Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
That's a really weird bit with Bernie, because on one hand, he's pretty much right that most everything boils down to economic classes, but on the other hand, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to answer everyone's legitimate concerns with, "Hey, it's all about economic classes!"
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Totally agreed, though I was thinking specifically of the heat he and Perez recently got from NARAL and others for campaigning for an anti-choice candidate in Omaha.
I appreciate the irony of Sanders supporters saying "Look, this candidate has some problems, but we should support him because the alternative is worse" and Clinton supporters responding "No, this candidate is fundamentally wrong on a bedrock issue and progressives can't support him in good conscience."
I'm sympathetic to NARAL. There are better uses of the DNC's resources and Sanders's time than to back anti-choice Democrats.
If Mello were running for office in my city...well, I'd probably do what I usually do: watch the race and, if it's close, grit my teeth and vote for the lesser evil and hope for a primary challenge next time; if it's not close, vote third-party or leave it blank. I sure can't see myself actively campaigning for a guy like Mello or donating to him.
I understand Bernie's argument that Democrats need to take victories where they can get them, even if the candidate is flawed. But personally, I'm the last guy who can make that argument. If somebody sees abortion rights as non-negotiable, and opposition to them as a deal-breaker, who the fuck am I to tell her she's wrong?
And yeah, *because* this is abortion rights we're talking about, there's something fundamentally squicky about a man dismissing the issue. Treating women's rights as a "nice to have" instead of essential is *not a good look*.
OTOH, Mello's actual voting record is pro-choice despite his personal beliefs, and I don't remember NARAL being this critical when Clinton picked Tim Kaine as her running-mate. Granted, I can actually understand a double-standard in that instance; a woman with a pro-choice record picking a running-mate with a mixed record is inherently going to strike a different tone than a man doing something similar, even if his pro-choice record is impeccable. (And hell, the VP is the VP. It's not like, in the unlikely event that he had to break a Senate tie on an abortion bill, Kaine would have voted any way other than how Clinton wanted him to.)
tl;dr it's a complicated damn issue and I'm not interested in taking a side. But, while I think most of the country hasn't even heard about this and it's not, in and of itself, going to hurt Sanders's popularity, it's a symptom of a serious weakness he has, which is that, regardless of his voting record, when people ask him about women's rights or minority issues, he gives answers that seem dismissive. Getting defensive and saying "Look at my record, I'm on your side" may be factually accurate, but it's no way to connect with somebody who's hurting or scared. Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain" and it felt like he really meant it; that's what Bernie needs to work on.
I appreciate the irony of Sanders supporters saying "Look, this candidate has some problems, but we should support him because the alternative is worse" and Clinton supporters responding "No, this candidate is fundamentally wrong on a bedrock issue and progressives can't support him in good conscience."
I'm sympathetic to NARAL. There are better uses of the DNC's resources and Sanders's time than to back anti-choice Democrats.
If Mello were running for office in my city...well, I'd probably do what I usually do: watch the race and, if it's close, grit my teeth and vote for the lesser evil and hope for a primary challenge next time; if it's not close, vote third-party or leave it blank. I sure can't see myself actively campaigning for a guy like Mello or donating to him.
I understand Bernie's argument that Democrats need to take victories where they can get them, even if the candidate is flawed. But personally, I'm the last guy who can make that argument. If somebody sees abortion rights as non-negotiable, and opposition to them as a deal-breaker, who the fuck am I to tell her she's wrong?
And yeah, *because* this is abortion rights we're talking about, there's something fundamentally squicky about a man dismissing the issue. Treating women's rights as a "nice to have" instead of essential is *not a good look*.
OTOH, Mello's actual voting record is pro-choice despite his personal beliefs, and I don't remember NARAL being this critical when Clinton picked Tim Kaine as her running-mate. Granted, I can actually understand a double-standard in that instance; a woman with a pro-choice record picking a running-mate with a mixed record is inherently going to strike a different tone than a man doing something similar, even if his pro-choice record is impeccable. (And hell, the VP is the VP. It's not like, in the unlikely event that he had to break a Senate tie on an abortion bill, Kaine would have voted any way other than how Clinton wanted him to.)
tl;dr it's a complicated damn issue and I'm not interested in taking a side. But, while I think most of the country hasn't even heard about this and it's not, in and of itself, going to hurt Sanders's popularity, it's a symptom of a serious weakness he has, which is that, regardless of his voting record, when people ask him about women's rights or minority issues, he gives answers that seem dismissive. Getting defensive and saying "Look at my record, I'm on your side" may be factually accurate, but it's no way to connect with somebody who's hurting or scared. Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain" and it felt like he really meant it; that's what Bernie needs to work on.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21336
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
AHCA II, which is infinitely worse and even less popular than the first iteration just passed the house with 217 votes.
