U.S. Politics: End Testing, Make Schools Safe Again!

[GrimTuesday]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

I really don't see much difference in the two.  Seems more like you just wanna complain about Hoyer because he's a moderate Dem.

The substance is largely the same, but I feel my version sets a stronger more bullish tone vs what I read/heard as a more passive tone. The words that Hoyer uses does nothing to inspire confidence that Democratic leadership is ready for a fight.

Also messenger matters as well, Hoyer may be a member of leadership, but he is a rather conservative Democrat, and frankly I don't see him as someone who is going to go out and fight for me. I can, of course, admit my bias, and sending out basically any other members of leadership presents issues (2 African Americans, a latino, and two women one of whole is one of the most hated people in politics could put off the folks we need to put pressure on their Republican officials), so maybe Hoyer is the best messenger as far as mass appeal, but for me and a lot of the left, the immediate reaction is distrust.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

The substance is largely the same, but I feel my version sets a stronger more bullish tone vs what I read/heard as a more passive tone. The words that Hoyer uses does nothing to inspire confidence that Democratic leadership is ready for a fight.

Ok.  I still disagree - I think his messaging makes absolutely clear that the leadership is ready for a fight and I don't see how you can read that statement any other way - but if your complaint is mostly about tone, fine.  I also will say, to both you and @The Great Unwashed, that I agree the Dems should be emphasizing more that the GOP can't get their shit together and particularly that the GOP Senate caucus isn't able to cobble together a majority in order to pass their own proposal.  It demonstrates not only that they are dragging their heels, but also that their party is in disarray right now.  Honestly, I haven't watched any news recently, all I'm getting this from is reading coverage from standard online sources, so I don't know whether the Dems on TV are making that point or not.  But they should be.

9 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Also messenger matters as well, Hoyer may be a member of leadership, but he is a rather conservative Democrat, and frankly I don't see him as someone who is going to go out and fight for me.

Well, what would you want him to do?  This seems like a damned if you do damned if you don't complaint.  If he didn't go out there and position-take then I'm sure you're complaint would be "the Dem leadership is just being silent on the negotiations."  It's not like he's the only one out there in terms of the leadership.  Pelosi has made her statements.  Here's Hakeem Jeffries:

Quote

“My view is, we passed the Heroes Act 2½ months ago. It was a comprehensive and decisive response to a deadly pandemic. The administration and Mitch McConnell have done nothing ever since,” House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday.

Clyburn is busy pushing for voting rights in honor of Lewis' death.  I'm all for criticizing the leadership when they deserve it, but there's just no legit reason for such admonishing from what I can see.

[GrimTuesday]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok.  I still disagree - I think his messaging makes absolutely clear that the leadership is ready for a fight and I don't see how you can read that statement any other way - but if your complaint is mostly about tone, fine.  I also will say, to both you and @The Great Unwashed, that I agree the Dems should be emphasizing more that the GOP can't get their shit together and particularly that the GOP Senate caucus isn't able to cobble together a majority in order to pass their own proposal.  It demonstrates not only that they are dragging their heels, but also that their party is in disarray right now.  Honestly, I haven't watched any news recently, all I'm getting this from is reading coverage from standard online sources, so I don't know whether the Dems on TV are making that point or not.  But they should be.

Well, what would you want him to do?  This seems like a damned if you do damned if you don't complaint.  If he didn't go out there and position-take then I'm sure you're complaint would be "the Dem leadership is just being silent on the negotiations."  It's not like he's the only one out there in terms of the leadership.  Pelosi has made her statements.  Here's Hakeem Jeffries:

Clyburn is busy pushing for voting rights in honor of Lewis' death.  I'm all for criticizing the leadership when they deserve it, but there's just no legit reason for such admonishing from what I can see.

Having read that politico article you posted, every one of those responses would have been better than Hoyer's, well maybe not Pelosi, but I have a bad faith image of her. I'm not a huge Hakeem Jefferies fan (shocking I know) considering he falls more in the corporate vein of the party, but I think that this is the perfect time to start really elevating the younger members of leadership, especially if you are Pelosi, Clyburn, or Hoyer who are probably not much longer for elected office given their age. Putting out Jeffries gives you a fresh face that does not produce a immediate gut reaction (beside racists)  and can present  a more vital image. As for what I think Hoyer should do, same thing I think we should do to every centrist

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Of course it gets its money, which is something else that I have a bug up my ass about as related to the Dems. It's ridiculous that we have a party that bows and scrapes to big business and another that just nods politely as they let them walk all over them, but as you say, gotta flip the table to move away from that.

