US Politics IV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know. It seems to me the Democrats entire long term strategy for winning elections is...

PLAN A: Wait for old white people to die and brown people to have babies.
PLAN B: There is no plan B


The short term strategy is...

PLAN A: Muellertime!
PLAN B: There is no plan B


What else is there?
 
Last edited:
Nothing.

We gave up after Obama was elected cause we thought it was enough to get a black guy in office.

Dems are paying the price

I don't know who can win for them in 2020. Honestly I think Bernie may be their best shot, but he's never been vetted so who knows what shit will come up for him.

But he'd still splinter the party but damnit we'd get the hipster vote
 
The party apparatus is pretty much in disarray. Axelrod had a very good 50-state-strategy but the Obama people never really shared that or made it available to the DNC and its equivalents so that is part of the problem but not the sole explanation. They are at the point where they need new and fresh blood and that will come sort of naturally as part of a generational change.

But it isn't as if it's doom and gloom forever. You have to remember that Obama came on the national stage 4 years before being elected President. He was a nobody basically. You can build up infrastructure and excitement and a platform fairly quickly (hello, look at Trump) even as an outsider. So it isn't as if they have 20 years of rebuilding in front of them...
 
Except if that individual's entire platform is based on being pro-life (which term I hate).



Because then you cannot count on them to vote with the party on SCOTUS nominees or federal judges. Because abortion is always, always the bright line test. We're constantly told that even Republicans who hate Trump voted for him because of SCOTUS. But the Democrats are supposed to abandon the (arguably) greatest privilege of governing so that some more anti-choice people in Alabama vote for a guy who isn't a reliable Democratic vote? It makes zero sense.



Instead you can devote resources and on-the-ground infrastructure in districts with quickly growing Latino populations in say, Texas. It's a no-brainer.



Why do you hate the term pro-life? Don't you think they're over there on the other side saying "I hate the term pro-choice? Blah blah blah it's pro-murder." I fully acknowledge the hypocrisies and the poor arguments put up by most pro-life folks. But there is a discussion to be had, in my opinion.

Who are you going to count on to vote with democrats more often? A republican in Alabama, or a pro-life democrat in Alabama? Also, it's Alabama. That's what the people of Alabama want. It's not a democrat senator's job to strictly vote by his or her party. This is a problem that plagues politics. If we cut that shit out and voted based upon constituency and represented based upon constituency, there would be pro choice republicans and pro life democrats, and chances are we would be closer to public opinion without installing a populist system (the whole point of our political system as is).
 
Why do you hate the term pro-life?

Because the implication is that anybody who supports any measures which legalize abortion is "anti-life." Furthermore, many, and in my view most, people who consider themselves "pro-life" are actually pro-embryo/fetus or pro-birth and their other political views are not pro-life in the slightest following the birth of that baby. While being pro-birth they are against subsidizing healthcare for pregnant mothers, they are sometimes even against insurance being required to provide maternal/fetal medicine coverage, they are against poor children having access to free healthcare or subsidized school lunches, they are against reasonable and paid maternity leave for the mother to recover from a very traumatic medical event, etc. So pro-life, my ass. And people who are pro-choice are not anti-life either nor are they pro-abortion. These terms are all fairly silly when unpacked.


Who are you going to count on to vote with democrats more often?

Look that's undeniable. But you have not addressed the point I have made - that for SCOTUS nominees, the single bright line test is abortion. What use is an Alabama "pro-life" Democrat if he/she is going to vote with the Republicans on Roe v. Wade? You may be willing to give that up, but why should millions of women? Nevermind the actual remoteness of the possibility of a Democratic senator being elected in Alabama. There hasn't been one in 20 years and in those 20 years, the pendulum has swung so far that Alabama is much more Republican and the odds are essentially miniscule. Hello, a Democrat is losing to a child molester for heaven's sake...
 
Because the implication is that anybody who supports any measures which legalize abortion is "anti-life."

You sort of just had st that while ignoring the parts where I said I fully understand what you've said. Yes, the hypocrisy is real. It doesn't mean that, on a neutral table, the argument can't be made. Anyways, this is sort of semantics. You can hate (and I do hate) when a hypocrite claims to be "pro-life," but the term pro-life does not necessarily suggest the opposite is "anti-life" or "pro-death." Both of the abortion terminologies are delivered from the positive perspective because both sides believe they have a moral high ground.







