General Politics Discussion (VI) [ARCHIVED] • Page 23

Tiffany is Tier 1 definitely

 

Which, for those keeping score at home, is not good, but better than Corey Fucking Booker.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c6d9f66e4b0e37a1ed431d1/amp

 

Nah man, if one part of it is not good, it's all not good, it's awful, it's functionally the same as howard schultz, etc.

 

You often seem incapable of critical thought.

 

snorey booker cause his policies put me to sleep

 

I was ready to make a "they should just try Obama in a moustache" but hard times is already five steps ahead of my joke game

 

We have barely a decade to deal with climate change. Any candidate that will actively fight against what’s needed to deal with that is a bad candidate and their election means none of us should have kids because it’ll probably be too late.

Those are the stakes.

 

Can only go with what's actually said here, if someone would like to add more nuance to their takes, I'm all ears.

Harris didn't say she'd kill the filibuster. That makes her the same as Booker, regardless of trying to walk the line rhetorically on it. Same as Bernie. Same with Gillibrand (she's still "evaluating" last I saw after saying initially she was against killing it). Warren at least came close but really all she said was she was "keeping everything on the table", which isn't like she's coming out and saying she's going to campaign and push to kill the filibuster. Multiple senate dems, including the senate majority leader, have already said they're against it. 28 senate dems signed a letter against killing it for legislative matters after McConnell killed it for SCOTUS nominees.

Considering all this, the candidates giving non-answers on the filibuster doesn't mean as much to me as what their policy stances are. Why? Because the more likely pathway to getting anything passed is still going to be straight up public pressure to force it to happen, because the filibuster is less likely to go away than that.

One easy rule change that I think could actually pass pretty easily AND help at least a little bit--force a filibuster to actually be a filibuster, aka make someone actually stand up there and talk for hours/days. None of this threaten to filibuster and declare a filibuster without actually doing it shit anymore.. That shields the politicians doing the filibustering from any strong public scrutiny and it instead becomes "The Republicans filibuster" or "The Democrats filibuster" instead of "The Ted Cruz filibuster".

 

Seems bad.

 

Curious of everyone's thoughts on the Jussie Smollett situation...I haven't seen it discussed, unless I just missed it.

 

No, Booker said he'd actively fight against anyone trying to remove it and keep it. So, yeah:

 

As a fan of competitive smash, this is so well done. Blue wave dashing is wonderful.

And based on Leffens thoughts in a video I saw yesterday, Bernie is Pichu.

 

So are we giving Buttigieg even a half chance to win the nomination? Unless i missed something big he seems decent on the issues but i can see him being a pretty much unknown to the majority of the voters stopping him from gaining traction

 

Yikes. Is there anyway this makes him unpopular enough for left wing parties to take the majority?? I know very little about the political dynamics there. @Wharf Rat ??

 

Like 50% half a chance? No. He's not even polling at 1% in some early states.

 

Sadly, probably not.

Who knows maybe he crushes it in the first debate and suddenly gains a bunch of traction but there's just so many other big names with more experience and policy chops and etc.

At least Iowa is going first, that should help him a little bit. But I gotta imagine that if he doesn't have a surprise top 3 finish there that he'd prob have to drop out shortly afterwards.

I just hope whoever does win paves out a future for him somehow. Gives him a role somewhere in the admin maybe.

 

I don’t understand why killing the filibuster needs to be the center of discussion right now. I get it, without getting rid of many of the big dem proposals can never happen. But at this point in time, when Trump and republicans actively right now want to kill it to help them, candidates coming out and saying “yes let’s get rid of it” will just make Trump and McConnell more likely to go with it.

And even getting rid of the filibuster, the GND in its current form would not be passing anytime soon. Manchin, Sinema, Tester, etc will not be voting for that. But that’s beyond the point.

The goal right now should be to get as many people supporting these policies as we can. This whole argument over filibuster is just dumb imo. Be glad that nearly every candidate running is 20x further to the left than Hillary was in 2016. That’s a great place to start looking at things.

 

Welp at least i got Jason and David to agree on something

 

That's why. That's the reason. There is no point in doing anything if literally nothing will get passed. That's the entire reason to have a dem president, to sign those bills. If they won't be there, there's nothing else worth talking about. Nothing they say matters if they'll never see the bill or will compromise it to literal death.

We saw what happened to Obama's presidency, if we don't want a repeat of that ... this is the single biggest issue because nothing else happens. No new statehood, no court packing, no M4A, no GND, nothing, without it.

 

Don't really know anything about parliamentary politics there. All I think is this was the result of his corruption scandals + he's always been on the right of his own party and was losing support in it so he took the right wing of it and allied with the UKIP/AfD/alt right/nazi type party of the country. I *think* the party he merged with was more marginal but idk

 

It's too many emails Bernie. Too many.

 

i don't care that it's fake