The Case For Biden

@revelette1,

Too bad it's come to that but she's absolutely right. Our democracy has taken a turn for the worse; the two sides are nearly evenly split and no one wants to be seen cooperating across the aisle. I think she's using it in the campaign to communicate to voters that she intends to get things done and if an age old tradition can be jettisoned by Reid, and further dismantled by McConnell, there's no reason to be constrained by rules which are remnants of a previous era.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

What do you think of Warren's idea of a doing away with the filibuster if democrats take control in the senate?

There are some upsides. Doing away with the filibuster will make it much easier for the Republicans to scrap past Democratic legislation and push through their own legislation during those times when the Republicans have control.

Think of the all the beneficial changes that the Republicans could make to our gun laws for example. We won't need to wait for the Supreme Court to strike these laws down if the Republicans simply repeal them.

0 Replies

There was a time, not that long ago, where a filibuster could have prevented Kavanaugh from being confirmed.

Now he is on the Supreme Court. The idea that removing the filibuster is the solution to extreme partisanship seems a little naive.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Precision: the way I see it, the American left includes the Democratic Party (which to me is still on the left). So when I say that the left must unite or die, I mean the Democrats and the Bernites (to simplify).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The idea that removing the filibuster is the solution to extreme partisanship seems a little naive.

Obviously it depends on who has the majority in the Senate. It's not naive at all.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

...that is the only reason we're stuck with Trump now.

Really? You are saying that is the only reason? Are you daft?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Precision: the way I see it, the American left includes the Democratic Party (which to me is still on the left). So when I say that the left must unite or die, I mean the Democrats and the Bernites (to simplify).

You have this backwards.

The "American Left" is about 35% of the American electorate. If the Democratic party is a subset of this 35%, they have no chance of winning. For the Democratic party to win elections... they have to be bigger than the American Left.

The "American Left" insists on monopolizing the Democratic party, and then telling the rest of us that we are obligated to vote for them.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Which is why I want the Democratic party to reach out to voters outside of the "American Left". The Democratic party has the responsibility to reach out to a broad range of voters. If they fail to do this, they deserve to lose.

The "American Left" is the problem. The American voter is not. The idea that the American voter should be beholden to the American Left is ridiculous.

The Democrats had better figure this out. Blaming voters for not supporting them is a step in the wrong direction.

Ok, I'll bite.

What is IT the Democrats are not doing for you?

Is it the insistence that global warming is a problem and we must do things to correct it your issue?

Is it the insistence that medical care costs are too expensive and we must try to reduce those costs for everybody your issue?

Is it the insistence that women's issue should not be discounted your issue?

Come on Max, what IS the issue with Democrats?

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

No, I’m accurate.

Are you severely underinformed or intentionally denying facts?

The story is out and confirmed for a couple of years now.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

(Gets a pat on the head from paternal speakleader)
Aw!

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

The problem the far left now controlling the Democrats is identity politics.

- The attacks on free speech.

- The absurd and extreme idea that we are either with them or against them (and that we can't choose to accept the rational part of what they are saying and reject the rest). The assertion that you can't support both men's rights and women's rights, or that you can't support police while supporting racial minorities.

- The attacks on disagreement as racism or sexism. Hillary referred to voters in middle America as "deplorable". That is how we feel the left sees us with reason.

- The continual state of outrage about silly things from Christmas songs to Biden smelling a woman's hair.

- The unwillingness and inability to form broad coalitions with with people outside of narrow groups of liberal women and minorities.

I agree with the Democrats on most of the issues that you bring up.

- I believe "global warming" is a problem. Actually I am to the left of the Democrats on this issue... I want higher gas taxes and significant investments in public transportation which I believe should be free (or very low cost). The Democrats are wimping out on this issue. I support socialized medicine. I want the democrats to push for medicare for all at a minimum. Actually, I think Obama made a big step by changing the conversation on pre-existing conditions.

- I don't know what you mean by "women's issue". Rational measures on fair pay, and sexual assault will get the support of me and most of middle Americans. Many of us (including many women) feel that the far left go too ridiculous extremes when it comes to their view of women's issues. That is something that the democrats need to figure out.

The issue is that the Democrats are representing the radical left in a way that is out of touch with most voters.

