Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:11 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilchiam View Post
Thirty-one years ago, I cast my first vote, in the Illinois primary, for my senator, Paul Simon. A Democrat. But the party has changed since he was a pillar of it, and I no longer want to claim it.
The Republican Party has changed since George H.W. Bush was a pillar of it, 31 years ago.

I hope you and all the other Mountaineers/Greenies come back when Donald Trump wins re-election and tell us how at least YOU stood for principle.
  #52  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:14 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
There is nothing more important than getting rid of Trump. Nothing.
Eric Levitz disagrees. I'm with Levitz on this.

As Levitz points out, winning the Presidency without winning the Senate (or winning the Senate but leaving the filibuster in place) could easily wind up with 2022 looking like 2010 and 1994. A Republican could win the Presidency in 2024, or maybe the Dem holds on in the White House, but still can't get anything through Congress. Then it's 2028, a Republican wins the Presidency, and the planet is screwed.

But in this scenario, we beat Trump, which was the most important thing, period.
  #53  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I was only talking about the House (sometimes the House is called Congress). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
This seems pretty weak, man. A better answer would be "Yeah, I meant just the House"
  #54  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
This seems pretty weak, man. A better answer would be "Yeah, I meant just the House"
I think everyone knew he was talking about the House, including you.
  #55  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
This seems pretty weak, man. A better answer would be "Yeah, I meant just the House"
Yes, that's what I said. You put the same sentiment into different words. Not sure how that's "weak", but if you feel the need to pick a silly fight, go right ahead.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #56  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:27 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I think everyone knew he was talking about the House, including you.
Not true. When I see someone say "Congress passed something" I think they mean "Congress passed something"

I'm weird like that.
  #57  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
No, you're weird in an entirely different way.
  #58  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:33 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,984
Well, there may be many ways I'm weird in.

Holding someone accountable to the actual words they use may be the least weird way I'm in.
  #59  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Ok, you win. You honestly didn't understand that he meant House democrats. Congrats.
  #60  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:48 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ok, you win. You honestly didn't understand that he meant House democrats. Congrats.
No, I didn't. I honestly thought he meant Congress had passed things. I wanted to know what Congress had passed. But it turns out Congress didn't pass anything. Not sure why congratulations are necessary.
  #61  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:48 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,978
Sidebar please: what does the courthouse have to do with partisan affiliation?

__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #62  
Old 06-06-2019, 09:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Sidebar please: what does the courthouse have to do with partisan affiliation?

He said he was going down to change his voter registration information. I don't find it odd that you can do that at the courthouse

Eta: oh, you might not realize that in many states you register as a party member. Some primaries are party members' votes only.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-06-2019 at 09:34 PM.
  #63  
Old 06-06-2019, 09:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilchiam View Post
Went down to the courthouse yesterday, intending to change my affiliation to Green Party. The registrar, who I know slightly, told me that I would have to register as "Other" and specify Green, but that it would be self-defeating, since the Green Party has little to no representation in this state.

The options were Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Mountain, Unaffiliated and Other. I chose unaffiliated, for the time being. I'll find out about the Mountain Party; I had already decided not to be a libertarian. If Mountain does not appeal to me, I'll stay unaffiliated.

It's a weird feeling, like the first time I flew. Or, for that matter, like the first time I voted. Thirty-one years ago, I cast my first vote, in the Illinois primary, for my senator, Paul Simon. A Democrat. But the party has changed since he was a pillar of it, and I no longer want to claim it.
What does your declared affiliation translate to in practical voting matters?

Obviously declared Ds can vote R or Green or whatever and declared Rs can vote D or Libertarian or whatever. And declared whatevers can vote D or R.

Does just impact what primary you vote in, or in your head does this commit you to voting for that party in the general? If you believe the D is the less poor choice than Trump and know that your declared party candidate has no chance, how will you vote? How did you vote last cycle?
  #64  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:18 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
but if you feel the need to pick a silly fight, go right ahead.
That's his M.O. It's all he does here. Best to just ignore.
  #65  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilchiam View Post
QuickSilver, it's just backing up on me, the way the Dems are so hell-bent on impeaching Trump, they're not accomplishing anything. Whoever gets the nomination next year will be running solely to beat Trump, not because they want the job for its own sake.....
Pelosi isnt, actually and few Dem candidates have said that's what they wanna do.

Biden, Sanders, Beto all are in it for the office.

But what's wrong with getting rid of trump?
  #66  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:10 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not shocked by debates on impeachment -- I'm not even sure what the best path forward is. I'm shocked by the sentiment that anyone doesn't get why Democrats are so strongly opposed to Trump.
Then let this thread be a lesson to you and others who cling to the notion that Trump should be impeached for no other reason than to stake moral high ground. The OP doesn't necessarily like Trump, but he wants Democrats to talk about the issues that he considers to be relevant to him (whatever they are). Democrats are really and truly believe that impeachment, right now, in and of itself, is going to make their party more popular and republicans less just aren't living in the real world.

I'll repeat what I said in the Nancy Pelosi Appreciation Thread: the Democrats may have taken the House, but they did it be winning a fair number of centrist and right-leaning districts -- districts that were created by Republicans, for Republicans. The centrists and right-leaning voters didn't go away; they still exist. They gave Democrats a chance, and they either 'get it' or they don't.

Last edited by asahi; 06-07-2019 at 12:12 AM.
  #67  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:40 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Eric Levitz disagrees. I'm with Levitz on this.

As Levitz points out, winning the Presidency without winning the Senate (or winning the Senate but leaving the filibuster in place) could easily wind up with 2022 looking like 2010 and 1994. A Republican could win the Presidency in 2024, or maybe the Dem holds on in the White House, but still can't get anything through Congress. Then it's 2028, a Republican wins the Presidency, and the planet is screwed.

But in this scenario, we beat Trump, which was the most important thing, period.
I don't see how any of that makes it not a priority to beat Trump. That still sounds better than having Trump in the White House, and letting the Republicans remain the pro-Trump party.

A Republican is going to win the Presidency again. It's how it works.
  #68  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:15 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilchiam View Post
QuickSilver, it's just backing up on me, the way the Dems are so hell-bent on impeaching Trump, they're not accomplishing anything. Whoever gets the nomination next year will be running solely to beat Trump, not because they want the job for its own sake.
This post doesn't make any sense to me. There is not a single candidate who is running exclusively on being "not Trump." That wouldn't work: they have to differentiate themselves. I don't even follow this stuff much, but I keep hearing about different ideas each one keeps putting up

Also, why would we want someone who wants the office for its own sake? That's a bad thing. That would mean they were just greedy power grabbers. We want people who want the job because they can do good. We want people who want the job to help our country. We don't want someone who "just wants to be president."

And, finally, getting rid of Trump IS accomplishing something. No, it's not the only thing to accomplish, but, again, no one is running on just that. Focusing on impeachment is doing their constitutional duty, since Trump has committed impeachable offenses.

Trump is actively harming our country as we speak, so people who want to fight him are doing a good thing. It's bizarre to have a problem with fighting the bad guy.

What do you want, for them to agree with Trump, and let him get away with his power grab? Make the President actually above the law? Let collusion with a foreign enemy be normal?


As for your OP: what good do you think this actually does? Either you still vote against Trump when the time comes, which means voting Democrat, or you don't, and you help Trump win, like the Greens did last time.

Your party affiliation only matters in one respect: in some states it allows you to vote in the primaries. Other than that, why care about it at all?

I call myself a Democrat, but I've only registered once in my life, and as a Republican. I found out that primaries are open in my state. So why would I bother officially joining any party?

I definitely would never join a party that can't win. What you were told about the Greens is true about every party country-wide other than the Democrats and the Republicans. Next to them, they have no showing, and no political power.

I honestly don't know what's left to do to keep pushing the idea of rational voting, instead of all this idealistic crap. Idealism is good for coming up with ideas on how to improve things. But you can't use it to decide who to vote for.

You will always, ALWAYS wind up voting for the lesser of evils. Everyone will be bad in some way. You always pick the one who is the least bad.

Either you get that, and I'm happy, or you don't, and I'm unhappy. If you feel better signing up to be a part of something, it largely doesn't matter. Only how you vote.

