Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,601 to 2,650 of 4,260 << first < prev | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One action?

The last two months have seen an unprecedented level of constituent-representative level interaction. We, as a nation, are watching congress more than we have in recent memory. And then we're reaching out across our social networks and calling up our reps and in order to do something about it.

The cabinet confirmations, the travel ban protests, and now the debate on healthcare have shown reps and senators that we're ready to engage with them and organize against them. Even very secure senators like Feinstein have had to switch their votes (between the smaller senate commitee and larger confirmation vote) beause of how loudly their constituents complained, and how seriously we threatened to vote her out next year.

I'm not saying declare victory, but s@+*ting on what has been accomplished is worse than pointless. It discourages people from doing something that actually worked.

I'm also not drawing a narrative. I saying exactly what happened this time with this vote: Democrats held together and Republicans split into factions. And I'm also saying I want them to do it again. Except better, because if they don't offer an alternative to the GOP, even if they don't have the votes to get that alternative passed right now, we have no incentive to get them those votes next year.


Well, I believe Bernie is introducing a Medicare-for-All bill. Maybe all you Democrats could rally behind that?

Article I just came across:

Former Obama Aide Who Helped Kill Single-Payer in the ACA Solicits Donations for Sick Friend's GoFundMe Page


AnimatedPaper wrote:

I'm sure other people have mentioned this before me, but I'm hoping the Dems pick SOME kind of ACA fix to get behind, up to an including single-payer (which is cheaper and simpler if you have insurance at all, although the thought of adding an entirely new bureaucracy to the executive branch boggles the mind).

They've managed to hold solid while the Republicans started turning on each other. Let's hope they get a message of their own out there, one that not only they can use as a rallying cry but also one that might peel more moderate Republicans, or at least GOP in less secure districts, into supporting them.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
I'm also not drawing a narrative. I saying exactly what happened this time with this vote: Democrats held together and Republicans split into factions. And I'm also saying I want them to do it again. Except better, because if they don't offer an alternative to the GOP, even if they don't have the votes to get that alternative passed right now, we have no incentive to get them those votes next year.

I get the desire and I'd love to see more of that kind of thing too, but it's damn frustrating to hear talk of "no incentive" when Republicans have been sweeping elections for years now with no plans at all but opposition. Sigh.

Should they go for an aspirational plan that they won't be able to pass without at least a filibuster proof majority (of actual solid progressives), meaning they're likely disappoint and be accused of going back on their promises? Or something more incremental which they'd have more chance of accomplishing, but which would leave the usual crowd uninspired?

The larger plan also risks adding fire to the "Obamacare is a disaster, we need to repeal it, even Dems thinks so" argument.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I believe Bernie is introducing a Medicare-for-All bill. Maybe all you Democrats could rally behind that?

Article I just came across:

Former Obama Aide Who Helped Kill Single-Payer in the ACA Solicits Donations for Sick Friend's GoFundMe Page

I like that this "article" was listed as news and starts talking about irony.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad you liked it, Sir Meh.

I'm not sure what the scare quotes are for, but I assume it's just more snark in service of the neoliberal status quo.


Most surprising development in the Future of the Democratic Party that I've seen since the election:

Huma Abedin Is Reportedly Giving Anthony Weiner Another Shot


Keith Ellison lays out staunch agenda of resistance.

edit: to be clear, it's reasoned and measured. I like him, but I don't think he was the extreme progressive savior a lot of people imagined him to be. I mean for one... I like him, and I keep getting accused of being a neoliberal.


Keith at St. Anselm's in the good ol' Granite State

Mostly posting because it features NH LGBT activist and former Sanders delegate, Mo Baxley.

Last year we hosted a comrade from the Workers World Party to give his slideshow presentation, Red, Black and Queer. It featured a lot of the history of gay caucuses in the labor movement, the Harvey Milk Brigade that went to Sandinista Nicaragua, the Coors Boycot, etc., etc.

Anyway, Mr. Comrade posted pictures on his Facebook page and Sister Baxley piped up to point out how many of the pix featured her.


Always torn about whether to keep links for my commie page or share them with you neoliberals, but I figure this thread gets more traffic, so:

Week from today:

Fight for $15, Movement for Black Lives to Join Forces in Nationwide Protest to Fight Racism, Raise Pay


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

To me, celebrating the failure of the Ryancare bill to pass is like someone celebrating a win for their team when the opposing team never showed up. The townhalls may have made moderate republicans more cautious than otherwise, but it feels like the Freedom Caucus played the bigger role, and the fact that they inherently don't seem capable of governing. So Ryancare failing I think is more a story of, to put it bluntly, Republican dysfunction and incompetence than democrat solidarity.

