• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

davepoobond

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,621
www.squackle.com
We're not immune to it. I live in a conservavite run province (equivalent to you governers) for another 4 years because of the exact voter apathy that led your country down this path. And the province will regress in many ways as a result. But federally at least, enough Canadians realized last election that although our liberal leaders aren't making as much progress on extremely important things like climate change, we've figured that some small/slow progress is better than regression. Until some of y'all realize that, you'll forever be stuck having purity discussions while your rights are stripped away. 2016's consequences are forever unless you all work really hard to get past this kinda nonsense over the next 8 years and improve things. Like the recent gun legislation, small steps are better than no steps and more candidates on the side of those not wanting to regress can lead to even more steps forward. It's just going to take a lot of work and compromise to get there.

To this note, republicans fought for 50 years And slowly chipped away at abortion rights. Are people on the other side of the issue as committed?

Unfortunately I'm not hopeful for that.
 

RomanticHeroX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,889
We have 5 Republican appointed SC justices that overturned Roe and 3 Dem appointed justices who all opposed it

We have over a dozen Dem controlled states where abortion is still legal and over 20 Republican controlled states where it's been made illegal.

But somehow "both sides are the same".
Literally no one in this thread has ever said both sides are the same. One side is monstrous, and the other side has long been ineffective at dealing with the escalating attacks on our quality of life. That's not saying both sides are the same. Go ahead and have fun with your strawman though.
 

less

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,838
This shouldn't have happened, but a not insigificant portion of the voting population tends to sit out important elections or protest vote for third parties.

I literally have friends that are pissed at this decision and are still not in favor of voting. Both sides the same, my vote doesn't matter, and so on to excuse not voting.
 

Milky Way

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,054
Been explained before- have a majority is not the same as have enough pro-choice votes in the House and Senate. Even under Obama, there were not enough pro choice Dems. And the Republicans at that time started their continual block of anything that didn't sever their own election interest.

It's never enough, is it? I'm still voting blue and encourage everyone to do the same. But I can't blame people who don't when "vote for us and we'll fix it" "oh wait we have the majority but we don't have the votes…Vote….more" doesn't exactly inspire confidence, now does it? There will always be someone standing in the way.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
User banned (3 days): inflammatory accusations
Because I fucking expect better from the "pro-choice" party, that dropped the ball on the issue of Roe. Because it's harder for me to explain to somebody to vote for the "pro choice" party when they explicitly back "anti-choice" candidate, and did not codify Roe when they had the chance. We're going in circles now.

Right, because

1) you focus on the 1 anti choice candidate Pelosi backed and not the 200+ pro choice candidates she backed

2) you ignored the fact that the party was less solidly pro choice 12 years ago when they had the slimmest window of opportunity to codify Roe.

I'm not going to bat for the party on Cullear, I don't really care. Bad call, whatever. But that you want to damn the whole party for it, I'll call that out.

You do not act like a person who cares about the issue. If you did, you'd see this moment as a time for less liberal/left divide, not more.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,253
New York City
This shouldn't have happened, but a not insigificant portion of the voting population tends to sit out important elections or protest vote for third parties.
Declaring this isn't blaming those people. it's Republicans that are to blame for what's going on. But it's meaningless to even talk about Republicans when they are a death cult hell bent on annihilation.
 

Milky Way

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,054
Right, because

1) you focus on the 1 anti choice candidate Pelosi backed and not the 200+ pro choice candidates she backed

2) you ignored the fact that the party was less solidly pro choice 12 years ago when they had the slimmest window of opportunity to codify Roe.

I'm not going to bat for the party on Cullear, I don't really care. Bad call, whatever. But that you want to damn the whole party for it, I'll call that out.

You do not act like a person who cares about the issue. If you did, you'd see this moment as a time for less liberal/left divide, not more.

Saying they don't care about the issue is just fucking dumb
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,441
For sure but they were only able to do that because people were apathetic. Voters just didn't show up like they did in 2008.

Sure but before that they won the primaries to unseat established GOP Congress members and many more candidates at the local level.

I don't understand you americans. It was clear for years that this would happen. Why the outcry now? Republicans push their policies through, democrats don't get shit done, that's how it's been for decades.
Your society is deeply divided and can't even unify on basic rights.

Voters didn't take the implications of the 2016 election seriously enough and we are now paying the price. Yes we had great turnout in 2018 and 2020 but the damage was already done. At this juncture the short and midterm strategy is to start winning more local elections to help gum up the works in states that will implement anti abortion laws.
 
Oct 28, 2017
2,704
Siloam Springs
We're not immune to it. I live in a conservavite run province (equivalent to you governers) for another 4 years because of the exact voter apathy that led your country down this path. And the province will regress in many ways as a result. But federally at least, enough Canadians realized last election that although our liberal leaders aren't making as much progress on extremely important things like climate change, we've figured that some small/slow progress is better than regression. Until some of y'all realize that, you'll forever be stuck having purity discussions while your rights are stripped away. 2016's consequences are forever unless you all work really hard to get past this kinda nonsense over the next 8 years and improve things. Like the recent gun legislation, small steps are better than no steps and more candidates on the side of those not wanting to regress can lead to even more steps forward. It's just going to take a lot of work/compromise to get there. Baby steps -> walking.

You're not wrong and sorry about your recent election results!

To gain back the levers of power is going to be hard work. I mean look at the last 40-70 years from the conservatives in the USA, people died not seeing the fruits of their labor. It's on us to suck it up and start the march back to the left, we owe that to what's left for the future.

Yesterday should make us angry, sad, determined, etc. we'll need to draw from that to make things just and right.
 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,154
I mean, it is just amazing how some poster can't just say "yeah, dems did fuck up in regards to backing a shitty candidate". That would pretty much be the end of that discussion.
But they are so isolated from people who are on their side, fighting the same fight.

I don't even know if supporting Cuellar was the wrong choice (as much as I dislike it). I simply have no way of quantifying the ramifications of doing so in the long term, if there even are any.

But people really need to stop taking things our politicians say at face value.

Is this a joke post? Pelosi supported a member of her caucus. Just like how Schumer supported a member of his caucus.
That was a senate seat and Pelosi supported Kennedy because he was a member of her caucus.
For the record this is consistent. Pelosi as house leader always supports her caucus members even if they are running against incumbents in the Senate or other races

Okay, but do you see the contradiction?

If the motivating factor is strategic (i.e. supporting the candidate who has proven they can win that race), if the belief is that swapping out a proven winner for an unproven winner carries inherent risk, why would it make sense to endorse a Representative who had never run a statewide race before?

Kennedy was challenging Markey in Massachusetts, so it wasn't exactly a huge risk, but why take on any additional risk at all?

The argument in favor of supporting trash (but established) Democrats gets a whole lot weaker when you acknowledge that the motivation is primarily the expectation of a diffuse, implicit quid pro quo among existing members, and not an actual concern for maximizing seats in congress.
 

yogurt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,847
Literally no one in this thread has ever said both sides are the same. One side is monstrous, and the other side has long been ineffective at dealing with the escalating attacks on our quality of life. That's not saying both sides are the same. Go ahead and have fun with your strawman though.
It's not a strawman. He's banned now, but a few pages back a poster went on at length about how both parties are "one and the same" and voting solves nothing so there's no point voting.

Obviously 95% of people here get it, but that 5% does exist.

Saying they don't care about the issue is just fucking dumb
Sure. It was one interview 5 years ago in reference to voters priorities. I agree it's a dumb thing to say, but I don't understand the obsession with it (or her reading a poem at the end of a speech).

Calling her out for supporting Cuellar at least, you know, matters.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
Right, because

1) you focus on the 1 anti choice candidate Pelosi backed and not the 200+ pro choice candidates she backed

2) you ignored the fact that the party was less solidly pro choice 12 years ago when they had the slimmest window of opportunity to codify Roe.

I'm not going to bat for the party on Cullear, I don't really care. Bad call, whatever. But that you want to damn the whole party for it, I'll call that out.

You do not act like a person who cares about the issue. If you did, you'd see this moment as a time for less liberal/left divide, not more.
Despite my protest, you keep saying I don't care about the issue. I don't have to explain myself to you and it's not my fault I don't fit in your neat little box of who a pro-choice person is. If you keep claiming I don't support the issue, then I won't engage with you further.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,944
Okay, but do you see the contradiction?

If the motivating factor is strategic (i.e. supporting the candidate who has proven they can win that race), if the belief is that swapping out a proven winner for an unproven winner carries inherent risk, why would it make sense to endorse a Representative who had never run a statewide race before?

Kennedy was challenging Markey in Massachusetts, so it wasn't exactly a huge risk, but why take on any additional risk at all?

The argument in favor of supporting trash (but established) Democrats gets a whole lot weaker when you acknowledge that the motivation is primarily the expectation of a diffuse, implicit quid pro quo among existing members, and not an actual concern for maximizing seats in congress.
There is no contradiction. The House Caucus Leader always endorses their members just as the Senate Caucus Leader always endorses their members, and so on. That's part of your job as a caucus leader and if you don't do it you will lose the support of your members and will not be able to muster them for votes as effectively. That's all there is to it.
 

Nola

Member
Oct 29, 2017
8,061
It has worked for Republicans because they have rallied behind an increasingly extreme version of conservatism. Anyone not on board have been spit out. Fox News are a good example of how conspiracy, myth and villianism have completely taken the place of logical arguments. Not that it wasn't there before, but it has become much more mainstream.

You can't say the same of Democrats, they have been unable to find a complete common ground on issues and probably won't ever be able to since they speak to a wide range of voters that educate themselves more and have a higher standard in terms of what they expect of their legislators.

The only real option for Democrats is rallying against a common enemy aka how shitty the alternative is with Republicans in power. With shit like abortion rights literally being taken away before people's eyes it should even be possible. But still people keep trying to eat their own instead and refuse to see the big picture.


I'm speaking specifically about how it has helped churn leadership and keep the party full of people willing to push the boundaries to get their agenda passed and provide an enormous bench to pull from for higher leadership roles

Contrast that to the Democratic Party which, with one small blip with Me Too, the party is stagnate and entrenched with aged leadership, aged thinking, an unhealthy comfort with the status quo, and a party that has a drought of talent. And what talent is there is being kept minimized because of senior leaders refusing to step down or retire

I mean we literally have Feinstein in later stages of Alzheimer's still clinging to her seat. This shit is structurally broken and the people with the most power are just advocating to keep everything moving as is with them still in charge, doing less and less and becoming more and more detached while getting more and more hostile to the populist and ideological and policy wing of the party. The younger generations of leaders that need to be fostered and taking these reigns keep getting told to sit down, don't question the incumbent elders that are in their late 70's or 80's.
 
Last edited:

MasterChumly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,903
Because I fucking expect better from the "pro-choice" party, that dropped the ball on the issue of Roe. Because it's harder for me to explain to somebody to vote for the "pro choice" party when they explicitly back "anti-choice" candidate, and did not codify Roe when they had the chance. We're going in circles now.
I'm sorry but pitching a fit about dem leadership when they have opening advocated for pro choices and pushed through laws when they could is ridiculous. Being ignorant about how the us government works isn't something that should be celebrated or tolerated. Yes you can be frustrated but blaming dems for how the government works isn't the way to go
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
Despite my protest, you keep saying I don't care about the issue. I don't have to explain myself to you and it's not my fault I don't fit in your neat little box of who a pro-choice person is. If you keep claiming I don't support the issue, then I won't engage with you further.

So you are using my offhand comment to ignore the facts. (second time this argument, last time was because I seemed too invested!)

Do you think the Democrats are not pro choice? What is your prescription for addressing abortion rights going forward, if not including pressing for higher turnout in November?
 

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122
Okay, but do you see the contradiction?

If the motivating factor is strategic (i.e. supporting the candidate who has proven they can win that race), if the belief is that swapping out a proven winner for an unproven winner carries inherent risk, why would it make sense to endorse a Representative who had never run a statewide race before?

Kennedy was challenging Markey in Massachusetts, so it wasn't exactly a huge risk, but why take on any additional risk at all?

The argument in favor of supporting trash (but established) Democrats gets a whole lot weaker when you acknowledge that the motivation is primarily the expectation of a diffuse, implicit quid pro quo among existing members, and not an actual concern for maximizing seats in congress.

In Massachusetts the risk of losing the seat to a Republican is effectively nil especially when both names are well known. When that risk is nil, you can weigh other factors. When that risk is significant, it takes higher priority. Not complicated from a strategic perspective.
 

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,582
Such a horrible time for humanity, the knife twists even deeper seeing everybody in this thread just talking down to each other. Get over yourselves.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
So you are using my offhand comment to ignore the facts. (second time this argument, last time was because I seemed too invested!)

Do you think the Democrats are not pro choice? What is your prescription for addressing abortion rights going forward, if not including pressing for higher turnout in November?
Oh now it's just an offhanded comment. Pretty amazing way of getting someone to engage with you by saying they don't care about human rights and coming back with, just a joke bro. If you wanted to have a discussion with me, you could have done without poisoning the well.
 

Milky Way

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,054
"The GOP just gutted women's rights so I'm going to go online and bitch about Democrats."

Funny way of showing it.

Me personally, I'm waiting for my wife to get home so I can get buy in on offering our place up for anyone traveling from out of state.

Democrats can't be criticized? I can't criticize democrats because if I do that means I don't care about abortion? Really? Democrats can be criticized without saying democrats = republicans so stop voting. Stop it. Democrats have lots of room for improvement. Obviously republicans are the greater threat, but democrats need to get their fucking shit together. More AOC, less Pelosi reading poems.
 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,154
There is no contradiction. The House Caucus Leader always endorses their members just as the Senate Caucus Leader always endorses their members, and so on. That's part of your job as a caucus leader and if you don't do it you will lose the support of your members and will not be able to muster them for votes as effectively. That's all there is to it.

If people want to make the argument that she has to give them support so they will be more likely to vote her way when it comes time to pass x, y, and z, then they should make that argument.

It's time we stop repeating the charitable lie, "They're just supporting the candidate who has proven they can win," that gets bandied about any time leadership runs defense for total assholes who, for example, applaud the Supreme Court for taking away our rights.
 

yogurt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,847
Democrats can't be criticized? I can't criticize democrats because if I do that means I don't care about abortion? Really? Democrats can be criticized without saying democrats = republicans so stop voting. Stop it. Democrats have lots of room for improvement. Obviously republicans are the greater threat, but democrats need to get their fucking shit together. More AOC, less Pelosi reading poems.
I agree with you.

Can we stop with the poem thing, though? She read the poem at the end of a speech, but it got cropped and spread as if all she did was read a poem.

Let's criticize Dems for substantial things, not Twitter bullshit.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Again just ignoring the challenger who was 201 vote from beating him.
289 votes.
Hey, if you have any polls that say otherwise I'll eat that crow.
But him loosing voters every general election coupled with her doing so will in the primary doesn't make that argument make any sense.
What are you even talking about? Culler received more votes in the 2020 general than he ever had before.
 

less

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,838
Okay, but do you see the contradiction?

If the motivating factor is strategic (i.e. supporting the candidate who has proven they can win that race), if the belief is that swapping out a proven winner for an unproven winner carries inherent risk, why would it make sense to endorse a Representative who had never run a statewide race before?

Kennedy was challenging Markey in Massachusetts, so it wasn't exactly a huge risk, but why take on any additional risk at all?

The argument in favor of supporting trash (but established) Democrats gets a whole lot weaker when you acknowledge that the motivation is primarily the expectation of a diffuse, implicit quid pro quo among existing members, and not an actual concern for maximizing seats in congress.

Pelosi is not so concerned with the Senate as her priority is the House. She backed someone of her caucus over someone that is not part of her caucus. Her strategic priority there was strengthening the bonds she has with her caucus by once again positioning herself as someone that will go to the bat for her caucus.
 

Chippewa Barr

Member
Aug 8, 2020
3,972
Absolutely awful outlook for the US.

It's crazy too, this was all we talked about on the golf course yesterday.

Like it's that big of a watershed moment for the US and more importantly women's rights everywhere that a group of four men were discussing it on a golf course all day. In Canada.

My spouse is an NP and she literally can't believe this would happen nowadays. Thankfully in Canada (at least at the moment) any talk of banning abortion is political suicide.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,944
If people want to make the argument that she has to give them support so they will be more likely to vote her way when it comes time to pass x, y, and z, then they should make that argument.

It's time we stop repeating the charitable lie, "They're just supporting the candidate who has proven they can win," that gets bandied about any time leadership runs defense for total assholes who, for example, applaud the Supreme Court for taking away our rights.
Calling that a "charitable lie" is patently absurd. Cuellar as shitty as he is has won that district before and has done that by outperforming other Democrats on the ticket who have run to his left. His abortion position will will never be relevant in terms of whether a bill passed unless the party has a 1 vote House majority, in which case there are much bigger problems that will need to be dealt with.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,507
Declaring this isn't blaming those people. it's Republicans that are to blame for what's going on. But it's meaningless to even talk about Republicans when they are a death cult hell bent on annihilation.

Oh, full stop. This is absolutely all at the feet of Republicans. I don't place any blame on Democrats for this. Blame the evangelical Christian right that spun up these people into a frenzy to get them to vote in the 70s and 80s.
 

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
38,280


Normal folk are noticing too.


I desperately want to see this more from popular folks who have been apolitical. NOW is absolutely the time for those with voices to stand up and start rallying their fans to change the country. So many were silent throughout so much shit in politics that I'm glad some are finally starting to get freaked out.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271



Just completely mask off.


He's saying the fact that Roe has stood for over 50 years shouldn't matter as an argument, because Brown overrode Plessy which had been in place for even longer.

It's gross comparison to make, and, you know, batshit crazy for a lot of reasons, but he's not saying get rid of Brown.
 
Jun 9, 2022
17
User banned (permanent): troll account
Say what you will, the content coming out as a result of this has been top notch.

[Mod Edit: Inappropriate meme removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122


Just completely mask off.


I can't believe I have to explain John Cornyn here. Obama is saying 50 year precedents should not be overturned. Cornyn is saying that Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was rightly overturned by Brown v Board after the former was precedent for over 50 years.
 
Oct 25, 2017
32,298
Atlanta GA
Say what you will, the content coming out as a result of this has been top notch.

MjKuqtb.png

I dont find that funny at all? Tasteless.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,544


democrats: lol the republicans are the party of conspiracy theories, they think vaccines are fake, they believe in qanon, they think the election was stolen because of dominion voting machines

also democrats: liberal/left voters are upset at democrats for campaigning on "protecting the right to an abortion" for fifteen years but failing to actually do so because, actually, conservatives have created dissension in the ranks by seeding false narratives. it's not that people are actually upset that democrats failed to act on their promises (and that many of those people view "democrats" as a single entity due to the intentional nationalization of politics in the modern world), it's that they have made this happen

"people who are upset at democrats are falling for conservative lies" is a conspiracy theory. this is not some part of a grand plan by the evil masterminds at koch hq. people are upset at democrats because national democrats have been running on "we're going to protect the right to an abortion" since 2006, and they haven't fucking done it, and now we're here

the primary blame lies with, you know, the conservatives that actually made this all happen. but the secondary blame - the blame that many voters on the left feel they have more control over, given how the electoral college works - lies with the democratic party, for making promises that it did not live up to. we can acknowledge both of these things. we have to. the ability to unfuck the problem depends on us being able to say both that:
  1. the overturning of the right to an abortion was done by conservative lawmakers installing conservative justices, and is against the will of the people
  2. the democratic party's tactics for stopping this did not work, and they need to take accountability for that fact, and they need to either show us their actual plan for how to fix it or they need to get the fuck out and let someone else handle it
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,833
Texas
I can't believe I have to explain John Cornyn here. Obama is saying 50 year precedents should not be overturned. Cornyn is saying that Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was rightly overturned by Brown v Board after the former was precedent for over 50 years.
It's still dumb as shit given this move destroyed basic women's rights and Board v education actually corrected a real heinous decision in Plessy.

Not comparable.