Last edited by BigT; 06-07-2019 at 01:16 AM.
  #69  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:21 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Then let this thread be a lesson to you and others who cling to the notion that Trump should be impeached for no other reason than to stake moral high ground. The OP doesn't necessarily like Trump, but he wants Democrats to talk about the issues that he considers to be relevant to him (whatever they are). Democrats are really and truly believe that impeachment, right now, in and of itself, is going to make their party more popular and republicans less just aren't living in the real world.

I'll repeat what I said in the Nancy Pelosi Appreciation Thread: the Democrats may have taken the House, but they did it be winning a fair number of centrist and right-leaning districts -- districts that were created by Republicans, for Republicans. The centrists and right-leaning voters didn't go away; they still exist. They gave Democrats a chance, and they either 'get it' or they don't.
You can't tell someone anything if they're not listening. Even upthread, there was discussion of all the things the Democratic House has been trying to accomplish, only to be stymied by Mitch McConnell and his Republican Senator sycophants. If all you're hearing about is IMPEACHMENT and nothing of the plethora of policies being advocated by current candidates, it's not the Democratic Party's fault.

But please, continue to tsk tsk. It works wonders for convincing people that you're correct.
  #70  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:01 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
No, I didn't. I honestly thought he meant Congress had passed things. I wanted to know what Congress had passed. But it turns out Congress didn't pass anything. Not sure why congratulations are necessary.
Did the fact I said "Democratic Congress" lead you to consider that maybe I was talking about the part of Congress controlled by Democrats?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_(disambiguation)

"United States House of Representatives, its lower chamber, also called "Congress""
  #71  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:37 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
You can't tell someone anything if they're not listening. Even upthread, there was discussion of all the things the Democratic House has been trying to accomplish, only to be stymied by Mitch McConnell and his Republican Senator sycophants. If all you're hearing about is IMPEACHMENT and nothing of the plethora of policies being advocated by current candidates, it's not the Democratic Party's fault.

But please, continue to tsk tsk. It works wonders for convincing people that you're correct.
For the record, no offense to the OP personally, but I think the original post comes across as usual confused, cynical voter whinyness. Not a fan of it. I agree that he/she and other voters like him/her ought to be more curious and read up on what Democrats are trying to achieve. They really do have a platform of good ideas, OP, and I hope you check it out.

My point is that it's also very apparent that the Mueller investigation has dominated headlines and pretty much drowned out what a lot of the Democrats have been trying to talk about in terms of the issues, which is one reason why you don't see Bernie Sanders calling out Trump on twitter and promising impeachment. He'd much rather make noise about the issues. He's a lot more interested in making news fighting for social justice, and calling out Wal-Mart at their shareholder meetings. I don't always agree with Sanders but he 'gets' that part at least. He understands that while, yes, it's important to bring oversight to the presidency and to check Trump's power, the most important thing is to talk, talk, talk about issues that the voters are interested in. Unless and until we are fairly certain that the country is ready to remove Trump from office, I have a bad feeling that starting the impeachment process (right now anyway) will backfire spectacularly.

Last edited by asahi; 06-07-2019 at 06:37 AM.
  #72  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:13 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Did the fact I said "Democratic Congress" lead you to consider that maybe I was talking about the part of Congress controlled by Democrats?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_(disambiguation)

"United States House of Representatives, its lower chamber, also called "Congress""
Screwed up the link above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_(disambiguation))

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-07-2019 at 08:13 AM.
  #73  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:59 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Hey, I thought you meant that Congress (both houses) passed items. I wanted to know what they were. Not a gotcha or anything, just I hadn't heard of anything actually being done in Congress, and I thought I missed something.

Sometimes, a question is an actual request for knowledge.
  #74  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Hey, I thought you meant that Congress (both houses) passed items. I wanted to know what they were. Not a gotcha or anything, just I hadn't heard of anything actually being done in Congress, and I thought I missed something.

Sometimes, a question is an actual request for knowledge.
No problem.

But if it's just a request for knowledge, then I recommend knocking off stuff like "pretty weak, man". I was trying to answer your question.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-07-2019 at 09:20 AM.
  #75  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:20 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 316
Congratulations. I think this quote from the late Karl Lagerfeld is apropos:

"Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life, so you bought some sweatpants."
  #76  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:21 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Hey, I thought you meant that Congress (both houses) passed items. I wanted to know what they were. Not a gotcha or anything, just I hadn't heard of anything actually being done in Congress, and I thought I missed something.