I think Trump is "open" to working with democrats, but not really. I expect he will only really become open after another republican disaster. They still have to pass a likely controversial budget and do the now more difficult tax reform. If those go off somewhat well Trump will continue to ignore the democrats

About the only thing Trump really has going for him so far is the Gorsuch nomination, and that may still end up getting the nuclear option in order to pass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Democrats edited anti-capitalist, pro-socialist message out of photo in promo image

Comrade Silang of the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a native Lowellian and she came up from New York to help build our anti-Trump rally two Januarys ago.


MMCJawa wrote:

To me, celebrating the failure of the Ryancare bill to pass is like someone celebrating a win for their team when the opposing team never showed up. The townhalls may have made moderate republicans more cautious than otherwise, but it feels like the Freedom Caucus played the bigger role, and the fact that they inherently don't seem capable of governing. So Ryancare failing I think is more a story of, to put it bluntly, Republican dysfunction and incompetence than democrat solidarity.

I think Trump is "open" to working with democrats, but not really. I expect he will only really become open after another republican disaster. They still have to pass a likely controversial budget and do the now more difficult tax reform. If those go off somewhat well Trump will continue to ignore the democrats

About the only thing Trump really has going for him so far is the Gorsuch nomination, and that may still end up getting the nuclear option in order to pass.

Well, the Freedom Caucus did play a bigger role and Republican dysfunction can never be underestimated, but the pressure from the townhalls and other efforts from those who didn't want to lose the ACA almost certainly helped keep them making the bill even harsher to appease the Freedom Caucus.

Democratic unity may have not seemed to play an obvious role, but if there had been cracks in the Democratic solidarity, it would have been a game breaker. Even a couple of Blue Dogs talking about supporting the bill might have changed the game.

Currently, I think you're right about "open", but not really. And that goes for the House Republicans as well. I'm sure they'd all love to have Democrats sign on to any of their bills, but in terms of actually letting Democrats shape policy? Not a chance. Any Democrats they change things to get will be more than counterbalanced by conservative Republicans they lose. And Ryan'll lose everything if he starts pushing things through with only a minority of Republican support, but enough Democrats to pass.

I'm not at all sure how the Gorsuch nomination plays out. If opposition is just partisan - "This is Garland's seat and we'll filibuster anyone else nominated", Republicans will practically be forced to nuke the filibuster. If it's more like "Gorsuch is unacceptable because <X characteristic of Gorsuch>", then there's still an opening for some kind of compromise Republican nominee. Then there might be a couple Republican Senators not willing to pull the trigger on the nuke. Depends on what X is, of course.
I guess my question is: What's the endgame of a filibuster of Gorsuch? What do Democrats want to get out of it and how do they expect to get there?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rumor is that Gorsuch nomination might not survive if leadership uses the nuclear option. There are several moderate republicans in the senate who are still mad about the 2013 rule change democrats made, and might vote no in protest to a rule change. There are at least 3 Senators nominally opposed to the rule change on principle, though Graham has already said he'd support it, so that drops it to potentially 2 (McCain and Collins). There are also a couple of vulnerable Republicans in blue states who might not survive ramming things through the senate (Heller and Gardner), plus two more who have shown brief tendencies towards being moderate (Murkowski and Flake). It would take 3 of them to break to prevent the rule change, so it's unlikely that it gets stopped, but it's possible.


thejeff wrote:
I guess my question is: What's the endgame of a filibuster of Gorsuch? What do Democrats want to get out of it and how do they expect to get there?

There's no reason not to filibuster it.

1) They filibuster and it works. Democrat victory and they show they have power.

2) They filibuster and it doesn't work. Democrats are shown to have no control over the government. Republicans get what they want anyways for the time being.

3) They don't filibuster. Democrats are shown to have no control over the government. Republicans get what they way for the time being.

Rolling over doesn't buy them anything. Giving in now isn't going to lead to concessions from Republicans later. If Ginsburg leaves the court, and the filibuster hasn't been nuked, we have the exact same argument and Republicans threaten to nuke it again. Whether they filibuster or not, the outcome is the same. The only way to keep the base energized is stand in opposition. If the base isn't energized, you lose the next election.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Rumor is that Gorsuch nomination might not survive if leadership uses the nuclear option. There are several moderate republicans in the senate who are still mad about the 2013 rule change democrats made, and might vote no in protest to a rule change. There are at least 3 Senators nominally opposed to the rule change on principle, though Graham has already said he'd support it, so that drops it to potentially 2 (McCain and Collins). There are also a couple of vulnerable Republicans in blue states who might not survive ramming things through the senate (Heller and Gardner), plus two more who have shown brief tendencies towards being moderate (Murkowski and Flake). It would take 3 of them to break to prevent the rule change, so it's unlikely that it gets stopped, but it's possible.

