-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Going Scorched earth. Rest of Democrats breaking away from Senators?
- Thread starter wildfire
- Start date
- Status
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Concern trolling moderates slowed things down a bit.
Raven117
Member
If you would have asked me six months ago, I would have said . . . nono...the Tea Party/Trumpers/hardline Republicans have it all wrong...this is a terrible political strategy that is not only not effective, but also destructive to the country.
Now...fuck it. It is effective, and still destructive.
Now...fuck it. It is effective, and still destructive.
Let's not go full retard here. Bernie was against the TPP and wanted to renegotiate that. We individually should always push agendas that favor us. It doesn't matter if the Republicans are on our side. We will spit on their face after the ink is dry.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
The Democratic Party, Ladies and Gentlemen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5710d7bad363
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5710d7bad363
Now, you all better get ready for some personal sacrifice, too, and many of you in this very thread weren't last year.
If you want your representatives to burn bridges, you need to stand behind them when your dream candidate potentially doesn't succeed on his primary challenge.
No one will be in their best case scenario over the next four years, and no one is interested on you being a special snowflake. If you refuse to do your part, YOU are complicit.
Did I stutter?
No. Quarter.
Don't give Trump free publicity through a press release once he does something you personally like. He will inevitably do something EVERYONE likes. That's how you divide and conquer.
If you want your representatives to burn bridges, you need to stand behind them when your dream candidate potentially doesn't succeed on his primary challenge.
No one will be in their best case scenario over the next four years, and no one is interested on you being a special snowflake. If you refuse to do your part, YOU are complicit.
Did I stutter?
No. Quarter.
Don't give Trump free publicity through a press release once he does something you personally like. He will inevitably do something EVERYONE likes. That's how you divide and conquer.
So, exactly which horrible, human rights violating policy do you want Democrats to work with Republicans on? You know, to demonstrate they have a conscience...
We are not in normal times. And we are not talking normal politics. LOOK at the Republican agenda. Look at the people it would hurt. Normally, I would be against total obstruction as well. But in this circumstance? With that the Republican party has become? Total obstruction is actually the moral thing to do.
I get the point you are trying to make, but I don't believe that point you are trying to make is s naunced as you might think.
There is a time for holding out an olive branch and hope for cooperation, and then there are times in history when hope involves standing up and obstructing ruthless conferdarates, Nazis, anti-intellectuals and bloodthirsty religious crusaders.
hydrophilic attack
Member
delay delay delay
Then you are going full retard. I won't. The strategy is to take take and take back some more. Not to take and fuck up our own plans.
UberTag
Member
Franken puts his reputation on the line by telling Maddow that the Democrats have a consensus strategy and that they will stand united against DeVos.
If anyone breaks ranks, I suspect there will be hell to pay.
Stonewalling isnt just a matter of putting your thumbs in your ears and singing "La la la" like the republicans have been doing. Its about about recognising that if democrats dont stand up against the republicans, people will DIE. Perhaps its time for the Dems to ponder this as well.
Yeah the base is too diverse in general but Trump and his ilk have given so many of us a thorough wake up call and I doubt compromise is on most of the loudspoken people's tables.
Democrats have a minority. Once they are divided towards "individually should always push agendas that favor us" -- there is no longer a blocking coalition, because there is NO agreement amongst this minority on what "favor us" means.
You CAN'T take on trade, because some other democrat wants to take on a policy that appeals to their constituency.
It's either no quarter or open up to compromises, and there's no middle ground. If you want to open it up to "but maybe just this one thing", the whole position unravels.
Understand the need for the personal sacrifice, or give up on this kind of position altogether.
UberTag
Member
These aren't mutually exclusive philosophies. You can hold no quarter against the Republicans, be firm, be resolute, condemn them for being the scum that they are and yet still take the high road. Hell, the Republicans got where they are by playing dirty and cheating the system. To go lower than them you'd have to go underground.
But yeah, no more reaching across the aisle. Do that and you only get bit. The Republicans have forfeited any right to a conciliatory opposition.
IrishNinja
Member
where's the negative here? being obstructionist as fuck didn't seem to hurt the GOP much
yeah, i like the sound of it, until i think about what a state of shambles the dems would be walking into - just to try to fix much of it, watch the bullshit "pendulum" swing again and, again, have the right take credit for things they didn't do
Case in point, Trump declaring we should take Iraq's oil is now putting 5000 troops in an increasingly delicate situation where our ally no has to consider after ISIS is booted if they should turning their guns towards them.
TumblingHippo
Member
At some point, if America is the great experiment, we need to acknowledge that experiments can fail.
Steve Youngblood
Member
The only thing that has me scratching my head is I just don't necessarily understand the need to be obstructionist for the mere sake of it. I get that people look at what the Tea Party did and think it's time to fight fire with fire and send a clear message that we will not cooperate with this monster. But at the same time, I also think that this can be petty and counterproductive.
You note that the GOP wants to push policy that violates human rights. OK. We should oppose it then because it's bad policy. If that's all they want to ram through while they're in charge, then I absolutely agree that it should be opposed. But again, I'd oppose it not because there's a pact in place to resist Trump but instead because these are bad proposals.
But if Trump shocked everyone and did something crazy like nominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court vacancy (just as an example), the way people are acting is that we'd want Democrats to oppose because we must RESIST TRUMP at all costs and not cooperate with him under any circumstance. And if that comes across as a disingenuous example and not indicative of something that we need to stand up to Trump on, then I don't really understand what we're urging Dems in office to do.
This is fundamentally correct but it's not always true. The current GOP is so chaotic and disaster prone less and less people are going to be interested in breaking ranks. Also I'm sure there are 1 or 2 agendas that 90%+ of democrats want to see not harmed by our own efforts.
The Blue Dog Democrats were decimated by the Tea Party in 2010. The sort of middle ground that the Blue Dog Democrats represented just isn't possible anymore with the Republican Party the way it currently is. Now that does not mean that Democrats in South Dakota shouldn't be focused on issues that plague South Dakotans over say issues that plague California, but it does mean having a line in the sand that the Democrats will not cross and then fighting the Republicans when they try to cross it.
The Democratic Party, Ladies and Gentlemen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5710d7bad363
I swear, the democrats going "business friendly" was a gigantic slow-motion mistake.
Lonewolf_92
Member
It's a way to rebuild the party just like the GOP did. Weed out the people that'd rather take the easy route and roll over. Maybe then we can get enough people to push Dems back to the left where they belong.
I agree, and I regret playing the position for a few posts to point out the ramifications of that. It turned out much less obvious than I expected
. See below for the details.And that's what I was hoping to get with the discussion -- this is what no quarter leads to. If there's no compromise, what happens in the eventuality that everyone agrees? How do you even sustain that, as wildfire alluded to? I don't think I made that point clear enough to highlights the logical flaws of what I was saying, but taking off the devil's advocate hat: No quarter is not feasible because there are other interests at play that will come up.
The tea party could do it because they could frame the president and the opposition through a veil of racism and complete disregard for policy. How could liberals possibly do that?
This isn't an easy position to take for any coalition.
Now, what this could mean?
Stop thinking in terms of "political capital", because Republicans no longer think that way. Confirming Rex won't buy you capital to block DeVos. This much should be clear -- that's the kind of "no compromise" that should be talked about IMO.
Just as the ratings hungry networks legitimized Trump by not calling him out on his bullshit during the primary/election period, not standing up now also gives the world the notion that we're OK with his actions. Anyone that is willing to play ball with this joke of a human being only makes him stronger. For fuck's sake grow a spine and be on the right side of history.
Platinumstorm
Member
So I don't really care about changes in the minimum wage go up either, as a Democrat.
Let's put this through theoretically. We raise the minimum wage to $15. Great, this is fantastic for people right now at this point in time. Companies, as they do right now, adjust for this higher cost, and they push for continued "growth" aka higher profit margins. Now rent, instead of costing $1380 a month on average for a 1br in Denver, now costs some value higher because of increased demand. Now someone who could afford their apartment can't afford to anymore, and they join that search for housing.
Someone who doesn't have a job doesn't benefit from higher wages either, because now everything is harder for that person to attain just to even get to a job interview.
The problem with economics isn't about how much the lowest paid are paid. There can be a $1 minimum wage, or there can be a $20 minimum wage. Right now the problem is with corporate ethics, plutocratic influence in government, and the market drive that considers the only businesses to be solvent are ones that have year over year growth, which is a hilarious concept. If you even have even years, it's considered a risk. Rubbermaid, for example, wants to unload a huge chunk of outdoor equipment companies that are profitable, but don't grow profit margins to the extent that they are not a risk.
We need corporate reform where money flows back into the country, and the laborer. Where companies want to continue to pay more for continued services, rather than this current environment where it's a better deal to hop from job to job. Minimum wage hikes only do that to an extent before the balance shifts back to what it was.
So does that make me a bad liberal?
Do I bring up an invalid perspective?
Does there need to be a rigid catastrophic break in support because of that single issue?
LegendofJoe
Member
Trump is a threat to global peace, stability, and progress. If there are Democrats who are wishy-washy about opposing him they need to get the hell out of the way. The unifying force for Democrats is him - Donald Trump.
TetraGenesis
Member
This. We are at a point where every American is staring their legacy in the face.
Get rid of stupid shit like the Hastert Rule and we can talk. Otherwise there is no point in Democrats pretending to have any power by voting for anything. Let the GOP own their own agenda, good or bad. I don't think everything should be filibustered, but that will be moot soon anyway.
Not for their bank accounts it wasnt.
I used to think it was a finance reform issue, but its actually just a greed issue.
RPGCrazied
Member
I can't wait to see what democrats vote yes for Rex, DeVos, the health and EPA picks. Those are the democrats that need to go and shouldn't be elected again.
For me, and a lot of Dems, it's simple. The Republican party, by and large, has reformed themselves into the party of blatant human rights violations, crony capitalism, racism, harming the poor and working class, and complete disregard for our Constitution and governing norms. Look at their agenda. It's was they're about.
You don't OK that just because they MIGHT occasionally propose a halfway decent infrastructure bill.
Well, this one thankfully has a pretty easy answer: there's significant empirical evidence that an increase of the minimum wage to $12 or so would be BETTER for the economy -- because the passthrough to consumption is so high that the impact is a net positive.
So that's a start. Getting to your deeper question is obviously harder, but there is things we can do. The easy economic answer that says Unions cause unemployment is correct, but is only part of the answer: It also increases the bargaining power of workers. So why aren't we willing to sacrifice some efficiency for equality and shift towards a system where emplyment is not necessary?
A stronger safety net also increases the bargaining power of the employee. We can have policies that potentially mandate profit-sharing based on time of employment.
There's lots to think about.
Screaming "BANKS ARE BAD" accomplishes nothing. Be aware of the tradeoff. Be aware that strengthening unions can increase unemployment and be ready to address that. Simplistic answers need to be buried along with the Republican platform.
I agree, and I regret playing the position for a few posts to point out the ramifications of that. It turned out much less obvious than I expected
No need to apologize. There are 3 or 4 people in this thread who look like they are heading down that path and it's worth hashing it out.
The way the GOP entrapped themselves with the ACA by attaching Obama's name to it and making their base more susceptible to the idea of replacing what has traditionally been their idea was their one big mistake in a series of moves that ended up being victories (including shutting down the government)
Their base loves health insurance and would hate it if it got worse so this is an extreme scenario we should avoid.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Indeed. If this is truly the stance they plan to take and we start seeing some good leadership step up, I will begin to spend both my time and money on the party.
I think people are putting way too much faith in the whole ACA biting the GOP in the ass. When it's said and done I doubt their base is going to give a shit if they leave it intact/rebrand it.
That was more of a failure of the Democratic messaging apparatus than success/failure of their policy decisions.
And Obama's incessant need to placate the Republicans.
Where were the Democrats after the last few job reports? They should have been screaming the job additions from every mountaintop... Instead, Trump gets headlines for saving a mere 700 jobs- At the expense of the taxpayer, no less. The party needs to start boasting more, if only to let the public know of their successes.
Megadragon15
Member
What good will being obstructionist if the GOP will just pass their agenda through reconciliation especially when the GOP can just pin all the bad consequences of their policies on the Democrats?
He'd have to fear his own base literally trying to assassinate him. The core of the GOP platform and spirit is built around hating African Americans.
Don't negotiate with terrorists.
RPGCrazied
Member
I'm sure there is tatics they can use to just delay, delay, delay. They need to do that on his cabinet nominees and specially the supreme court justice pick. Republicans sat on that for a fucking year. That was Obama's pick, they stole it. I wouldn't confirm shit.
That would require the so-called liberal media to actually report on that.
This vast liberal media. Where is it? I'd like to know. Certainly not on TV.
- Status