Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jace, Basilissa

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This confused me, had to click the link.  It's doctorb.  Doctob sounds like a robot doctor to me.  Although...It'd be pretty cool if Jace was a robot doctor.  Well, cool and incredibly scary for society.

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

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

Yeah outside of some horrible occurrence, Lujan will be a Senator come January.  Jayapal's not the worst idea, I'd favor her over Jeffries.  Karen Bass has gotten a lot of VP hype recently.  I don't agree with that - Biden should pick somebody that will takeover in 2024, I don't wanna go through another shitshow primary if it can be avoided - but she'd also be an interesting leadership choice.  Hopefully whenever Pelosi steps down there's a real competition and lots of people throw their hats in the ring rather than a coronation for Jeffries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

This confused me, had to click the link.  It's doctorb.  Doctob sounds like a robot doctor to me.  Although...It'd be pretty cool if Jace was a robot doctor.  Well, cool and incredibly scary for society.

Yeah outside of some horrible occurrence, Lujan will be a Senator come January.  Jayapal's not the worst idea, I'd favor her over Jeffries.  Karen Bass has gotten a lot of VP hype recently.  I don't agree with that - Biden should pick somebody that will takeover in 2024, I don't wanna go through another shitshow primary if it can be avoided - but she'd also be an interesting leadership choice.  Hopefully whenever Pelosi steps down there's a real competition and lots of people throw their hats in the ring rather than a coronation for Jeffries.

I think he is referencing this 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-immanuel-trumps-new-covid-doctor-believes-in-alien-dna-demon-sperm-and-hydroxychloroquine

It will for sure be interesting to see how things shake up whenever we see Pelosi step down. The progressive wing is getting bigger, and will probably continue to grow, so that might change some of the calculus there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DMC said:

This confused me, had to click the link.  It's doctorb.  Doctob sounds like a robot doctor to me.  Although...It'd be pretty cool if Jace was a robot doctor.  Well, cool and incredibly scary for society.

I edited it before you quoted me. Enjoy your doctob Jace overlord. I hope she makes you watch Red Sox games until the end of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 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.

Yes, Yes, YES.

I hear a lot of leftist squawking about Biden, and although I agree with the essence of what is being said (i.e., that we're not getting a truly progressive nominee) I find myself continually frustrated at suggestions that there is some optimal way of running that Bernie Sanders would now be employing, that Joe Biden has missed completely. 

Also, one would think that a sense of entitlement is limited to those of relative privilege, but I have come to learn that any one, any where, any time, can feel entitled to something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.


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. 

JFC.  Read what people write.  I never said they have "the leverage" or "the only leverage".  I said the have leverage, you're acting like they can't do anything. 

I'm not expecting the fucking world here, which I think I made clear.  They have nothing to lose by playing as much hardball as they can trying to balance what the House passed with the trash McConnell out out yesterday.

And you're delusional if you think that they should just sit back and shrug their shoulders and say "maybe we can do something in 6 months".  You think Chuck Schumer is going to give people -- people, not fucking 'small businesses' or 'job creators' -6 months of backpay unemployment or UBI?

 

Philosophical question- would you be down with just accepting what McConnell puts on the table, not negotiating, hoping to pick up some extra seats on November?

 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

JFC.  Read what people write.  I never said they have "the leverage" or "the only leverage".  I said the have leverage, you're acting like they can't do anything. 

WTF does this even mean? 

ETA: You either have leverage or you don't. Complaining about the framing of the vernacular is you already admitting you've got none, whether you know it or not.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

WTF does this even mean? 

ETA: You either have leverage or you don't. Complaining about the framing of the vernacular is you already admitting you've got none, whether you know it or not.

So leverage=having a monopoly on power? Using the same logic you can say that Trump and the Republicans also have no leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't want to speak for @Tywin et al., but I would say that, yes, it is difficult to conduct negotiations over not crashing the car when the person on the other side of the negotiation has a stated willingness to crash the car. Democrats have some leverage--I disagree that you either have leverage or you don't--but they're going to have to use it very carefully because, at the end of the day, Republicans are for some reason willing to let the nation burn even in an election year in which they have everything to lose. I don't get it, but, hey, that's the GOP.

One thing that concerns me is this: Should Democrats prevail in November, Republicans will instantly turn off the spigot on federal spending. They did this in 2009, and they'll do it in 2021. Knowing this, we need to either demand that stabilization funds continue until objective economic criteria are met, no matter who's in the White House, or we need to be prepared to wipe out the filibuster next year so we can continue that spending. If we do neither, in 2022 we'll get a replay of 2010, in which voters punished Democrats for economic woes exacerbated by Republicans. Doing less now might be worthwhile if it means doing more later.

Edited by TrackerNeil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That aside,

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm not expecting the fucking world here,

Yes you are. You're asking for something that literally cannot happen. That's the definition of asking for the world.

Quote

And you're delusional if you think that they should just sit back and shrug their shoulders and say "maybe we can do something in 6 months". 

 Better strategists than you or I would be willing to wait six years if it meant achieving the ultimate goal.

Quote

Philosophical question- would you be down with just accepting what McConnell puts on the table, not negotiating, hoping to pick up some extra seats on November?

This is so lazy, Larry. 

No, but I'd agree to what I thought could melt his party, even if I had to accept that gratification must sometimes be delayed. Why is this so hard for you? You never get what you want all at once, and shooting for it often actually sets you back. Be smart, things take time. 

 

21 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

So leverage=having a monopoly on power? Using the same logic you can say that Trump and the Republicans also have no leverage.

No, leverage is not doing things that lose power. You have to build things up when you're on the outs, and that's where Democrats are.

Also, in what fucking world does controlling most things mean you have no leverage? 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Democrats have some leverage--I disagree that you either have leverage or you don't--but they're going to have to use it very carefully because, at the end of the day, Republicans are for some reason willing to let the nation burn even in an election year in which they have everything to lose.

Well said.  I think we can all agree on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't want to speak for @Tywin et al., but I would say that, yes, it is difficult to conduct negotiations over not crashing the car when the person on the other side of the negotiation has a stated willingness to crash the car. Democrats have some leverage--I disagree that you either have leverage or you don't--but they're going to have to use it very carefully because, at the end of the day, Republicans are for some reason willing to let the nation burn even in an election year in which they have everything to lose. I don't get it, but, hey, that's the GOP.

I would just bring it back to an issue near and dear to you, LGB rights.

Or are they now LGBT rights? 

Or LGBTQ+ rights?

Sometimes you have to slowly crawl across broken glass to make gains. There's nothing wrong with treating things like a marathon, and those of you that want to sprint may need to rethink what the bigger picture is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

But to bring things back to direct American politics, President Trump just had to answer why he retweeted a video of a doctor who also said something like a vaccine was being made with alien blood.

Was it Jodie Whittaker?

25 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

, but I would say that, yes, it is difficult to conduct negotiations over not crashing the car when the person on the other side of the negotiation has a stated willingness to crash the car. Democrats have some leverage--I disagree that you either have leverage or you don't--but they're going to have to use it very carefully because, at the end of the day, Republicans are for some reason willing to let the nation burn even in an election year in which they have everything to lose. I don't get it, but, hey, that's the GOP.

Basically this. This suggestion of paying chicken with a meth head (GOP) and relying on him to step on the brakes or turning the wheel to avoid a collission is incredibly dangerous and more hope driven.

The Democrats for better or worse, are the adults and thus feel a certain degree of responsibility to what happens to their country (and constituency). But the idea, that things would go better if Pelosi just started focussing on the ice cream in her freezer instead of actually giving a fuck does not instill much confidence in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Republicans are for some reason willing to let the nation burn even in an election year in which they have everything to lose. I don't get it, but, hey, that's the GOP.

This isn't too hard to follow if you consider it from the perspective of they have no intention of allowing a fair election. I know I'm beating a dead horse on that point, but it makes sense of this behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, leverage is not doing things that lose power. You have to build things up when you're on the outs, and that's where Democrats are.


Also, in what fucking world does controlling most things mean you have no  leverage? 

The Democrats are not going to lose power because they demand something better than a kabuki theater relief bill. People have clocked what the Republicans are doing here and given the extended unemployment has something like an 75-80% approval rating, I don't think that fighting to keep it where it is at is a losing issue.

Dude, you just go read the first post in this thread  where Larry is quoting you. You say that Dems need to create leverage by taking the Senate and white house. Your thought process here is baffling. You've basically argued that the only way to have leverage is to hold a trifecta, and at the same time said that if someone only holds one legislative house, they have no leverage. These things can not both be true unless you're arguing that Republicans inherently have more leverage that the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

This isn't too hard to follow if you consider it from the perspective of they have no intention of allowing a fair election. I know I'm beating a dead horse on that point, but it makes sense of this behaviour.

I think the calculus is slightly less nefarious.

I think they can read the writing on the wall and have resigned themselves to losing in this election. Thus they want to turn over the country in as bad a shape as possible, so they can campaign against it for the next four years or so. If you argue that's cynical, I'll have two words for you. Mitch McConnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

The Democrats are not going to lose power because they demand something better than a kabuki theater relief bill. People have clocked what the Republicans are doing here and given the extended unemployment has something like an 75-80% approval rating, I don't think that fighting to keep it where it is at is a losing issue.

Dude, you just go read the first post in this thread  where Larry is quoting you. You say that Dems need to create leverage by taking the Senate and white house. Your thought process here is baffling. You've basically argued that the only way to have leverage is to hold a trifecta, and at the same time said that if someone only holds one legislative house, they have no leverage. These things can not both be true unless you're arguing that Republicans inherently have more leverage that the Democrats.

Dude, Democrats lost power for giving people health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I would just bring it back to an issue near and dear to you, LGB rights.

Or are they now LGBT rights? 

Or LGBTQ+ rights?

Sometimes you have to slowly crawl across broken glass to make gains. There's nothing wrong with treating things like a marathon, and those of you that want to sprint may need to rethink what the bigger picture is.

My feeling, in this matter as in most, is that I'll take all the progress I can reasonably get today, and push for the rest tomorrow. So, yes, I agree that sometimes you achieve your policy goals in pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

Dude, Democrats lost power for giving people health insurance.

No shit. The context now and the context then are completely different. During Obamacare, the argument was that they were taking something away from people (if only). Now we are in a very different situation where we are trying to extend a popular program in a time where it is imperative that it continue. There is no way for Republicans to spin this that it is a winning issue for them, the moral hazard argument is their best bet, but it doesn't seem to be resonating like they want it to.

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

My feeling, in this matter as in most, is that I'll take all the progress I can reasonably get today, and push for the rest tomorrow. So, yes, I agree that sometimes you achieve your policy goals in pieces.

Most of us who are arguing against incrimentalism are not saying that one should refuse anything except complete and utter victory, I think that everyone has agreed that you should take the W when possible. The problem becomes when instrumentalist becomes something of an ideology in and of itself. This idea that everything must be done in baby steps prolongs suffering and allows those who oppose it time to rally their supporters against you and you end up missing your opportunities to get it done. Had we done universal health care when the Democrats were originally advocating for it, we would have had it since the 60s (maybe earlier, but I would have to double check that). Instead we now have massive lobbying and messaging infrastructure built up around maintaining the status quo that wasn't nearly as powerful back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

The Democrats are not going to lose power

Hard to lose power when you don't have much. It's almost like, wait for it, given that you don't have much, you may try to plan on how to gain more.

Fucking shocking, I know. Just as shocking as me having a glass of OJ on the edge of the table for no reason and somehow, that went poorly. 

Quote

Dude, you just go read the first post in this thread  where Larry is quoting you. You say that Dems need to create leverage by taking the Senate and white house. Your thought process here is baffling. You've basically argued that the only way to have leverage is to hold a trifecta, and at the same time said that if someone only holds one legislative house, they have no leverage. These things can not both be true unless you're arguing that Republicans inherently have more leverage that the Democrats.

Because having one gun and three pointed against you means you're actually the one in charge? You're one bad hombre. 

Have you ever worked in a legislature? Do you know how to pass a bill? And then get the executive to sign it? Are you sure if, even so, a court will even give it a thumbs up? 

No I think not. 

Be reasonable, and more importantly, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Republicans have had more leverage for a long time. The current president said that some neo-Nazis are good people too and is retweeting a quack "doctor" who is talking about alien blood. If a liberal did that, they would be viewed as completely insane. A conservative, OTOH, they're just expressing their First Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That aside,

Yes you are. You're asking for something that literally cannot happen. That's the definition of asking for the world.

 

I think you have completely missed what I'm asking for.  I'm asking for the Dems to be vigilant and not settle for the trash McConnell put out - which is exactly what's happening.  In my first post on this on this I said they should push for the a higher weekly PUA than $200 and for more state and local aid.  These seem like reasonable concessions in exchange for the liability protection and more PPP that McConnell wants.  And you know what? That's basically what's happening!  The entire reason we're arguing is because you claimed the Dems have no leverage.  I took issue with that and you can't let it go.  Where's the world I'm asking for?  

Also, why are Dems supposed to negotiate if they control all three branches?  

They'd need to negotiate with the minority party, because maybe they don't have the votes for everything they want.  Right?  

So why not now?  Repubs don't have the votes to pass another relief bill alone.  There might not have been much room for negotiation before Jan 2019 but that's not the case now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...