Sometimes, a question is an actual request for knowledge.
I am another that knew what he was talking about. It was pretty clear.
  #77  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:25 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No problem.

But if it's just a request for knowledge, then I recommend knocking off stuff like "pretty weak, man". I was trying to answer your question.
Perhaps he merely meant that you should apply your knowledge with greater force, to ensure that it gets into the minds of those trying to resist it?
  #78  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:03 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
... there was discussion of all the things the Democratic House has been trying to accomplish, only to be stymied by Mitch McConnell and his Republican Senator sycophants. ...
No question that you are correct and yet it is still the case that because those attempts have been unable to go anywhere they come off as not really doing anything. Talk of impeachment by the House (if done also of course to be stymied in the Senate that no way will convict) also comes off as not really doing anything but adds in more flavor of posturing and detracts from the other items that have at least been attempted.

Removing Trump from office is not the goal, it is one part of the path to achieving the goal of getting our country on a better path. Forgetting the bigger picture, failing to constantly communicate a message of what that better path is and instead messaging that the goal is no more Trump, paints the Ds as nothing but partisan hacks as much as the Senate sycophants are.
  #79  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:29 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
There is nothing more important than getting rid of Trump. Nothing. We can debate whether impeaching him is the best method, and we are debating that. But criticizing the Dems for making that a priority seems a bit bizarre to me.
Bingo, nothing will be able to get done without the removal of Trump. Trump will continue sending us backwards until that is done. You don't worry about painting the fence when your house is on fire. sheeesssss.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #80  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:50 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Did the fact I said "Democratic Congress" lead you to consider that maybe I was talking about the part of Congress controlled by Democrats?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_(disambiguation)

"United States House of Representatives, its lower chamber, also called "Congress""
Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution takes precedence over Wikipedia.

Quote:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Congress is both chambers together.
  #81  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution takes precedence over Wikipedia.

Congress is both chambers together.
Cite that the Constitution takes precedence over other references when it comes to interpreting the meaning of human language?

This is just a hilariously silly digression, and that you appear to be taking it seriously brings me a hearty chuckle.

But seriously, let's see that cite. Seriously, I mean it, because without it your argument is nothing.
  #82  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:10 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Cite that the Constitution takes precedence over other references when it comes to interpreting the meaning of human language?
I'm not referring to the meaning of human language. I'm talking about how our government works. Congress has passed very little of substance over the last 5 months.

P.S. I don't buy into Humpty Dumptyism.

I disagree with you, but I will drop it so as not to continue a hijack.
  #83  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I'm not referring to the meaning of human language. I'm talking about how our government works. Congress has passed very little of substance over the last 5 months.
Right, this doesn't conflict with my post, which was about the portion of Congress controlled by Democrats -- also known as the House of Representatives. Apologies if you were confused by it, but hopefully my meaning is now clear. Human language can be complicated, but luckily we can use that language to help resolve miscommunications and misunderstandings like this one.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-07-2019 at 11:16 AM.
  #84  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:32 AM
It's Not Rocket Surgery! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 4,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by choie View Post
Third-party followers loooove to cut off their noses to spite their face.

"I'm taking a stand on my pet issue--fighting baby seal hunting! I don't care if I know this 3rd-party candidate has no chance in hell! I don't care if Party A (which is wildly in favor of killing seal pups and grinding them up) wins, because Party B (whose platform includes a bill to stop seal hunting) is not perfect and pure!"

And when Party A wins by a measly margin that would've probably been erased if the 3rd-party candidate voters hadn't flounced and thrown away their vote, and as the president-elect holds up a baby seal carcass at a cheering rally yelling Club those seals! Club those seals!, and he subsequently names a buddy of his as Secretary in Charge of Protecting Baby Seals--a friend who just so happens to run the billion-dollar Deadsealco conglomerate, and after some months, the shores are glutted with carcasses of dead baby seals...

They shrug their shoulders. "See?" they tell Party B people and various desolate organizations dedicated to protecting marine life. "That's what you get for not listening to us."

