2018 Democrats thread

[Reddy]

 

Perfect on every issue? LOL, a coin flip would be better on the issues than some Democratic politicians.

2

Highlighted the operative word.

[Jack Parkman]

5 hours ago, Reddy said:

This narrative is patently and unequivocally false. It's insane that it's so prevalent. Pick ANY social issue, and establishment Dems and Rs are on completely different sides. Same for the majority of economic issues. 

 

Seriously. Pick an issue. Or make a list. I'll tell you where Dems stand vs Republicans, and we can examine whether they're the same. 

I don't care what comes out of their mouth or what I read in their campaign flyers. If they haven't been in office, I ask how they'd vote on a certain issue. If they lie to my face I'll hold them accountable if I can. I look at voting records. Actions speak louder than words. The only times the establishment Dems don't vote with Republicans are if it is a hot button issue that is super important to their base. 

[Jack Parkman]

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

You know what, fine. I'm done having this conversation. You win. I've been compromising mine too because THAT'S WHAT RATIONAL PEOPLE DO.

I wanted to fix that, so thats why I'm now working in politics. I play the game to get where I need to be so I can change things and fight for the more progressive policies that I personally believe in. But we can't GET those policies if we don't have Democrats in power, regardless of whether or not they're perfect on every issue.

Yes rational people compromise, but is it really compromising  when one side is always doing the giving and the other is always doing the taking, or is it caving? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand. I want people willing to draw that line. That is all. There are things that are non-negotiable. Unfortunately, with Republicans they draw the line in the sand with anything and everything. We have to have a period of stagnation and win the PR war IMO. My problem with the establishment Dems is that they are too soft on the GOP agenda. Sometimes fingerpointing and arguing is a good thing. I want people who have integrity and will stand by their principles. Establishment Dems have not shown this. If the GOP is going to dig their feet in the sand, the Dems have to as well. it might not accomplish anything, but we have to have reasonable people in Congress and we don't have that from the GOP. They remind me of the character Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate factory. They b****, whine and throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. I'd rather have fingerpointing and not accomplish anything over the Trump presidency than have him advance his policies. 

[Jack Parkman]

Do I think Trump is dangerous? Absolutely. Will I vote for a 3rd party or a GOP candidate over a Dem? No. I understand how the system works. I'm more concerned about principles and integrity and not compromising them when a candidate goes to Washington or Springfield. I'd rather in-fight, sorry. If I'm not happy with my representation, I'd rather primary them and try to get someone in office who better represents my values. If I lose, fine. I'll re-elect the incumbent Dem. I find the GOP and 98% of what they stand for abhorrent. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Reddy]

 

I don't care what comes out of their mouth or what I read in their campaign flyers. If they haven't been in office, I ask how they'd vote on a certain issue. If they lie to my face I'll hold them accountable if I can. I look at voting records. Actions speak louder than words. The only times the establishment Dems don't vote with Republicans are if it is a hot button issue that is super important to their base. 

Again, this is literally completely false.

[Reddy]

 

Yes rational people compromise, but is it really compromising  when one side is always doing the giving and the other is always doing the taking, or is it caving? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand. I want people willing to draw that line. That is all. There are things that are non-negotiable. Unfortunately, with Republicans they draw the line in the sand with anything and everything. We have to have a period of stagnation and win the PR war IMO. My problem with the establishment Dems is that they are too soft on the GOP agenda. Sometimes fingerpointing and arguing is a good thing. I want people who have integrity and will stand by their principles. Establishment Dems have not shown this. If the GOP is going to dig their feet in the sand, the Dems have to as well. it might not accomplish anything, but we have to have reasonable people in Congress and we don't have that from the GOP. They remind me of the character Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate factory. They b****, whine and throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. I'd rather have fingerpointing and not accomplish anything over the Trump presidency than have him advance his policies. 

Weird. The entire Dem establishment calls it a Tax Scam. They drew a hard line in the sand to defend healthcare. They did the same on Planned Parenthood defunding. They forced a vote and won on net neutrality. The list goes on.

Here's the critical thing you misunderstand, though. You want Dems to obstruct the way the Republicans obstructed Obama, right? You want Dems to keep ANYTHING from happening, yes?

Ok. WE. CAN'T. DO. THAT. WITH. A. MINORITY. IN. BOTH. CHAMBERS.

We have NO POWER! We can't stop things from happening. We don't have that power because of the way the US government and the Constitution work. So because we have no power, we have to act STRATEGICALLY. We can't just act like petulant children because we CANNOT WIN ANYTHING that way. We'd just lose again and again and again. Instead, by acting shrewdly since 2016, we've managed to stop MOST of Trump's attempts at passing the most horrific of his policies. But we only were able to do that by getting a couple Republicans on our side. That wouldn't have happened if we weren't walking a VERY fine line of cooperating when necessary and resisting whenever possible. 

