12
   

What do Progressives/Democratic Socialists want from the House in 2019-2020

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 12:37 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Ok, so Democrat’s control the house. They have the ability to pass legislation. They have the ability to subpoena people. They have the ability to put Republican opposition and maybe Democratic opposition on the record for/against legislation.

What do the progressives want to see Pelosi do with this power? What goals are you hoping to see?

What will piss you off most?


They have the ability to send legislation to the Senate which is a far cry from having it passed into law.

What they should do is what every party in control of one or both houses should do: Work toward enacting laws they believe are in the best interest of the American people and, if necessary, agree to compromises that will get them something they want rather than insisting on everything they want and getting nothing. If it helps the Republicans to some extent, so be it.

What they will do is send bill after bill to the Senate and refuse to compromise on any of them, all the while blaming the GOP for not getting things done. It's a trick both parties favor.

They will also harass the hell our of Trump with investigations.

I think there is a 50/50 chance that they will impeach Trump. (I hope they do because it will backfire on them the way the Clinton impeachment backfired on the GOP)

God only knows whether or not it will be an effective strategy for 2020, but I tend to doubt it.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 12:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What they will do is send bill after bill to the Senate and refuse to compromise on any of them, all the while blaming the GOP for not getting things done. It's a trick both parties favor.

The question is will they avoid putting forth bills that have a good chance of passing because they are afraid it will make them look like they are cooperating with the enemy?

I think Democrats have reached a point in identity politics/management where they avoid cooperating with anyone deemed the enemy, i.e. anyone outside their club, because they want to shun and remove anyone from any position and replace them with someone who is malleable to their team social pressures.

It may well be that they are no longer about policy but rather they are only about maintaining a system of power that facilitates centralized control by way of a network of people who are maleable to the correct channels of communication.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 01:24 pm
@livinglava,
Just Democrats?
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 01:27 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I understand the basics about how legislation works, thank you.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 01:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
What they should do is what every party in control of one or both houses should do: Work toward enacting laws they believe are in the best interest of the American people and, if necessary, agree to compromises that will get them something they want rather than insisting on everything they want and getting nothing. If it helps the Republicans to some extent, so be it.


Who do you think you are fooling Finn? No one wants this.

American voters have the Congress they voted for. We don't want a representative who is going to agree to compromises in order enact laws in the best interest of the American people. What we want is people who will stand up to the socialist extremist mob on the left, or the cruel White Supremacists on the right.

We vote for the people who are going to tear down the other side. They target their messages this way because this is what we, the American voters, want.

I don't think it is fair to blame members of Congress. They are representing us well. If we wanted a Congress that compromised for the good of the country, we would elect one.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 02:39 pm
@maxdancona,
You're wrong.

Almost all of them campaign on getting things done.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 03:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You're wrong.

Almost all of them campaign on getting things done.


You can't argue with results.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 03:25 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Just Democrats?

Idk, but that's where I see it happening. Trump has said explicitly that he is looking forward to working with the new house, so if they don't put forward some bills that can pass, they are going to look obstructionist.

What's worse, though, is that they're more than obstructionist. They want to take over government and operate without multiparty discussion and cooperation.

When Obama was re-elected with a Republican majority in the house, I saw it as a good thing because Obama had a lot of good ideas but the Democrats are anti fiscal discipline. So I thought, "great, let the Democrats give the house some ideas they can implement without spending much money," but of course they wouldn't do that because their whole purpose as socialists is to spend money to stimulate GDP growth.

So now the situation is reversed and you have a Republican executive and a Democrat house, so let's see if they can cooperate now to achieve things that are palatable to both sides. If they can't or won't, the situation will just reverse again and stagnation will continue more or less indefinitely until they can start finding common ground. Maybe that's what is ultimately the best for everyone, though, idk.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 03:42 pm
Absolutely fascinating how the talk of impeachment for the past few months have come from the right. The Dems were very clear through the midterm campaigns that it's not on their agenda. They pretty much avoided talking about 45 - he's not their platform. It's going to be interesting to see if they can actually make progress on their agendas/platforms.

Watching 45 and his supporters talk about the dangers of impeachment and how they want the Dems to pursue it (with varying outcomes depending on the speaker) is truly fascinating.

It's a bit like watching the occasional threats from the right about UN banning religion. Not on the agenda, not happening, but fear does seem to help get the voters out.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 03:50 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Watching 45 and his supporters talk about the dangers of impeachment and how they want the Dems to pursue it (with varying outcomes depending on the speaker) is truly fascinating.

