All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[PaulBullion]

Running on independent commissions would be a good move for Democrats. In states like Kansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maryland and Massachusetts where the balance of power is split, there may also be an opportunity to work together for the mutual goal of preventing the other party from eventually abusing their power.

In places where Democrats have complete control (Illinois, New York, etc.) the temptation would be to use gerrymandering power to strengthen their chances in the future.

There are two potential problems with the alternatives to gerrymandering, although this doesn't mean that the current system is preferable.

There would be a concern that any independent commissions are a backdoor for partisans to gerrymander with a veneer of respectability.

The other issue is that there need to be clear standards about the criteria for drawing new district lines. One person might want to keep communities of interest together, while another might want to increase the number of swing seats, and another might want to have the composition in the legislature reflect the outcome of the vote. There can be havoc with an unelected group interpreting vague statutes.

She'll have a tough time in the primary, due to all the potential opponents with higher name recognition (Biden, Harris, Warren, O'Rourke, Booker, Gilibrand) but she is probably one of the strongest general-election candidates.

Her performance this cycle was astounding.

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1060041995798958080

She may be the only Democrat who actually came out of the Kavanaugh hearings stronger.

[PaulBullion]

Of course, the next Democrat to become president might be the new Speaker of the House, once Trump and Pence get tossed in jail.

"We need the strongest general that we have. We need the best tactician, we need the best organizer. ... No one else honestly that comes close."

Rep. Adam Schiff on Nancy Pelosi.

[Tami]

Except it seems like the center right neo liberals almost always get their way, the Dems keep on wanting to serve the military industrial complex, they want to keep supporting the mass incarceration system and they want to continue the same neo liberal economic policies. Is this a real coalition when only side gets its way all the time?

How many people did Obama deport? How many military operations did his government support? How much info did he let the NSA get by spying on American citizens?

I do not think the center right neo liberal wing of the party has any good solutions to real problems, they seem like out of touch dinosaurs who just repeat the same things from the 90s.

That is the trouble with grouping people together, tribal thought. What you said should be reframed in terms of individual politicians. If there is an individual politician you disagree with, then fine. But labeling that politician as part of some specific group doesn't work.

Everyone is different, everybody approaches problems in their own way. Some are better at solving problems than others, some are better at solving some problems but not others.

You label someone as something because they believe or act in a way you either agree or disagree with. Instead of considering the person as as whole.

While there are Democrats who see themselves as on a particular place along the political spectrum, it's an individual thing. Not a massive group ideology.

[Kusanagi]

Running on independent commissions would be a good move for Democrats. In states like Kansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maryland and Massachusetts where the balance of power is split, there may also be an opportunity to work together for the mutual goal of preventing the other party from eventually abusing their power.

In places where Democrats have complete control (Illinois, New York, etc.) the temptation would be to use gerrymandering power to strengthen their chances in the future.

Independent commissions is a solid vote getter, once it got on the Ballot in Michigan it won handily and across party lines. Even Republicans, who the current districts favored, knew that it could change in the future.

[aja_christopher]

Except it seems like the center right neo liberals almost always get their way, the Dems keep on wanting to serve the military industrial complex, they want to keep supporting the mass incarceration system and they want to continue the same neo liberal economic policies. Is this a real coalition when only side gets its way all the time?

You're exaggerating -- if not outright lying.

Democrats pushed health care for all, equal pay for women, civil and voting rights oversight, LGBT equality, and many other "left-wing" policies while overseeing one of the worst economic crises in American history that demanded working with "corporate interests" if only to save our cratering economy -- all the while being categorically obstructed by an openly hostile Republican Congress for the vast majority of Obama's presidency.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazi...nts-revisited/

Let's not start up the infighting and stupidity again, especially when you only control one branch of Congress -- ironically, this is exactly how the Democrats screwed up the first time around when Hillary tried to push for "progressive" universal health care during her husband's administration.

Fighting with others over who is more "progressive" gets you nowhere, especially when most of the arguments involved are based on personal bias against individual candidates (such as Sanders or Clinton) which plays more into idolization than actual democracy, where the overall goal should be more important than any individual.

Stop shooting yourself in the foot and get your act together -- America as a whole, if not the entire world, depends on it.

[worstblogever]

Of course, the next Democrat to become president might be the new Speaker of the House, once Trump and Pence get tossed in jail.

Rep. Adam Schiff on Nancy Pelosi.

No matter the charges, I don't think both Trump and Pence would see 18-odd Republicans in the Senate turn around and vote for their impeachment. The former maybe, but not the latter.

And their base will be motivated to support that choice, no matter what, because since 2006, they've been brainwashed to irrationally hate Nancy Pelosi without knowing anything about her other than she's a lady liberal Democrat who supports the gays. It's why her name got thrown around in Congressional ads to try to tie her to Democratic House candidates, regardless of their context, or if they even specifically said they would not support Pelosi for Speaker.

[PaulBullion]

No matter the charges, I don't think both Trump and Pence would see 18-odd Republicans in the Senate turn around and vote for their impeachment. The former maybe, but not the latter.

And their base will be motivated to support that choice, no matter what, because since 2006, they've been brainwashed to irrationally hate Nancy Pelosi without knowing anything about her other than she's a lady liberal Democrat who supports the gays. It's why her name got thrown around in Congressional ads to try to tie her to Democratic House candidates, regardless of their context, or if they even specifically said they would not support Pelosi for Speaker.

I guess it depends on just how bad the stuff is that Mueller has.

And if the GOP in the Senate prevents a clearly needed impeachment, we can test Ken Starr's theory that a sitting president can, indeed, be indicted.

[worstblogever]

Meanwhile, sitting GOP Senator Cyndi Hyde-Smith (appointed to replace Thad Cochran) has a runoff election against Democrat Mike Espy in Mississippi in a few weeks.

Today, while speaking with a cattle rancher donor, she said, "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be in the front row."

A reminder, for those who don't know their history, that Mississippi is noted as one of the most notorious locations where African Americans were lynched in public. Also, Hyde-Smith's opponent, Espy, is African American.

[worstblogever]

I guess it depends on just how bad the stuff is that Mueller has.

And if the GOP in the Senate prevents a clearly needed impeachment, we can test Ken Starr's theory that a sitting president can, indeed, be indicted.

Trump, possibly yes.

They won't flip Pence for publicly lying about Flynn to allow for a President Pelosi. No way the GOP gives up both and loses power.

[aja_christopher]

[The Overlord]

That is the trouble with grouping people together, tribal thought. What you said should be reframed in terms of individual politicians. If there is an individual politician you disagree with, then fine. But labeling that politician as part of some specific group doesn't work.

Everyone is different, everybody approaches problems in their own way. Some are better at solving problems than others, some are better at solving some problems but not others.

You label someone as something because they believe or act in a way you either agree or disagree with. Instead of considering the person as as whole.

While there are Democrats who see themselves as on a particular place along the political spectrum, it's an individual thing. Not a massive group ideology.

Except the GOP does have a group ideology that they are willing to fight tooth and nail for, Dems will always lose in the long run if they do not fight for something with equal passion. Do you want to lose or do you want to win? Because the Obama Clinton methods got us right wing Supreme Court, how did playing soft ball help Merrick Garland?

I think neo liberal ideas are bad, just criticizing idividuals is pointless, if I think the ideas themselves are bad. Why should I vote for a Dem over a third party if you want to run diet Republicans rather then real Progressives?

This is why the Clinton machine will always fail:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A&t=244s

They want to bring calculators to a war.

[PaulBullion]

Except the GOP does have a group ideology that they are willing to fight tooth and nail for, Dems will always lose in the long run if they do not fight for something with equal passion. Do you want to lose or do you want to win? Because the Obama Clinton methods got us right wing Supreme Court, how did playing soft ball help Merrick Garland?

I think neo liberal ideas are bad, just criticizing idividuals is pointless, if I think the ideas themselves are bad. Why should I vote for a Dem over a third party if you want to run diet Republicans rather then real Progressives?

Educated guess:

You are a white, cis het male.

How close am I?

[The Overlord]

Educated guess:

You are a white, cis het male.

How close am I?

Yes, but do you honestly think the neo liberal ideology will progress any real goals or just pay lip service to them? Clinton switched her position on gay rights due to how the polls changed and that's who she is, no real ideals, will just change her position by looking at polls, she is not some gay rights super warrior.

The neo liberal ideology will always fail, if you divorce economic issues from social ones, you do nothing but help the alt right, who will say that the left only cares about social issues, not doing both plays to their strengths. You have to advance both at the same time.
And tactics like this led to defeat:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A&t=260s

So because Clinton does lip service on gay rights, I supposed ignore that she is a war hawk, her husband's terrible policies that she supported and the super predators coment? That makes no sense.

[Tami]

Yes, but do you honestly think the neo liberal ideology will progress any real goals or just pay lip service to them? Clinton switched her position on gay rights due to how the polls changed and that's who she is, no real ideals, will just change her position by looking at polls, she is not some gay rights super warrior.

The neo liberal ideology will always fail, if you divorce economic issues from social ones, you do nothing but help the alt right, who will say that the left only cares about social issues, not doing both plays to their strengths. You have to advance both at the same time.
And tactics like this led to defeat:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A&t=260s

So because Clinton does lip service on gay rights, I supposed ignore that she is a war hawk, her husband's terrible policies that she supported and the super predators coment? That makes no sense.

Neoliberalism: a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
"social and political issues surrounding neo-liberalism"

You use this term alot, I wonder if you really know what it means? I wonder if anyone does.

[The Overlord]

You use this term alot, I wonder if you really know what it means? I wonder if anyone does.

I know what it means, my argument is that is her main ideology and anything else, including gay rights, will always come in second. Make her chose between neoliberal ecomonics and anything else and I know what will win.

I chose an ideology that advances Social Democracy and can be left wing on economic and social issues, its a false choice to say I have to choose between them, they are both important.

Why do you think there has to be a choice between supporting gay marriage or trans rights and a 15 dollar min wage and socialized medicine, why are those things in conflict?