Kirth has never said that.Never?
[modern major general]What never?
Haaarrrly eeeever! [/modern major general]
Kirth has never said that.Never?
Actually yes.
He pointed out that democrat voters shouldn't vote to send a message, about which candidates were worth the nomination for presidential candidate. Not that I necessarily agree with that particular strategy, but he never did say, that it was better if everyone just stopped voting.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was responding to the specific allegation that Kirth is "someone who thinks things will get better if everyone just stopped voting." He's not, and I know that because of all the stupid posts we've both made on these very boards.
Of course, when I get called out like this to explain myself, I feel like we're going down a rabbit hole where the value of honesty is wasted against the value of accusation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it looks like Dems will filibuster, and Senate Republicans will "go nuclear."
As much as it is in my nature to say take the high road, it has been proven time and again that the high road currently leads nowhere. I don't think they really had a choice. At least now when the Democrats have a simple majority in the Senate again -- and they will, sooner rather than later -- they can undo some of the damage. It seems that jerking from one party to the other as we go over the cliff together is the best we can hope for nowadays. Personally, I think this was inevitable as soon as the Tea Party (a.k.a. the Rorschach of American politics) started winning elections.
I have heard some talk about the Democrats threatening to refuse to hear budget bills unless Trump is thoroughly investigated, and the Supreme Court nominee is put on hold until those questions are answered.
I think it would be pretty hard for the Republicans to actually go ahead and shut down the Government rather than investigate the massive laundry list of problems there.
Either way, it should be interesting to see how this goes.
It's not sustainable. It can't work. We've got to find a way out of the trap, but I don't see one. It's certainly not having one side take the high road.
I'll tell you the most likely way out...Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo.
I wish that were a joke, but it seems our species needs a periodic reminder of terrible, terrible consequences of "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon."
It's not sustainable. It can't work. We've got to find a way out of the trap, but I don't see one. It's certainly not having one side take the high road.
Sane republicans.
Which you could get if you loosened up the gerrymander a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it looks like Dems will filibuster, and Senate Republicans will "go nuclear."
As much as it is in my nature to say take the high road, it has been proven time and again that the high road currently leads nowhere. I don't think they really had a choice. At least now when the Democrats have a simple majority in the Senate again -- and they will, sooner rather than later -- they can undo some of the damage. It seems that jerking from one party to the other as we go over the cliff together is the best we can hope for nowadays. Personally, I think this was inevitable as soon as the Tea Party (a.k.a. the Rorschach of American politics) started winning elections.
I have to contest that, Rorschach had actual standards and conviction. He acted according to his beliefs, not out of mere spite.
And who do you think is going to do that?
Win next presidency , supreme court, court order.
Or, the way republicans have stretched their electors thin to win more districts, when that break in the tide they've been promising for years comes, it could break hard against them.
I have to contest that, Rorschach had actual standards and conviction. He acted according to his beliefs, not out of mere spite.
Ah, the old "he may have been a psychotic murderer, but at least he had standards" gambit. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the old "he may have been a psychotic murderer, but at least he had standards" gambit. ;-)
To be fair as far as we know everyone he murdered had it coming, either as karma (guy with dogs) or extreme stupidity (i will dress up like a supervilian and pick a fight with the guy who tosses supervillians down elevator shafts...)
Except the dogs.
|
Sure that's the talk, but not the walk. Ask Bernie.
Democrats believe that today’s extreme levels of income and wealth inequality are bad for our people, bad for our businesses, and bad for our economy. Our country depends on a thriving middle class to drive economic growth, but the middle class is shrinking. Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.Except we empirically know that they often are racist.
They also favor policies that result in white supremacy, such as voter ID laws, immigration bans and hard line enforcement of immigration policies against Latino communities, or school funding systems that result in poor black communities being isolated and left with failing schools.
Great, I just give up on income equality I guess because the other party is a bunch of a-holes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what is the walk? Increasing minimum wages? Establishing a floor for the tax rates of the wealthy?
