- Dec 1, 2016
- 255
- 307
How does Bannon still get airtime?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only thing that stops seditionists is jail, and he isn't under it.How does Bannon still get airtime?
These 3 bolded statements are the problem.-People made comments regarding what the Dems should do right now, I don't know how I am too focused on the present? I am addressing the argument on the grounds other people established.
-So if you are talking about the past you are upset that the Dems didn't follow the GOP playbook of norm-breaking, forcing constant gridlock? Cruz and Hawley were complicit in election subversion, and they failed at their mission. I don't see how that is a model for the Dems to follow.
The Dems can't use the power they don't have. Mitch doesn't need 60 votes to get the main things he wants, which are tax cuts, destroying the ACA (McCain ****ed him there), and federal judges. The Dems need 60 votes to pass most of their agenda. There is an asymmetry there people ignore.
When the Dems could block Bush's judge's, they did for a long period. When Mitch returned the favor, the Dems reformed the filibuster.
Harry Reid did **** like this to try to hurt a presidential candidate...
I really don't see a cogent argument here beyond listing something ****ed up the GOP did, complaining about the Dems not stopping without spelling out how they could, and some hypothetical about how the Dems wouldn't norm break in the same situation if the roles were reversed
-Gerrymandering happens every 10 years, in the year after the census. The GOP won a massive election right before restricting had to happen in 2011. The Dems got swept out of power so they didn't have the power to fight back the GOP's gerrymander with ones of their own. They sued constantly and used ballot measures to claw back some of the loss. They went all the way to the Supreme Court, but Kennedy didn't buy their argument.
While preferring gerrymandering gone completely. In this cycle, the Dems gerrymandered Oregon (1 district gain since they gain a district), Illinois (two district gain since it already was), New Jersey (two districts), Maryland (zero redistrict gain since already was), and plan on gerrymandering New York (4 district gain). All in an attempt to rebalance the national map. Party leadership in Maryland wanted to take another district but a couple of people chicken out at the last second. Virginia, the setup commission to undo the GOP gerrymander because again, a few people in the party went against the party leadership and didn't want to gerrymander. That would have made no difference now since Virginia is now under split control. The blue state with the most House seats in it is Cali, but they can't gerrymander in Cali. They have an independent commission
If you follow the gerrymandering situation, the Dems didn't just roll over and take it. This area doesn't provide a data point for your argument
Sorry, but if I give your argument thorough expectations, it doesn't make sense to me. I have my criticism of how the Dems dropped the ball, but they are more narrow and focused than what seems to amount to "they didn't try hard enough”
I am going to not respond because I simply don't agree with your analyst. I think it just a bad read on things generallyThese 3 bolded statements are the problem.
First, it’s the fact that you even call it norm breaking. It isn’t. This is what they’ve been doing, what they continue to do, and what they’ve openly announced they will continue to do in the future. It’s generally people that are still stuck in the “old” ways of politics (ie most of the dem leadership) that are still surprised by their behavior which is why it’s so effective. This is why you get old timers like Biden and Schumer (who are unfortunately are the most powerful dems) always talking about how they miss the old days where they would disagree with the GOP but at least they could talk it out like adults.
The second important point is that you dismiss Cruz and Hawley as a failed attempt. It wasn’t. They knew they didn’t have the numbers for it, they’re not idiots. What they did do is take more time to put it in the floor, disrupt the work of the next admin even if only a little, and make their antics a talking point for a long time which is a distraction that the dems constantly have to take time to address. Rinse and repeat is the name of the game. A great example of this is the recent appointment of the office of the Comptroller. This is a gimme confirmation that doesn't even make the news normally. It should be done and over with and on to the next without a second thought. But you get Rubio to call her a communist and it drags out into a multi-day debate and then the admin and whoever else are stuck preparing for and dealing with the issue of Biden supposedly wanting to appoint a communist instead of working on their agenda and getting a focused message out to the people.
The third is really the crux of the issue and where you and most dems have completely whiffed to be honest. Your entire focus is on what the dems can positively do with the power they have. This is backed up by your response on gerrymandering, Obama and Mitch, etc. What can we enact? What can we pass? What do we not have the numbers for?
What the GOP has figured out is that even if they dont have the numbers to move their agenda forward, bogging down the other side with so much BS and nonsense that prevents them from getting to their agenda is a huge W. Unfortunately, the GOP has gone with outrage politics as their tool to do this. I'm not saying thats the way to go for the dems, especially because the GOP is particularly adept at playing the victim, but the idea is the same: Even if you dont have the numbers, making it difficult for the other side to do their work and even if you can prevent them from getting to a fraction of their agenda, its still a net positive.
The GOP does a similar thing by screwing things up so badly that it takes a huge amount of time and resources to undo. This is what I was referring to with the gerrymandering. Of course both sides will do it when they have the power but if you look at the most extreme examples of gerrymandering, they are almost exclusively the work of the GOP. Same idea with DeJoy's USPS and DeVos's department of education.
This is what we mean when we say play dirty.
You can call it coping or performative or possibly even unethical but when its the future of our country at stake, I dont really care cause it works.
It is not simple. It might feel good to think that it is, but the hard truth might be is that the next few decades might be really really rough unless we get lucky.
Jesus. These last few replies are the reason we are well and truly ******. Not just as a country but as a planet.
Not a single person is saying there is a full proof strategy for the dems to beat the GOP. Otherwise we would have done it already. And yes we are all aware that we are ******. And yes we are all aware that it is a complicated situation. Those aren’t enlightening revelations.
Is the dems slowing down the GOP agenda going to solve the whole issue? Of course not. But at this point we are so ******, that we need to try something. Literally anything to at least slow down our collapse and give ourselves more time to recover.
But according to you lot, the system is too far broken, the system is rigged against us, and theres no magic bullet that is going to save us. Therefore, it’s not worth trying anything, even very small things, because in the end, it isn’t going to fix the problem. So all we can do is ride it out and hope we get lucky.
Now replace “dems beat the GOP” with climate change, the oceans collapsing, growing income inequality and poverty, or any mass problem facing this country or planet.
Sound familiar?
Cliffnotes:I think a lot of people are throwing out ideas as copes
Thinking that there is a clear plan for the Dems to beat the other side. But they just refuse to go down that road
But that ignores all the other forces that are hurting the Dems. And to be honest, Mitch McConnell is not some tactical genius, his plan worked because he got lucky too.
It is not simple. It might feel good to think that it is, but the hard truth might be is that the next few decades might be really really rough unless we get lucky.
The Dems will have some wins a long the way, but not nearly enough to save us from the rough ride if current political trends hold
I have not given up hope, I'm ready to do more than ever before to help in any way, but just thinking about this a lot has just made me reach the conclusion is that we are in a ****ed up situation.
Yeah problem is engagement drops off in times like this but if you want to replace the old folks you have to remain engaged in the lows but voter apathy ends up being part of the same cycle. Some of it is justified unfortunatelyIt’s not that we shouldn’t try. But until some of these old conservatives in power die out, it’s no use. At some point, it will change. But maybe we’re a generation or so away. But the effort needs to be there to keep whatever progress has been made going.
even when old conservatives die new weirdos take their place like that bobert chick.
Realizing your side is probably ****ed currently doesn't have to mean giving up or saying things are hopeless
I wonder how a certain "brotha" from the South feels about this.