It seems like the Republican plan is 1) Capitulate to the HFC, and 2) Pass this shit so fast that no one can tell what happened. Seriously, it's nearly impossible to get up-to-the minute news on this thing to the point that the NYT had to send five reporters to the house just to try and get the vote records to find out what the hell is happening.
It could well be the case that this bill is so poisonous that it will not pass the senate, but JFC you guys. It's got some insane things, like for instance it makes Sexual Assault a pre-existing condition. Hope rape victims like choosing between health coverage and justice!
It seems like the Republican plan is 1) Capitulate to the HFC, and 2) Pass this shit so fast that no one can tell what happened. Seriously, it's nearly impossible to get up-to-the minute news on this thing to the point that the NYT had to send five reporters to the house just to try and get the vote records to find out what the hell is happening.
It could well be the case that this bill is so poisonous that it will not pass the senate, but JFC you guys. It's got some insane things, like for instance it makes Sexual Assault a pre-existing condition. Hope rape victims like choosing between health coverage and justice!
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
If it's a legitimate pre-existing condition, Insurance Companies have a way to shut the whole "paying you money" thing down.
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Bonus our-government-is-a-three-ring-circus-and-the-clowns-are-running-the-show nonsense: The senate is writing their own healthcare bill and won't even vote on AHCA 2.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21336
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Grath wrote:Bonus our-government-is-a-three-ring-circus-and-the-clowns-are-running-the-show nonsense: The senate is writing their own healthcare bill and won't even vote on AHCA 2.
With blackjack! And hookers!
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
How can a legislative and executive coalition claim to be populist when they ram through this abortion they call a bill, which is by no means popular?
Representative democracy is a failure.
Representative democracy is a failure.
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here, but remember that this is happening in what I'm often told is the greatest nation in history.
And while I'm probably repeating myself, I've heard it said that if you put a group of children to a task, their collective IQ halves with each kid you add. Looking at Congress and the Republican majority, I'm guessing we're somewhere around "hamper full of puppies trying to drive a tank."
And while I'm probably repeating myself, I've heard it said that if you put a group of children to a task, their collective IQ halves with each kid you add. Looking at Congress and the Republican majority, I'm guessing we're somewhere around "hamper full of puppies trying to drive a tank."
: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
McDohl wrote:How can a legislative and executive coalition claim to be populist when they ram through this abortion they call a bill, which is by no means popular?
Representative democracy is a failure.
You don't pass a bill this miserably unpopular if you expect there to be free and open elections in a year and a half.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21336
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
On one hand I want to say that's grossly hyperbolic even by the current standards of the US.
On the other hand I want to say, what? You think you have free and open elections now?
On the other hand I want to say, what? You think you have free and open elections now?
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
In happier news, New York is pushing a bill to release Trump's state taxes.
More specifically, it would disclose NY state taxes for any sitting president, governor, or senator. Another bill would require presidential candidates to disclose their federal taxes to get on the NY ballot.
More specifically, it would disclose NY state taxes for any sitting president, governor, or senator. Another bill would require presidential candidates to disclose their federal taxes to get on the NY ballot.
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
François wrote:Hopefully the first round will have diluted the sane vote, and it'll concentrate again for the 1v1,
Looks like that's pretty much exactly what happened! Who knew?
Macron's not exactly exciting on his own, the low voter turnout is worrying, and Le Pen getting a third of the votes is all kinds of yikes, but god damn, here's one 2017 democracy dodging the fascist/isolationist turd bullet, and we gotta take our comfort everywhere we can get it. Vive la France!
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Yesterday Matt Furie celebrated Free Comic Book Day by killing off Pepe.
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Republicans use yesterday's hearing to try and score political points against a woman who can't do anything against them. Twitter Liberals say "Sally Yates DESTROYS Rethuglicans", and the pissbaby-in-chief remains in office.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21336
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
The CBO analysis of the AHCA2 is in and, well...
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Comey shitcanned. Putin puppet to be installed at FBI in short order.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21336
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?
Also, McMaster is in danger of the same fate
To be fair, this is technically a situation where a president is clashing with a military appointee who is flouting the civilian authority to which he is answerable, actively undermining him on key issues, and at least passively, and possible actively, abetting leaks to the press. If he's fired it would in fact be justifiable.
Not that I'd be glad to see McMaster go, much less having him be replaced by some idiot yes-man. But even if the thought that the military man is capable whereas the politician is an imbecile is true, it's also a pretty damn dangerous line of thinking for some obvious reasons.
To be fair, this is technically a situation where a president is clashing with a military appointee who is flouting the civilian authority to which he is answerable, actively undermining him on key issues, and at least passively, and possible actively, abetting leaks to the press. If he's fired it would in fact be justifiable.
Not that I'd be glad to see McMaster go, much less having him be replaced by some idiot yes-man. But even if the thought that the military man is capable whereas the politician is an imbecile is true, it's also a pretty damn dangerous line of thinking for some obvious reasons.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests