Democratic (Party) Direction

v convenient that this unpleasant & condescending poster is called Nerdstrom Poindexter

Woah hey that’s out of line.

saving the deal was way more important than this spending bill

Woah hey that’s out of line.

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, September 21, 2018 4:35 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you named yourself, man

Doesn’t matter. Crut’s post was a transgression against the standards of this great community.

Xpost The “primary everyone” post about it is extremely stock ”both parties are the same”. I’ve found (anecdotally) that most people who get loudly worked up about stuff like that didnt seem to care about the Iran Deal, which is interesting imo.

Get a new shtick, this one is boring

fwiw i have no idea how you get from "primary everyone" to "both parties are the same." i feel like this only makes sense if you're refusing to believe posters who tell you they perceive these politicians as being "good" on some issues and "bad" on others... like if you were ignoring those posts or reading them as "i see these politicians as all-bad" then i guess you could get to "i see these politicians as indistinguishable from republicans"........... i guess. or are you saying that a democrat being primaried equals a win for a republican and so that would only make sense if someone thought both parties are the same....... i mean this is a lot of work so maybe it'd be better to start from assuming people mean the actual thing they type rather than some other position that they didn't, ymmv tho

The initial “primary everyone” post and subsequent defenses of it had nothing remotely close to reasonable mentality of “these politicians are good on some things but bad on others” so no I can’t refuse to believe something no one told me.

If you’re not treating “vote out the GOP” as an imperative now with stakes as high as possible and letting one spending bill turn you into an Intercept comment section then yeah you’re helping the GOP.

I’ve found (anecdotally) that most people who get loudly worked up about stuff like that didnt seem to care about the Iran Deal, which is interesting imo.

No, you haven't.

Yes, I have. The posts by Sleeve for example (which you might have seen and are in this very thread) represent this exact type.

ah, so by 'anecdotal people' you meant 'phantoms I've created in my head.'

No one posting in this thread doesn't care about the Iran Deal, it appears that you're just the only person who considers the issues mutually exclusive.

Sure

Nerdlinger isn't wrong that the Jill Stein types who will readily holler about the NDAA have a myopic high volume disdain for anything related to the Obama legacy and so might not leap to defend the Iran deal.

Where Nerdlinger is wrong is in imagining these are the same people interested in primarying Democrats. If anything these people tend to think the Dems are a fool's game. The people working to shift the party have wholly separate motivations, intentions, strategies and key players. By repeatedly conflating the two Nerdy is just slipping on his own banana peel over and over.

So for God's sake shut the fuck up already

hoos u clearly been spending more time on your sweet science lately than your meditation practice

: o

No @Hoosteen. Sleeeve’s posts in this thread exist so we can just agree that it’s extremely a thing.

pugilistic hoos is one of my favorite sides of the variegated hoos

love the "one person's arguments on a message board means there's a monolith out there" approach to argumentation

I guess that’s better than weirdly denying his arguments were obviously indicative of that point of view.

Maybe there are odd emotional ties on here because he poured his heart out on a strokes thread fifteen years ago or something.

JFC, the drama in these political threads lately has been unbearable.

maybe your beloved whig party will change something
― ,,, Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:02 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:07 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't normally like doing this because I think people who are pro-x are better placed to make that argument than have people who are anti-x paraphrase the pro-x people's argument for them, but as I've been unable to find anyone who is willing to explain exactly why they think its a good thing the Democrats voted for this bill, can anyone else make as good a faith argument as possible as to why they've done this?

Actually infuriated by this now!

Not by the bill but the seemingly impossible task of having ANYONE FUCKING EXPLAIN IT PROPERLY. I feel like the butt of an elaborate joke:(

imwithherdstrom flackdexter

Xpost

I’m on my phone so this will be mercifully short, but I would think that it’s a combo of a) military spending not being a top-tier issue for most of the democratic base right now (as far as I can see), b) many democrats being fine with high military spending and warmongering in general as long as it doesn’t make many headlines, and c) not wanting to make a controversial big stand against it when d) the expected outcome of doing what they’re already doing is a wave election victory.

In other words, apathy and politics

Keep in mind I’m just some random guy, not someone who knows things

For you, Anvil.

One of the unfortunate political constants since Pearl Harbor has been that the bulk of US voters tend to view any Congressional rep voting against the military budget, no matter how principled or reasonable the argument they make for that negative vote, as evidence for a lack of patriotism in said rep. The portion of the populace which agrees with the idea that the military budget requires vigilant scrutiny and some serious trimming down may be large in raw numbers, but they are nowhere near forming a majority, except in a few places in the country.

For the above stated reasons, Democrats in all but the most progressive districts or states, do not wish to be viewed as lacking in patriotism or sound judgment by those whose votes they must win. This may not count as a "good" reason for voting for the bill, but the Democratic politicians whose jobs are on the line find it to be a sufficient reason. QED.

can anyone else make as good a faith argument as possible as to why they've done this?

Another way of looking at is, can anyone make a good (political) argument as to why they wouldn’t vote for the spending bill (other than, you know, having a conscience) given that they won’t be punished for their vote during the elections, and the risk is pissing off all their contractor friends and wealthy donators? Unless the lowly common people put consistent political pressure on them to not vote for this shit, we end up with only Bernie Sanders + libertarians taking a stand

xpost

as I've been unable to find anyone who is willing to explain exactly why they think its a good thing the Democrats voted for this bill, can anyone else make as good a faith argument as possible as to why they've done this?

That defense might have been in this thread but something keeps breaking when I try to load all 6500 messages.

