• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maybe Tim Walz is the leader of the Dems?

SoCal said:
Since she lost, she was always going to lose?? No one knew for certain who would win.
Click to expand...

Yes, she was always going to lose, because history has been written.

SoCal said:
No one asked you to throw your vote away, you did that on your own. Better to have vote-shamers on your back, than not voting.
Click to expand...

When do I get to shame libs for enabling genocide?


Harm reduction has limits, and those limits are genocide. There also needs to be a credible theory of change. Kamala didn't pass the minimum threshold.


Biden of 2023-2024 was worse than Trump of 2016 when it comes to genocide of Palestinians. He just was. Would Trump have been worse in this area? Maybe. We don't know. We can only guess. Since I didn't vote for Trump, the burden is not on me to hold him accountable in the democratic process. The burden on me is to HOLD MY OWN ACCOUNTABLE. The people I empower. I can't control Trump, I have no influence over Trump, I only have influence on the people I vote for or MIGHT vote for.


Okay. I think people who Vote Blue while Blue are facilitating a genocide are guilty in that genocide. If you say that, 'Yes, I'm guilty of enabling genocide, but I accept that I must do this to forestall a greater threat', I will at least respect that viewpoint. It's not a moral calculation I can make, because I draw my redline at genocide.
 

Funny how Republicans are able to accomplish so much without significant majorities.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Tax cuts for the rich, dismantling of government.
Click to expand...
Tax cuts for the rich only require 50 votes and there’s ideological unanimity around that issue within their caucus. It’s the lowest hanging fruit there is for the GOP and it’s generally the only thing they do get done. As for dismantling government, they’ve fallen on their faces time and time again trying to do that (e.g., their ill-fated ACA repeal attempts).

The reality is GOP control of Congress tends to be historically unproductive, whereas under Dems it’s the opposite.
 

Project 2025 Tracker

Track the progress on Project 2025
www.project2025.observer

Dems historically look for ways to blunt their effectiveness, whereas Republicans maximize their power. Biden handed the keys to Build Back Better to Manchin and Sinema, which probably would have secured Dems power until 2028.
 
Dans La Lune said:

Project 2025 Tracker

Track the progress on Project 2025
www.project2025.observer
Click to expand...

What of that do you believe is being done by Congress?

Dems historically look for ways to blunt their effectiveness, whereas Republicans maximize their power. Biden handed the keys to Build Back Better to Manchin and Sinema, which probably would have secured Dems power until 2028.
Click to expand...

Biden didn’t hand the keys to the most conservative senators in the caucus, the voters did when they gave him a 50-50 Senate.

What significant legislation has the current GOP Senate passed that demonstrates them “maximizing their power”?
 
Dans La Lune said:
She was to the right of Biden on most policy issues, and at best equal to Biden on foreign policy (i.e. very right-wing). Why do you think she is Leftist? Because she's black?
Click to expand...
I think it’s because she was a woman
 
Dans La Lune said:
I'll be curious how conservativism will be packaged post-Trump, after having exhausted Reaganism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, and Populism.
Click to expand...
We now have three parties.. Democrats… Republicans and MAGAs
 
braindrain said:
Yeah it couldn’t be the fact that she was ranked most liberal compared to all senators. No it must be her race.

It’s almost like you are trying to be a caricature of the looniest far left at this point.
Click to expand...
And you’re doing a good job of beating the looniest on the right . Just keep pretending that race and gender have nothing to do with people not voting for her..
It became obvious when Hillary lost to Trump and people on the right said she didn’t have enough experience
 
Let’s ignore who attacked initially. Let’s ignore all the hostages who were tortured raped, or killed.. let’s ignore the bomb at a festival.
 
Greenbeard said:
What of that do you believe is being done by Congress?
Click to expand...

What would Republicans do with Two Super-Majorities? Compromise on Gender Affirming Care?

Greenbeard said:
Biden didn’t hand the keys to the most conservative senators in the caucus, the voters did when they gave him a 50-50 Senate.
Click to expand...

Biden had Sinema and Manchin negotiate on behalf of Build Back Better.

Greenbeard said:
What significant legislation has the current GOP Senate passed that demonstrates them “maximizing their power”?
Click to expand...

What did Mitch McConnell do as Minority Leader?
 
renee said:
Let’s ignore who attacked initially. Let’s ignore all the hostages who were tortured raped, or killed.. let’s ignore the bomb at a festival.
Click to expand...

If you want to get into who attacked who and who raped who, I suggest post on Israel / Palestine board and I will set you straight.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Rock, Paper, Scissors. Beating your own party is actually harder than beating the opposing party. If the Clintons are so popular, why did Hillary lose?
Click to expand...
They say that she didn’t have enough experience which cracked me up. They didn’t like her laugh. Or perhaps the reality is she was a woman, and we are a misogynistic country.
 
Dans La Lune said:
If you want to get into who attacked who and who raped who, I suggest post on Israel / Palestine board and I will set you straight.
Click to expand...
Who started this vile attack?
 
Right keep telling yourself that it was just her race and gender and not her policies that resulted in people not voting for her. Should help the democrats out a whole lot come next election

And we are not just talking about people on the right. We are talking about independents and those on the left that didn’t vote for Harris.

But know keep burying your head in the sand and convincing yourself it’s just because America is just a bunch of racist people that hate women.

The far left is as out of touch with reality as the far right.
 
renee said:
Who started this vile attack?
Click to expand...

I would say the people with all the power, who locked an entire population in an open air prison. Who started the Slave Revolts in America?
 
Dans La Lune said:
What would Republicans do with Two Super-Majorities? Compromise on Gender Affirming Care?
Click to expand...

A Republican supermajority wouldn't be made from the current GOP majority; if it were, they would have a supermajority now. It would be made on the backs of Senators who win in places that Republicans usually do not.

Just as the Dems' brief supermajority existed because they had Senators like Ben Nelson in Nebraska or Evan Bayh in Indiana (not to mention GOP-convert Arlen Specter), the GOP getting to a supermajority would likely require someone like Charlie Baker winning in Massachusetts, or Phil Scott in Vermont, etc. And reaching unanimity among that group of Republicans would look different than reaching unanimity among the current GOP majority, and certainly much different than reaching unanimity among an even more ideologically cohesive GOP minority. Supermajorities are by their nature more moderate than minorities.

In general, you can't just take the current group of Republicans and imagine them having more power/seats, it doesn't scale like that.

Biden had Sinema and Manchin negotiate on behalf of Build Back Better.
Click to expand...

They were the veto points, meaning any legislation without their support would have been DOA. And that's because the voters provided a 50-50 Senate.

What did Mitch McConnell do as Minority Leader?
Click to expand...

The two things that require only 50 votes and enjoy unanimous support among the GOP caucus: stacking the judiciary and ramming through tax cuts. The GOP doesn't really do much else.
 
Greenbeard said:
A Republican supermajority wouldn't be made from the current GOP majority
Click to expand...

If they had two super-majorities, what would they do with them?


Are Dems spectators or participants? You don't start building your power of power after elections. Dems can't invite Manchin and Lieberman into their coalition without knowing that these people will serve Republican interests. Dems offering no alternative to Republicans in red states (except Dems who are actually Republicans with a 'D' in front of their name) gets you these results.

Greenbeard said:
In general, you can't just take the current group of Republicans and imagine them having more power/seats, it doesn't scale like that.
Click to expand...

Dems decide their coalition and the kind of candidates they want running.

Greenbeard said:
They were the veto points, meaning any legislation without their support would have been DOA. And that's because the voters provided a 50-50 Senate.
Click to expand...

'Kyrsten Sinema has been a key figure in negotiating the Build Back Better bill, working directly and privately with the White House to shape the legislation.234 She has expressed strong opposition to raising corporate and income tax rates, which has led to significant changes in the bill's content. Sinema has also been influential in reducing the overall cost of the bill from the original $3.5 trillion to approximately $1.9 trillion. During negotiations, Sinema's demands have included limiting the duration of paid family leave to four weeks and excluding two years of free community college from the bill. She has maintained her position on these issues even as talks have moved behind the scenes.'

Greenbeard said:
The two things that require only 50 votes and enjoy unanimous support among the GOP caucus: stacking the judiciary and ramming through tax cuts. The GOP doesn't really do much else.
Click to expand...

