Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 236: The Obama's new house is half baked

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I work for a company that has a Chinese parent company. This seems like a bad sign for us. The tariffs have already been a massive increase in our shipping costs.
---

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/24/haley-pence-rivalry-post-trump-1474377

i didnt realize they had heat with each other

---

So is Trump's answer to getting what he wants "I'll declare a national emergency" every time?
---

This time hes mixing it up by saying that hell declare an international emergency!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont get why Bernie enrages some of you (specifically Xp, Im following up on your comment Red) in such a way when you dont even know his message.

Bernies campaign slogan is Not Me, Us.

He has basically said yo I have all these plans but we cant do shit without a surge of political activism because the system is stacked against real change.

Thats what Cyclo was referring to.

If you actually think small positive compromises are possible, you must have been asleep during Obamas Presidency. Its not happening.

Because I'm being pragmatic about results. Even in a best case scenario, you'd be looking at about 53 seats in the Senate in 2020, and that's sweeping the board, winning all the stretch goals, and somehow holding Alabama. If you see a path to 60, please, let me know. Therefore, the operating assumption should be that you're working in a sub-60 majority (if the Democrats fail to retake the Senate entirely - which is a very real possibility! - then I don't think anyone gets anything done so there'd be very little daylight between most of them practically speaking.)

And in this sub-60 majority, only Warren has an actual plan to get her policies passed. Which is to eliminate the filibuster. I can have a separate discussion on why I think this is a good thing in general given its historical use but speaking immediately it would be the barrier to getting anything of note accomplished.

I'm irritated at all the other candidates for not supporting it but if you're asking why I'm singling out Sanders here it's because he was the one brought up here with the audacious claim that only he had a plan to overcome Republican obstruction when the reality is anything but - in refusing to address the filibuster, he leaves in place their main tool to obstruct. I guess I'm a little extra irritated at Sanders on this issue because I feel someone with such a sweeping message should know the filibuster is the central problem for actually getting that message put into reality. Instead, his response to this issue is something I find utterly unrealistic. When he gets these millions of people energized, which Senate seats/votes is he flipping to get to 60 to overcome the filibuster he is choosing to support leaving in place? Alaska? Kansas? Florida? I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that his stated positions re: the filibuster would lead to him being unable to fulfill much of his campaign message. And then what? Are all these people he energized going to be demotivated and just stay home for good now that they see the system is this unbalanced?

Sanders may say this is the only way, and getting more people involved is great, we should do that! And narrowing the scope to "people uninvolved in politics" isn't enough on this front, voter suppression needs to be fought everywhere so the people who do want to vote now can. But as someone who has observed how politics has worked in this country for like 15 years that isn't something that strikes me as a realistic path even if it pans out and so quite frankly isn't enough especially when there's a much simpler solution in front of him that he opposes.

And what in the world is this "small compromise" thing you're throwing at me? I've been extremely open about my support for Warren. (Not to mention my thoughts on, say, how the Senate is undemocratically rigged and should be abolished for the good of the country moving forward.) I want big structural change and I feel it is needed. Warren is the only one who, in my view, has that message and a realistic path to see it implemented.
---

We have chosen pragmatism for years and it has gotten us to this stage. You only get real change when people become invested long term. The Filibuster doesn't actually matter, long term. Because if you have a country engaged enough they won't stand for that. If you let people know you are actually fighting for them they will engage with you. The Democratic party for too long has failed to do that.

Warren is someone I like quite a bit, I am not trying to disparage her in any way, but Bernie Sanders would be a wake up call for all of America because every single cooperate interest is against him, including the media.
---

Hot take: Getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea because soon enough the GOP will control Congress and the presidency again, forcing them to either pass a bunch of really unpopular laws or admit to their base that they don't actually care about anything except helping the rich. Those four years will probably suck, but the backlash against right-wing ideas will be worth it in the long run.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Hot take: Getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea because soon enough the GOP will control Congress and the presidency again, forcing them to either pass a bunch of really unpopular laws or admit to their base that they don't actually care about anything except helping the rich. Those four years will probably suck, but the backlash against right-wing ideas will be worth it in the long run.

Not how it works, unfortunately. They will just spin it away.

Also if these four years can't convince people, don't hold your breath.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Hot take: Getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea because soon enough the GOP will control Congress and the presidency again, forcing them to either pass a bunch of really unpopular laws or admit to their base that they don't actually care about anything except helping the rich. Those four years will probably suck, but the backlash against right-wing ideas will be worth it in the long run.

Except the Right loves their shitty laws, so this is very bad
---

You're using pragmatism differently than me. I'm using it here to mean "getting things done." You can have the most progressive message possible, but if you have no means to implement it, then as far as I'm concerned, you're not really accomplishing much. Not nothing, no, I won't discount the value of just seeing that message win, but results are what matter. There are serious problems in this country that need to be addressed and we don't have the luxury of waiting on them. I would also fear the discouragement that may ensue if that message wins but the system us seen as winning the war if the message can't be translated to policy causing a setback.

I also reject any assertion that Warren is somehow a downgrade from Sanders in terms of progressive policy. From my standpoint, Warren is just as good, if not better, than Sanders on the policy and she's the only one who has a realistic plan to get her plans passed.

And saying the filibuster doesn't matter is the height of foolishness. It was used to stymie civil rights back in the Civil Rights Era and long before. Were the people not sufficiently politically energized back in the 60s? Also, how long do we have to wait before the people are fed up with it and vote out enough deep red seats to get 60? 2020 clearly doesn't have the path. 2022 is a much better map, good enough that even with a Democratic president we could still gain in spite of the tendency of the party-out-of-power to gain in midterms. But I'll suspend that cyclical nature for the sake of accommodating the theory that the people are mad enough. I'll also spot 53 seats in the Senate going into it. If you similarly sweeped the board and won a bunch of reaches like IN, ND, or KY you may be able to get to 60-61. (PA, WI, NC, and FL would be the easier ones at a glance.) But aside from my extreme skepticism that the Democrats are going to be flipping states like Kentucky in 2022 exactly how long do we have to wait on issues like Climate Change? Honestly, I feel there may have been a sad and frightening truth to what Yang said in the last debate that we've already run out of time, but if there is time we certainly can't be waiting for a couple extra years or even a second term to deal with it.

I like Sanders's policies for the most part. I tend to like Warren's more on the details they differ and while I'd usually call them more than nitpicks they aren't generally critical either. My primary issues with Sanders are usually this issue and my apprehension at some of the thing his campaign staff do - which before you blow off as not important because they're not him, speaks to me about a concern for his hiring, which will have added importance after Trump has gutted the federal government and its agencies. Lost in a lot of these talks, I feel, is that I did actually vote for Sanders in the 2016 primaries because I wanted to send the message that support for a vision of a much more progressive message was strong.

These critiques which sound to me like accusing me of only wanting incremental change just have no basis in reality. I realized long, long ago (back in the Bush 43 Era) that my views are well to the left of the general electorate. Now, since then, I feel the public has moved closer to my positions but I recognize they're still not there, and on some issues, may never be - at least in my lifetime. I've accepted the logic of "incremental change" (which I think is a bit over maligned as a buzzword and is too reductionist) yes, but never as the goal, but as a long, ever continuing struggle for a more progressive (and in my view, ideal) country.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Hot take: Getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea because soon enough the GOP will control Congress and the presidency again, forcing them to either pass a bunch of really unpopular laws or admit to their base that they don't actually care about anything except helping the rich. Those four years will probably suck, but the backlash against right-wing ideas will be worth it in the long run.

It's a good idea because 70% of the population will hold 30% of the votes in the Senate. And it takes 84% of the population to get to 50% of the votes in the Senate today. That's obscene.

Now historically, this has generally been true for the country from the start, but it was a mistake and we see it increasingly become an issue these days.

While this is the crux of my argument for abolishing the Senate entirely, it applies for the filibuster as well. When it's so obscenely undemocratic, erecting additional barriers to passing legislation is absurd. And as we've seen in the past, it's been continuously used to obstruct progressive causes like civil rights forever.
---

xp1337 posted...

Also, how long do we have to wait before the people are fed up with it and vote out enough deep red seats to get 60? 2020 clearly doesn't have the path. 2022 is a much better map, good enough that even with a Democratic president we could still gain in spite of the tendency of the party-out-of-power to gain in midterms. But I'll suspend that cyclical nature for the sake of accommodating the theory that the people are mad enough.

So I have trouble visualizing exactly what a Bernie presidency would look like, but I think his "political revolution" involves putting enough pressure on red state senators that they'll vote for his policies before they'd get voted out. So essentially starting big populist protest campaigns all through the Midwest that gets republicans scared of losing reelection. The cynic in me says that the GOP is too stubborn and entrenched to let that happen, but I do agree that it's a great idea to get people involved at that level, and definitely get them more informed.

I'm not sure why he wouldn't plan to also target the filibuster if he needs to, though.
---

Yeah, I know, it's why I've interspersed that with seats/votes it's an either/or thing. Although in many cases flipping the seat seems more likely than flipping the vote.

And as a practical matter, if they're feeling scared enough to vote for Sanders's policies you've probably got their re-election chances looking dire so they're not unrelated.
---

Bernie is about getting Republicans to work with him because they want to, not because they feel pressure. You Democrats really can't do the pressure thing, so why not try cooperation?
---

tulsi gabbard is my mom
---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/24/marysville-council-candidate-jean-cramer-makes-racist-comments-again/2109750001/

Cramer, one of five residents vying for three council seats in Novembers election, responded to a question at a city candidates forum about attracting foreign-born residents to the community with: Keep Marysville a white community as much as possible.

After the forum, she expanded on her beliefs, particularly that people of different races shouldnt get married.

[...]

During a follow-up interview outside her Marysville home Friday afternoon, Cramer doubled down on her statements. Asked if she understood why that might upset her neighbors, she said: If there is the biracial marriage in the family, yes.

Because those people dont know the other side of it, she said. For whatever reason, Ive heard, they love each other, whatever, but theres also such a thing as remaining single. People dont necessarily have to get married, and, if they love somebody, love them single. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Cramer, 67, has cited the Bible in backing up her ideology. Despite the widespread condemnation of her views, she said she didnt believe she was racist.

As far as I know, as long as weve been here, Marysville has been a white community, a white city, she said. If we have seen a black person here and there, whatever, were not bothered by it. Im not bothered by it."

Vlado started running for Marysville city council?

(also she says she's not racist so I guess that's that eh)
---

The DNC has voted not to allow candidates to participate in a climate change debate, in a move that shocks literally nobody.

---

Joe Walsh officially announces as a primary challenger

I mean fuck Joe Walsh too but lmao
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Joe Walsh officially announces as a primary challenger

I mean fuck Joe Walsh too but lmao

Joe "If Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket" Walsh

Good. More challengers the better.

---

xp1337 posted...

Xeybozn posted...

Hot take: Getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea because soon enough the GOP will control Congress and the presidency again, forcing them to either pass a bunch of really unpopular laws or admit to their base that they don't actually care about anything except helping the rich. Those four years will probably suck, but the backlash against right-wing ideas will be worth it in the long run.

It's a good idea because 70% of the population will hold 30% of the votes in the Senate. And it takes 84% of the population to get to 50% of the votes in the Senate today. That's obscene.

Now historically, this has generally been true for the country from the start, but it was a mistake and we see it increasingly become an issue these days.

While this is the crux of my argument for abolishing the Senate entirely, it applies for the filibuster as well. When it's so obscenely undemocratic, erecting additional barriers to passing legislation is absurd. And as we've seen in the past, it's been continuously used to obstruct progressive causes like civil rights forever.

So we abolish the filibuster, and 30%+1 of the country will be able to pass laws over the objections of the other 70%. Awesome. You listening to this Mitch?
---

To expand on Bernie a bit, the important thing to recognize is that Bernie's movement is non-partisan. It is not subject to the Democratic Party. Joining his movement does not mean that one has to be under the Democratic Party.

I bet that Bernie is easily the top choice among people running in the Democratic primary among Republican voters (excluding sabotage votes). This gives Republicans cover to support his policies. Or to make deals with him that actually get things done.

Bernie has not insulted half the country by calling them deplorable. It's true that some other Democrats haven't done it themselves, but they are perceived as tolerating that kind of rhetoric. Bernie has steadfastly refused to join the Democratic Party for decades, that gives him unique credibility for not supporting that kind of hate.
---

Mitch knows, he just used the same argument you're making to defend the filibuster. An odd strategy.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Bernie has not insulted half the country by calling them deplorable. It's true that some other Democrats haven't done it themselves, but they are perceived as tolerating that kind of rhetoric.

You mean as opposed to calling half of the country 'the enemy'
---

I love how red sox just manages to talk nonsense when there is no Trump is a moron debate going.
---

Ashethan posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Bernie has not insulted half the country by calling them deplorable. It's true that some other Democrats haven't done it themselves, but they are perceived as tolerating that kind of rhetoric.

You mean as opposed to calling half of the country 'the enemy'

What's your point? Bernie hasn't called half the country the enemy. If Republicans have, that just strengthens my argument. Why would they negotiate with "the enemy"? Wouldn't they be more likely to negotiate with a neutral third-party like Bernie?
---

I think the filibuster is an idea that, based on the partisan divide in our country (really being forced by the Republicans, since they're the ones who've adopted the position of "We cannot EVER allow ourselves to be seen working with the Democrats, because that might make them look good, and thus lessen our chances at winning elections"), really ONLY benefits the Republicans.

If Democrats hold the Senate, then Republicans can block all legislation (not even just legislation they dislike. ALL legislation.) and the Democrats can't do anything about it.

Meanwhile, if the Republicans hold the Senate, then there's no excuse they have for not passing their wildly unpopular policies. As it stands, the Democratic filibuster allows the Republicans to throw red meat to their base by PROMISING said unpopular policies, and then never having to actually follow through on anything because the Democrats will be the mature voice in the room and block that shit from passing. Republicans can then blame everything on obstructionist Democrats (because Republican voters are factually more tribalist than Democratic voters, and thus buy into this more) and gain more influence, while using budget reconciliation to pass the only thing they REALLY care about: tax cuts for their rich benefactors. Get rid of the filibuster, and yeah, the Republicans will likely attempt to push some awful shit through the Senate...but that might actually force them to take responsibility for things. You can't claim "The Democrats are overreacting and putting words in our mouths" when you have to actually SPEAK with your legislation. And the other benefit is, without the Democrats to serve as their voice of reason, Republicans might have to actually move back towards the center, and cater to moderate voters, rather than the far right.
---

Republicans will still pass those policies, though. They won't hesitate out of fear out of not getting reelection - they'll just pass laws that make it easier for them to win elections. Abolishing the filibuster is a real risk, and COULD hurt Democrats in the long run, but it's also one of the few ways to get anything done in this system. Democrats are also banking on keeping control of the House so that they can strike down anything a Republican Senate unrestrained by the filibuster cooks up.
---

I acknowledge that Mitch knows more about Congressional strategy than me, but all this sounds like a great reason for abolishing the filibuster to me.

The first thing we can pass once we take back the House in 2020 and abolish the filibuster is a national gerrymandering law, stripping the power to gerrymander from the state legislatures and giving it to Congress. Then we gerrymander every single state to favor Republicans.
---

But yeah there's obviously no point to doing it unless you control the House and the presidency as well. And the best way to do it is to let the other party do it (like Harry Reid and abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees) and then turn around and use it. Thanks Harry!
---

At this point getting rid of the filibuster is simply the only way to start moving forward. Otherwise you'll just continue falling forever with some pauses in between, the way things are now. Better to get dynamic shifts that each party has to own than to continue the regressive stagnation where you can only fall and never climb an inch.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

At this point getting rid of the filibuster is simply the only way to start moving forward. Otherwise you'll just continue falling forever with some pauses in between, the way things are now. Better to get dynamic shifts that each party has to own than to continue the regressive stagnation where you can only fall and never climb an inch.

You might not be saying that when Republicans announce a new policy of diving into the Grand Canyon.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Republicans will still pass those policies, though. They won't hesitate out of fear out of not getting reelection - they'll just pass laws that make it easier for them to win elections. Abolishing the filibuster is a real risk, and COULD hurt Democrats in the long run, but it's also one of the few ways to get anything done in this system. Democrats are also banking on keeping control of the House so that they can strike down anything a Republican Senate unrestrained by the filibuster cooks up.

I guess where my head is at is that they're accomplishing all of this WITHOUT abolishing the filibuster. There are so many methods for them to deflect their evil and dilute the blame that there's absolutely no accountability for anything. The only thing that seemed to move the needle was when they tried to force ACA repeal through budget reconciliation, and finally had to fully accept the negative impact of their ideology.
---

Like I said, the thing about abolishing the filibuster is that once you lose power, it's all over.

Even WITH abolishing the filibuster, you need the political engagement Bernie is calling for.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Like I said, the thing about abolishing the filibuster is that once you lose power, it's all over.

As opposed to...?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Even WITH abolishing the filibuster, you need the political engagement Bernie is calling for.

Yeah, you'll forgive me if I don't have a TON of faith in this country's electorate to stay engaged, politically. Maybe if that large bloc of young voters could show engagement without needing to be "inspired" by a Bernie or an Obama...but as it stands, that's not the way things work.
---

Inviso posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Like I said, the thing about abolishing the filibuster is that once you lose power, it's all over.

As opposed to...?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Even WITH abolishing the filibuster, you need the political engagement Bernie is calling for.

Yeah, you'll forgive me if I don't have a TON of faith in this country's electorate to stay engaged, politically. Maybe if that large bloc of young voters could show engagement without needing to be "inspired" by a Bernie or an Obama...but as it stands, that's not the way things work.

Incredibly boomer post.
---

Show me a group of voters in the country who is engaged without being catered to or inspired.

I'll wait.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Show me a group of voters in the country who is engaged without being catered to or inspired.

I'll wait.

Republicans.
---

Inviso posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Show me a group of voters in the country who is engaged without being catered to or inspired.

I'll wait.

Republicans.

Are you joking?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Inviso posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Show me a group of voters in the country who is engaged without being catered to or inspired.

I'll wait.

Republicans.

Are you joking?

I mean, admittedly, Im being realistic again. Republicans arent ACTUALLY catered to or inspired; theyre lied to. Id hope that youre not implying that Bernie should blatantly lie about the state of the country, to get more voters.
---

Literally why does it have to be a choice between "don't speak to them" or "lie to them"?
---

Inviso posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Like I said, the thing about abolishing the filibuster is that once you lose power, it's all over.

As opposed to...?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Even WITH abolishing the filibuster, you need the political engagement Bernie is calling for.

Yeah, you'll forgive me if I don't have a TON of faith in this country's electorate to stay engaged, politically. Maybe if that large bloc of young voters could show engagement without needing to be "inspired" by a Bernie or an Obama...but as it stands, that's not the way things work.

So basically you think things are as bad as they could possibly get and there's no hope of change so you don't want to do anything and you condemn those who want to try something different as unrealistic.
---

We just gotta Make America Think Harder. People need to be inspired not by charisma, but by facts and solutions.

I honestly hope Yang crushes it during the September debate and starts polling above 5%
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally why does it have to be a choice between "don't speak to them" or "lie to them"?

Where are you getting that dichotomy from what I said? I just think the only inspiration Republicans need is if you dont vote for us, then the EVIL Democrats will win.
---

Espeon posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally why does it have to be a choice between "don't speak to them" or "lie to them"?

Where are you getting that dichotomy from what I said? I just think the only inspiration Republicans need is if you dont vote for us, then the EVIL Democrats will win.

That's an incredibly strong motivation. You can stop it by not being evil.
---

Espeon posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally why does it have to be a choice between "don't speak to them" or "lie to them"?

Where are you getting that dichotomy from what I said? I just think the only inspiration Republicans need is if you dont vote for us, then the EVIL Democrats will win.

Well, it's more like "those goddamn evil babykillers will keep aborting fetuses".
---

Evil isn't the word used for democrats. Stupid yes,
ignorant yes, crazy definitely, not evil.

It is, however, democrats who use that for republicans.
---

Kinglicious posted...

Evil isn't the word used for democrats. Stupid yes,
ignorant yes, crazy definitely, not evil.

It is, however, democrats who use that for republicans.

---

literally satanist conspiracy theories on democrats

not to mention democrats "want to destroy america"
---

Kinglicious posted...

Evil isn't the word used for democrats. Stupid yes,
ignorant yes, crazy definitely, not evil.

It is, however, democrats who use that for republicans.

This is DEFINITELY the exact opposite of reality.
---