Thanks Karl/Aimless! Appreciate the efforts....I mean, I assumed something along these lines. And i think if 'some' or even 'most' had voted for it, I may not have even batted an eyelid. it was the fact that ALL of them voted for it, it just seemed a really bad look!

I think i've obviously misread the situation!

can anyone make a good (political) argument as to why they wouldn’t vote for the spending bill

Well, this is what I had (previously?) thought. Please correct where I have gone wrong

a) Timing. They might be punished. Voters that stay home in mid-terms instead of voting. and mid-terms are lower turnouts and all the numbers count. and 'we're energized and ready to fight Trump' loses some credibility in signing up to this in such large numbers.

b) Significant numbers of people across political spectrum wanting to 'bring the troops home', for a variety of reasons. Trump made it significant plank of his campaigning. Hilary/Dems seemingly damaged as 'the war party'. Seemed political mileage in this!

c) Show that they arent 'all the same', which rightly or wrongly has to be the number one active contributor to low turnout?

d) if its such a good idea, why do none of them (that ive seen) even mention it on their twitters or whatever, when they are leaving themselves open to attack/flak on it? If its such a good vote winner why aren't they trumpeting their achievement in voting for it. Its like they want to brush it under carpet - which suggests the opposite is fanfare worthy, and why not do the fanfare worthy and get the high fives?

I'm obviously completely naive about this, but it felt like the world had changed since...2014 or whenever. Like i'm actually genuinely surprised they went for it in such large numbers and right before the midterms

so, where have I gone wrong in my assumptions in the above? (or, how badly wrong?)

Conservative voters don't really want to 'bring the troops home,' they like the projection of imperial power. They just want us to kill more people with bigger bombs to prove our cultural superiority.
Democrats are fucking terrified of seeming weak on defense because Michael Dukakis rode in a tank once, a significant number foreign policy interventionists across the board and an overlapping chunk like campaign money from the military-industrial complex.

Your main assumption going wrong is the assumption that politicians really care about the will of the people. Democrats know that they can vote for the defense spending bill, cash the Raytheon checks and lose almost no voters because the GOP is so manifestly evil.

And if you talk about primarying people for voting for it, you get the response we've seen from dweebs like Nerdstrom.

I wasn't under that assumption! my assumption was that they might worry about the optics.

Because, well, they are losing voters aren't they? i dont have figures to hand but so am well prepared to admit I may be wrong but haven't both parties lost votes each cycle, going back decades? as turnout decreases each time? and if its a tight race and your guys stay home?

Ive never understood the idea of taking certain voters for granted because 'they've nowhere else to go' - they've plenty of places to go, like fishing, the beach, or a netflix series instead?

No I think turnout is increasing? At least in the long run, but there's a lot of factors that goes into that.

I thought the dynamic of 'they've nowhere else to go' works on the premise that if you don't turn up and vote then you get the Hepatitis For All party!

Turnout has been around the low-to-mid 50s since the early '70s - more when Obama was elected, less when Clinton was re-elected.

Ive never understood the idea of taking certain voters for granted because 'they've nowhere else to go' - they've plenty of places to go, like fishing, the beach, or a netflix series instead?

The calculation is that you probably wouldn't reach these people anyway and get them to the polls and your opponents are so awful no one in your camp is going to flip/stay home in November 2018 because of a defense spending bill that was going to pass no matter what.
Whether that's a good strategy or not is the question of the direction of the Democratic Party. Low voter excitement kinda fucked us all in 2000 and 2016.

this is the big election issue after healthcare imo, and this is good policy

Rural housing in the US is falling apart. Decades of federal discrimination have excluded generations of Blacks from homeownership. Housing costs for everyone, everywhere, are skyrocketing – while America's wealthiest families shield billions from taxes. I have a plan to fix it. pic.twitter.com/4WRScVW4Sp

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 25, 2018

I think David Klion is right about what Dems *should* do if they were serious about remaking politics but I wonder if he truly knows how far from reality this sounds:

Let me put it this way: I firmly support the democratic socialist agenda (free health care, college, etc). But the single most important thing I want from the next president is a commitment to shredding procedural norms and and investigating and jailing Republicans.

— David Klion🌹🔥 (@DavidKlion) September 26, 2018

i think warren's message will play better. the democrats' base has a different personality profile; they're won't be a leftist version of mcconnell strongarm tactics

They should absolutely be playing to kill, but they never will. Never gonna happen.

What’s with foreigners who post as First Name + Last Initial and have all the most valuable opinions?

we have centrists and libs here too yknow

The president shapes regulatory and foreign affairs. Broader domestic policy, if it is to be successful and sustainable, has to come from the legislature. Democrats are finally figuring this out and it’s long overdue but I’m thankful all the same.

I really hope the class of 2020 has a strong and coherent foreign policy platform (of which defense policy is a subset) that isn’t basically Carter / Clinton redux. The Democratic contribution to international affairs dialogue has been a mess for decades.

THREAD: 1/ In response to Trump’s incoherent rant at the UN, Democrats need to rally around a progressive foreign policy that transforms our national security toolkit to meet the new global threats. Some elements:

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 25, 2018

None of the ideas in that are bad but we need the next class of appointees in State and DoD to have a lot more details than that, and more regional expertise to enable nuanced regional approaches so we have some hope of achieving the outcomes he implies. Broad strokes seldom suffice

Gillibrand spoke on the Senate floor today re Kavanaugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPzNWZbp-GQ

fuck yeah

cried at the end of that tbh

it's been a rough couple of weeks