Really what it comes down to is this is where we had the most leverage to extract concessions. This being the bill that Republicans actually cared about, the Dems were in a position to turn the the tables a bit and play "the I'm going to hold my breath until I get what I want because I know you want this" game, and instead they just did the ol' Ole block and pretended to be shocked when it was just a massive giveaway to Wall Street.

Lol, no. Democrats care about people. The good ones at least. They aren't going to hurt their voters as a negotiating tactic when they know they'll get nothing for it.

That assumes Republicans at least care a little bit about their base. They fucking hate them. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

but just because they aren't the worst game in town doesn't mean they're out there getting you the best deal they possibly can. 

Best deal? Larry, the people you're propping up can't get you anything 99% of the time. Incremental gains are wiser than shooting for the moon, and if you want the latter, do it wisely. 

Promising something every sane person knows isn't going to happen is not good politics. You only set your causes back.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Did I miss something?  What do you think the Dems are doing?  There hasn't been any deal yet - because the Dems are taking a hard line and trying to get the best deal they possibly can.  Like, has there been a change from this about 10 hours ago?

If you want to criticize the eventual compromise, fine.  But doing so before there even is a compromise just reveals your own biases.  Moreover, the Republicans can't even get their shit together and align with their own leadership's proposal.  BTW, that includes McConnell's objection to the FBI money we were discussing earlier.

 

Sorry, Iam aware of all of that, I should have quoted what I was responding to, which was Jace, Ty, and DG telling Grim Tuesday that Dems only control the house and that they have no negotiating power here.  Which is what was happening on page 12.  All that fatalism that they have no options and can't do anything.

The legalizing weed thing was an aside to the DNC platform committee.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Best deal? Larry, the people you're propping up can't get you anything 99% of the time. Incremental gains are wiser than shooting for the moon, and if you want the latter, do it wisely. 

Promising something every sane person knows isn't going to happen is not good politics. You only set your causes back.

Blah blah blah blah blah.  What the fuck have I asked for that they aren't already fighting for here or that isn't in the best interests of negotiating?  You're acting like[their] hands are tied and they have no leverage.  I didn't say they need to insist on $3k a month ubi till the end of pandemic.

They could just take the Republican offer without a discussion and you'd think it was the best they could do. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Blah blah blah blah blah.  What the fuck have I asked for that they aren't already fighting for here or that isn't in the best interests of negotiating?  You're acting like[their] hands are tied and they have no leverage.  I didn't say they need to insist on $3k a month ubi till the end of pandemic.

They could just take the Republican offer without a discussion and you'd think it was the best they could do. 

Again, controlling one of four levers isn't having leverage, especially when you're the side that wants to make sure people get fed.

[GrimTuesday]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, no. Democrats care about people. The good ones at least. They aren't going to hurt their voters as a negotiating tactic when they know they'll get nothing for it.

That assumes Republicans at least care a little bit about their base. They fucking hate them. 

 

By not fighting for the best outcomes possible you are already hurting people.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Best deal? Larry, the people you're propping can't get you anything 99% of the time. Incremental gains are wiser than shooting than moon, and if you want the latter, do it wisely. 

Promising something every sane person knows isn't going to happen is not good politics. You only set your causes back.

It literally took 2 year of Universal healthcare being seriously discussed n for it so gain steam to the point that even moderated are pushing a watered down version. Sure it had been a fringe stance for a while, but once given oxygen, it has become a key issue for Democratic voters. By pushing for more bold left-wing positions to the forefront, we can move the Overton window (sorry DMC I know you hate this) to the left.  This technocratic tinkering around the edges just makes it easier to undo when the Republicans take power.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Again, controlling one of four levers isn't having leverage, especially when you're the side that wants to make sure people get fed.