You mean their core agenda items. That's all Republican really need to do, isn't it? What have Dems done with their power?
 
Dans La Lune said:
If they had two super-majorities, what would they do with them?
Click to expand...

Probably judges and tax cuts.


Dems did offer an alternative to Lieberman, they literally primaried him and replaced him. Lieberman ran as an independent and won any way. So of course they invited him into their coalition, no Lieberman, no supermajority. Finding or making nice with candidates who can win is how you get majorities in the first place.

Dems decide their coalition and the kind of candidates they want running.
Click to expand...

And, as I've said, winning a supermajority requires running candidates who can win red districts and red states, people who answer to a median voter that is far to the right of the median Democratic voter. (Or vice versa for the GOP, if they could ever secure a super majority.) Supermajorities are only made possible by candidates you are guaranteed to hate.

You mean their core agenda items. That's all Republican really need to do, isn't it? What have Dems done with their power?
Click to expand...

Other than the creation and expansion of the modern welfare state, the creation and expansion of the regulatory state, and most things that the federal government "does"?
 
Greenbeard said:
Probably judges and tax cuts.
Click to expand...

By hook or by crook, they're going to enact their agenda. Right? How about Dems?


How many viable progressives have Dems crushed beneath their bootheel in favor of Leibermanesque candidates?


And as I've said, if you run conservatives against conservatives, and invite them into your coalition, conservatives are going to win and piss inside the tent. And get what you get. For the 900th time, Build Back Better was overwhelmingly popular in West Virginia. There's the point of leverage Dems could have used.

Greenbeard said:
Other than the creation and expansion of the modern welfare state, the creation and expansion of the regulatory state, and most things that the federal government "does"?
Click to expand...

Having to go back to the 1940s to find examples is a pretty glaring indictment of modern Dems, eh?
 
Dans La Lune said:
How many viable progressives have Dems crushed beneath their bootheel in favor of Leibermanesque candidates?
Click to expand...

If you're asking why progressives often lose primaries, or often prove unable to unseat guys like Lieberman even in blue northeastern states, it sounds like you have some discoveries about the median American voter awaiting you.

And as I've said, if you run conservatives against conservatives, and invite them into your coalition, conservatives are going to win and piss inside the tent.
Click to expand...

As it turns out, winning only deep blue districts isn't enough to get you a majority, and certainly not a supermajority. You need to win red districts, too.

Having to go back to the 1940s to find examples is a pretty glaring indictment of modern Dems, eh?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about the 1940s. Major gaps in the social safety net and the welfare state have been filled in in just the past ten years or so thanks to the Dems.
 
Greenbeard said:
If you're asking why progressives often lose primaries, or often prove unable to unseat guys like Lieberman even in blue northeastern states, it sounds like you have some discoveries about the median American voter awaiting you.
Click to expand...

Money and support from Dem Leadership.

Greenbeard said:
As it turns out, winning only deep blue districts isn't enough to get you a majority, and certainly not a supermajority. You need to win red districts, too.
Click to expand...

Progressive policies are popular in deep red states.

Greenbeard said:
I didn't say anything about the 1940s. Major gaps in the social safety net and the welfare state have been filled in in just the past ten years or so thanks to the Dems.
Click to expand...

Where specifically?
 
Dans La Lune said:
Where specifically?
Click to expand...

Pretending Dems don't enact their agenda, even with the barest of majorities, is just silly.

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish (Published 2010)

The most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades became law after a festive, at times raucous, signing ceremony in the White House on Tuesday.
www.nytimes.com

Biden signs major climate, health care and tax bill into law

The president plans to lean on Cabinet members to tout the law's benefits as part of what White House officials described as a “coordinated August recess travel blitz.”
www.nbcnews.com

Biden Administration Prompts Largest Permanent Increase in Food Stamps (Published 2021)

The jump in benefits, the biggest in the program’s history, comes after a revision of the initiative’s nutrition standards that supporters say will reduce hunger and better reflect how Americans eat.
www.nytimes.com
 

Yes, Dems are better around the edges. Where's their Project 2025?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.