So, uh, yeah. Good luck with that.
This may be my favorite post in my 15 years of being on the SD.
  #85  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:42 AM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,713
My only comment is, I hope you aren't relying on news headlines to tell you what Democrats are spending most of their time on. Because the media love to talk about Impeachment. News about Congress voting on bills are not as popular. Especially when it's a House bill that has no chance of becoming law.
  #86  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:52 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by choie View Post
Third-party followers loooove to cut off their noses to spite their face.

"I'm taking a stand on my pet issue--fighting baby seal hunting! I don't care if I know this 3rd-party candidate has no chance in hell! I don't care if Party A (which is wildly in favor of killing seal pups and grinding them up) wins, because Party B (whose platform includes a bill to stop seal hunting) is not perfect and pure!"

And when Party A wins by a measly margin that would've probably been erased if the 3rd-party candidate voters hadn't flounced and thrown away their vote, and as the president-elect holds up a baby seal carcass at a cheering rally yelling Club those seals! Club those seals!, and he subsequently names a buddy of his as Secretary in Charge of Protecting Baby Seals--a friend who just so happens to run the billion-dollar Deadsealco conglomerate, and after some months, the shores are glutted with carcasses of dead baby seals...

They shrug their shoulders. "See?" they tell Party B people and various desolate organizations dedicated to protecting marine life. "That's what you get for not listening to us."

So, uh, yeah. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately the major national parties agree on more substantive issues including high government spending, entitlements, the failed drug war, domestic spying, mass incarceration, monetary intervention, supporting foreign despotism, and killing many foreigners.

So yeah good luck reforming them.
  #87  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:09 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't care what the President does. I care about someone saying "The Democratic Congress has passed a relatively high number of progressive priorities since taking power earlier this year" when it doesn't seem like Congress has passed anything.
The (Democratic) House has passed over 200 pieces of legislation that McConnell has refused to allow to come to a vote in the Senate.
If you want to quibble that that is only the House and not the full Congress, you are technically correct, but your response made it appear that you were ignorant of the actual situation.
  #88  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:13 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I'm not referring to the meaning of human language. I'm talking about how our government works. Congress has passed very little of substance over the last 5 months.

P.S. I don't buy into Humpty Dumptyism.

I disagree with you, but I will drop it so as not to continue a hijack.
Sure you like Humpty Dumpty; you are equating letting McConnell set your meanings for "passing" by acting as though his ability to stop House action from being debated in the Senate with the House "passing very little of substance."

House vs Congress: see above.
  #89  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:27 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,497
I'm positive the OP is thrilled to join the only party which can do absolutely nothing to fight the following:

Trump administration announces plans to expand hunting and fishing access in wildlife refuges.

Congratulations on your newfound party's irrelevance and impotence.

Last edited by JohnT; 06-07-2019 at 12:28 PM.
  #90  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:46 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sometimes, a question is an actual request for knowledge.
Seriously? It's clear that the whole point of posts #20 and #33 is that the Democratic party, (which is, after all, the focus of this thread, and whose supposed inaction is the OP's misguided justification for changing party), on their side, are in fact active in Congress, and moreover precisely that Congress on the whole is not actually passing anything because the Republicans in the Senate are blocking at least what the Democrats in Congress are passing in the House. That's the "knowledge" of those posts overall, if you bother to read them in good faith.

So no matter how misspoken that one particular statement might be, to belabor its parsing, and harp on just it alone, is a pointless and disingenuous distraction, having nothing to do with "knowledge." Everyone knows that the bills are not getting passed by Congress overall. You're not making some revelatory observation that isn't already recognized by the overall discourse
  #91  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:49 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Unfortunately the major national parties agree on more substantive issues including high government spending, entitlements, the failed drug war, domestic spying, mass incarceration, monetary intervention, supporting foreign despotism, and killing many foreigners.

So yeah good luck reforming them.
More than a few Democratic candidates are campaigning against the drug war and mass incarceration (which can indeed go hand in hand to a point). And Democrats are overwhelming in favor of letting ex-felons vote (and some are in favor of letting current felons vote). There are a few who are against foreign despotism and foreign wars.

And of course both disagree on the type of high government spending and entitlements.