As I said, possible, but I think it depends on the context. If it's "We're not going to let a Republican nominee onto the Court, ever, at all, no matter who", then I can't see the filibuster holding. They'll nuke it and even the most "moderate" Republican Senators will go along.

If they can point to something specific about Gorsuch to object to and leave open the idea of a more moderate nominee getting through, then I think those moderates may be willing to allow it to stand.

There were also rumors of courting those moderates mad about the rules change with an agreement to let Gorsuch through in exchange for reinstating the filibuster for other nominees. I'm less convinced that's a good plan. Or that it would hold if it did.

All of this also depends on Trump's political standing as well. I'm fond of the argument that based on the current Russian ties investigations and the precedent set by the Garland nomination, the Senate should not consider a nomination from a President in his last year. :)


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I guess my question is: What's the endgame of a filibuster of Gorsuch? What do Democrats want to get out of it and how do they expect to get there?

There's no reason not to filibuster it.

1) They filibuster and it works. Democrat victory and they show they have power.

2) They filibuster and it doesn't work. Democrats are shown to have no control over the government. Republicans get what they want anyways for the time being.

3) They don't filibuster. Democrats are shown to have no control over the government. Republicans get what they way for the time being.

Rolling over doesn't buy them anything. Giving in now isn't going to lead to concessions from Republicans later. If Ginsburg leaves the court, and the filibuster hasn't been nuked, we have the exact same argument and Republicans threaten to nuke it again. Whether they filibuster or not, the outcome is the same. The only way to keep the base energized is stand in opposition. If the base isn't energized, you lose the next election.

But what does "works" mean? What's the next step?

Trump nominates someone else. Still no downside to filibustering, so they block this one too.
Repeat until the Republicans nuke the filibuster: Which they eventually will. Probably sooner rather than later. There's no way, barring something drastic like an impeachment crisis, that they let the seat sit for 4 years.

If you want to actually have power, not just show off for the base until the power is taken away, you need to have a plan. One such would be to show that power by blocking Gorsuch, but then negotiate for a more moderate, but still conservative nominee. And do some of that negotiation up front, with those moderate Senators, so they know they're not necessarily going to be pushed into nuking the filibuster anyway.


TheJeff wrote:
But what does "works" mean?

In that context that they get a more moderate nominee.

Quote:
What's the next step?

In the unlikely event of a more moderate nominee , compromise, take the less of a loss , and declare victory.

In the event of a nuclear option, await, bide time, and nuke them in 4 years.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
But what does "works" mean?
In that context that they get a more moderate nominee.
Quote:
What's the next step?

In the unlikely event of a more moderate nominee , compromise, take the less of a loss , and declare victory.

In the event of a nuclear option, await, bide time, and nuke them in 4 years.

Well, that's what I'm saying. But to get there, you've got to be clear that's what you're aiming for. "This is why we're filibustering Gorsuch and this is what we'd need to see in a nominee to let them through."


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'm glad you liked it, Sir Meh.

I'm not sure what the scare quotes are for, but I assume it's just more snark in service of the neoliberal status quo.

I didn't say I liked the article. The snark was over the writer's obvious glee that someone they didn't like had a sick friend. That's not news, sir. It saddens me that you think it is.


I didn't detect any glee, but I assume you're reading in to it to fuel your dislike of the Berniecrats.

Will Leaverton's bout with pancreatis is no laughing matter, but Messina's role in the Dems squashing of the public option seems worth a revisit to me.

Anyway, readers will be pleased to learn that Leaverton's GoFundMe has exceeded its goal by $6,000 in less than 24 hours.

Get well soon, Will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not clear really how much Messina did.

Maybe negotiations would have gone differently if all Obama's people had been good progressive types, but I still don't see Baucus or Lieberman getting on board with even the public option, much less single-payer. Maybe in that different world there would have been such a groundswell of support that people like Messina managed to keep down that even Joe Lieberman(D-Aetna) might have come around.

And we might have all gotten ponies.


