• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

myDeaconmyhand said:
You cant just vote on part of the bill, its yay or nay on everything in the bill or resolution. Thats why measuring a senators "progressiveness" based on their party line voting history isnt completely accurate. A lot of Democrat proposed bills include regressive shit, generally conservative economic concessions.

There is a reason that politicians hide unpopular and polarizing proposal in seemingly innocuous, party line bills. It's why NC Republicans put anti-abortion laws in a "Motorcycle Safety" bill. In conclusion, there is more to "Russian Sanctions" votes than voting yes or no.
Click to expand...

That's a nonsensical answer. The bill about Deriposaka is about him not everything under the sun.

There is nothing more in this bill.
 
RJKarl said:
That's a nonsensical answer. The bill about Deriposaka is about him not everything under the sun.

There is nothing more in this bill.
Click to expand...
Bernie voted yay (twice?) on that procedural vote, he could abstain on the final vote because he most likely knew it didnt have the votes to pass, as the exact same Republicans supported it both times.
 
 
Imagine the evil Republicans could do without the filibuster.

We had 60 just 10 years ago and completely blew it. It could happen again after another disastrous Pub presidency if the Dems have a strong top of the ticket and good senate candidates.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Bernie voted yay (twice?) on that procedural vote, he could abstain on the final vote because he most likely knew it didnt have the votes to pass, as the exact same Republicans supported it both times.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You said it was good to oppose Russian sanctions.
 
PhDeac said:
Imagine the evil Republicans could do without the filibuster.

We had 60 just 10 years ago and completely blew it. It could happen again after another disastrous Pub presidency if the Dems have a strong top of the ticket and good senate candidates.
Click to expand...

This is a better answer than what she said. I just don't buy the idea that Republicans can be won over, that's my big beef here.

But nonetheless, since we're on the topic, the Senate is undemocratic and is going to be harder and harder for Democrats to win as more people congregate in blue states.

I'm not a fan of many things about our system -- the way it's set up I think it just blinds people to what the parties would really do to and for them. If the Repubs really could unrestrainedly cut Medicare/Medicaid/Soc Security (82% of those polled were not in favor of cutting these to pay for the tax cuts) people would feel that impact, and the same goes for positive Dem policy on the left.

But perhaps the dumb never-ending-election nature of US politics is a reason to keep it in place, just so we don't wildly vacillate. At the end of the day I think that has a net negative impact on peoples' lives, though, especially given that we have a lot further to go to the left than the right relative to other big-boy countries
 
Last edited:
Hard to believe anybody who is concerned about the Republican majority in the White House wouldn’t be even more concerned about what 50+1 Republicans could do to maintain the “status quo.”
 
Modern society provides ample evidence that you don't need governmental action to maintain, uphold and strengthen the status quo. Not sure how you undo it without it, doe.

Republicans hate governing. See how little policy they passed when they controlled everything the last two years. I don't think the filibuster was the only thing holding them back. Since when have Republicans cared about playing by rules?

We need more proactiveness and positivity, less reactiveness and fear. That's their MO -- see getting rid of the filibuster to appoint SC justices to block future Dem/people power. It shouldn't be ours
 
Last edited:
I dont think the polar ice caps really give a fuck about maintaining procedural norms. Its well beyond time for radical, drastic action.
 
wsc8521s said:
Click to expand...

I thought on the whole she did a good job during that interview. She came across as way more authentic than I was expecting, especially as the interview wore on.

The filibuster was kind of a bullshit question from Favs though. The president doesn’t have a say on whether the Senate keeps the filibuster or not. I care far more about how Chuck Schumer answers that question than any democratic presidential candidate.
 
RChildress107 said:
I don’t get this criticism. Whether they are liberal, centrist, or basically the same as Mitch McConnell is a matter of perspective, but there is nothing fake about them.
Click to expand...

meh. there is a little bit of fakeness to faux outrage to the Facebook thing while employing/collaborating with Tim Miller. And the fakeness of having no politics of popularity politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top