A good candidate will be someone who can address issues important to minorities and women... while also respecting rural working voters and religious Americans.

The Democrats need to represent more than the far left... if they want to win.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I don't believe it is unreasonable for a voter to expect a candidate to earn their vote.

The idea that I am obligated to vote for a candidate just because they have a D next to their name is ridiculous. If that were the case, why would we even hold elections.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't believe it is unreasonable for a voter to expect a candidate to earn their vote.

The idea that I am obligated to vote for a candidate just because they have a D next to their name is ridiculous. If that were the case, why would we even hold elections.

**** YEAH.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I just define the left more broadly than you do, that’s all. Where do you see the Democrats? On the right?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Okay so your only source of disagreement with them is about women, or more precisely about feminism.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

How are attacks on free speech, or a continual state of outrage, or absolutistism only "about women"?

Radical feminism with it's self-righteous anger and a sense of entitlement among white women is part of the problem... but it isn't the entire problem

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

So, are you saying the Unite The Right rallies who taunt racial and antisemitic slurs, carry Nazi flags, chant "Jews Will Not Replace Us" NOT be counter protested?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

So, are you saying the Unite The Right rallies who taunt racial and antisemitic slurs, carry Nazi flags, chant "Jews Will Not Replace Us" NOT be counter protested?

That is insulting. Just because I disapprove of the radical left doesn't mean I approve the radical right. What the right is doing is irrelevant. If I find both sides to be irrational I don't have to choose either of them.

The Democratic party has swung way to the radical left where everything is an outrage and narrative is more important to the fact. The Republicans have also swung to the radicals on their party... but that doesn't make what the Democrats are doing any better.

I think the argument you are making is; You have to support the Democratic candidate no matter how distasteful he or she is, because your only other choice is the Republicans who are more distasteful. You are asking me to vote for a candidate I dislike because the other candidate is worse.

I am saying that the Democrats have the responsibility to nominate a candidate who isn't distasteful to so many Americans. They could build a broad coalition of voters by reaching out to voters who didn't agree on everything instead of playing identity politics.

There are two attitudes the Democrats can take...

1. We want to earn the support of voters... so we will work to build a coalition of voters beyond our ideological vase based on what voters care about.

2. Voters have to vote for us... so we can do anything we want based on what our ideological base thinks is right.

Which attitude do you think is more likely to win. (Hint, the first attitude was chosen by Obama, the second was chosen by Hillary).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I'll tell you what's really insulting.

You whining that you DESERVE someone to land at your feet that caters to your every stupid and biased whim. Through no effort of yours at all, someone has to MAKE you happy. How childish and simplistic.

What do you MEAN what the Right is doing is irrelevant?? OF COURSE it's relevant.

I'm not asking you to vote democratic or republican. I'm telling you that your ONLY choice IS to vote your conscience. I could get a flying **** whether you think pink hats insult YOU. Any thing that has to do with Equal Rights insults you. You've made that abundantly clear.

There are candidates on the table. Vote for them or not.

But JFC quit yer damn whining.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think the argument you are making is; You have to support the Democratic candidate no matter how distasteful he or she is, because your only other choice is the Republicans who are more distasteful. You are asking me to vote for a candidate I dislike because the other candidate is worse.

Bingo, Max, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

maxdancona wrote:

I am saying that the Democrats have the responsibility to nominate a candidate who isn't distasteful to so many Americans.

Actually, no they don't.

maxdancona wrote:

They could build a broad coalition of voters by reaching out to voters who didn't agree on everything instead of playing identity politics.

EVERYTHING is Identity Politics. Certain groups want certain things. Why is that so difficult to understand??

maxdancona wrote:

There are two attitudes the Democrats can take...

1. We want to earn the support of voters... so we will work to build a coalition of voters beyond our ideological vase based on what voters care about.

2. Voters have to vote for us... so we can do anything we want based on what our ideological base thinks is right.

Which attitude do you think is more likely to win. (Hint, the first attitude was chosen by Obama, the second was chosen by Hillary).

Why do you have to make this so hard? Both options are symbiotic. It goes hand in hand that politicians want to earn the votes so they do what they want because they think their base thinks it's the right thing to do.

0 Replies

The Case For Biden

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know