Well, the contention of the Paste article is that part of Messina's role was getting Baucus on the committee.

"As The Nation reported back in 2011, Messina used his influence to place his old boss at the center of the health care debate, helping to secure his “gang of six” senators to write the legislation which would eventually become the Affordable Care Act."

If we follow the link through to The Nation artcle it cites, we get

" At the beginning of the healthcare debate in 2009, many Democrats were justifiably concerned about the role that Baucus, chair of the powerful Finance Committee, would play in shepherding the Obama administration’s domestic policy priority through the Senate. Baucus had brokered the passage of George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts and 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan, and had spent the better part of the Bush presidency cutting deals with Republicans and infuriating fellow Democrats. Other transgressions included voting for the war in Iraq, the energy bill, the bankruptcy bill and to confirm Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Among Senate Democrats, only Nebraska’s Ben Nelson had a more conservative voting record on economic issues than Baucus. Moreover, Baucus accepted the most special-interest money of any senator between 1999 and 2005, and had at least two dozen staffers working as lobbyists on K Street, including for healthcare companies adamantly opposed to reform.

Despite these obvious warning signs, Messina emerged as the leading advocate for his old boss during the healthcare debate and the top administration conduit to his office. “He is perfectly positioned to do this,” Messina told the New York Times in June 2009. Messina told the Washington Post he regarded Baucus as a father figure. “Messina will freely tell you that everything he knows, he learned from Baucus,” says Eric Feaver, president of the Montana teachers union."

It then goes on to say that Baucus chose the Gang of Six.

So, it looks like Messina's role was pretty clear.


And if the Gang of Six had all been staunch progressives and had written a wonderful bill with a strong public option and everything in it, Baucus and Lieberman and Ben Nelson and all the other conservatives they needed would have just been swept away and fallen into line?
They still needed every single Democrat and independent Senator to vote for it. Maybe a better starting point would have got a better bill. Maybe it would have killed it entirely.

I kind of see it as a fantasy on the left that single payer (or the public option) are these obvious, incredibly popular things that require constant vigilance from treacherous neo-liberals to ward off. They're not. There's no huge groundswell of public support and there certainly wasn't back then. Mind you, I think they'd work better and they might well have become very popular once enacted and people got used to them, but that's not the same as just proposing them.

They didn't need sneaky operatives to kill it. They needed a better Congress with even more Democrats to pass it.


You're right. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. They don't need sneaky operatives. They're capitlaist parties in a bourgeois democracy and they do it all out in the open.

Anyway, you've gone from it's unclear to what role he played, to well, it doesn't matter what role he played, which I will be happy to take as you conceding the point.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I guess my question is: What's the endgame of a filibuster of Gorsuch? What do Democrats want to get out of it and how do they expect to get there?

There's no reason not to filibuster it.

1) They filibuster and it works. Democrat victory and they show they have power.

2) They filibuster and it doesn't work. Democrats are shown to have no control over the government. Republicans get what they want anyways for the time being.

3) They don't filibuster. Democrats are shown to have no control over the government. Republicans get what they way for the time being.

Rolling over doesn't buy them anything. Giving in now isn't going to lead to concessions from Republicans later. If Ginsburg leaves the court, and the filibuster hasn't been nuked, we have the exact same argument and Republicans threaten to nuke it again. Whether they filibuster or not, the outcome is the same. The only way to keep the base energized is stand in opposition. If the base isn't energized, you lose the next election.

But what does "works" mean? What's the next step?

Trump nominates someone else. Still no downside to filibustering, so they block this one too.
Repeat until the Republicans nuke the filibuster: Which they eventually will. Probably sooner rather than later. There's no way, barring something drastic like an impeachment crisis, that they let the seat sit for 4 years.

If you want to actually have power, not just show off for the base until the power is taken away, you need to have a plan. One such would be to show that power by blocking Gorsuch, but then negotiate for a more moderate, but still conservative nominee. And do some of that negotiation up front, with those moderate Senators, so they know they're not necessarily going to be pushed into nuking the filibuster anyway.

