US Politics: Infrastructure Week End

[DMC]

Carry on...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Quote

To the first sentence, you're being extraordinarily ignorant of how she got elected.  Just because you think advocating for defund the police isn't "sane" doesn't mean her constituents feel the same way.  To the second, again, not really no.

Um, okay? So she won on a bad platform, then doubles down on it and makes every member of her caucus have to answer for it. That's smart?

And part of being a leader is telling your constituents that they're wrong. Anyone who still uses the phrase "defund the police"" is wrong and needs to be called out on it, full stop. 

Quote

No, I have not forgotten Omar.  And no, she does not have significantly better name ID than your average backbencher.  The GOP will probably use her statements on Israel in attack ads, sure, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

LOL

Is this a serious statement? Dude, every Republican knows her name. Come one @DMC. 

Quote

This is..just the dumbest logic ever.  It's demonstrably not a "bad talking point" for her.  She keeps "leaning into it" because it's her signature issue.  That's why it's good strategy - for her.  And there's no defending you and others insisting she should be silenced on the issue simply because you disagree or can't fathom her "messaging" works for her.

It's not dumber than what you just said, lol. And yes, it's a dumb talking point, as pointed out several times now, which you agree with btw. Bush represents a super safe seat. Great for her that she can say whatever dumb shit she wants to. How does that help Reps in tight races? Saying keep on keeping on spewing nonsense you have said is idiotic because it makes one Rep feel good is a flat out disaster for the collective effort. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

@Tywin et al. this entire line of argument is what that makes people so fed up with mainstream Dem politics, and makes me think I'm better off voting third party.  If it weren't for decent people like Bush reminding me that Dems are only barely less shitty than the GOP I would be way less inclined to show up at the booth.  

If someone in a tight district loses it's not because of Bush.  

But keeping punching left, and then wonder why the left wing is so apathetic about electoral politics.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

@Tywin et al. this entire line of argument is what that makes people so fed up with mainstream Dem politics, and makes me think I'm better off voting third party.  If it weren't for decent people like Bush reminding me that Dems are only barely less shitty than the GOP I would be way less inclined to show up at the booth.  

If someone in a tight district loses it's not because of Bush.  

But keeping punching left, and then wonder why the left wing is so apathetic about electoral politics.  

 

So vote third party. And lose. Enjoy that right-wing fascism. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Um, okay? So she won on a bad platform, then doubles down on it and makes every member of her caucus have to answer for it. That's smart?

I'm running out of patience with this.  It's like talking to a fucking five year old, so I guess I'll go with that.  Cori Bush is a representative elected to a congressional district.  Congressional districts are composed of many different constituencies.  Her constituency is very left-leaning - it has a Cook PVI of D+29.  While you may think it's a bad platform, in politics we sometimes have to accept that people disagree with our opinions.  And her platform led her to take down a political dynasty that held that seat for 50 years.  It took her two tries, but she did so by galvanizing the activist left. 

Defund the police is ingrained in her brand.  It would be a betrayal of her primary constituency - not to mention her own convictions - to abandon or flip-flop on that just because you are terrified of Republicans using her to race-bait independent (i.e. white males) voters in swing districts.  The activist left is emergent right now - while they came up short, look at how much money and influence it just waged in the Ohio 11th.  Perhaps it's time for you to grow up and recognize that they are an important aspect of this party, whether you like it or not.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And part of being a leader is telling your constituents that they're wrong. Anyone who still uses the phrase "defund the police"" is wrong and needs to be called out on it, full stop. 

LOL!  This is reductive, but generally there are two types of representation.  The trustee model is the Burkean concept that the representatives act on their own convictions even if it against their constituents' desires.  Conversely, the delegate model is when the representative serves basically as a conduit for their constituents' desires.  Your suggestion, almost impressively, takes the negative aspects of both those models and thinks "leadership" is acting against both your own convictions and your constituents'.  That should go real far in electoral politics.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

LOL

Is this a serious statement? Dude, every Republican knows her name. Come one @DMC. 

.....is this a serious statement?  Dude bro, it's absurd to think Cori Bush has 100% name ID with any political party - the assertion frankly doesn't warrant a response.  I know we can all tend to get in a little bubble sometimes, but this is just getting ludicrously delusional.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yes, it's a dumb talking point, as pointed out several times now, which you agree with btw.

And I've also said several times, literally every time, that it is not a bad talking point for her.  I know it can sometimes be hard to walk and chew gun at the same time, but perhaps you should give it a shot.  Just be careful!

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

How does that help Reps in tight races?

Since when the fuck is it Cori Bush's job to help Reps in tight races?  Again, she's not a part of leadership officially or even symbolically.  Your demand of purity and omerta on defund the police for literally every member of the Democratic party is preposterous and not what any party I support should be about.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Saying keep on keeping on spewing nonsense you have said is idiotic because it makes one Rep feel good is a flat out disaster for the collective effort. 

Once again, your handwringing that this will have any substantive electoral impact is dubious at best.  And once again, even if it does, it seems pointless to get upset now when she's been the most avid supporter of defund the police in the caucus since she got elected.  The only new thing is the information that she has to spend thousands of dollars on private security because racists are trying to kill her.  If you want to admonish her for that, be my guest, but you look like an asshole.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm running out of patience with this.  It's like talking to a fucking five year old, so I guess I'll go with that.  Cori Bush is a representative elected to a congressional district.  Congressional districts are composed of many different constituencies.  Her constituency is very left-leaning - it has a Cook PVI of D+29.  While you may think it's a bad platform, in politics we sometimes have to accept that people disagree with our opinions.  And her platform led her to take down a political dynasty that held that seat for 50 years.  It took her two tries, but she did so by galvanizing the activist left. 

Defund the police is ingrained in her brand.  It would be a betrayal of her primary constituency - not to mention her own convictions - to abandon or flip-flop on that just because you are terrified of Republicans using her to race-bait independent (i.e. white males) voters in swing districts.  The activist left is emergent right now - while they came up short, look at how much money and influence it just waged in the Ohio 11th.  Perhaps it's time for you to grow up and recognize that they are an important aspect of this party, whether you like it or not.

 

No, talking to a five year old is like talking to someone who recognizes a policy is horrible, but also agrees that someone should advocate for it anyways, which is what you've been doing the entire time.

I think her brand is shit. Get it? Anyone agreeing with defunding the police is a fool. Anyone giving it a pass is a fool. I do not support anyone who says we should defund the police, full stop. It's an idiotic notion and for you to keep saying she should do it while also recognizing how terrible of a slogan it is is baffling. 

The rest of your post is nonsense, btw. 

 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, talking to a five year old is like talking to someone who recognizes a policy is horrible, but also agrees that someone should advocate for it anyways, which is what you've been doing the entire time.

This has never been about "policy" - the original objection raised by both Fez and you was that the "messaging" was horrible.  If you can't fathom that such a message can be politically beneficial in Ferguson but at the same time be something to be avoided by the national party, that's your own problem.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's an idiotic notion and for you to keep saying she should do it while also recognizing how terrible of a slogan it is is baffling. 

Hopefully one day you can grow up to be a big boy and realize that being part of a big tent party means welcoming people you disagree with.  Or at least not berating them and demanding they agree with you.  If not, like you said to larry, enjoy that right-wing fascism.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

This has never been about "policy" - the original objection raised by both Fez and you was that the "messaging" was horrible.  If you can't fathom that such a message can be politically beneficial in Ferguson but at the same time be something to be avoided by the national party, that's your own problem.

No, the problem is that it's unnecessary and idiotic. Who cares if it's beneficial politically in this narrow sense?  Let Rep. Bush get what she wants and see want comes of it. It would be a total clown show and you know it.

I get that you think it's what's best for her locally. Fine, but it's a loser nationwide, so if she keeps her seat and costs five people theirs, are you still down with a message and policy you don't even agree with?

 

Quote

Hopefully one day you can grow up to be a big boy and realize that being part of a big tent party means welcoming people you disagree with.  Or at least not berating them and demanding they agree with you.  If not, like you said to larry, enjoy that right-wing fascism.  

You cannot have a big tent and have someone just saying defund the police, no context applied. Especially if you've explained to them for the hundredth time that they're hurting other members by doing so. That's how you lose several winnable races. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Let Rep. Bush get what she wants and see want comes of it. It would be a total clown show and you know it.

She's not getting what she wants.  As I pointed out last night, Biden has been the opposite of defund the police both rhetorically and policywise, as have virtually all national party leaders.  Why you can't tolerate even a single MC disagreeing with that, however, again is your own problem.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

so if she keeps her seat and costs five people theirs, are you still down with a message and policy you don't even agree with?

I reject the premise because it's a fantasy to suggest Cori Bush is going to cost five people their seats.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You cannot have a big tent and have someone just saying defund the police, no context applied.

Um, what?  She ran on defund the police.  What exactly are you suggesting?  That the Dems should have expelled her from the party because of it?  I suppose you will indeed enjoy rightwing fascism.

[Larry of the Lawn]

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, the problem is that it's unnecessary and idiotic. Who cares if it's beneficial politically in this narrow sense?  Let Rep. Bush get what she wants and see want comes of it. It would be a total clown show and you know it.

I get that you think it's what's best for her locally. Fine, but it's a loser nationwide, so if she keeps her seat and costs five people theirs, are you still down with a message and policy you don't even agree with?

 

You cannot have a big tent and have someone just saying defund the police, no context applied. Especially if you've explained to them for the hundredth time that they're hurting other members by doing so. That's how you lose several winnable races. 

Lol what do you think a big tent is?

Also, my response to you was mostly to point out the absurdity of changing your vote based on someone in another district that happens to be from the same party running on shit you don't like.  

I still vote for the shitty Dems even though they have anti-abortion party members and most of them are sociopathic war freaks.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Lol what do you think a big tent is?

Also, my response to you was mostly to point out the absurdity of changing your vote based on someone in another district that happens to be from the same party running on shit you don't like.  

I still vote for the shitty Dems even though they have anti-abortion party members and most of them are sociopathic war freaks.  

I think a big tent allows for a range of opinions, but when one is objectively nonsensical, it doesn't have a place. That's where defund the police lays. It's completely absurd. There's no defense for it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

She's not getting what she wants.  As I pointed out last night, Biden has been the opposite of defund the police both rhetorically and policywise, as have virtually all national party leaders.  Why you can't tolerate even a single MC disagreeing with that, however, again is your own problem.

I'm saying let her get what she wants and see how that plays out. Everyone knows it would be a complete fucking disaster. 

So why again are we defending someone with an indefensible view?

Quote

I reject the premise because it's a fantasy to suggest Cori Bush is going to cost five people their seats.

No it's not. And we can measure this next cycle. If the House flips and Dems lose a lot of battleground seats, go and study the attack ads used against them. Like you've already said, we know who will be used in them. 

Quote

Um, what?  She ran on defund the police.  What exactly are you suggesting?  That the Dems should have expelled her from the party because of it?  I suppose you will indeed enjoy rightwing fascism.

No, just to tell her to chill the fuck out on that talking point, that it hurts a lot of other members, that it's utter nonsense to begin with and that it will never become policy. Ya know, talk to her like she's an adult. 

Or should we follow your approach and cheer on shit we know is hairbrained and never going to become law anyways?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think a big tent allows for a range of opinions, but when one is objectively nonsensical, it doesn't have a place. That's where defund the police lays. It's completely absurd. There's no defense for it.

The defense is that it's actually what you want, ran on, and your constituents elected you to advocate for.  What's absurd is policing in the US.  What's also absurd is attacking Cori Bush as if she's making policy for the party as a whole.  Where's your outrage at the anti-abortion Dems?

I'm not sure who you're trying to appeal to here.  Is it the obsessively-courted-by-the-media "white working class rural voter" in Abigail Spanberger's or Connor Lamb's districts?  Who both were re-elected despite this phantom menace from St. Louis?

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm saying let her get what she wants and see how that plays out. Everyone knows it would be a complete fucking disaster. 

So why again are we defending someone with an indefensible view?

No it's not. And we can measure this next cycle. If the House flips and Dems lose a lot of battleground seats, go and study the attack ads used against them. Like you've already said, we know who will be used in them. 

No, just to tell her to chill the fuck out on that talking point, that it hurts a lot of other members, that it's utter nonsense to begin with and that it will never become policy. Ya know, talk to her like she's an adult. 

Or should we follow your approach and cheer on shit we know is hairbrained and never going to become law anyways?

You've got absolutely zero fucking evidence that anything she's saying is costing any seats.  That's a complete and utter fantasy at this point.  

You know what might cost Dems seats?  Catering to weird old white dude oak paneled room obsessions like bipartisanship and procedural issues over actual policy to help people.  Do some student debt relief.  Increase the minimum wage.  Get a public option.  And if the votes aren't there for those issues, let the rest of us plebes know that someone in DC gives a shit.  Cori Bush does 

[Week]

Funny how defunding the police is completely absurd, but giving MORE funding and supporting Qualified Immunity to a group of organizations that, writ large, are a violent, borderline extremist organization that exists to oppress and extract money from the poor and black and brown communities. 

Policing in America is completely broken. To suggest that it needs to be ripped up from the roots and reestablished may be the only way to prevent the police from killing and assaulting thousands of innocent people per year.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm saying let her get what she wants and see how that plays out. Everyone knows it would be a complete fucking disaster. 

So why again are we defending someone with an indefensible view?

Here's what she said - this morning - in explaining her view:

Quote

"Because when we’re talking about every single year increasing the budget for police and then the budget for, like, health and human services continuing to shrink and St. Louis being number one for police violence year after year after year," she said. "We’re adding more money to police, but we keep dying."

That does not sound to me like it would be "a complete fucking disaster," nor do I think it is an indefensible view.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No it's not. And we can measure this next cycle. If the House flips and Dems lose a lot of battleground seats, go and study the attack ads used against them. Like you've already said, we know who will be used in them.

First, yes, it is.  Cori Bush is not that influential of a figure just because she's getting national exposure for a week 15 months before the midterms. 

Anyway, if we wanted to engage in a post-hoc fallacy we could do this, sure.  Dems may lose seats this cycle, of course, in fact historical trends suggest they will.  That does not mean it is Cori Bush's fault and determining that causality is a hell of lot more difficult than what you're portraying here.  However, before we can even determine why the Dems lost seats, if they do, it sounds like you'll already have made up your mind.  Which is entirely un-empirical.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, just to tell her to chill the fuck out on that talking point, that it hurts a lot of other members, that it's utter nonsense to begin with and that it will never become policy. Ya know, talk to her like she's an adult. 

Or should we follow your approach and cheer on shit we know is hairbrained and never going to become law anyways?

LOL.  Telling her she's wrong to advocate what she believes in AND what got her elected is not talking to her like an adult.  In fact it's the exact opposite as it's incredibly patronizing.

And spare me your bullshit that I'm "cheering it on" rather than actually understanding how party politics works.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The defense is that it's actually what you want, ran on, and your constituents elected you to advocate for.  What's absurd is policing in the US.  What's also absurd is attacking Cori Bush as if she's making policy for the party as a whole.  Where's your outrage at the anti-abortion Dems?

So running on a lie is a good thing? Because defunding the police is just that. It's a nonstarter policy wise and if it was enacted, the backlash would be swift and severe. 

Also, I don't support anti-choice Democrats, thank you very much Larry.

Quote

I'm not sure who you're trying to appeal to here.  Is it the obsessively-courted-by-the-media "white working class rural voter" in Abigail Spanberger's or Connor Lamb's districts?  Who both were re-elected despite this phantom menace from St. Louis?

I'm trying to appeal to moderate folks, who as a collective, will run away from the notion of defund the police. Isn't that obvious?

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You've got absolutely zero fucking evidence that anything she's saying is costing any seats.  That's a complete and utter fantasy at this point.  

So you're saying outside groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars using quotes like hers in campaign ads because......the don't have any impact? 

Dude, we know they do, otherwise it wouldn't matter. 

Quote

You know what might cost Dems seats?  Catering to weird old white dude oak paneled room obsessions like bipartisanship and procedural issues over actual policy to help people.  Do some student debt relief.  Increase the minimum wage.  Get a public option.  And if the votes aren't there for those issues, let the rest of us plebes know that someone in DC gives a shit.  Cori Bush does 

You seem like you want to elect Republicans. Think they'll cater to your issues? Thought not.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So running on a lie is a good thing? Because defunding the police is just that. It's a nonstarter policy wise and if it was enacted, the backlash would be swift and severe. 

Also, I don't support anti-choice Democrats, thank you very much Larry.

I'm trying to appeal to moderate folks, who as a collective, will run away from the notion of defund the police. Isn't that obvious?

So you're saying outside groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars using quotes like hers in campaign ads because......the don't have any impact? 

Dude, we know they do, otherwise it wouldn't matter. 

You seem like you want to elect Republicans. Think they'll cater to your issues? Thought not.

Buddy, I think you need a break, and maybe need to step back a bit. 

What's the lie she ran on?

Look at what you're attacking here, and maybe do a little bit of self reflection.  

Outside groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars for all sorts of shit, regardless of Cori Bush.  The right wing would run that picture of Connor Lamb giving the thumbs up in front of the Defund the Police sign if there was no Cori Bush.  You could have a 250 Dem house members that were Joe Biden clones and 60 Sinemas in the Senate and the same money would be talking about defunding the police, illegal immigrants, socialism, and the death of family values.  But keep catering to the right.  Whatever. 

Yeah, of course I want to elect Republicans.  You figured out the long con.  JFC 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So running on a lie is a good thing? Because defunding the police is just that. It's a nonstarter policy wise and if it was enacted, the backlash would be swift and severe. 

Also, I don't support anti-choice Democrats, thank you very much Larry.

I'm trying to appeal to moderate folks, who as a collective, will run away from the notion of defund the police. Isn't that obvious?

So you're saying outside groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars using quotes like hers in campaign ads because......the don't have any impact? 

Dude, we know they do, otherwise it wouldn't matter. 

You seem like you want to elect Republicans. Think they'll cater to your issues? Thought not.

to the bolded: Dems barely cater to any issues I care about either.  they pay lip service, throw crumbs and do nothing. don't shit on the people who are barely supporting the party you worship and whose votes you depend on to win 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Here's what she said - this morning - in explaining her view:

That does not sound to me like it would be "a complete fucking disaster," nor do I think it is an indefensible view.

It's almost like, gasps, a PR team helped her out. 

Quote

First, yes, it is.  Cori Bush is not that influential of a figure just because she's getting national exposure for a week 15 months before the midterms. 

Could easily say the same about AOC two years ago.

Quote

Anyway, if we wanted to engage in a post-hoc fallacy we could do this, sure.  Dems may lose seats this cycle, of course, in fact historical trends suggest they will.  That does not mean it is Cori Bush's fault and determining that causality is a hell of lot more difficult than what you're portraying here.  However, before we can even determine why the Dems lost seats, if they do, it sounds like you'll already have made up your mind.  Which is entirely un-empirical.

Lol, I think we know the chances are more likely than not the Dems will lose control of Congress, which is why I have kept saying don't make it easier for Republicans. The margins for victory are slim to begin with, so there's no reason to make it easier for them. 

Quote

LOL.  Telling her she's wrong to advocate what she believes in AND what got her elected is not talking to her like an adult.  In fact it's the exact opposite as it's incredibly patronizing.

And spare me your bullshit that I'm "cheering it on" rather than actually understanding how party politics works.

You are though. You've said several times that it's smart for her, when a). it's not and b). it hurts everyone in her party. You're having your cake and eating it too while defending something you know is actually really dumb.