1. Democrats win power
2. Moderat(republican lite) democrats prevent any measures proposed by progressive democrats
3. Democrats lose power
4. Moderat democrats blame progressives for being too radical, unrealistic, childish, socialists etc.
5. Republicans win power and make the rich richer
6. GOTO 1
You are at step 2.
Bonus debate: What the fuk even is a parlamentarian
04 Mar 21
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidThe only justification for it is the moderate Democrats are put in congress by moderate Democrat voters and are representing those voters. Either out of a sense loyalty to their constituents or a fear of what their constituents will do at the next electoral cycle.
1. Democrats win power
2. Moderat(republican lite) democrats prevent any measures proposed by progressive democrats
3. Democrats lose power
4. Moderat democrats blame progressives for being too radical, unrealistic, childish, socialists etc.
5. Republicans win power and make the rich richer
6. GOTO 1
You are at step 2.
Bonus debate: What the fuk even is a parlamentarian
But there is the argument that the majority of the national electorate are in favour of a $15 minimum wage and universal healthcare.
I think in this sense a ‘Parliamentarian’ is someone who promotes the constituent nature of a Parliament rather than the political partisan nature of it.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
04 Mar 21
@kevcvs57 saidIt's "Democratic" voters.
The only justification for it is the moderate Democrats are put in congress by moderate Democrat voters and are representing those voters. Either out of a sense loyalty to their constituents or a fear of what their constituents will do at the next electoral cycle.
But there is the argument that the majority of the national electorate are in favour of a $15 minimum wage and ...[text shortened]... who promotes the constituent nature of a Parliament rather than the political partisan nature of it.
Not the petty aphorism "Democrat this, Democrat that" created by Rush Limbaugh.
His dead carcass deserves no glorification. 😀
@kevcvs57 said"The only justification for it is the moderate Democrats are put in congress by moderate Democrat voters and are representing those voters. "
The only justification for it is the moderate Democrats are put in congress by moderate Democrat voters and are representing those voters. Either out of a sense loyalty to their constituents or a fear of what their constituents will do at the next electoral cycle.
But there is the argument that the majority of the national electorate are in favour of a $15 minimum wage and ...[text shortened]... who promotes the constituent nature of a Parliament rather than the political partisan nature of it.
I do not agree. By and large, moderate Democrats are put in place because the voters largely have no other option. They can't resort to voting republicans (and their increasingly racist, pro-gun, anti-freedom, pro-rich (much more than democrats). And they aren't presented with a reasonable progressive choice because the moderate (better said corporate) Democrats do everything in their power to discourage progressive candidates from running, denying them funding, blacklisting consultants who work with them, etc
Democrat americans and independents overwhelmingly support progressive ideas. Even americans who identify as republicans are slightly more in favour of progressive agendas than against.
The first problem is americans aren't given a different choice on who to vote for, most of the time.
The second problem is corporate democrats suffer no consequence from losing House/Senate. They don't lose their donors (because duh, they are in their pocket) and they don't lose votes and subsequently their seats because they are basically holding the democratic voters hostage.
"I think in this sense a ‘Parliamentarian’ is someone who promotes the constituent nature of a Parliament rather than the political partisan nature of it."
I was being sarcastic. It's the latest of excuses used by democrat politicians who do not want to enact progressive measures. It's an advisory position that can and should be circumvented except Biden doesn't want to.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142482
04 Mar 21
@zahlanzi saidthe parliamentarian is one of the few positions the democrats havent corrupted...yet.
1. Democrats win power
2. Moderat(republican lite) democrats prevent any measures proposed by progressive democrats
3. Democrats lose power
4. Moderat democrats blame progressives for being too radical, unrealistic, childish, socialists etc.
5. Republicans win power and make the rich richer
6. GOTO 1
You are at step 2.
Bonus debate: What the fuk even is a parlamentarian
04 Mar 21
@wolfe63 saidI’m not really happy about a political party usurping the use of that very important description. You can be a democratic Republican or an undemocratic Republican, there seems to be more of the latter than the former since Trump lost the election.
It's "Democratic" voters.
Not the petty aphorism "Democrat this, Democrat that" created by Rush Limbaugh.
His dead carcass deserves no glorification. 😀
So do we need another word to describe those who adhere to the process of democracy and its outcome.
I honestly think Democrat voters and Democrat senators etc is less confusing, than democratic voters and democratic senators etc.
Lol I’m not agreeing with Limbaugh, maybe it’s the way he spat it out like the N word.
04 Mar 21
@zahlanzi saidI did say the only, I didn’t say it was a good one. I’m not sure what Biden can do about the maths in the senate though. In the UK the PM could make this bill a vote of confidence as a way of forcing the stragglers to get in line or face re-election, but I don’t think this option is available to Biden or the Democrat party in general.
"The only justification for it is the moderate Democrats are put in congress by moderate Democrat voters and are representing those voters. "
I do not agree. By and large, moderate Democrats are put in place because the voters largely have no other option. They can't resort to voting republicans (and their increasingly racist, pro-gun, anti-freedom, pro-rich (much more than ...[text shortened]... easures. It's an advisory position that can and should be circumvented except Biden doesn't want to.