Actually, the current argument is that the nomination process should be halted while the Trump presidential campaign is under investigation by the FBI. Once the investigation is complete and we have public disclosure of the findings, we can decide from there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I was semi-homeless around 2008-09, or else working seventy hours a week to get out of semi-homelessness, so I don't relly recall how it went down, but this article is full of quotations like "NPR’s David Welna, expressing his incredulity at the time, wrote that while 'Most polls show that a majority of Americans want a health care overhaul to include a public option...'"; and "Rather than exert any real effort into compelling these Democrats to vote in favor of the public option, the Senate leadership caved to this small minority" after examining the Dem-side of the Gang of Six; and, "It’s not like Democrats tried and failed — they scrapped it altogether in an effort to court Republican votes while hoping to keep their seats through reelection — and failed at both. The ineptitude of this strategy cannot be overstated, nor can its effect" after claiming "If a public option had been introduced and passed, the polling evidence suggest fewer Democrats would have lost their seats in 2010, not more." Whether this is true or not, I couldn't say, nor, honestly, do I care, since I hate the f*$*ing Democrats.

Who Really Killed the Public Option?
A Look Back at the Losing Strategy that Keeps Hurting Democrats

As I said, I was semi-homeless back then, so let me know if you spot any whoppers. In the meantime, I'm assuming by the lack of responses that none of you are planning on rallying behind Medicare-For-All?


I'm fine with it. Tell me when it's scheduled for a hearing.


I'm not doing Democratic donkey work for you. Ask Keith.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I didn't detect any glee, but I assume you're reading in to it to fuel your dislike of the Berniecrats.

Will Leaverton's bout with pancreatis is no laughing matter, but Messina's role in the Dems squashing of the public option seems worth a revisit to me.

Anyway, readers will be pleased to learn that Leaverton's GoFundMe has exceeded its goal by $6,000 in less than 24 hours.

Get well soon, Will.

I'm sure there was no glee in your posting that article either.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm not doing Democratic donkey work for you. Ask Keith.

My point is actually that the Republican senator in charge of any committee that might introduce the bill isn't going to schedule it for a hearing. Mitch McConnell isn't going to schedule it for a floor vote.

You've got my support for it. But there currently is no mechanism to even push it through to a failed vote in either house of congress.

We could also spend time debating what kinds of foods I'm going to eat on my trip to Mt. Everest this year, but since I'm not actually taking that trip, it doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful discussion.


Yo, be cool to one another.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I didn't detect any glee, but I assume you're reading in to it to fuel your dislike of the Berniecrats.

Will Leaverton's bout with pancreatis is no laughing matter, but Messina's role in the Dems squashing of the public option seems worth a revisit to me.

Anyway, readers will be pleased to learn that Leaverton's GoFundMe has exceeded its goal by $6,000 in less than 24 hours.

Get well soon, Will.

I'm sure there was no glee in your posting that article either.

I know you're new around here, so I'll give you a tip:

When I want to indicate glee, I append a "Hee hee!"

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Those who believe that the answer to healthcare is to "let the free market fix it" (aka laissez-faire economics)...

Wouldn't that just be the Republican (and Libertarian) party in general?

Quote:
...can safely be ignored in a debate, because they are catastrophically ignorant.

Clearly, but it becomes somewhat difficult to ignore them when they are running the country. I mean, just today they declared that global warming does not exist and that it is perfectly reasonable for a member of the Trump campaign team to lead the investigation into possible treasonous collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign team.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm not doing Democratic donkey work for you. Ask Keith.

My point is actually that the Republican senator in charge of any committee that might introduce the bill isn't going to schedule it for a hearing. Mitch McConnell isn't going to schedule it for a floor vote.

You've got my support for it. But there currently is no mechanism to even push it through to a failed vote in either house of congress.

We could also spend time debating what kinds of foods I'm going to eat on my trip to Mt. Everest this year, but since I'm not actually taking that trip, it doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful discussion.

Fair enough, although I asked about any plans to rally around it, not whether you wanted to debate it.

Anyway, ask Keith about it next time he's in town. I think Comrade Jentzen and co. are having a public meeting this evening, but I doubt you'd enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'm fond of the argument that based on the current Russian ties investigations and the precedent set by the Garland nomination, the Senate should not consider a nomination from a President in his last year. :)

We can hope.


CBDunkerson wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Those who believe that the answer to healthcare is to "let the free market fix it" (aka laissez-faire economics)...
Wouldn't that just be the Republican (and Libertarian) party in general?

Perhaps, but it certainly didn't used to be, nor must it remain so. In my opinion we start fixing it by getting rid of Citizen's United (easier said than done, i know).

As far as ignoring them -- I meant only that there is no point in engaging them directly in debate. They must still be opposed, but don't waste your time explaining to them why they're wrong. It doesn't help.


Update on the bill to rollback FCC privacy rules regulating ISPs and their ability to sell browsing data

Unsurprisingly it passed the house and is now on its way to the White House. I wonder if Trump will sign on...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"I'm very upset that the Government might have incidentally collected data on me. That's why I'm now going to help ensure that telecom companies - and the Government through them - can spy on everybody. Winning!"

...

?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"The government spied on me when it wire tapped russian officials. Who I've never talked to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My most immediate concern with this is the idea of job marketing sites (Careerbuilder, Monster, Indeed, etc.) starting to provide a service to employers where they acquire from ISPs and provide the browsing history of employment candidates, or similar applications.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm not doing Democratic donkey work for you. Ask Keith.

My point is actually that the Republican senator in charge of any committee that might introduce the bill isn't going to schedule it for a hearing. Mitch McConnell isn't going to schedule it for a floor vote.

You've got my support for it. But there currently is no mechanism to even push it through to a failed vote in either house of congress.

We could also spend time debating what kinds of foods I'm going to eat on my trip to Mt. Everest this year, but since I'm not actually taking that trip, it doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful discussion.

Fair enough, although I asked about any plans to rally around it, not whether you wanted to debate it.

Anyway, ask Keith about it next time he's in town. I think Comrade Jentzen and co. are having a public meeting this evening, but I doubt you'd enjoy it.

I don't think there's anything to rally around, other than an empty promise.... at this moment.

I can't vote for Sanders any time soon for anything (I doubt he runs again, if he does, I'm a maybe on him, still not a big fan). No one in my district is going to vote for something like this, regardless of how much I rally (not in Keith's district right now, I'm stuck in Jason Lewis' district).

My district went republican last election. My efforts are better served by pointing out that this is the wrong direction altogether if people want better, affordable health care.

I've been to several marches/protests at the state capital, as well as Lewis' office here in town.


Ugh Lewis' office? Ever met the guy? He is intolerable.


Irontruth wrote:

I don't think there's anything to rally around, other than an empty promise.... at this moment.

That was my original take on the whole thing. "What's the point?" I asked Mr. Comrade when I saw the first article. Then my FB feed exploded with articles about Bernie and Keith and Dem circulars asking people to call their representatives to co-sponsor Conyer's bill, so I thought I'd ask.

No links, cuz I'm not doing donkey work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh. Didn't know that.

Russian dressing is actually from Nashua, New Hampshire


Does Spicer eat Soviet bubblegum? Another possible connection!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I don't think there's anything to rally around, other than an empty promise.... at this moment.

That was my original take on the whole thing. "What's the point?" I asked Mr. Comrade when I saw the first article. Then my FB feed exploded with articles about Bernie and Keith and Dem circulars asking people to call their representatives to co-sponsor Conyer's bill, so I thought I'd ask.

No links, cuz I'm not doing donkey work.

Yeah, I just don't see any useful activity to actually do with that bill right now. Where I'm at right now, there's no caucus this year, so I can't submit (or vote on) a resolution to add the bill (or language similar to it) to the party platform.

I've called and specifically voiced my support to Lewis on HR 676 (Medicare for All). But considering that he wrote this about the AHCA:

Quote:
Today the House Budget Committee passed the first step towards returning health care choices to families in Minnesota’s 2nd District. I’m proud to be keeping my promise to start real health care reform. The American Health Care Act is about lowering premiums, giving universal access to quality care, and letting the patient choose a plan that works, not the plan government thinks they should have. I look forward to continuing to work for all the Minnesotans who have been hit so hard by Obamacare.

I highly doubt he's going to follow my advice. Getting him to change his mind will be like pushing a puddle of water uphill. Once a democratic challenger is found for the district, I will definitely be voicing my opinion that they should adopt this as a campaign goal. Right now, I don't know who that would be though (there's a whole host of reasons it can't be me... yet).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Does Spicer eat Soviet bubblegum? Another possible connection!

Big Red


I hate to be pedantic, but Russia hasn't been red for twenty-five years now. Its colors these days are red, white and blue.

Seems like a good time to post my Russian comrades' report on the protests in Minsk and across the Russian Federation.

Russia/Belarus: A week-end of mass protests

New spring of protest opens up, as 1,000s arrested


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The two links go to the same place.

Looking at the protests in Russia, I'm amazed at how similar protests, and their Police State crackdowns, look all over the world. I guess a thug in riot gear manhandling peaceful protesters looks the same whether it is Moscow or New York.

Solidarity with all the protesters around the world!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Woops. Just one link, with two lines of title. I added the colon and added the subheader as a second line.

2,601 to 2,650 of 4,260 << first < prev | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards