Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by dpareja on January 21, 2018, 06:49:23 pm »
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown

"But my friends are the good ones!"
22
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by SCarpelan on January 21, 2018, 06:22:51 pm »
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown
23
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by Tolpuddle Martyr on January 21, 2018, 06:07:08 pm »
So Bannon was forced to testify for the Congress and said that he doesn't have to answer about anything that happened in the White house because Trump told him not to...

I guess he forgot that he could just say "I don't remember" 50 times in a row and that is perfectly legal. Because though both are shady we now have a Bannon on record saying that those specific topics are things that he was forbidden to talk about.
It could be a ploy by Bannon to hint that he does indeed have dirt and will release it unless Trump throws him a lifeline. Trump is shite at interpreting hints.
24
Yes you can be thrown off the bench. In the US depending on what type of judge you are you might lose at election too.
25
They can be thrown off the bench however.
26
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by The_Queen on January 21, 2018, 02:08:29 pm »
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.

The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.

Okay, then, when do you fight for those policies?

I don't know. Nevertheless, discretion is the better part of valor. If dems did as you wanted, they would inevitably be blamed for the shutdown for making such pie-in-the-sky demands. If they're blamed, they'd take a hit in the generic party ballot poll, which directly correlates to mid-term success.

So the calculus here is not "ask for everything, get something." The calculus is (1) does the GOP cave first and acquiesce when they're not being blamed for it, and (2) assuming they do, does that short term win justify costing the dems the House and the Senate (and at the time, Fivethirtyeight is saying the House is 50-50, while the Senate has about a 22% chance of flipping). Fact is,  the GOP will not acquiesce (they're being blamed for this shutdown because they are trying to roll back large portions of the ACA, and we still wound up in shutdown land). If the GOP does not acquiesce, then the dems get nothing by way of policy, and only hurt their chances of winning a chamber of Congress, which could be instrumental to stopping the next round of tax cuts for the wealthy or the next attempt to take health care away from 30 million people.
27
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by dpareja on January 21, 2018, 01:47:21 pm »
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.

The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.

Okay, then, when do you fight for those policies?
28
Forum Games / Re: Ask the next poster a question!
« Last post by Art Vandelay on January 21, 2018, 10:27:43 am »
Gruanckreepruck.

Would you suck a dog's nipple for $50?
29
Politics and Government / Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Last post by The_Queen on January 21, 2018, 03:27:23 am »
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.

The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.
30
Society and History / Re: Not-Good Things People Say on the Internet
« Last post by SCarpelan on January 21, 2018, 01:37:12 am »
As a side note, I agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates about what is probably going to happen when whites will soon become a minority in the US: the definition of "white" is going to be changed. The latinos are (edit: relatively) suddenly going to become white and the order of things is going to stay more comfortable.

Probably the Asians before the Latinos.

Latinos look more like dark skinned whites than Asians do, speak an European language and are mostly Christian. The way we think about race means it's easier to expand whiteness to include them despite there being more negative stereotypes attached to them.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10