Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:21 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And you want the jump the guardrails on the other side?
The thing about responsive govt is that it is supposed to provide guardrails built in, a balance so to speak, if we can keep it. (Wow! What a concept) The left has always had the publics back, for one thing with the regulatory agencies that are in the publics interest, and that the Rs are dismantling and denuding. The right has sold out and abandoned every aspect of it's average voters existence. By that measure of utility what is their reason for existing?
  #52  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:49 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Can you give an example of a rightward advance for society good for the US today? Aren't we suffering a lot from the right wing decisions at every level of the last 50 years and to extreme degrees of volatility and danger. How can you get more rightward and not destroy the country?

It has to be given that we need to live together plurastically, save the climate, and bring power to the people, the voters and citizens, and away from concentrations, combines and corporations. How do the republicans address this at all?
I’m sorry, where did I say anything about a rightward advance?
  #53  
Old 02-28-2020, 12:06 AM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I see no reason to believe they are. The OP's link sounds like rumor and innuendo at best.
I did state that there was a lot of conjecture there, but the part that isn't conjecture is that New York will be losing at least one seat and plenty of educated guesses that they will be down by two.

10 states set to lose congressional districts after 2020 census

The conjecture of course is that AOC will be one of them based on the way she is antagonizing her own party.

So who do you think will be cleaning out their desk(s) if not AOC? I'm not familiar enough with NY politics to have a meaningful opinion.

Last edited by Projammer; 02-28-2020 at 12:07 AM.
  #54  
Old 02-28-2020, 12:28 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,826
In 2021, unlike in 2011, Democrats will likely have sole control over the redistricting process in New York, so the first targets for elimination will probably be the five Republicans. Only if that proves to be too risky will they turn to eliminating Democrats.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-28-2020 at 12:28 AM.
  #55  
Old 02-28-2020, 01:08 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I’m sorry, where did I say anything about a rightward advance?
It's hard to know what your'e saying when you reply with one liners--thought terminating cliches instead of conversation.

But the rest of your posts are attacking AOC for going to the left, and thus pushing the Democrats to go further to the right instead. And he's argued that the Democrats don't have any further room to the right.

You're also continuing the myth that AOC is "far left" when she's just on the left. The far left is communism, the far right is fascism. We are moving to the right in this country because we become more fascistic, but nothing AOC says moves us more towards communism.

All AOC has done is put into policy positions the morals that all of us (at least we millennials) have been taught since birth. The environment is something we should care about and try to save the planet. Greed and corruption are bad. Large corporations don't tend to care about the "little people" and need to be restricted. Selfishness is a vice, not a virtue. We should treat people who are different from us the same.

That's why I'm a Democrat in the first place. Democrats, in theory, support those things. But then, when someone actually comes out and says them, all of the sudden she's bad and "far left." So, yeah, we want the Democrats pushed back to where they were supposed to be all along, and not a party bowing down to corporate interests and busting unions.
  #56  
Old 02-28-2020, 01:43 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post

But the rest of your posts are attacking AOC for going to the left, and thus pushing the Democrats to go further to the right instead. And he's argued that the Democrats don't have any further room to the right.

You're also continuing the myth that AOC is "far left" when she's just on the left. The far left is communism, the far right is fascism. We are moving to the right in this country because we become more fascistic, but nothing AOC says moves us more towards communism.
I’m speaking clearly and plainly.

You are making up the “thus.” There is nothing in what I said that implied that the Democrats have to go right because she is going further left. There is nothing in reality that says the party has to go right because she is going left. There is no thus.

She has a problem with the Democratic Party. She has stated it plainly and recently.
She wants to fight against members of her own party. She backed of a bit after Pelosi spoke to her but with her new PAC she looks to be heading back in that direction. So far it’s one democrat she is trying to unseat. Do you think it will stay that way?

She is far left. Maybe there is a little wiggle room on the shoulder but she is definitely in the left lane. She’s a socialist. She doesn’t believe in capitalism. She’s for redistribution of wealth. She thinks the majority of the party is actually the Conservative party. All things she has said recently.

It is my hope the the Democratic Party will give the country sanity. She seems more intent on splitting the party than anything else. That’s not the path to sanity. But she’s energetic.
  #57  
Old 02-28-2020, 02:50 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
How was Joe Crowley a shitty Democrat?
He wasn't. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with young, energetic and talented progressives running for Democratic office in safe blue seats, even against other Democrats. I was talking about what AOC has done since being elected.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #58  
Old 02-28-2020, 02:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post

It is my hope the the Democratic Party will give the country sanity. She seems more intent on splitting the party than anything else. That’s not the path to sanity. But she’s energetic.
God what alarmist hyperbole. Why are you so worried about a young, talented, energetic progressive, who hasn't done a single thing to damage the party?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #59  
Old 02-28-2020, 04:04 AM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God what alarmist hyperbole. Why are you so worried about a young, talented, energetic progressive, who hasn't done a single thing to damage the party?
It's her success - and that of the widening progressive movement - that has conservatives so worried. Best to cut her down before she gets too popular.
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #60  
Old 02-28-2020, 10:58 AM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I’m sorry, where did I say anything about a rightward advance?
I said advances must be leftward, and rightward is backwards. You responded to me.
  #61  
Old 02-28-2020, 01:45 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
She’s a socialist. She doesn’t believe in capitalism...All things she has said recently...
Please help me out here with the words she used.

In my world, somebody who is a socialist who doesn't believe in capitalism believes that there should be no private enterprise in their country and favors government confiscation of private property.

Whereas wanting to raise taxes to pay for a broader social safety net is entirely consistent with a 'belief in capitalism' (unless you think that America is already an anti-capitalist socialist society, what with our public high schools and "free" 911 calls).

I thought she favored the latter, which people twist to make it seem like she wants the former.
  #62  
Old 02-29-2020, 11:13 AM
md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,489
The real question is - where is the population shift? I see a difference in a quick look that city districts are already on the high side of population (729,500 for #4, 757,000 for #5, 708,000 in AOC's 14, #17-741,000) and some upstate rural ones are a little more sparse. ( #21 -701,000, #22-697,000, #23-693,000, and except for Albany's 722,000 and urban Buffalo and Rochester, most of the rest hover around 700,000.) I'm going to guess the newer census probably increases that divide even more, in favour of urban areas.

So yes, a lot of boundaries will shift, but it would be hard to finagle boundaries in any other way than to add to NYC or at least keep it the same and lose in the greater New York outback -merge Buffalo and Rochester districts with parts of their surrounding #27 then shift everyone else's boundaries accordingly to balance population to eliminate #27.

https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=36&cd=14

19.54M (2018) with 26 districts means 751,000 per district.

Last edited by md2000; 02-29-2020 at 11:15 AM.
  #63  
Old 03-01-2020, 05:58 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
She’s a socialist. She doesn’t believe in capitalism.
Harry Truman said it:
Quote:
[GOP Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this [1948] campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports. [when farms were mostly family affairs]

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
Socialism, hot-cha-cha! Ooga-booga, whitey! Socialism gonna getcha! I note that European "social democracies" have higher living standards and more socio-economic mobility than the corporate-fascist* US. Funny about that.

* Benito Mussolini defined his invention "fascism" as corporate control of government. Adam Smith said his invention "capitalism" requires tight government control. What a socialist!
  #64  
Old 03-01-2020, 06:32 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
So yes, a lot of boundaries will shift, but it would be hard to finagle boundaries in any other way than to add to NYC or at least keep it the same and lose in the greater New York outback -merge Buffalo and Rochester districts with parts of their surrounding #27 then shift everyone else's boundaries accordingly to balance population to eliminate #27.
Yeah, I'd say #27 is the one to eliminate. Buffalo grabs more of its suburbs especially in the north and east, Rochester gets most of Ontario and part of Wayne County (the latter from Syracuse), Syracuse gets part of Seneca and Ontario county from #23 and Oneida Lake from #22, #22 expands to include Ithaca and Elmira, then the remnants of #23 and #27 merge.
  #65  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:58 AM
phantom lamb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
It's her success - and that of the widening progressive movement - that has conservatives so worried. Best to cut her down before she gets too popular.
I hear quite often from the right that they want her (and Omar, etc.) to stay active as they are some of Trump's biggest assets in a way and I see their point. So it literally can't be both this and that.
  #66  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:22 PM
md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,489
The old joke goes - "With capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. With communism, it's the other way around."

People who seriously object to socialism don't seem to have a problem with socialist roads and water supply or fire departments, for example. The government or a designated monopoly handles the sole sourcing of the service. (In the good old days, fire departments were paid for by insurance companies and only put out fires if your building displayed a placard from that insurance company.) Most people (except Betsy Devoss?) don't seem to object to socialist primary and secondary school, provided by the government and paid for by compulsory contributions from all taxpayers.

So the question isn't "Socialism?" the question is "What do you want your socialism to include?"

When people throw around tens of trillions of dollars of cost for socialized medicine, for example - they are blowing smoke out their ass. It's a demonstrable fact that to cover significantly less than 100% of the costs for significantly less than 100% of the population, the USA spends much more per capita on health care than most civilized countries. The only thing to understand is that this money will be more evenly distributed as taxes instead of employer or employee premiums, co-pays, houses sold in bankruptcy, and garnisheed wages.

But a warning on the other side. Trump blusters about how the other NATO members are not paying their fair share... this is because the other countries spend the lager portion of taxes on health care, not on military hardware.
  #67  
Old 03-02-2020, 07:00 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
People who seriously object to socialism don't seem to have a problem with socialist roads and water supply or fire departments, for example. The government or a designated monopoly handles the sole sourcing of the service. (In the good old days, fire departments were paid for by insurance companies and only put out fires if your building displayed a placard from that insurance company.)
MrsRico and I were software engineers at an old San Francisco firm, Fireman's Fund Insurance. (Later killed off by its German purchaser.) Back in the day, the insured displayed plaques showing their coverage. If a private fire crew came to a building lacking their plaque, they let it burn. That was the era of Great Fires. Then San Francisco started municipal fire squads and ruined business. Damn.

A futuristic non-socialist emergency response system might work something like auto insurance. All residents and establishments are required to buy coverage from some firm. Smartphones or dongles broadcast your coverage codes. Whomever responds will bill the appropriate insurer, if any. If you're not covered, tough. Sure, we'd have multiple private police, fire, medical, and accident cleanup responders, not just a jurisdiction's crisis networks, but who needs efficiency? Let fire and cop shops compete for business. It's the American Way.

MrsRico and I came upon Chinese language FireFund plaques and donated one to the company museum. I've not looked but I'll guess websites exist for to fire plaques.
  #68  
Old 03-03-2020, 08:25 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He wasn't. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with young, energetic and talented progressives running for Democratic office in safe blue seats, even against other Democrats. I was talking about what AOC has done since being elected.
You said she is targeting shitty democrats, so that makes it OK. The VERY FIRST Democrat she targeted was Joe Crowley.
  #69  
Old 03-03-2020, 08:36 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
The old joke goes - "With capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. With communism, it's the other way around."

People who seriously object to socialism don't seem to have a problem with socialist roads and water supply or fire departments, for example. The government or a designated monopoly handles the sole sourcing of the service. (In the good old days, fire departments were paid for by insurance companies and only put out fires if your building displayed a placard from that insurance company.) Most people (except Betsy Devoss?) don't seem to object to socialist primary and secondary school, provided by the government and paid for by compulsory contributions from all taxpayers.

So the question isn't "Socialism?" the question is "What do you want your socialism to include?"

When people throw around tens of trillions of dollars of cost for socialized medicine, for example - they are blowing smoke out their ass. It's a demonstrable fact that to cover significantly less than 100% of the costs for significantly less than 100% of the population, the USA spends much more per capita on health care than most civilized countries. The only thing to understand is that this money will be more evenly distributed as taxes instead of employer or employee premiums, co-pays, houses sold in bankruptcy, and garnisheed wages.

But a warning on the other side. Trump blusters about how the other NATO members are not paying their fair share... this is because the other countries spend the lager portion of taxes on health care, not on military hardware.
I think the Green New Deal was when I realized that her ideas were economically suicidal

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 03-03-2020 at 08:36 AM.
  #70  
Old 03-03-2020, 08:42 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom lamb View Post
I hear quite often from the right that they want her (and Omar, etc.) to stay active as they are some of Trump's biggest assets in a way and I see their point. So it literally can't be both this and that.
It's both. The right paints the whole party like it's as far c left as AOC and AOC actually wants the entire party to be a fast left as her.

The mainstream Democrats would rather just have good government at this point.
  #71  
Old 03-03-2020, 08:48 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,431
A healthy party contains a range of viewpoints. OK, maybe the ideal Democratic party of the future shouldn't all have Occasio-Cortez's views. But they should have some people with her views. And given that she's demonstrably very good at energizing voters, why shouldn't she be one of them?
  #72  
Old 03-03-2020, 09:04 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You said she is targeting shitty democrats, so that makes it OK. The VERY FIRST Democrat she targeted was Joe Crowley.
That's not exactly fair. You could say that about the Justice Democrats perhaps but AOC ran to represent her district.
  #73  
Old 03-03-2020, 09:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You said she is targeting shitty democrats, so that makes it OK. The VERY FIRST Democrat she targeted was Joe Crowley.
If you want to argue that energetic and talented young progressives shouldn't run for office, then fine, but I'm not going to agree with you there. I don't care that she ran against Crowley - I think it's good when talented young progressives run for office. Switching a less progressive Democrat like Crowley for a more progressive (and more talented!) Democrat, in a safe blue seat, is a good thing.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-03-2020 at 09:18 AM.
  #74  
Old 03-03-2020, 09:20 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think the Green New Deal was when I realized that her ideas were economically suicidal
Nope, in reality business as usual does sound more suicidal.

While changes like the Green New Deal have more support and are not likely to lead us back to the stone age, as many right wing sources and corporate media continue to get it wrong.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...or-kill-jobs1/
Quote:
The GND offers citizens a vision of how their economy could advance from traditional fossil-fuel dependence to a future powered largely by low-carbon alternatives. Our analysis indicates that a cleaner-energy approach motivated by carbon taxes would promote innovation, open up new markets and produce an economy with more jobs—a greener economy worth investing in.

Today clean-energy technologies in the U.S. struggle to compete because fossil energy is so “inexpensive.” Low prices make it difficult for such alternatives to flourish. Our analysis shows that raising energy prices would empower the transition to efficiency, renewables and other low-carbon resources. Indeed, a carbon tax of either $25 or $60 would cut carbon emissions significantly, but the higher tax would produce quicker and deeper reductions. On the other hand, while both tax levels would grow jobs, the $25 tax would provide more employment growth than the $60 one. Thus, as with most policies, the optimum is a trade-off between competing priorities.

By using the clean technologies that carbon taxes would promote, Americans would not have to travel less, freeze in the winter, take cold showers or cut the output of their manufacturing plants to reduce the U.S.’s carbon emissions. Our independent analysis, along with a growing body of research, suggests that a low-carbon economy is likely to be a stronger and more secure economy that also provides climate solutions.
  #75  
Old 03-03-2020, 09:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
The problem with that rejoinder is that the Green New Deal contains a whole pile of stuff that has nothing to do with climate change.
  #76  
Old 03-03-2020, 11:13 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The problem with that rejoinder is that the Green New Deal contains a whole pile of stuff that has nothing to do with climate change.
Actually, even that "pile" can be debatable.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...reen-new-deal/
Quote:
The GND is centered around people and justice. The GND is both comprehensive and people-focused. All of the possible solutions to the climate crisis demand changes to social and economic systems, be it renewable energy production or sustainable food systems. The GND is unique in that it recognizes the intertwined nature of global climate change, exploitative economic systems and inequitable social structures. The resolution outlines the role of the federal government to enact comprehensive legislation to tackle two crises in this country: the climate crisis and an economic crisis marked by wage stagnation and rising income inequality. By taking on these crises in tandem, the GND centers people and avoids the false choice between reducing carbon emissions and improving the economy. The resolution recognizes that ultimately, we cannot have a sustainable climate without environmental and economic justice.

The GND asks us, the American public, to leave no community behind as we implement climate change solutions and provides a focal point for organizing a diverse and inclusive coalition to address the climate challenge. The GND also recognizes historical injustices of federal programs, including its namesake, the New Deal of the 1930s, stating that “many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations.”

This recognition is accompanied by the vision “to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression” and to “provide resources … so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.” The resolution represents a commitment from national leaders to uplift front line communities—from coastal cities to indigenous nations to coal mining towns—incorporating their needs directly into federal climate change solutions.
In any case, I expect that a lot of a non binding resolution that was foolishly dismissed, to not be adopted soon; but the rejection of also the most scientifically based parts is asinine, coming specially from virtually all Republicans that need to be tossed out.
  #77  
Old 03-03-2020, 11:24 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
I don't think I understand what you're trying to prove with that quote. What is "debatable" about the pile? You're saying raising the minimum wage and UHC in fact have something to do with climate change?
  #78  
Old 03-03-2020, 11:26 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God what alarmist hyperbole. Why are you so worried about a young, talented, energetic progressive, who hasn't done a single thing to damage the party?
I get it. You don’t think the party is far enough left so you agree with her. She is working against the party. She said so from the beginning. She tempered her speech a bit after being called on it but she continues. She doesn’t believe people like Biden belong in the same party as her and she is working on trying to defeat democrats that the party backs. That’s not alarmist that’s what she is actively doing. She is working against the Democratic Party.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...crats.amp.html
  #79  
Old 03-03-2020, 11:44 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I get it. You don’t think the party is far enough left so you agree with her. She is working against the party. She said so from the beginning. She tempered her speech a bit after being called on it but she continues. She doesn’t believe people like Biden belong in the same party as her and she is working on trying to defeat democrats that the party backs. That’s not alarmist that’s what she is actively doing. She is working against the Democratic Party.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...crats.amp.html
She's working to strengthen it - she just disagrees with you about what that means. So far, she hasn't done a single thing to hurt the party. If she supports a successful primary that subsequently loses a winnable seat, then I think you'd have an argument. But right now, all you have is fear - nothing bad that she's actually done.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #80  
Old 03-03-2020, 11:47 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I get it. You don’t think the party is far enough left so you agree with her. She is working against the party. She said so from the beginning. She tempered her speech a bit after being called on it but she continues. She doesn’t believe people like Biden belong in the same party as her and she is working on trying to defeat democrats that the party backs. That’s not alarmist that’s what she is actively doing. She is working against the Democratic Party.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...crats.amp.html
She is promoting primary challengers. How is that "working against the Democratic Party"?

I think primary challenges for safe seats are an important part of the ongoing debate over just what the Democratic Party should be about. Do you disagree with that?
  #81  
Old 03-03-2020, 12:18 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I don't think I understand what you're trying to prove with that quote. What is "debatable" about the pile? You're saying raising the minimum wage and UHC in fact have something to do with climate change?
Just by memory here: having more income and better education leads women to perform more family planning, leading to less waste, use of resources and less pollution.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-03-2020 at 12:23 PM.
  #82  
Old 03-03-2020, 12:33 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Umm,, yeah. "Debatable" would be my most generous description of that.
  #83  
Old 03-03-2020, 01:42 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
She is promoting primary challengers. How is that "working against the Democratic Party"?

I think primary challenges for safe seats are an important part of the ongoing debate over just what the Democratic Party should be about. Do you disagree with that?
She’s working against the party in the most concrete way possible while still technically staying part of the party. She is in direct opposition with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She is not having a debate. She is throwing money into campaigns that should already be won and forcing the party to use funds in races it shouldn’t have to spend money on. Rather than concentrating on defeating Trump and getting his opponent a majority she is using her PAC to go after democrats she doesn’t like. How is that not working against the Democratic Party?
  #84  
Old 03-03-2020, 01:58 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
She’s working against the party in the most concrete way possible while still technically staying part of the party. She is in direct opposition with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
In what sense? If they've pro forma supported the incumbent, so what? And if they've given more than pro forma support to Dems in safe seats that vote with the R's a good deal of the time, against challengers who would do no such thing, that would be the DCCC's betrayal of the party, not hers.
Quote:
She is not having a debate.
I'm not having a debate when I contribute to one of the Dem candidates for the Presidential nomination either, but I'm supporting one side of that debate, and helping to ensure that my position in that debate is represented. Not sure how what AOC is doing, per your description, differs.
Quote:
She is throwing money into campaigns that should already be won and forcing the party to use funds in races it shouldn’t have to spend money on.
Huh? In the two Congressional races I'm familiar with, the Dem nominee is going to win; the only question is which one.
If the party's throwing money at trying to make that decision itself rather than leaving it to the candidates and the voters, that's their bad.
Quote:
Rather than concentrating on defeating Trump and getting his opponent a majority she is using her PAC to go after democrats she doesn’t like. How is that not working against the Democratic Party?
I still don't see any daylight between this and "incumbent Dems shouldn't be primaried."

You need to explain what daylight YOU see between your position and my description of it, if you feel it's inaccurate.
  #85  
Old 03-03-2020, 02:18 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
She’s working against the party in the most concrete way possible while still technically staying part of the party. She is in direct opposition with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She is not having a debate. She is throwing money into campaigns that should already be won and forcing the party to use funds in races it shouldn’t have to spend money on. Rather than concentrating on defeating Trump and getting his opponent a majority she is using her PAC to go after democrats she doesn’t like. How is that not working against the Democratic Party?
Working against the DCCC is not the same as working against the Democratic Party.
  #86  
Old 03-03-2020, 03:49 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,649
Democratic candidates are all supposed to run unapposed in the primaries now?
  #87  
Old 03-03-2020, 04:23 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It's both. The right paints the whole party like it's as far c left as AOC and AOC actually wants the entire party to be a fast left as her.

The mainstream Democrats would rather just have good government at this point.
Good government?

You are really out of touch.

They are scared. But the idea of business as usual may have been completely incinerated now for us. You may not be able to go back to what you envision as eden. If not are you going to blame liberals, like you blame them for everything else? What checks and balances are making you feel confident about back to basics good govt?
  #88  
Old 03-03-2020, 06:58 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Working against the DCCC is not the same as working against the Democratic Party.
Is she using the money and power of her PAC to fight republicans or to fight democrats?
  #89  
Old 03-03-2020, 07:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Is she using the money and power of her PAC to fight republicans or to fight democrats?
You could say the same things about the guys, like Cuellar, that she's opposing. They very frequently use their resources to help Trump and the Republicans. So far AOC is opposing the Democrats in safe blue districts who help Trump.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-03-2020 at 07:01 PM.
  #90  
Old 03-03-2020, 07:14 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Is she using the money and power of her PAC to fight republicans or to fight democrats?
Is she using her money to help Republicans, or to help Democrats?
  #91  
Old 03-05-2020, 04:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Good government?

You are really out of touch.

They are scared. But the idea of business as usual may have been completely incinerated now for us. You may not be able to go back to what you envision as eden. If not are you going to blame liberals, like you blame them for everything else? What checks and balances are making you feel confident about back to basics good govt?
Democracy.

Extreme left liberals are certainly not helping the situation.
  #92  
Old 03-11-2020, 09:55 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's not exactly fair. You could say that about the Justice Democrats perhaps but AOC ran to represent her district.
In what way was Joe Crowley insufficiently representing his district? He is a progressive Democrat by almost every measure. Why was he targetted?

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 03-11-2020 at 09:55 AM.
  #93  
Old 03-11-2020, 10:01 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you want to argue that energetic and talented young progressives shouldn't run for office, then fine, but I'm not going to agree with you there. I don't care that she ran against Crowley - I think it's good when talented young progressives run for office. Switching a less progressive Democrat like Crowley for a more progressive (and more talented!) Democrat, in a safe blue seat, is a good thing.
The tea party was full of energetic people too. They ran the most conservative person they could find in every safe red seat. it was not good for the country but a lot of far right conservatives are happy with the results.
  #94  
Old 03-11-2020, 10:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Working against the DCCC is not the same as working against the Democratic Party.
Yes. This year, it is.
  #95  
Old 03-11-2020, 10:05 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Good government?

You are really out of touch.

They are scared. But the idea of business as usual may have been completely incinerated now for us. You may not be able to go back to what you envision as eden. If not are you going to blame liberals, like you blame them for everything else? What checks and balances are making you feel confident about back to basics good govt?
I'd like to start by beating Trump and then we can have our internecine squabbles afterwards. In what way does Biden depart from "business as usual" In fact, that seems to be the primary gripe coming from the far left. Biden is just an establishment Democrat and not a revolutionary Democrat.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 03-11-2020 at 10:06 AM.
  #96  
Old 03-11-2020, 10:06 AM
Musicat is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,821
If anyone is gerrymandered out of their district, they can always move.
  #97  
Old 03-11-2020, 10:07 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You could say the same things about the guys, like Cuellar, that she's opposing. They very frequently use their resources to help Trump and the Republicans. So far AOC is opposing the Democrats in safe blue districts who help Trump.
Was Joe Crowley helping Trump?
  #98  
Old 03-11-2020, 10:09 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Is she using her money to help Republicans, or to help Democrats?
Were tea partiers that primaried moderate Republicans helping Republicans or helping Democrats?
  #99  
Old 03-11-2020, 11:24 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Was Joe Crowley helping Trump?
I don't know why you're so hung up on Crowley. I like AOC better than Crowley, and I'm glad she ran and won. If you want to encourage guys like Crowley to run in safe blue districts, feel free. I'd prefer if safe blue districts had more like AOC and fewer like Crowley.
  #100  
Old 03-11-2020, 11:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
nm

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-11-2020 at 11:25 AM.
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 07:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017