-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Again, it's very telling that you're watching them put people of color in concentration camps while offering this take.
What? One of his listed executive orders has been to roll back all of Trump's racist immigration policies. This isn't mutually exclusive. What in the world even is this post?
?
Not everything is about Bernie Sanders. I'm talking about your personal view of what is politically acceptable in America.
Show me the post where I said this is politically acceptable.
They don't care about blowback - they're willing to throw themselves under the bus over and over for the most corrupt president in history, just because he has an R next to his name. They'd let every poor person in the country die to put a few pennies into their pocket - and their supporters would allow all of this to happen willingly as long as, in the end, they have it slightly better than any brown or black person does.
The only way to win against them is to fight dirty back. Stack the Supreme Court and district courts with the most left-leaning judges you can, reverse all of Trump's executive orders unilaterally, eliminate the filibuster - everything should be on the table.
The Marijuana thing won't make a difference because we already have basically devolved it to a state-level issue. The main thing Sanders could probably do is a massive pardon of all existing federal weed offenses, which could not be undone, but it's already the case that if it's legal in your state, the DEA isn't coming along to smash down your door for recreational use, whereas if it's not legal in your state, then you have to worry about local cops just as you always did. It wouldn't be a material change for most people, albeit it would be great to get all of those federal convictions vacated.
I disagree about this. We got enough Republicans to care about blowback to essentially prevent the ACA from being rolled back. Do most of them care? No. But some do. And thats in addition to having to campaign against these issues publicly no less. How are they going to sell this to independent voters? Hell even a ton of Trump voters probably would be none too happy about getting student debt back, or having marijuana taken away again. I don't disagree about the rest of what you said but I think when it comes down to it the public getting these things for 4-8 would shift perceptions on it enough to make rolling it back incredibly difficult for the GoP.
I don't think thats insignificant given how these laws are aimed at and who gets locked up for them. That in and of itself would be an incredibly good thing. I also disagree that it wouldn't be a material change for people. Drug laws are some of the racially discriminatory laws in our country. Rolling them back would make a huge difference.
And yet, the only reason I have healthcare is McCain cared about decorum. They didn't give a rat's ass about blowback and you know it.
I mean, your argument ignores their very actions. They were ONE vote away from destroying the ACA. ONE VOTE.
Why did you ignore that I pointed to collins as an example of someone who actually did have to consider her vote, lest she be thrown out? I also have stated numerous times that I think there is a distinction between maintaining the status quo and taking something away that people really want and have had for 4-8 years. If you disagree that you think that would be the case fine. But I think it would matter a great deal.
I think it's fairly clear that if you're asserting the Republicans won't do certain things because of the political backlash that would ensue, you need to take into account the things the Republicans have already done, for which they presumably did not worry about political backlash.
Never said you can't do things with them, but you can undo them day 1 of a new administration (as Trump's will be) so they seem a tenuous solution at best. Would you prefer an EO for something or a law?
And it seems to me the best way to prevent awful things like Muslim bans and family separation is to prevent enough Republicans from being elected in the first place. That's very much within our power.
No youre just trolling. Quote me the post that is suggesting this. and highlight the arguments Ive made that suggest this.
Yes and Collins literally does not matter 99.9999999999% of the time. She only ever votes against the GOP when she knows the thing they're doing will be fine anyway. She's a real profile in courage.
The only reason Collins ever "considers" her vote is when the GOP already have the votes. Had they known McCain would deflect, she would have followed Mitch's instructions.
It's consistent with other polls that had him around 15% in SC and the state where Steyer has dumped a majority of his TV ad money
I quoted the specific post that I was responding to when I wrote my response!
User Banned (1 week): Ignoring the staff post with regards to hostility and metacommentary
I agree. But i dont think its at all comparable to give people m4a with no stipulations or penalty fines vs the AcA which most people agree isnt anywhere near a perfect solution and has a fair share of problems that make it easier to attack. 8 years of M4A, id wager, would be significantly more difficult to reverse than 8 years of the AcA. And as mentioned, they couldnt even get the votes to roll that back.
While I entirely agree that that assessment is generally fair, were talking about a case where the explicitly didnt have the votes for it and she still voted no.
So youre having trouble with reading comprehension than because i didnt suggest or say anything of the sort when you quoted me. What part of that post said what you inferred?
Especially since the only reason that Collins and Murkowski defected was that McCain did so. Otherwise, they would've fell in line.
If they cared about blowback they wouldn't have done half the shit they've done in these last few years. Let's be real.
nah. the guy has spent an obscene amount of money there
User banned (2 weeks): Ignoring the staff post with regards to trolling/sniping and metacommentary + pattern of trolling over multiple posts and threads
I have literally already explained it as clearly as I possibly can. I would suggest rereading and considering the argument.
This statement isn't categorically true. They do care about blowback so long as it effects their base. One of the reasons their base was ok with going after the AcA was because it was an imperfect implementation of health care that many people were unhappy with. It would be a significantly tougher sell to get them to push to undo a system that gives medical care to everyone with no stipulations. If you disagree ok. I obviously feel very differently.
Goodbye lol
Your argument amounts to this: they were ok with repealing something that helped their constituents immensely but wouldn't dream of repealing mfa because it's a more perfect implementation. It makes no sense with what we know about the GOP. I feel like you're assuming good faith on their part when there's no reason to do so.
OP
OP
Their base is willing to take a lot of hits if it means owning the libs. I wouldn't bet on this.
I'm not assuming good faith on their part. I'm assuming the general public and a lot of republican voters would be more staunchly opposed to them running on a campaign or attacking M4a than they would be for the AcA. I mean we have a pretty good idea that this is true given that the majority of Americans, including republicans, think we should have universal healthcare.
70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all—here's how single-payer could affect you
"Medicare is a very popular program, so the idea of expanding it to everyone is popular as well," says Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation
www.cnbc.com
I'm saying that voters wouldn't support them going for it, and that M4A being a much more universally desired solution it would be harder to attack than the AcA which a lot of people, specifically republicans, are not happy with. It really has nothing to do with assuming good faith on the GoP. I'm sure they would try to find a way to repeal. I just dont think it would find enough success with their voters to do so.
See above. While I think some of the hate the AcA gets is from them just wanting to stick it to the libs, I certainly don't think universal heatlthcare with no stipulations would be as susceptible to that ideology. Maybe thats too much credit to pub voters but data does suggest the majority want universal health care.
Data doesn't suggest so. The majority wants universal health care. And getting it for 8 years, no strings attached, is going to be a tough pill to swallow when the GoP comes around and starts telling them they need to go back to navigating the difficulties of private insurance.
also it is wrong to say blowback stopped the GOP from trying to repeal the ACA. They simply switched strategies. The administration and 18 GOP state AGs are in court right now trying to have the whole thing ruled unconstitutional and they may very well succeed in getting at least parts of the law eliminated. Stacking the courts with hard right ideologues and letting them do the heavy lifting of rolling back progressive policy so congress doesn't have to take tough votes is a fundemental GOP strategy. That's why mitch does nothing but confirm judges all day.
I haven't posted in here before (I hang in gaming) but as a gaDemocrat in the Deep South, I'm excited/worried about this election.
Given all the people still running my choice is Elizabeth Warren but I will vote for whoever runs against Trump.
I don't hate Sanders/Buttegieg/Biden but there is just something about Warren that I love.
I really hope that once a nominee is selected, the party can gather around them because anything short of that and Trump wins. Honestly, I'm not sure there is anyone who can beat Trump at this point. Would love to be proven wrong though!
Given all the people still running my choice is Elizabeth Warren but I will vote for whoever runs against Trump.
I don't hate Sanders/Buttegieg/Biden but there is just something about Warren that I love.
I really hope that once a nominee is selected, the party can gather around them because anything short of that and Trump wins. Honestly, I'm not sure there is anyone who can beat Trump at this point. Would love to be proven wrong though!
Steyer has spent like a zillion dollars in SC ads for months, while the non-billionaries have spent all their $$ in Iowa and New Hampshire. Steyer is also at 15% and 12% at the 2 previous SC polls released in January. 18% is not inconceivable.
South Carolina : President: Democratic primary Polls
The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.
I live in SC his ads are literally everywhere and the only ad I've heard from any candidate so far. I definitely believe that poll.
It makes perfect sense when you consider they haven't-yet axed things like Social Security or Medicare, which are wildly popular universal programs that have managed to survive so far - of course, they probably would get axed by the Republicans eventually, but the argument here is basically "Universal programs garner more popular support than annoying means-tested ones no one understands" which seems indisputable imo.
The final des moines register poll will come out around 5ish? I think it being around then last time around.
EDIT: Just saw it was canceled..... um okay.
EDIT: Just saw it was canceled..... um okay.
First Democratic Primary Preference Poll Results & Poll #2 Announcement
OP
OP
Alright, folks, small change of schedule: say goodbye to poll #1. Going up now, poll #2: Who's gonna win Iowa? This is in terms of delegate count, rather than any other criteria. Remember, the delegates are apportioned per precinct, and they don't necessarily perfectly match up to the state popular vote total, because caucuses are a nightmare. This will remain open until tomorrow at 6pm EST, and I decided to close the old one a little early so we'd have more time to vote. Wasn't seeing much movement anyway. The poll after this one will be another post-Iowa preference poll, so we can see if the results move anybody.
These two statements contradict each other. The American people never protest. Never. Relying on them to hold the line through protesting will be a failure.
OP
OP
There've been a fairly large number of protests, though?
People forget the things like Occupy, Million man march, the massive protests against the Muslim Ban, and the Women's Marches. The problem is that protesting in order to change the mind of someone who doesn't care about bad press as long as his base treats him like a god is exhausting and demoralizing.
OP
OP
Yeah. Like, there were huge protests! They... failed to accomplish a lot of their objectives because the people doing them rely on a minority power base with strategically advantageous geography, and are funded by a select handful of wealthy donors and as such do not feel compelled to respond to political pressure very often... but like, they definitely happened.
Any kind of sustained organized activist movement in the US really hasn't existed since the Iraq War and that was a decade and ahalf ago. There've been marches and very neatly organized gatherings of people in the Trump era but disruptive protest action isn't something the American public has much of an appetite for which is a huge reason people reach the incorrect assumption that "protests in the US don't work" or whatever. Really need to take some inspiration from the French.
im so fucking nervous about this shit
what's this based on
Protests can work, but not if you're appealing to authority to change. The massive protests on the Muslim Ban led many law firms to get involved to represent people who otherwise would have had no voice. Protests can also galvanize the people, but it has to be clear what the aims of the protest are from the beginning or it can have the opposite affect.
- Status