For one, they've talked about targeting and harassing people to punish them for siding with Trump. Second, shunning/ignoring is effectively impeachment without going through due process. Trump is the president so if people are going to work in government, they have to work with their colleagues in other branches. They don't have to agree with them or like them, but they can't shun/ignore them. Imagine going to work and shunning/ignoring a certain manager? There is workplace civility and people in government owe such civility to each other as colleagues, regardless of their political differences, the same as people in other workplaces do.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 04:06 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What they will do is send bill after bill to the Senate and refuse to compromise on any of them, all the while blaming the GOP for not getting things done. It's a trick both parties favor.

The question is will they avoid putting forth bills that have a good chance of passing because they are afraid it will make them look like they are cooperating with the enemy?

I think Democrats have reached a point in identity politics/management where they avoid cooperating with anyone deemed the enemy, i.e. anyone outside their club, because they want to shun and remove anyone from any position and replace them with someone who is malleable to their team social pressures.

It may well be that they are no longer about policy but rather they are only about maintaining a system of power that facilitates centralized control by way of a network of people who are maleable to the correct channels of communication.



They are certainly not going to start off with a bill that has a good chance of passing because it already contains compromises. The question is whether or not they will be willing to compromise to get something passed that may not be 100% of what they want but meets a lot of their wishes.

If they don't compromise, their bills won't get passed into law, but I don't think they will have been motivated to not bend because of a fear of appearing to be working with the enemy. It could be, but I think it's more likely that they will want to take these two years to make a case for why they need the Senate and White House to get anything done. The Republicans took that approach and it worked. Unfortunately, once they had all three they still couldn't get what they promised done thanks to one bitter old man from Arizona who put his personal animosity towards the President over his oath of office.

What we seem to now have is a broken government where most things of importance are getting done by Executive branch fiat. This is not good for the country and is due in part to too much time and resources being spent on waging political wars through committee investigations. I don't have any hope that it will change anytime soon, and I have reached the point where I believe all we will see in the future is periods of stagnancy and rancor from a divided government to periods of laws of which only half the country approve being shoved down the throats of the other half.

I'm not at all sanguine about the future of this nation as I see no way in which the deep divide that exists can be bridged, and it's only getting worse with each year.


Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 04:07 pm
@maporsche,
Then you should write as if you do.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 04:12 pm
@ehBeth,
Yeah, you're fascinated. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 04:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Then you should write as if you do.


“Passing legislation” is a common term used that means voting on bills in either branch and having those bills receive enough votes to “pass”.

The Democrats control the house. They can indeed pass legislation. I can find you quotes from House Republicans in the last few years using the exact same language I did. And using that language on bills that never became law. Here’s a link to Congress’ official website that uses the term.

https://www.congress.gov/member/paul-ryan/R000570

Because you assume I’m an idiot doesn’t make me one.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 04:32 pm
@livinglava,
I think you’re probably like those horses in the park who have their vision restricted and can only look in the direction their handler wants them to look.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 06:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

They are certainly not going to start off with a bill that has a good chance of passing because it already contains compromises. The question is whether or not they will be willing to compromise to get something passed that may not be 100% of what they want but meets a lot of their wishes.

What they have to do is stop thinking in terms of centralized planning within a total-system-control paradigm and start thinking about building a good society together with people who don't think like they do.

I don't believe in compromise, but I do believe in common ground. I am not a climate denier or a defender of liberal energy harvesting/use, but I can see common ground with people who deny climate change but want to protect and preserve natural land, for example. So I try to build the idea that climate security is achieved by maintaining and returning the land to as natural a state as possible, and not by tax-redistribution measures that will fund big government stimulus projects and inflation.

Likewise, they should think of ways to bring lower-cost health providers and pharmaceuticals into the market for people who can't afford the current doctors, dentists, and drugs. Let existing doctors and dentists train apprentices, for example, in exchange for a commission on their revenues for a certain number of years. Let chemists train people how to produce common generic drugs and sell them at a lower cost. In short, stop big businesses from blocking poor people from getting the skills they need to do things for themselves at a lower cost.

Quote:
If they don't compromise, their bills won't get passed into law, but I don't think they will have been motivated to not bend because of a fear of appearing to be working with the enemy.

I think you are underestimating the power of their identity politicking. There is a culture of ridicule for Republicans and empathy/compassion for 'the oppressed' and those who defer to them. If one crosses the picket line and suggests working with Trump, the others will view her or him as a traitor and build up ridicule against them as being co-opted or 'an apologist.' They have all these subtle rhetorical tactics for disciplining resistance against collective submission.

Quote:

What we seem to now have is a broken government where most things of importance are getting done by Executive branch fiat. This is not good for the country and is due in part to too much time and resources being spent on waging political wars through committee investigations. I don't have any hope that it will change anytime soon, and I have reached the point where I believe all we will see in the future is periods of stagnancy and rancor from a divided government to periods of laws of which only half the country approve being shoved down the throats of the other half.

Right, but whenever they do that, the other party retaliates in kind once they get into power again. If they don't somehow start working together, things are going to get really bad in the world and the people who delight in that because they think it will somehow benefit them while they lurk out of harm's way will find themselves caught in the thick of it like a neutral country dragged into a world war.

Quote:
I'm not at all sanguine about the future of this nation as I see no way in which the deep divide that exists can be bridged, and it's only getting worse with each year.

Sometimes I think that the country will be split into separate regions, like what the confederates wanted. But then I realize that that is exactly what the socialists want because they have only to gain from wresting land away from others who own it. As a result, I don't think anyone vested would tolerate a peaceful separation into autonomous regions. I also don't think anyone wants another civil war, so they're going to have to find common ground and achieve it together cooperatively.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 06:19 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I think you’re probably like those horses in the park who have their vision restricted and can only look in the direction their handler wants them to look.

And what exactly do you imagine I'm not seeing outside my 'blinders?'
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 08:08 pm
@maporsche,
Might touchy brother.

I don't think you're an idiot but it appears you are not so sure.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2018 03:58 pm
@revelette1,
Max Bergmann wrote:
Democrats will have the power to run a new investigation into Russia’s meddling once the new Congress takes office in January. But they shouldn’t wait. Instead, they must demand now that Whitaker grant the Mueller investigation full independence, effectively making Mueller his own boss.
I demand that Whitaker buy me a pony.

My demand is more likely to be fulfilled than their demand.

Democrats do have the right to make empty demands though.

Max Bergmann wrote:
Democrats should also send a message to career officials by making clear that anyone that participates in this effort to obstruct justice will be held to account, whether that’s the President, his acting Attorney General, or other DOJ officials.
Winding down an investigation is not obstructing justice, and the Democrats have no power to hold anyone to account for their imaginary crimes.

Max Bergmann wrote:
Should it become clear that Mueller is not able to investigate—whether that’s because Mueller is fired or his investigation is being strangled or because Mueller resigns in protest—Democrats in congress will have to pick up where Mueller left off. They will need to hold immediate hearings into whether the President is abusing the power of his office to obstruct justice and whether his campaign did indeed conspire with Russia. They will need to immediately subpoena documents and records related to the investigation, such as any report prepared by the Special Counsel, witness lists, any information that was transmitted to the Special Counsel’s office from another government agency, and any materials related to the decision by the Acting Attorney General to overrule the Special Counsel on the filing of charges related to any individual or group. They will need to hold public hearings, including calling Mueller, as well as key figures in the investigation like Donald Trump Jr. to publically testify. They will need to demonstrate to the American public that this is a clear abuse of power and then they must take steps to hold Trump accountable.
They will certainly have the right to hold hearings, but winding down an investigation is neither obstruction of justice nor an abuse of power.

And they have no power to hold anyone accountable for imaginary crimes.

Max Bergmann wrote:
There will be a debate if this is politically the best course, as this might be seen as distracting from a more, prefered messages. But this goes beyond politics. If Trump is able to get away with killing an investigation into him, in effect showing that the rules don’t apply, that he is above the law, he will feel emboldened to get away with so much more.
The Democrats' imaginary rules and laws in fact don't apply.

The Democrats have no credibility complaining about people being above the law in any case -- not after they said that it was OK for Bill Clinton to be above the law.

Max Bergmann wrote:
This is how democracies often die. An elected leader uses their position to eliminate the checks on their power, and when they’re not stopped they eliminate additional checks. This can happen here, just as it is happening elsewhere. Fortunately, a buffer now exists in the form of a Democratic Congress. But they have to be ready to act.
No checks are being eliminated other than the imaginary checks that the Democrats are only pretending existed.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 03:01 pm
California's one of the most prosperous states in the Union. If that's your example all states should have Democratic leadership. Compare that to the all Republican southern states which are in much worse shape.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 04:57:00