Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

3,351 to 3,400 of 4,260 << first < prev | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The problems are tied to closely together. They can't really be addressed separately. It's hard, but you've got to work them in tandem.

This is funny because we have historical examples of both of these issues being addressed individually to some measure of success, and also historical examples of attempting to merge the two and address them simultaneously being vehemently opposed and rejected.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Yeah, Trump was promising "change" as in back to the good old days, not anything actually new. That's a big difference. It really is.

Drain the swamp? Replace Obamacare with something better? Rebuild the country's aging infrastructure? Never take a vacation while serving as president? Make medical marijuana widely available to patients, and allow states to decide if they want to fully legalize pot or not? Fire "the corrupt and incompetent" leaders of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs? Invest more heavily in programs that help military veterans transition back to civilian life? No longer charge income tax to single individuals earning less than $25,000 per year or couples earning less than $50,000? Get rid of most corporate tax loopholes or incentives? Fix the background check system used when purchasing guns? etc.

I mean the guy is an idiot and was clearly saying whatever he thought people wanted to hear, much like the Kang from the Simpsons' Halloween special, but he did spout some progressive things, things that would have been change for the better. I think your assessment was correct and likely what a lot of people were looking for, but I can't dismiss the theory that at least some of Trump voters, who were also Obama voters, were looking for change, and maybe even progressive change on some issues.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yeah, Trump was promising "change" as in back to the good old days, not anything actually new. That's a big difference. It really is.

Drain the swamp? Replace Obamacare with something better?

Rebuild the country's aging infrastructure? Never take a vacation while serving as president? Make medical marijuana widely available to patients, and allow states to decide if they want to fully legalize pot or not?

I mean the guy is an idiot and was clearly saying whatever he thought people wanted to hear, much like the Kang from the Simpsons' Halloween special, but he did spout some progressive things, things that would have been change for the better. I think your assessment was correct and likely what a lot of people were looking for, but I can't dismiss the theory that at least some of Trump voters, who were also Obama voters, were looking for change, and maybe even progressive change on some issues.

I know plenty of religious conservative redneck types that want the government to leave their bonghits alone.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I know plenty of religious conservative redneck types that want the government to leave their bonghits alone.

The reasons people voted for Trump are many (personally I think the biggest was a lack of common sense and the inability to spot a fraud) but I don't think anyone can suggest that all his supporters were regressive types that wanted to return things to the way they were.


Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The problems are tied to closely together. They can't really be addressed separately. It's hard, but you've got to work them in tandem.
This is funny because we have historical examples of both of these issues being addressed individually to some measure of success, and also historical examples of attempting to merge the two and address them simultaneously being vehemently opposed and rejected.

I suppose that's true, to an extent. You can address income inequality as long as you have something like Jim Crow to keep blacks from taking advantage of it.

It was after the Civil Rights movement and the attempt to expand that prosperity to minorities that it all started tumbling down.

When do you think we addressed racism with success?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I know plenty of religious conservative redneck types that want the government to leave their bonghits alone.
The reasons people voted for Trump are many (personally I think the biggest was a lack of common sense and the inability to spot a fraud) but I don't think anyone can suggest that all his supporters were regressive types that wanted to return things to the way they were.

"Make America Great Again", "Bring back coal jobs", etc.

It was all rooted in that. Not all explicitly the bigoted parts of the past, though that was certainly implicit throughout. Even the economic message was all about bringing back the good factory jobs of the old days (though not surprisingly without the unions that made them good jobs or the tax rates that made it all possible.)

His vague talk about healthcare was all gauged to let the listener think we could keep all the good parts of the ACA and ditch the bad parts of Obamacare - whichever parts the listener thought they were.


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The problems are tied to closely together. They can't really be addressed separately. It's hard, but you've got to work them in tandem.
This is funny because we have historical examples of both of these issues being addressed individually to some measure of success, and also historical examples of attempting to merge the two and address them simultaneously being vehemently opposed and rejected.

I suppose that's true, to an extent. You can address income inequality as long as you have something like Jim Crow to keep blacks from taking advantage of it.

It was after the Civil Rights movement and the attempt to expand that prosperity to minorities that it all started tumbling down.

When do you think we addressed racism with success?

It happens generationally. The civil rights act was an imperfect tool but we've yet to actually have the generation that remembers times before it and the conflict that came with it die off. Those people hold most of the political power. Nearly every metric you care to put forth shows younger generations being less aggressively racist* as a whole and a big part of that stems from more interaction. That kind of interaction was made possible by the civil rights act and I personally feel helped the generational shift.

*I put the asterisk there because personally I don't believe it's possible to overcome all bias against difference. It shows in every animal species and while its a thing humans can minimize by contact and interaction I think the ubiquitous nature of bias toward similar appearance in nature puts it closer to a fight/flight reaction that some people are able to control more easily than others.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I know plenty of religious conservative redneck types that want the government to leave their bonghits alone.
The reasons people voted for Trump are many (personally I think the biggest was a lack of common sense and the inability to spot a fraud) but I don't think anyone can suggest that all his supporters were regressive types that wanted to return things to the way they were.

"Make America Great Again", "Bring back coal jobs", etc.

It was all rooted in that. Not all explicitly the bigoted parts of the past, though that was certainly implicit throughout. Even the economic message was all about bringing back the good factory jobs of the old days (though not surprisingly without the unions that made them good jobs or the tax rates that made it all possible.)

His vague talk about healthcare was all gauged to let the listener think we could keep all the good parts of the ACA and ditch the bad parts of Obamacare - whichever parts the listener thought they were.

I'll just reuse this same message I posted to agree with Ryan's earlier post: The reasons people voted for Trump were many (personally I think the biggest was a lack of common sense and the inability to spot a fraud) but I don't think anyone can suggest that all his supporters were regressive types that wanted to return things to the way they were.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Lets chill out a little so this thread doesn't get locked.

EDIT: Bugleyman- I know how you feel. I've felt that was since I was put in jail in 2004. What I discovered since then is that you can't force people to learn or feel things. Everyone comes around a different times. Do your best to spread knowledge, but don't expect people to come around at your pace.

Wise words. It's just frightening to not recognize your own country any more. :-(

Something to consider...

What you are now thinking of as a change in our country, is how it has been for parts of the population for decades/centuries. This idea that your rights could be taken from you at a moments notice... that's how African-Americans, undocumented immigrants, or Japanese-Americans have felt at various times in our country.

It's not new at all. The country has always been like this.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I know plenty of religious conservative redneck types that want the government to leave their bonghits alone.
The reasons people voted for Trump are many (personally I think the biggest was a lack of common sense and the inability to spot a fraud) but I don't think anyone can suggest that all his supporters were regressive types that wanted to return things to the way they were.

"Make America Great Again", "Bring back coal jobs", etc.

It was all rooted in that. Not all explicitly the bigoted parts of the past, though that was certainly implicit throughout. Even the economic message was all about bringing back the good factory jobs of the old days (though not surprisingly without the unions that made them good jobs or the tax rates that made it all possible.)

His vague talk about healthcare was all gauged to let the listener think we could keep all the good parts of the ACA and ditch the bad parts of Obamacare - whichever parts the listener thought they were.

I'll just reuse this same message I posted to agree with Ryan's earlier post: The reasons people voted for Trump were many (personally I think the biggest was a lack of common sense and the inability to spot a fraud) but I don't think anyone can suggest that all his supporters were regressive types that wanted to return things to the way they were.

Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.

No real way to argue with that. I mean, I could say "No, you're wrong," but that doesn't get us anywhere.


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
No real way to argue with that. I mean, I could say "No, you're wrong," but that doesn't get us anywhere.

Well hopefully it gets us away from people angry that their candidate lost making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about why people voted for someone they hate.


Irontruth wrote:

Something to consider...

What you are now thinking of as a change in our country, is how it has been for parts of the population for decades/centuries. This idea that your rights could be taken from you at a moments notice... that's how African-Americans, undocumented immigrants, or Japanese-Americans have felt at various times in our country.

It's not new at all. The country has always been like this.

I understand that, at least intellectually. What I find so disturbing about this is that it isn't about race, or immigration status, or national origin. It's simply a case of "oppose us at your peril."

Whether or not the person in question was disruptive is completely beside the point. She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. She didn't incite violence. Neither side debates any of this. She just behaved in a way those in power didn't like, and now she is a convicted criminal who may well go to prison.

The point is that freedom of speech has some very specific exceptions for the good of society. "Mildly inconvenienced those in power" isn't one of them.


Fun fact, it is actually legal to shout fire in a crowded theatre, even if there isnt one as long as injury and damage doesn't occur.

The turn of phrase came as a comparison from a terrible supreme court decision where they determined it was absolutely legal to jail someone for creating flyers encouraging others to resist the WW1 draft. Likening it to putting people in imminent danger "like shouting fire in a crowded theatre".

The position was later overturned by a later supreme court.


I just can't believe her conviction isn't getting more attention. Then again, it did occur on the same day that:

1. We took the first step toward stripping health insurance coverage from tens of millions of Americans; and

2. The president ruled that it was OK to discriminate if doing so is part of your religion (whatever that means).

Like I said, I don't recognize my country any more. Then again, perhaps my country has always been this screwed up, and I was just fooling myself. Either way, it's pretty damned depressing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
No real way to argue with that. I mean, I could say "No, you're wrong," but that doesn't get us anywhere.
Well hopefully it gets us away from people angry that their candidate lost making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about why people voted for someone they hate.

One could say something similar about people angry their candidate lost the primary making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about how they were right all along and if everyone had just listened to them we'd all be happy now.

I suspect it would be just about as accurate.


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
No real way to argue with that. I mean, I could say "No, you're wrong," but that doesn't get us anywhere.
Well hopefully it gets us away from people angry that their candidate lost making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about why people voted for someone they hate.

One could say something similar about people angry their candidate lost the primary making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about how they were right all along and if everyone had just listened to them we'd all be happy now.

I suspect it would be just about as accurate.

Maybe. I'm pretty confident in my non-antagonistic engagement to find out why people voted for him though. Not terribly confident that some of the posters here so eager to make claims about them would have engaged in good faith without obvious condescension.


Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
No real way to argue with that. I mean, I could say "No, you're wrong," but that doesn't get us anywhere.
Well hopefully it gets us away from people angry that their candidate lost making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about why people voted for someone they hate.

One could say something similar about people angry their candidate lost the primary making broad generalizations from within their social bubbles about how they were right all along and if everyone had just listened to them we'd all be happy now.

I suspect it would be just about as accurate.
Maybe. I'm pretty confident in my non-antagonistic engagement to find out why people voted for him though. Not terribly confident that some of the posters here so eager to make claims about them would have engaged in good faith without obvious condescension.

So, to go back to your early response in this subthread: "religious conservative redneck types that want the government to leave their bonghits alone."

(Course it was more Democrats legalizing pot, but hey)

What kind of "change" did they want, if it wasn't back to the days of good coal mining and factory jobs?


I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.


MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.

They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.
They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.

Turtleman McConnell is going to ignore the flaming bag of sh!t the House left on his steps, and the Senate Repubs will write their own bill. If that passes, and don't believe it won't, the two different bills will go to reconciliation, where the committee will hammer out the details. The law that would emerge wouldn't be as sh!tty as the House bill, but it's guaranteed to impose massive financial hardships, bankruptcies, loss of coverage, and preventable deaths to many many Americans who are struggling to squeak by (if that). Senate Repubs say they are hesitant to lose the legislative filibuster (because they know what that means when they are a minority and the Dems could run over them), but they want that trillion+ in tax cuts for the wealthiest much more.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.
They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.

IIRC, The Reconciliation approach that the GOP is trying to use allows them to avoid a lot of normal senate red tape that the dems could maybe throw up, including the Filibuster. So while the final bill might change they still may push out something pretty bad that will severely hurt my friends (Two of which live in SC, a red state).


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.
They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.
Turtleman McConnell is going to ignore the flaming bag of sh!t the House left on his steps, and the Senate Repubs will write their own bill. If that passes, and don't believe it won't, the two different bills will go to reconciliation, where the committee will hammer out the details. The law that would emerge wouldn't be as sh!tty as the House bill, but it's guaranteed to impose massive financial hardships, bankruptcies, loss of coverage, and preventable deaths to many many Americans who are struggling to squeak by (if that). Senate Repubs say they are hesitant to lose the legislative filibuster (because they know what that means when they are a minority and the Dems could run over them), but they want that trillion+ in tax cuts for the wealthiest much more.

I think there's a couple of Senate Republicans who also hesitate to lose the Senate filibuster because if they do they won't have an excuse not to pass whatever bags of s%#+ the House sends them and they know they're likely to get some that will cost them dearly.


As for other posts of late:

Racism (and sexism/LGBTQ bigotry/various other forms of discrimination): It would be great if this was a default agenda of both parties. But we live in a reality where it isn't, and those issues need to be dealt with. I think the the idea that the Democrat party should stop making it part of the national platform is a poor idea for three reasons:

One, the people who won't vote for dems because of those reasons will still associate dems with those issues. They aren't going to shake that image without actively turning their back/turning against those issues.

Secondly: Abandon (or create the perception of abandonment) for those interest groups, and watch those people no longer turning out to vote for you.

Thirdly: Dems became conservative and less progressive back in the 80's and 90's, so they could capture republican voters. How did that work out form them?

As far as democrats making progressive changes incrementally...it's a lot harder to create new regulations and tax plans than it is to dismantle them. Complaining that democrats are not good enough, and allowing Republicans to continue to come into power every time the "change" isn't sufficient, leads nowhere. Republicans just dismantle everything and create more tax breaks/etc. Every Step forward for progressives (at least as far as economic policy and related things) seems to result in two steps back by the next administration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.
They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.
IIRC, The Reconciliation approach that the GOP is trying to use allows them to avoid a lot of normal senate red tape that the dems could maybe throw up, including the Filibuster. So while the final bill might change they still may push out something pretty bad that will severely hurt my friends (Two of which live in SC, a red state).

But barring just blatantly ignoring the Reconciliation rules, which is possible, the Senate Bill isn't going to look much like the House version, which means reconciliation, the results of which still have to be passed by both the House and Senate. Fight ain't over yet.

Call your (Republican) Senators. Harass your House Reps. Let them know there's a price to be paid.


thejeff wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.
They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.
Turtleman McConnell is going to ignore the flaming bag of sh!t the House left on his steps, and the Senate Repubs will write their own bill. If that passes, and don't believe it won't, the two different bills will go to reconciliation, where the committee will hammer out the details. The law that would emerge wouldn't be as sh!tty as the House bill, but it's guaranteed to impose massive financial hardships, bankruptcies, loss of coverage, and preventable deaths to many many Americans who are struggling to squeak by (if that). Senate Repubs say they are hesitant to lose the legislative filibuster (because they know what that means when they are a minority and the Dems could run over them), but they want that trillion+ in tax cuts for the wealthiest much more.
I think there's a couple of Senate Republicans who also hesitate to lose the Senate filibuster because if they do they won't have an excuse not to pass whatever bags of s@!& the House sends them and they know they're likely to get some that will cost them dearly.

I don't know if I believe that anymore. Trump was clearly shown to be unqualified for the Presidency multiple times, both before the election and after. Supporting Trump has so far cost Congressional Repubs nothing. No consequences at all. Why would they now be worried about being seen as complicit with the House's sh!t? I really don't think they care anymore that the masks are off. A significant portion of American voters are willing to get royally screwed just so they can gleefully see the Others get f!cked over much worse. The Repubs still have their votes.

thejeff wrote:

But barring just blatantly ignoring the Reconciliation rules, which is possible, the Senate Bill isn't going to look much like the House version, which means reconciliation, the results of which still have to be passed by both the House and Senate. Fight ain't over yet.

Call your (Republican) Senators. Harass your House Reps. Let them know there's a price to be paid.

Still good advice. But while the Senate and House bills are limited in what is actually achievable under reconciliation, the Senate reconciliation bill only takes a simple majority vote; a filibuster won't stop it.


The problems they were having in the house was that the bill didn't hurt enough people for the freedom caucus to vote for it. If the senate passes a toned down version (which I'm not sure they can) then you run right back into the same problems with the house. I'm not sure the senate even wants to pass it. Complaining about what the black guy did is a lot different than actually taking away health insurance from 29 million people.


I think most people are still using the 24 million from the previous bill as the off-hand citation... and we don't know what it actually is yet, since the CBO hasn't scored it. I admit, I'm rather interested in seeing how that goes.

("We have to pass it to find out what it costs"...?)


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]I think there's a couple of Senate Republicans who also hesitate to lose the Senate filibuster because if they do they won't have an excuse not to pass whatever bags of s@!& the House sends them and they know they're likely to get some that will cost them dearly.
I don't know if I believe that anymore. Trump was clearly shown to be unqualified for the Presidency multiple times, both before the election and after. Supporting Trump has so far cost Congressional Repubs nothing. No consequences at all. Why would they now be worried about being seen as complicit with the House's sh!t? I really don't think they care anymore that the masks are off. A significant portion of American voters are willing to get royally screwed just so they can gleefully see the Others get f!cked over much worse. The Repubs still have their votes.

Well, it's cost them nothing because there's been no chance for it to cost them. No elections since. (Couple of specials, which haven't boded well for the Republican cause.)

You may well be right. You may even be right that it really won't cost them.

But there only need to be a couple looking ahead to talk of screwing with things like Social Security & Medicare that have long been known as the third rail of American politics and wondering.

There's also an even more selfish reason: Even beyond Party alignment and the bit hot button issues, the filibuster allows any Senator lots of opportunity to grandstand and delay and raise a fuss. That gives them lots of individual power, lets them extract deals and concessions. Not something they'll lightly give up.


Rednal wrote:

I think most people are still using the 24 million from the previous bill as the off-hand citation... and we don't know what it actually is yet, since the CBO hasn't scored it. I admit, I'm rather interested in seeing how that goes.

("We have to pass it to find out what it costs"...?)

("We have to pass it to find out how many people it'll kill" ...?)

Yeah, definite rush to get it through before the CBO score. That'll come before the Senate votes. Given the Senate mechanics, it'll be hard to rush the Senate version through quickly enough to not be scored either.

Don't mistake me: The odds aren't great, but it's not a done deal yet.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.

I don't find your rebuttal convincing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep wanting Democrats who act like Democrats. They play by the same pay-to-play rules that control politics now.

You can't represent "the people" when you're entirely beholden to lobbyists with unlimited cash. No money, no honey.


Well, back to the topic of the thread... as things currently stand, I don't see myself voting for a Republican in the foreseeable future. For anything, anywhere. That means I am likely to support Democrats down the line, since while they may be imperfect, I see them as the option most likely to be able to enact positive change. (I mean, I'd still dump them in a heartbeat if I felt a genuinely better option had come along - I'm an Independent, not a dedicated Democrat - but still.)

I'm a regular voter - I've yet to miss one, and I plan to keep it that way - but what I've seen lately... *Shakes head* Knowingly and intentionally setting things up to kill a great many people (through lack of access to health care) just to give the wealthy even more is... well, it's against both my personal sense of morality and my faith. Heck, it's even against my fiscal opinions, since a sicker population generally isn't as productive as a healthy one. o_O


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So much for the resistance:

.
.
.
.

School Millage Voter Turnout
12.13% May 6th, 2014 Millage
12.72% May 3rd, 2016 Special Education Millage

Feb 7, 2017 Betsy DeVos appointed Secretary of Education

10.14% May 2nd, 2017


Knight who says Meh wrote:
The problems they were having in the house was that the bill didn't hurt enough people for the freedom caucus to vote for it. If the senate passes a toned down version (which I'm not sure they can) then you run right back into the same problems with the house. I'm not sure the senate even wants to pass it. Complaining about what the black guy did is a lot different than actually taking away health insurance from 29 million people.

Agree with meh here, i think ive already seen an article or two describing how senate republicans are working on their own bill and are inclined to just ignore the houses bill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
I don't find your rebuttal convincing.

I'm sorry but its not a surprise that lots of racists and sexists are going to vote republican. Its a surprise (to some) that he beat clinton. You cant emphasize the narrow margins of his victories and then chalk it up to the same racists and sexists when trump wins via fewer people than Romney lost by. You think maybe there weren't 80k people out there who got stiffed in the clinton economy and aren't willing to vote for someone with that last name ever?

I can tell you i grew up in a PNW dying timber town that FIRMLY held the hate for that president over the spotted owl.


A highly regarded expert wrote:

I keep wanting Democrats who act like Democrats. They play by the same pay-to-play rules that control politics now.

You can't represent "the people" when you're entirely beholden to lobbyists with unlimited cash. No money, no honey.

Almost like they're products of the system...

Seriously. Unfettered money in politics was never going to end any other way.


Hmmmm

Cook Political Report, declared it official on Thursday: Jill Stein is the Ralph Nader of 2016. Her vote tallies in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania now exceed Mr. Trump’s margins in the three Rust Belt states that gave him the presidency.

Scroll down to "But really, history is a game of inches."


A highly regarded expert wrote:

Hmmmm

Cook Political Report, declared it official on Thursday: Jill Stein is the Ralph Nader of 2016. Her vote tallies in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania now exceed Mr. Trump’s margins in the three Rust Belt states that gave him the presidency.

Scroll down to "But really, history is a game of inches."

People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate. Believe me, i held my nose and voted clinton last year, the year i go to look for a 3rd party candidate because the Democratic party hasn't learned a damn thing and there isn't one is the first election (including midterms) in 20 years i dont bother to vote.


Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.

Generally its only people who vote main party who believe that. Fairly few people who vote third believe that way.


I may be wrong (the senate has incredibly byzantine rules) but I don't think they can bypass the filibuster (short of the nuclear option) because of the massive tax cut in the house bill. So I don't see this particular bill ever becoming law. I don't know if they will keep trying in the future. While I certainly do not want this bill to pass, I think the downside is that none of the republicans who voted for will face any fallout from their vote if the bill does die in the senate.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
I may be wrong (the senate has incredibly byzantine rules) but I don't think they can bypass the filibuster (short of the nuclear option) because of the massive tax cut in the house bill. So I don't see this particular bill ever becoming law. I don't know if they will keep trying in the future. While I certainly do not want this bill to pass, I think the downside is that none of the republicans who voted for will face any fallout from their vote if the bill does die in the senate.

Locally i think walden is going to get kicked in the testicles for his support of it, even if it doesnt pass. He's been ducking town halls full of angry constituents.


Ryan Freire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.
Generally its only people who vote main party who believe that. Fairly few people who vote third believe that way.

Yeah if you're already throwing away your vote on a third party candidate it's probably not too far a leap to just not vote at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I may be wrong (the senate has incredibly byzantine rules) but I don't think they can bypass the filibuster (short of the nuclear option) because of the massive tax cut in the house bill. So I don't see this particular bill ever becoming law. I don't know if they will keep trying in the future. While I certainly do not want this bill to pass, I think the downside is that none of the republicans who voted for will face any fallout from their vote if the bill does die in the senate.
Locally i think walden is going to get kicked in the testicles for his support of it, even if it doesnt pass. He's been ducking town halls full of angry constituents.

Unfortunately American voters have a very short memory. Without actually being affected, I don't think many will remember a year or two from now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.
Generally its only people who vote main party who believe that. Fairly few people who vote third believe that way.
Yeah if you're already throwing away your vote on a third party candidate it's probably not too far a leap to just not vote at all.

Sometimes I wonder how people could get the idea that Democrats are elitist, smug, and out of touch.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.
Generally its only people who vote main party who believe that. Fairly few people who vote third believe that way.
Yeah if you're already throwing away your vote on a third party candidate it's probably not too far a leap to just not vote at all.
Sometimes I wonder how people could get the idea that Democrats are elitist, smug, and out of touch.

Just poorly informed would be my guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Idealistically your vote matters no matter who you vote for. Realistically you play the game or you loss the game. Also for locals your vote matters a whole lot more then for the presidential election. frankly if you live in a non-swing state your vote matters a lot less.

For example I live in a red state and my area voted all red and my 1 blue vote is essentially ignored. Technically so is every red vote past the ones it needs to win that area. At least for local representatives you have more power. You guys of course already know all of this. i'm sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No doubt Urgathoa is pleased at the repeal.

3,351 to 3,400 of 4,260 << first < prev | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards