Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Some people still haven't received their stimulus check 

And who would be responsible for that? Not the minority party you wish to give more power to in the long run, I hope.

Share this post


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

My point there was about the GOP being able to achieve unified government.  I believe it was Ty saying the GOP had the future advantage in the Senate while the Dems (due to the GOP increasingly becoming the party solely of white people and the obvious demographic trends) had the future advantage in the House.  And, therefore, since as I mentioned the filibuster only ultimately matters when a party enjoys unified government, it therefore shouldn't matter as much.  If memory serves, that argument was also about abolishing only an aspect of the filibuster in order to allow for 51 votes to pass DC/Puerto Rico statehood - not the legislative filibuster.

Thanks.  But just to clarify:  You do have the same worry that the Senate will continue to be more red than in seems fair far into the future? 

Share this post


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

Thanks.  But just to clarify:  You do have the same worry that the Senate will continue to be more red than in seems fair far into the future? 

Yes, I agree with Ty's point that the GOP will have an increasing advantage in the Senate while the Dems will in the House over the longterm future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Thanks.  But just to clarify:  You do have the same worry that the Senate will continue to be more red than in seems fair far into the future? 

Without structural changes, the Presidency and the Senate could be much harder to win despite an increased shit to the left of the body politic. 

ETA: Well it's pretty funny I wrote shit there instead of shift. Our country is going to shit anyways though. 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


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

And who would be responsible for that? Not the minority party you wish to give more power to in the long run, I hope.

Genuinely have zero idea what you're talking about :

*ETA*:Maybe we're operating on some kind of misunderstood basis: I'm not a Democrat, i do not support their design for this country.  Nationally, yes I vote for them everytime.  On a state level, probably 95+% of the time, and locally probably 85+%.  But that's the big tent coalition in action.  I'm guessing we have very different expectations and wants of political ends, and that's ok.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Genuinely have zero idea what you're talking about :

If the country is moving towards a place where the Senate and the Presidency can be won by an obvious minority, why cut your nose off to spite your face?

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

*ETA*:Maybe we're operating on some kind of misunderstood basis: I'm not a Democrat, i do not support their design for this country.  Nationally, yes I vote for them everytime.  On a state level, probably 95+% of the time, and locally probably 85+%.  But that's the big tent coalition in action.  I'm guessing we have very different expectations and wants of political ends, and that's ok.

I hate to break it to you, but yes you are.

Share this post


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

If the country is moving towards a place where the Senate and the Presidency can be won by an obvious minority, why cut your nose off to spite your face?

I hate to break it to you, but yes you are.

No, that's just the reality of participating in politics.  I mean, that's why we disagree on so much stuff, this shouldn't surprise you.  On an ideological and practical level I think Democrats are actively bad.  But they are better than the other popular alternative so i vote for them when it doesn't induce vomitting.

To your explanation: the Senate map only gets worse if you hestitate.  If it's doomed, what's goin to be helped by procrastinating?  Take what you can get immediately, get statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and get what you can. 

There's no cutting off your nose to spite the face.  

If you think someone is GOI g to one day get rid of the filibuster, the only logical path forward is to be the one that does it, and take every advantage possible.  Otherwise you know damn sure the GOP will.  

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If you think someone is GOI g to one day get rid of the filibuster, the only logical path forward is to be the one that does it, and take every advantage possible.  Otherwise you know damn sure the GOP will.  

No, the only logical path is to crush the GOP and scatter their ashes in the wind.

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No, that's just the reality of participating in politics.

If you vote for basically one party, and you volunteer for its candidates, you are a member of it, even if you don't want to say it. You're too old to hold on to this romanticized thought you're above the two party politics of this country. 

Share this post


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

No, the only logical path is to crush the GOP and scatter their ashes in the wind.

If you vote for basically one party, and you volunteer for its candidates, you are a member of it, even if you don't want to say it. You're too old to hold on to this romanticized thought you're above the two party politics of this country. 

Huh?  No.  I dislike most of the end goals the Dems have, I just understand the opposition is far worse.  It's the opposite of romanticizing politics, it's just practical alignment of what you don't want to happen.  Which is essentially the corollary to the golden rule: don't treat other people how you don't want to be treated 

When the people closest to that are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer versus the ghouls in the GOP, I'm with them everytime.  But only because they are the only other option that has power behind it.  In the meantime, i will make a point of trying to support candidates (like Ihan Omar) with viewpoints closer to my own, show up in the streets, and not just hand over power to authoritarians.  

Just a suggestion, but might be worth re-examining what participating in a democracy looks like in reality.  

ETA: so even though we have very different goals, we support the same people.  Doesn't mean I don't get a voice in a primary, or The Fury Resurrected doesn't because you disagree.  Democracy means your vote is worth the same as mine, even if I think your party is a Very Bad group of people.  I'm not happy to do it, there's nothing romantic about it.  It s literally pragmatism 

Edited by larrytheimp
Eta

Share this post


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

i will make a point of trying to support candidates (like Ihan Omar) with viewpoints closer to my own

Ilhan is a democrat. 

Share this post


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

Otherwise you know damn sure the GOP will. 

I think this assumption that the GOP will abolish the filibuster the next time they have unified government is faulty.  If that were the case, why didn't they after Trump won?  I agree it's likely they will enough of them think it will benefit them long term, but the Dems aren't gonna stop that anyway.  And if the Dems abolish it that it goes from likely to the reality, which is an important difference.

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

i will make a point of trying to support candidates (like Ihan Omar)

It seems odd to frame your argument that you aren't a Democrat by citing your support for a Democratic Congresswoman.

Share this post


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

It seems odd to frame your argument that you aren't a Democrat by citing your support for a Democratic Congresswoman.

In a two party system, what choice of alignment do the Omars [and AOCs] have? Could they have initially run in their districts as independents [legit question, I don't know]

larry seems to be referring to the general thrust of her politics, which aren't typically Dem.

Edited by JEORDHl

Share this post


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

In a two party system, what choice of alignment do the Omars [and AOCs] have? Could they have initially run in their districts as independents [legit question, I don't know]

They basically don't if they want to get elected (other than in rare circumstances like Bernie or Angus King), but that's the point.  They are progressive Democrats, or leftist Democrats, or anti-establishment Democrats, or whatever qualifier you wanna put on it.  But they are still Democrats.  And the fact is if you vote for Democratic candidates at least 85% of the time, political operatives, pollsters, and scholars of political behavior all consider you a Democrat - whether you identify as one of not.  Hell, there are plenty of people registered as Independents - I myself was one of them until I registered in Florida - that are still considered Democrats.  The only substantive difference is they might not be able to vote in the primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the above is the heart of it. Local elections can work it a lot of different ways, but on a national level, you have two choices if you want to vote for someone that can win. There are rare exceptions, but if you vote for the same party over and over again and you celebrate a candidate who is a member of that party, you are too. Just pick a wing of it. 

Share this post


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

Boards been like a free education, I swear. 

Thanks, DMC.

You're quite welcome.  I will accept all donations to via venmo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Boards been like a free education, I swear. 

Thanks, DMC.

Don't listen to him. Just send DMC an autographed Jeter baseball and he'll ghost write a book for you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the strategic thinking behind coming to a consensus that the minority portion of the country will become increasingly likely to hold on to power through the presidency and Senate (and by extension, the SC), and not trying to get out in front of that to mitigate it while you can. 

It's just doing the same shit because that's how it's always been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I don't understand the strategic thinking behind coming to a consensus that the minority portion of the country will become increasingly likely to hold on to power through the presidency and Senate (and by extension, the SC), and not trying to get out in front of that to mitigate it while you can. 

It's just doing the same shit because that's how it's always been done.

Count the votes in the Senate. Then count the number of states with the smallest populations until you add them up to collectively equal the biggest. Then figure out how many votes from each side you get. Then make it worse and watch how the trends are going. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...