Minimum wages are nice, but decreasing the gap between $20K and $50K/year isn't going to massively spur the economy, considering that $50K worth of buying power continues to dwindle in comparison with inflation, and won't ever keep up. If I get a raise of about 2% a year on average, compared to 3% average inflation, in 10 years I'm making, effectively, 90% of what I used to. That's been happening, overall (ignoring fits and spurts), since the New Deal.
Massively reducing the gap between $20K or $50K a year, compared to $5,000K or $50,000K a year, is what really needs to happen.
In simpler terms, globally it's less important if a scientist makes twice what a janitor does (it matters to the janitor, but not to the scientist, and not to the economy as a whole). It makes a huge difference when the CEO makes 1,000x as much as either of them, because that's 999 fewer working janitors and scientists, and/or 999 janitors' or scientists' worth of money not changing hands in the actual working marketplace.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just looked up my CEO's 2016 compensation. It's not even that impressive, compared to what big companies' CEOs rake in. But if you cut it in half, that's still far more money than I could possibly spend in a year, even going gonzo bonkers with it. Take the other half and put it into the company, and he could have postponed (or avoided altogether) laying off something like 100 or 150 of my former co-workers who are now looking for work.
On the other hand, give half my salary to someone out of work, and now both our families are in pretty bad shape.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great, I just give up on income equality I guess because the other party is a bunch of a-holes.Sure that's the talk, but not the walk. Ask Bernie.
Democrats believe that today’s extreme levels of income and wealth inequality are bad for our people, bad for our businesses, and bad for our economy. Our country depends on a thriving middle class to drive economic growth, but the middle class is shrinking. Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.Except we empirically know that they often are racist.
They also favor policies that result in white supremacy, such as voter ID laws, immigration bans and hard line enforcement of immigration policies against Latino communities, or school funding systems that result in poor black communities being isolated and left with failing schools.
Nah, just don't paint the party of a-holes that's also going to be even worse on income equality as basically indistinguishable from the other one.
It's not as if those white supremacist policies don't also drive income inequality either. Pushing down those already generally worst off.
I don't see them as the same. Im tired of being told to settle for little to no progress because the other guys are flippin nuts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a passing score on a test is 60, that doesn't mean 40 is "just as bad" as zero. It does, however, mean that neither one of them is even close to passing.
Great, I just give up on income equality I guess because the other party is a bunch of a-holes.
Accept the reality you have and then work with it.
Figure out where reality is, and how it can get where you want it to be.
In this case, you need a supreme court decision ending citizens united or people are just going to keep buying a government that is against any wealth redistribution but up.
You need a government or at least a court that is against absurd levels of gerrymandering so that government can't keep picking their voters.
Without that you're not making ANY progress. The only way to get to any of those is with democrats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, I get it. I even agree. I just think it's going to be far more possible to push Democrats to get better, even while they're in power, than to survive Republicans in power.
Especially if republicans lock out any of the checks and balances on their government, like being voted out of office. If the dems don't make a push soon the gerrymandering will be locked in, get worse, and voter disenfranchisement will make it harder to vote them out which puts more republicans in power which...
Forget making things good we need to stop a death spiral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, I get it. I even agree. I just think it's going to be far more possible to push Democrats to get better, even while they're in power, than to survive Republicans in power. Or to have some kind of miracle occur and replace Democrats wholesale with some non-existent better politicians.
If "they're not as bad as the other guys" means they never need to do better, then there's no push. On the other hand, if we do push them to do better, then they in fact become the "non-existent better politicians" we're looking for.
Nor do I think that turning away from social issues or civil rights issues to focus on economics either practical or moral. The problems there are also serious and real.
They are. Fortunately, though, I really don't think it's a zero-sum game. I truly believe that we can focus on the economy and on civil rights both. The only way those goals become antithetical to each other is if we let them be.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see them as the same. Im tired of being told to settle for little to no progress because the other guys are flippin nuts.
The way I look at it, the possible choices are effectively;
1: Support the people making the issue worse
2: Support people who say they would make things better... except they can't get elected
3: Support no one
4: Support the people who have actually been making things better... just not as much so as you want
Note how only option 4 actually makes things any better.
I also believe that if the Democrats had a large enough majority they could and would make real progress on income inequality and many other issues. This can be seen in the few cases where they have established dominance at the state level (e.g. California).
I wish the Democrats could/would do more too... but to me that seems like a reason TO support them... rather than a reason not to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the 'take over from within' idea is that the Democratic Party fights dirty as hell to keep real progressives from interfering with their anointed corporate selections.
Here is a great example from Greg Palast. Palast has spoken many times about how the Democratic Party remains silent on hugely important issues like voter disenfranchisement caused by programs like 'crosscheck', because the Dems do they same s+&@ in the primaries. Just like with Al Gore and disenfranchised voters in 2000, the Dems would rather stay silent and not rock the boat. It is more important for them to control their party then stand up for voters rights!
The DNC also gave a big F-you to progressives by selecting Perez over Ellison. As many have pointed out, they were almost identical, and it is an almost completely symbolic position - so why not be inclusive and bring in progressives with Ellison? Because the DNC would rather get money from a*#++$#s like Haim Saban, then votes from progressives.
Here is a great article on the subject.
With guys like Saban calling the shots, it is not reasonable to call the Democrats anything but the tools of special interests (in this case, religiously bigoted, foreign interests).
The issue is not that Democrats are not doing enough to fight inequality, the problem is that the democrats are pushing inequality almost as hard as the Republicans. A vote for most Democrats is a vote against fixing inequality. This was especially true for the 2016 election, as the Clintons are some of the worst proponents of inequality and militarism the democrats have ever known.
EDIT: Here is another great article from the intercept. It highlights the hypocrisy of the Dems talk about holding big banks accountable, compared to the reality of their subservience to big business.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one you have to convince. It's the millenials that are staying home that you have to convince. They only support #2.
That is pretty funny. The Most Popular Politician in the US "can't get elected". Maybe if the Dems hadn't thrown The Most Popular Politician under the bus, and instead supported the second most disapproved candidate in history, we would not have Trump. Nah! The party insiders and super delegates know better then those stupid voters!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny how many seemingly complex problems are fixed by a heavily progressive tax structure.
You have a minimum wage, why not add a maximum wage?
a maximum wage limits too much of what a person can do.
I have no problem with people making oodles of money, they just have to share with the rest of the class, and can't use it to buy my government.
Once the Republican state legislatures use Article 5 to hold another Constitutional Convention, the Democratic party will be obsolete anyway.
They've got a few billionaires who want to fund it. I'd say there's more likelihood that Republicans will rewrite the constitution than Citizens United will be overturned. It's far closer to happening
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one you have to convince. It's the millenials that are staying home that you have to convince. They only support #2.
Political parties will always skew towards older voters, because that's who shows up to vote. Younger voters always have lower turnout. Other than "think" pieces that are complete b!%@$+*$, I haven't seen a single convincing argument that millenials are different from any generation before them. They're still the same species. As they get older, they'll vote more and will have more control over the party.
If you don't show up to the meeting, you can't* complain about the meeting's agenda.
*well... you can complain all you like, but I'm not going to care. Show up to the meeting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I can't speak for others, but personally I've tried to always get informed and then vote about each issue on the ballot - without missing one, ever. Among other things, I feel like I really have no right to comment on what happens if I don't get involved...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can 'show up to the meeting' all you want, and piss and moan, or cheer and applaud, but the agenda was decided long before you got there, and your interests are not represented. The people who really call the shots already bought the outcome they want, and it doesn't include you.
Billionaires Adelson and Saban, at odds in campaigns, unite on Israel and hit Obama
From the WAPO
"The billionaire political kingmakers planning to bankroll much of the 2016 presidential campaign spoke out together Sunday with blunt warnings on key issues for their respective parties."
...
"A reminder of Adelson and Saban’s outsize influence came when Evenhaim wrapped up Sunday’s event. “After the election in 2016,” he told them, “one of you will get me a private tour of the White House.”"
So you can get Saban, OR Adelson, that is the spectrum of your options. The freedom of choice is YOURS!