04 Mar 21
@kevcvs57 said"I did say the only, I didn’t say it was a good one"
I did say the only, I didn’t say it was a good one. I’m not sure what Biden can do about the maths in the senate though. In the UK the PM could make this bill a vote of confidence as a way of forcing the stragglers to get in line or face re-election, but I don’t think this option is available to Biden or the Democrat party in general.
Usually unless specifically mentioned justification means valid. You can't infer meaning if there is no context.
" I’m not sure what Biden can do about the maths in the senate though"
The thing could have been sent through the senate through budget reconciliation (Sanders entire plan) where it would only require simple majority, meaning 50 votes with VP Harris breaking the tie. Now comes the parlamentarian saying this doesn't satisfy budget reconciliation requirements and she advised against it being up for voting in the first place offering the corporate democrats the excuse to say "our hands are tied" (they are fukin not)
"but I don’t think this option is available to Biden or the Democrat party in general."
It is. The parlamentarian offered them a way out to stop the vote without making democrats up for reelection take a stand.
04 Mar 21
@zahlanzi saidWell in my head when I say “the only” I mean there’s not really a good one. In my world there are levels of justification ranging from ‘fig leaf’ to ‘righteous’.
"I did say the only, I didn’t say it was a good one"
Usually unless specifically mentioned justification means valid. You can't infer meaning if there is no context.
" I’m not sure what Biden can do about the maths in the senate though"
The thing could have been sent through the senate through budget reconciliation (Sanders entire plan) where it would only require simp ...[text shortened]... ian offered them a way out to stop the vote without making democrats up for reelection take a stand.
But Sanders has got his sums wrong, without the two right wing Democrat senators it’s 52 : 48 or 50 : 48 if they abstain against the whole bill. Are there aspects of the bill that can be implemented by executive order.
04 Mar 21
@kevcvs57 said"Well in my head when I say “the only” I mean there’s not really a good one."
Well in my head when I say “the only” I mean there’s not really a good one. In my world there are levels of justification ranging from ‘fig leaf’ to ‘righteous’.
But Sanders has got his sums wrong, without the two right wing Democrat senators it’s 52 : 48 or 50 : 48 if they abstain against the whole bill. Are there aspects of the bill that can be implemented by executive order.
Semantics, doesn't matter, we understood each other after clarifications and that's what matters.
"But Sanders has got his sums wrong, without the two right wing Democrat senators it’s 52 : 48 or 50 : 48"
Yes, but like you said, it would be putting them on the spot with their voters. Having Joe Manchin explain how he would vote against minimum wage would be enough pressure to get him on board. It's still a valid strategy as opposed to having to convince like 10 republicans to sign on anything not to mention the threat of fillibuster.
It never was a sure done deal but at least it would have been a chance.
04 Mar 21
@Mott-The-Hoople
You are one sick SOB. Trump corrupted the entire government, putting in 'acting' chiefs and such BECAUSE he knew he didn't have to do that pesky senate confirmation. AND 4 members of his cabinet are under criminal charges, like the ex transportation secretary Chao, is charged with corruption, something like 11 instances.
And you want to cut down Obama.
Trump is THE most corrupt POTUS in US history and that will be proven in court now that he lost the battle for his tax returns AND the Georgia election interference he pulled to try to force them to 'find 11,780 votes which would have had him win Georgia.
And now there is a lawsuit just now started about the 3 hour delay where Trump refused to send in the national guard so he gave the domestic terrorists a 3 hour window to do what they wanted.
HANG PENCE. Kill Pelosi. ALL BECAUSE TRUMP TOLD THEM TO.
Oh BTW, don't EVEN pull the ANTIFA did it, disguised as Trump supporters, that has been proven false.
04 Mar 21
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidI don’t know enough about Manchin’s constituents to know if that is true, or if he got elected by promising to reign in the ‘Democrat radicals’ in the senate.
"Well in my head when I say “the only” I mean there’s not really a good one."
Semantics, doesn't matter, we understood each other after clarifications and that's what matters.
"But Sanders has got his sums wrong, without the two right wing Democrat senators it’s 52 : 48 or 50 : 48"
Yes, but like you said, it would be putting them on the spot with their voters. Having Jo ...[text shortened]... the threat of fillibuster.
It never was a sure done deal but at least it would have been a chance.
But there are obviously right of centre types right through the Democrat party. I don’t know how there is going to be any meaningful socioeconomic progress if the party of socioeconomic progress cannot bring itself to wean employers off the public financing of their wage bills.
04 Mar 21
@quackquack
Extreme. Sure. Funny that Target and several other stores are actually already paying that, and I think it is Target paying not 15 but 16 an hour.
Target seems to be doing ok, no sign of impending bankruptcy.
Do you really think in this day and age that 7 or 8 bucks an hour is a living wage? 50-60 bucks a day, MAYBE a thousand a month.
Tell me how many apartments can you get for a thousand a month? And that is just rent, then you get water bill, electric, gas, TV, internet, phone.
So how does anyone actually live with wages like that? The answer is they work two maybe three jobs and both husband and wife work.
If they have kids, then there is day care expenses or one of them quits work to take care of kids.
Yep, how DARE they ask for 15 bucks an hour.
600 bucks a week, 2600 a month. WOW. live like kings.
Of course that is BEFORE taxes so scrub off about 30 odd percent and you get to take home a huge 1800 a month.
And that is with your forbidden 15 bucks an hour.