wage increase was the best the Dems could have had? I'm saying that we saw the short term rewards of Republicans' "do nothing" strategy. Democrats couldn't campaign proactively on poo poo, how could it pass? Since the Republicans are just now being forced to put bills behind their ideology, running against Republicans wasn't effective either. Now Republicans get to choose between pissing off their base or pissing off moderates. Either way, it sours their chances at the presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
The Democrats can just pull the same procedural maneuvers that Republicans have been pulling since 2010, right? If so, I do not see how anything really changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:The Democrats can just pull the same procedural maneuvers that Republicans have been pulling since 2010, right? If so, I do not see how anything really changes. The Democrats will not do anything of the sort whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The Democrats will not do anything of the sort whatsoever. Yes they will, and did when they were in the minority last time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The Democrats will not do anything of the sort whatsoever. Yeah, much better to let Obama veto insane poo poo like mad. Let the Republicans pass all the crazy poo poo they want if that's their choice. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Yes they will, and did when they were in the minority last time. You mean when they didn't control the white house?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:The Democrats can just pull the same procedural maneuvers that Republicans have been pulling since 2010, right? If so, I do not see how anything really changes. Most of those procedural maneuvers have been to block appointments made by Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:okay WHAT IS THE DEAL with san diego politicians? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhNneU5shTs
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:The Democrats can just pull the same procedural maneuvers that Republicans have been pulling since 2010, right? If so, I do not see how anything really changes. The public would hate democrats and are more willing to vilify democrats for their wrongs (both real and imagined). I could be wrong (please tell me I'm wrong), but I think adopting republican obstructionist policies will backfire even if democrats end up preventing some toxic legislation. What I am more interested in is how things will shake out in terms of inter-party relations and how much of rift we'll see between the factions within the republican party. Ted Cruz will probably try something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean when they didn't control the white house? Yes, and vetos also work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:How bad was last night for Democrats? Well, Carl DeMaio (R), who had multiple staffers quit his campaign because he kept masturbating in front of them, beat incumbent Representative Scott Peters (D) in California's 52nd Congressional District. California was a wellspring of Republican sentiment last night. As I remarked in the California thread earlier today, as of this morning, five term Democratic congressman Jim Costa may have lost California's 16th Congressional District (Cook PVI: D+7) to dairy farmer Johnny Tacherra by 800 votes. According to opensecrets.org, Tacherra had raised only $307k to Costa's 1.3m.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:The public would hate democrats and are more willing to vilify democrats for their wrongs (both real and imagined). I could be wrong (please tell me I'm wrong), but I think adopting republican obstructionist policies will backfire even if democrats end up preventing some toxic legislation. If the Republicans actually try passing what they've gotten through the House they'll be the vilified ones. The Ryan budget is hilarious, and it's escaped scrutiny so far because nobody thinks it will ever pass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Yes, and vetos also work. Vetos work better because The President Vetoing a Bill™ can get airtime far easier than using a committee scheduling trick to delay a vote does (even if you know one weird trick that parliamentarians hate). Let Republicans choose to run to the right in fear of their gerrymandered primaries, and they'll rack up a long list of crazy unpopular things to use in 2016 to win presidential and senate races. The house is hosed, forever maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Yes, and vetos also work. Vetos go without saying. Republicans will change the rules, they're so idiotic they just will, if anything it would be really funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:01
|
|