So that analysis seems very simplistic (at best).
  #92  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:00 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That other OP is the first time I think I've ever seen or heard a self-described Democrat use the pejorative "social justice warrior". Lotta "firsts" for me in this thread eh.
You can't be serious.

I'm not a democrat, but I'm as anti-republican as anyone, so by default that means I vote democrat a lot. But the democrats' focus on identity politics is counterproductive. Kids today - their grandparents got to march for civil rights. Their parents got to march for gay rights. They want some great social struggle too. Civil rights and gay rights were right and noble, and worth the work and sacrifice, but this generation wants their struggle too, so now we're fighting to the death over transgender bathrooms, and next up, whether being an otherkin is worthy of legal protection. You might think the last thing is a joke, but you aren't tuned in to the "social justice warrior" vibes if you do.

Some of their motivations are possibly noble - they want to have their own good fight for justice - and some motivations are just vanity - they like pretending they're oppressed or that they're victims for one reason or another. But we're making a bigger deal about progressively less important issues, and all it practically does is alienate people who think you're going too far.

But the democrats seem to embrace this unimportant, divisive, losing shit - and you know why? Because they're owned by the same corporations the republicans are, they just present a less corrupt, less insane version. So the democrats don't want to market themselves on the obvious - to solve the issue of money being the dominant (and nearly only) factor in political power, to empower unions and the labor movement, to put checks on the power of large and powerful corporations, to basically do anything to improve the economic interest of poor people at the expense of the rich.

So instead of taking that winning route, that the vast majority of this country would benefit from and probably agree with, they instead focus on bullshit "identity politics" issues to try to sell themselves as being different from republicans without pissing off their rich masters.

There are a whole fucking lot of people who wish democrats would stop talking about transgender bathrooms and trigger warnings and would start talking about working class people and empowering labor and returning us to being a democracy .
  #93  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You can't be serious.

I'm not a democrat, but I'm as anti-republican as anyone, so by default that means I vote democrat a lot. But the democrats' focus on identity politics is counterproductive. Kids today - their grandparents got to march for civil rights. Their parents got to march for gay rights. They want some great social struggle too. Civil rights and gay rights were right and noble, and worth the work and sacrifice, but this generation wants their struggle too, so now we're fighting to the death over transgender bathrooms, and next up, whether being an otherkin is worthy of legal protection. You might think the last thing is a joke, but you aren't tuned in to the "social justice warrior" vibes if you do.

Some of their motivations are possibly noble - they want to have their own good fight for justice - and some motivations are just vanity - they like pretending they're oppressed or that they're victims for one reason or another. But we're making a bigger deal about progressively less important issues, and all it practically does is alienate people who think you're going too far.

But the democrats seem to embrace this unimportant, divisive, losing shit - and you know why? Because they're owned by the same corporations the republicans are, they just present a less corrupt, less insane version. So the democrats don't want to market themselves on the obvious - to solve the issue of money being the dominant (and nearly only) factor in political power, to empower unions and the labor movement, to put checks on the power of large and powerful corporations, to basically do anything to improve the economic interest of poor people at the expense of the rich.

So instead of taking that winning route, that the vast majority of this country would benefit from and probably agree with, they instead focus on bullshit "identity politics" issues to try to sell themselves as being different from republicans without pissing off their rich masters.

There are a whole fucking lot of people who wish democrats would stop talking about transgender bathrooms and trigger warnings and would start talking about working class people and empowering labor and returning us to being a democracy .
It just seems ludicrous to me that anyone could possibly be worried about a vanishingly small number of progressives who focus on silliness (as opposed to legitimate social justice issues) when the most obviously harmful negative sort of "identity" politics today comes from Trump and Trump-allied white-grievance politics, ala Tucker Carlson and worse. You know, the ones that keep trying to downplay fatal shootings and other violence motivated by white supremacism and other forms of bigotry.

Very, very few Democrats (and none with any significant office that I'm aware of) spend any significant time "talking about transgender bathrooms and trigger warnings". The vast majority of progressive advocacy today is for economic issues, health care, law enforcement reform, and other substantive issues that affect millions of poor and middle class voters. Even LGBTQ rights is largely substantive, and most of the talk about "transgender bathrooms" comes from regressive anti-trans bigots.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-07-2019 at 01:22 PM.
  #94  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:25 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I don't see how any of that makes it not a priority to beat Trump.
A priority, sure.