Please. I beg you all to understand how this works before you write off the only party that's protected America from being in an even worse position than it is right now.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Reddy

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Weird. The entire Dem establishment calls it a Tax Scam. They drew a hard line in the sand to defend healthcare. They did the same on Planned Parenthood defunding. They forced a vote and won on net neutrality. The list goes on.

Here's the critical thing you misunderstand, though. You want Dems to obstruct the way the Republicans obstructed Obama, right? You want Dems to keep ANYTHING from happening, yes?

Ok. WE. CAN'T. DO. THAT. WITH. A. MINORITY. IN. BOTH. CHAMBERS.

We have NO POWER! We can't stop things from happening. We don't have that power because of the way the US government and the Constitution work. So because we have no power, we have to act STRATEGICALLY. We can't just act like petulant children because we CANNOT WIN ANYTHING that way. We'd just lose again and again and again. Instead, by acting shrewdly since 2016, we've managed to stop MOST of Trump's attempts at the most horrific policies. But we only were able to do that by getting a couple Republicans on our side. That wouldn't have happened if we weren't walking a VERY fine line of cooperating when necessary and resisting whenever possible. 

Please. I beg you all to understand how this works before you write off the only party that's protected America from being in an even worse position than it is right now.

May I ask why obstruction worked for the Republicans from 2008-2010, when the Dems had a supermajority in both houses? Why did acting like petulant children work for them? I understand the Dems have a minority in congress, but the GOP had even a bigger minority and they were still able to pull it off. They weren't able to stop all legislation but they were able to stop most. 

[Reddy]

So, because I'm hearing what you're all putting down, instead of just venting frustrations at y'all I'm going to share as much info as I can about what Dems ARE DOING, and what their plans are, and if you don't agree with them fine. But hopefully you'll see that there's a very clear difference between what the Democratic Party is fighting for and what the Republicans are trying to do.

Let's start with:
 

 

[Reddy]

 

May I ask why obstruction worked for the Republicans from 2008-2010, when the Dems had a supermajority in both houses? Why did acting like petulant children work for them? I understand the Dems have a minority in congress, but the GOP had even a bigger minority and they were still able to pull it off. They weren't able to stop all legislation but they were able to stop most. 

Because in 2008-10 Obama was naive and unprepared for what he was facing in Congress. He was obsessed with bipartisanship and compromise and coming together - hoping he could win some Rs to his side and give him the ability to pass more legislation. He made a huge miscalculation.

Since that time, we haven't had another opportunity to learn from that mistake. Until now.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Reddy

[Dam8610]

2 hours ago, Reddy said:

Highlighted the operative word.

I suppose I should change that from "some Democratic politicians" to "most establishment Democratic politicians".

[Soxbadger]

Obama tried to have some semblance of bipartisanship. He had Republicans in his cabinet, they respected things like "blue slips" for judges etc. The idea was always that you gave some respect to the minority party so that when they were the majority they would grant you the same.

But all bets are off now. Republicans caught Democrats flat footed, it happens. 

[Reddy]

 

I suppose I should change that from "some Democratic politicians" to "most establishment Democratic politicians".

Then you'd be wrong.

[Reddy]

 

Obama tried to have some semblance of bipartisanship. He had Republicans in his cabinet, they respected things like "blue slips" for judges etc. The idea was always that you gave some respect to the minority party so that when they were the majority they would grant you the same.

But all bets are off now. Republicans caught Democrats flat footed, it happens. 

This.

[Dam8610]

Just now, Reddy said:

Then you'd be wrong.

 Not on economic issues.

[Reddy]

 

 Not on economic issues.

Does 16 out of 48 constitute a majority now? Or 33 out of 193?

Edited May 24, 2018 by Reddy

[Dam8610]

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

Does 16 out of 48 constitute a majority now?

Only 15 of 48 voted correctly on banking deregulation, why would I expect them to vote correctly on a financial transaction tax or a tax increase for the wealthy, for example?

[Reddy]

 

Yes rational people compromise, but is it really compromising  when one side is always doing the giving and the other is always doing the taking, or is it caving? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand. I want people willing to draw that line. That is all. There are things that are non-negotiable. Unfortunately, with Republicans they draw the line in the sand with anything and everything. We have to have a period of stagnation and win the PR war IMO. My problem with the establishment Dems is that they are too soft on the GOP agenda. Sometimes fingerpointing and arguing is a good thing. I want people who have integrity and will stand by their principles. Establishment Dems have not shown this. If the GOP is going to dig their feet in the sand, the Dems have to as well. it might not accomplish anything, but we have to have reasonable people in Congress and we don't have that from the GOP. They remind me of the character Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate factory. They b****, whine and throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. I'd rather have fingerpointing and not accomplish anything over the Trump presidency than have him advance his policies. 

By the way, Jack, how familiar are you with what happened with the Omnibus Spending Bill?

Because Dems - with their minority and led by Pelosi - ended up getting almost every single Democratic priority funded, while keeping the GOP from getting anything they wanted. Don't believe me? Check out some apoplectic GOP-leaning press about the bill:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/omnibus-spending-bill-republican-failure-humiliating/ 

and from the left: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2018/03/23/448398/progressive-policy-wins-omnibus/ 

[Reddy]

 

Only 15 of 48 voted correctly on banking deregulation, why would I expect them to vote correctly on a financial transaction tax or a tax increase for the wealthy, for example?

You're reading the data wrong. There were 16 YES votes on rolling back regulations. 32 voted against and one didn't vote.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/2/54

[Jack Parkman]

27 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You're reading the data wrong. There were 16 YES votes on rolling back regulations. 32 voted against and one didn't vote.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/2/54

16 is 16 too many that is my problem. Quit compromising principles. If you're against it, then don't vote for it. 33% is way too much for me. I'd have much more faith in the process if 33% of the senators in Washington failed to vote against a bill that goes against everything that Obama et al worked for in 2009. I don't know what these people think they're accomplishing by voting for this bill. Voting for this bill tells me you're not actually standing up for party platform principles. I used to be really active in my local municipal/county Democratic party since late 2015. I got a little disillusioned when progressive candidates got crushed in the state level elections. Again, It doesn't mean I'm not going to vote for Democrats. I haven't gone to a meeting since the state primaries which a group I was involved with was campaigning for Biss and other local candidates. I got disillusioned when Mike Madigan attacked people who I know personally that were running for office. I know these people are strong progressives and Madigan publically branded them as Republicans in disguise. That kind of disgusting behavior that I have seen taking part inthe process, is why I have a disdain for establishment Dems. I think they have zero integrity. I have more of an inside view into what is actually going on than most and it disgusts me. Campaign funding over constituents and party over people are the common themes here. 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[StrangeSox]

As we saw with the ACA, 15 or 16 is more than enough to derail any decent legislation in the Senate so long as the filibuster still exists. Had it not been for long-term garbage establishment Dems like Lieberman, we would have had a public option.

 

edit: thought credit is due to Pelosi for shuttling a public option through the House. I have less of a problem with her leadership there than with the rest of the clowns running the show for the past decade.

Edited May 24, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

 

16 is 16 too many that is my problem. Quit compromising principles. If you're against it, then don't vote for it. 33% is way too much for me. I'd have much more faith in the process if 33% of the senators in Washington failed to vote against a bill that goes against everything that Obama et al worked for in 2009. I don't know what these people think they're accomplishing by voting for this bill. Voting for this bill tells me you're not actually standing up for party platform principles. 

I agree with you! Obviously! But this isn't a Democratic PARTY problem. The MAJORITY of Democrats don't support this stuff and it's not a plank of the platform.

This is the ONE issue they've been bad on in the two years since Trump's election, while they've protected America from a slew of other horrible policies and managed to get so many Dem priorities funded through the omnibus. Again, no party and no politicians will ever be perfect.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

16 is 16 too many that is my problem. Quit compromising principles. If you're against it, then don't vote for it. 33% is way too much for me. I'd have much more faith in the process if 33% of the senators in Washington failed to vote against a bill that goes against everything that Obama et al worked for in 2009. I don't know what these people think they're accomplishing by voting for this bill. Voting for this bill tells me you're not actually standing up for party platform principles. 

 

How do you propose to control candidates in other states? You act like its simple to just tell everyone to vote like robots.

You also seem to be forgetting the rules of the game that is being played. Even if every Democrat voted no, the bill still would have passed. Look at the states where the "Yes" votes are from, places like ND, MO, IN, AL. These are not exactly Democrat strongholds, so they also have to play the game to try and keep their seats.

I get that you want something more, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic. 

[Reddy]

For the record though, y'all are moving the goalposts. His argument was that MOST establishment Dems are bad on the economy/wall street issues, and that's simply not true.

[Reddy]

 

 

How do you propose to control candidates in other states? You act like its simple to just tell everyone to vote like robots.

You also seem to be forgetting the rules of the game that is being played. Even if every Democrat voted no, the bill still would have passed. Look at the states where the "Yes" votes are from, places like ND, MO, IN, AL. These are not exactly Democrat strongholds, so they also have to play the game to try and keep their seats.

I get that you want something more, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic. 

Bless you.

[Dam8610]

15 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You're reading the data wrong. There were 16 YES votes on rolling back regulations. 32 voted against and one didn't vote.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/2/54

I still don't trust the establishment Democrats to turn on their corporate masters when the time comes. 

On an unrelated note, Joe Donnelly represents the problem I have with the system. I want a better choice than he as a candidate for senator. There isn't one. He ran unopposed in the primary and I found out that Indiana's laws don't even allow me the option to write in a candidate in a primary election.