Something has to get passed.  House is needed to do that, and maybe some Senate votes as well.  If Trump signs anything other than what McConnell barfed up yesterday it means the Dems have leverage.  And yes they should push for as much as they can get.  

Look, if you're right and they have no power, they have nothing to lose by asking for more.  It costs nothing.  

Keep on blindly worshiping this 'incremental' shit you're so obsessed with.  I'm all for taking what you can get, but you're ready to declare whatever happens the best that they could have gotten.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

By not fighting for the best outcomes possible you are already hurting people.

Fighting for the best outcomes is not the same as fighting for a losing cause that has no chance. Pick your fights wisely. If you disagree, go challenge Wilder to a fight. It won't go well, fyi.

Quote

It literally took 2 year of Universal healthcare being seriously discussed n for it so gain steam to the point that even moderated are pushing a watered down version. Sure it had been a fringe stance for a while, but once given oxygen, it has become a key issue for Democratic voters. By pushing for more bold left-wing positions to the forefront, we can move the Overton window (sorry DMC I know you hate this) to the left.  This technocratic tinkering around the edges just makes it easier to undo when the Republicans take power.

 We passed a conservative bill because it was all that could be passed, even with a super majority in the Senate (albeit just for two months or so).  Arguing that all we need to do is just dream bigger will almost always just end in defeat. Stacking small victories is a wiser path, and yes, sometimes you reach for more, but doing so at laughably bad times just to say you tried is not something to dream about.

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Look, if you're right and they have no power, they have nothing to lose by asking for more.  It costs nothing.  

If you think Dems have the hot hand when they're playing the burn it all down card, you need an education in United States politics. And that's assuming a once in a century pandemic isn't happening.

Quote

Keep on blindly worshiping this 'incremental' shit you're so obsessed with.  I'm all for taking what you can get, but you're ready to declare whatever happens the best that they could have gotten.  

I like getting things done. Frankly it's always insulting when people question my liberal creds. Racing to the left while accomplishing nothing so you can have some kind of moral victory actually hurts liberal causes. 

If you don't achieve anything, and actually set your causes back, you don't get to claim any kind of superiority just because you won some kind of primary of nothing.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fighting for the best outcomes is not the same as fighting for a losing cause that has no chance. Pick your fights wisely. If you disagree, go challenge Wilder to a fight. It won't go well, fyi.

 We passed a conservative bill because it was all that could be passed, even with a super majority in the Senate (albeit just for two months or so).  Arguing that all we need to do is just dream bigger will almost always just end in defeat. Stacking small victories is a wiser path, and yes, sometimes you reach for more, but doing so at laughably bad times just to say you tried is not something to dream about.

If you think Dems have the hot hand when they're playing the burn it all down card, you need an education in United States politics. And that's assuming a once in a century pandemic isn't happening.

I like getting things done. Frankly it's always insulting when people question my liberal creds. Racing to the left while accomplishing nothing so you can have some kind of moral victory actually hurts liberal causes. 

If you don't achieve anything, and actually set your causes back, you don't get to claim any kind of superiority just because you won some kind of primary of nothing.  

Make up your mind, either they have leverage or they don't.  What's happening suggests they do.  I never said they have the 'hot hand' I said they have leverage.  

I'm not questioning your 'liberal creds' (whatever the fuck that means) I'm questioning this idea you constantly put forward that whatever the Dems do is the best and is all they could have gotten.  I'm not sure what you think I'm asking for that is shooting for the moon.

This didactic tone of the old wizened politics guy who blindly loves whatever Democrats do is fucking hilarious.  When Neera Tanden retires or gets cancelled you should take her spot.

 

[Jace, Extat]

This entire line of complaint fits neatly with all those hair-on-fire screeches about Joe Biden being useless and losing the PR battle because - insert reason here-.

It's called entitlement, used to be a negative character trait. The assumption that because one had a thought, the thought simply must be correct and good. 

You know who else behaves like that? Children and Republicans.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Make up your mind, either they have leverage or they don't.  What's happening suggests they do.  I never said they have the 'hot hand' I said they have leverage.  

I'm not questioning your 'liberal creds' (whatever the fuck that means) I'm questioning this idea you constantly put forward that whatever the Dems do is the best and is all they could have gotten.  I'm not sure what you think I'm asking for that is shooting for the moon.

This didactic tone of the old wizened politics guy who blindly loves whatever Democrats do is fucking hilarious.  When Neera Tanden retires or gets cancelled you should take her spot.

 

They don't have leverage, they need to create it, and what you want will blow that. Wait until they can flip the Senate and take the WH. Then you'll have leverage.

And no, I don't blindly support Democrats. Just like I don't blindly support ideas that will obviously sink liberal causes. But if being pure means you are also good with Republicans winning and nuking everything you want, have at it, hoss.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

They don't have leverage, they need to create it, and what you want will blow that. Wait until they can flip the Senate and take the WH. Then you'll have leverage.

And no, I don't blindly support Democrats. Just like I don't blindly support ideas that will obviously sink liberal causes. But if being pure means you are also good with Republicans winning and nuking everything you want, have at it, hoss.

 

WTF are you even talking about?  How does taking back the Senate in January help get the most out of this next relief bill?  

 

Try to focus for a second- if you're right, the Dems just end up with whatever McConnell wants.  We both know that isn't the case.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

This entire line of complaint fits neatly with all those hair-on-fire screeches about Joe Biden being useless and losing the PR battle because - insert reason here-.

It's called entitlement, used to be a negative character trait. The assumption that because one had a thought, the thought simply must be correct and good. 

You know who else behaves like that? Children and Republicans.

Children behave better than Republicans, but overly righteous liberals aren't always that much better than either too. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

I'm not a huge Hakeem Jefferies fan (shocking I know)

LOL.  He does seem to be well-positioned to takeover as leader whenever the Ancient Trio bows out, which hopefully will be soon.  Jeffries seems..alright.  But yeah, pretty meh.  He's a solid communicator and has demonstrated he's got a good head on his shoulders, but I'd prefer someone closer to the median of the Democratic caucus, yeah.  Jeffries is a little too far right for my tastes.

50 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

what I was responding to, which was Jace, Ty, and DG telling Grim Tuesday that Dems only control the house and that they have no negotiating power here. 

You're saying Jace and Ty overstated their case?  Well, I never!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

WTF are you even talking about?  How does taking back the Senate in January help get the most out of this next relief bill?  

Take back the Senate, pass relief bills that are retroactive, tax the rich, make sweeping healthcare changes, and everyone gets a quad of some good weed? With a jetski?

That's all more plausible than Democrats winning at playing hardball with next to no power as of now. But if you think you have the leverage in a negotiation in which the other side has the power and doesn't care who it hurts, WTF are you talking about? Take the power first before you negotiate.

Quote

Try to focus for a second- if you're right, the Dems just end up with whatever McConnell wants.  We both know that isn't the case.

Short term, let him lead his side to reduce benefits. That's more votes for us in November. 


Unrelated, Biden's cheat sheet just got flashed on the news, and his note card said don't hold a grudge against Harris. That's both just an honest thing, which I find it rather relatable, and perhaps he's tipped his hand. I think it shows something about a person if in the twilight of their career, they could partner with a rival that really cut them and still was willing to raise them as their successor. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're saying Jace and Ty overstated their case?  Well, I never!

At least we haven't talked about alien DNA! Well, at least I haven't. I guess I shouldn't speak for Jace, but she's also forgotten more about medical treatments than you or I will ever know. She is a doctorb, after all.

[GrimTuesday]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

LOL.  He does seem to be well-positioned to takeover as leader whenever the Ancient Trio bows out, which hopefully will be soon.  Jeffries seems..alright.  But yeah, pretty meh.  He's a solid communicator and has demonstrated he's got a good head on his shoulders, but I'd prefer someone closer to the median of the Democratic caucus, yeah.  Jeffries is a little too far right for my tastes.

I was going to say that the current assistant speaker Ben Ray Lohan looks to be more my speed, but he looks to be taking over Udall's Senate seat given Udall is retiring and Lujan holds a pretty comfortable lead against his Republican opponent in that race as of June. I honestly don't know who I would want that has even a snowball's chance in hell, is Pramila Jayapal too far left? Probably.