But I keep on running into this "nothing can possibly be more important than beating Trump" attitude, and that's bullshit. Beating Trump isn't an end in itself, it's the ways we want to change this country and the world for the better.

If we beat Trump in a way that leaves us in no position to actually change anything, all that will get us is a year or two of respite while the world continues to get warmer.
  #95  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:40 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Exactly. Trump is just a symptom. The disease is ignorance and hate, and it covered about 60 million people the last time, not 1. Getting rid of Trump won't help if their next guy spouts the same nonsense and loots the till just as greedily. Getting his voters to stop being so eager to believe lies and indulge in hate is what will matter.
  #96  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Eric Levitz disagrees. I'm with Levitz on this.

As Levitz points out, winning the Presidency without winning the Senate (or winning the Senate but leaving the filibuster in place) could easily wind up with 2022 looking like 2010 and 1994. A Republican could win the Presidency in 2024, or maybe the Dem holds on in the White House, but still can't get anything through Congress. Then it's 2028, a Republican wins the Presidency, and the planet is screwed.

But in this scenario, we beat Trump, which was the most important thing, period.
So your eighteen dimensional chess plan is

1) Let Trump get re-elected
2)
3) Profit!

Can you fill me in on exactly what #2 is?
  #97  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:09 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So your eighteen dimensional chess plan is

1) Let Trump get re-elected
2)
3) Profit!

Can you fill me in on exactly what #2 is?
Seems right there in what you quoted. Win the Senate and don't worry about the presidency this term. I don't agree, but it's not all that crazy if the Dems actually can do it. With both houses in Dem hands they can pretty much hog tie Trump and make him spend all his energy fighting them and accomplishing nothing. In theory, they could even prevent him from getting a new USSC appointment, basically using the same tactics the Republicans used to block Obama until Trump was elected.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #98  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:30 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
Can you point to an area, on the doll, where the Party hurt you?
Dang... I larfed!
  #99  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:38 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
I actually read the linked article and Levitz doesn't seem to be at all saying that. He's pointing out that it would be bad if we don't take the Senate in 2020, which is true. So he's saying that Dems should maybe be focusing more of our energy on the Senate races, which is meh; people always focus more on the Presidency.

But those goals aren't in conflict. The best way to win the Senate is to nominate the best Presidential candidate we can to maximize Dem turnout, which obviously is also the best way to win the Presidency.

And IMO, if we do win the Presidency and not the Senate, the new President needs to be upfront from day one about managing expectations and sending the message that the 2022 Senate race begins on Inauguration Day. That's why I worry about Joe Biden's message about "bipartisan cooperation" and selling himself as the guy who can get Republicans to act like decent human beings. Sure, that may be what swing voters want to hear, but promising things you can't possibly deliver on isn't a good strategy except in the very short term.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 06-07-2019 at 02:40 PM.
  #100  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
.. But those goals aren't in conflict. The best way to win the Senate is to nominate the best Presidential candidate we can to maximize Dem turnout, which obviously is also the best way to win the Presidency. ...
IF I could choose one or the other I'd choose Senate ... but reality is not only what you describe but that even with a focus on it and it alone winning the Senate is the heavier lift with the longer odds.

Other thing though is that a focus on winning the presidency as "the" thing is that it means mainly focussing on PA, MI, WI, and maybe on not taking MN for granted. Next maybe a bit into AZ to spread the map with a reach and alternate path.

Senate races that matter though are keeping VA, NH, MN, and MI, (give up Alabama) and flipping some of Colorado, Maine, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina and Texas. Assuming that the Ds keep all but Alabama they need four of those from the R list.

CO and AZ make sense to spend national resources and presidential nominee time in. NC too. But Maine is next least difficult to pick up and how much time and money should the D nominee spent there supporting the Senate challenger? And in the next longer shots, TX, GA, and IA?

Short version is that winning the Senate is important but poor odds even in a moderate D president win election with decent turnout, and you really want to be very careful about diverting any resources from assuring the more likely victory in the executive branch.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017