Look that's undeniable. But you have not addressed the point I have made - that for SCOTUS nominees, the single bright line test is abortion. What use is an Alabama "pro-life" Democrat if he/she is going to vote with the Republicans on Roe v. Wade? You may be willing to give that up, but why should millions of women? Nevermind the actual remoteness of the possibility of a Democratic senator being elected in Alabama. There hasn't been one in 20 years and in those 20 years, the pendulum has swung so far that Alabama is much more Republican and the odds are essentially miniscule. Hello, a Democrat is losing to a child molester for heaven's sake...


I didn't address your point because I didn't even notice it. It seems as though you're suggesting that the most important value of a senator is to vote on Supreme Court justices for the sake of abortion laws or even just for the sake of putting the right justice in.

Senators wield so much more responsibility than just that. I'd happily compromise on some beliefs to have a stronger party, as long as the leadership of the party doesn't compromise on its views. Sadly, we have the exact opposite. We have mindless robotic party members who stand firm on party lines and follow whatever their leadership says (in both parties). You're shocked that a democrat is losing to a child molester... how about all of these republicans who continue to support the pussy grabber in chief? Same deal there.

You can't live so much in the instantaneous "now" and imagine "a democrat could never win Alabama." This sort of mentality neglects the future. It's like suggesting democrats shouldn't have tried in Texas because it's a firm red state during the presidential election. If you don't start somewhere, things are bound never to change.
 
I didn't address your point because I didn't even notice it. It seems as though you're suggesting that the most important value of a senator is to vote on Supreme Court justices for the sake of abortion laws or even just for the sake of putting the right justice in.

I personally don't think so and I also live in a place where abortion is "settled" as a matter of law and policy, even as a matter of the Conservative party platform. Our Supreme Court justices are appointees but the Court is NOT a political court like the American one. At all. So it depresses me that this is the state of affairs in the US, where I haven't lived in almost 10 years.

Given the power of the SCOTUS and the potential restrictions on women's health and liberty, in my view, you cannot discount the power or privilege of (a) nominating a justice and (b) voting one in based on a majority in the Senate. Does a Senator from Alabama do a lot of other things and contribute to other federal laws and advocate on behalf of his constituency back home? Well I'd hope so. But if that guy is a swing vote, and because of him you lose Roe v. Wade that would be disastrous. So if the Republicans can vote for a pussy grabber in chief over a qualified woman and a child molester over a civil rights lawyer, then why is the left constantly being told that they must give in on their principles and try to elect people who hold views consistent with their populace but inconsistent with the broader party platform or what is best for the nation? Sorry, not willing to give on this point. Don't get me wrong, if there was a pro-choice candidate in someplace like California running and was a child molester, I would NOT vote for that person because I have morals. But I am not in favour of nominating pro-life candidates to appease a local populace when it goes to the heart of governing. Why should a small population in Alabama hold women in NYC hostage, for example?

And all this hits pretty close to home - to have my children we have spent well into 6 figures out of pocket and had 5 fresh IVF cycles. Also 6 losses. I understand all this intimately. And I have never waivered on the ability and right of a woman to make her own choice, for couples to make their own choices about their families. Not my business just like it is nobody's business what we did to achieve our family dreams.
 
On this issue of abortion, I actually think if the Democrats had nominated a pro-life candidate they'd have a much better shot at winning this election. But Jones is not only pro-choice, he's very outspokenly pro-choice and on this issue is out of touch with how most Alabama voters feel on this issue (and they feel very strongly). There's also been quite a bit of debate lately as to how open the Democratic party really is now to pro-life candidates.

Yeah, the thing is, I think there are areas where pro-choice and pro-life people can already find some common ground. Pro-choice people may agree that a woman has a right to have an abortion, but they also understand that it's not an easy thing to go through and that the circumstances that tend to lead women to have to make that choice in the first place are often horrible and worth dealing with. Meanwhile, many pro-life people are willing to accept that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion in the case of incest, rape, or a life-threatening health issue.

I think both sides tend to generally agree that it'd be nice to make it so there's less unwanted babies in the world, and less women being saddled with pregnancies they can't afford to take on, be it financially, medically, or emotionally, or don't want to take on. The main issue seems to come in regards to HOW to reduce and deal with those issues.

I'm pro-choice, and I think, in order to tackle the issue of abortion and unwanted pregnancies, we need to allow more access to contraception, better sex education in schools, and support funding of centers/organizations/etc. that help women who are struggling financially, or who've been raped, and fix any issues with the adoption system for those who might want to consider that option, be it to give up their baby or wanting to adopt, as well. We also need to do more to show that places like Planned Parenthood are not the abortion mills some tend to believe they are, and show the ways in which they and other places like them provide beneficial help for women.

And that's just a few ideas off the top of my head. I'd like to think that most pro-lifers could find some level of agreement with me on at least some of those suggestions.

Thanks for the really solid response Moonlit Angel! I appreciate & agreed with a good deal of it. And I'm glad you realised I wasn't trying to defend Moore...he's obviously despicable and I hope he loses. I actually think Moore was unqualified even before all this. The guy has no respect for the rule of law and is clearly on the fringe of most issues, even among Republicans. As far as I can tell he'd be the most extremist member of the Senate. I think the best chance for a Jones win is that Republicans just stay home. Which is what I meant when I mentioned Kimmel being a partial motivator for them to get out and vote.

You're welcome :). Yeah, no, I certainly didn't feel you were trying to defend Moore-you were just speaking to the sad realities of how messy and complicated politics can be. What should seem blatantly obvious to some people isn't going to be that way to all, and I do think we need to remember that fact.

And that's a very fair point re: Kimmel's effect on voters. I can definitely see that inspiring them. I hate that people think on that level of spite when voting, but sadly, again, it is a reality.

But yeah, having his voters not show up would certainly help matters. And unfortunately, since there's still some time left before the election itself, that just gives more opportunity to stoke the flames. I wish we could just get the damn thing over with already.

But it isn't as if it's doom and gloom forever. You have to remember that Obama came on the national stage 4 years before being elected President. He was a nobody basically. You can build up infrastructure and excitement and a platform fairly quickly (hello, look at Trump) even as an outsider. So it isn't as if they have 20 years of rebuilding in front of them...

Exactly. I think a good plan for the Democrats next year would be to have all their party's politicians who are running for seats in the midterms making the media rounds on a steady, regular basis, locally, statewide, and nationally. Let them all get their names out there, let them all talk about their platforms wherever possible, let's see footage of them meeting with constituents in their states, etc. Not only would that be a good way to try and entice people to vote Democrat in the midterms, but it would also allow any younger Democrats who are new to the party some much needed media attention, and help them build up a base so that come 2020, or beyond, some of them might have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency.

And they need to expand their profile as far as possible, too. Obviously they should go on programs that get a lot of liberal-leaning viewers, but if more independent or conservative-leaning programs invite them on, they should go there, too. Let those voters see the positive aspects of their platform and the Democratic party's stances as much as possible, so that they can gain some independent voters, as well as any remaining Trump supporters out there who are increasingly fed up with him and regretting their vote, or any other conservatives who weren't on the "Never Trump" train initially, but may start leaning that way now.

Trump's base is diehard, yes, but his overall approval ratings are in the toilet. There's far more people in this country who are sick of him than there are who support him. The Democrats have a perfect opportunity to sway that large group to support them going forward, and they need to take advantage of that opportunity.
 
President tweets something that sounds like an admission of obstruction of justice.

White House them says "oh, that was his lawyer tweeting that." (Experts say: dude, that actually looks worse for you).

Now today? "The President can't obstruct justice."


Shit's gettin' good.
 
The only way to touch Trump while he's in office is by impeachment. Mueller won't be prosecuting Trump for obstruction because he can't.

The most he can do is turn over any evidence that he has to the Speaker of the House, and the rest is up to Congress.
 
President tweets something that sounds like an admission of obstruction of justice.

White House them says "oh, that was his lawyer tweeting that." (Experts say: dude, that actually looks worse for you).

Only a true idiot would believe that story.
 
LN7 is bang on here. I get Anitram's point re SCOTUS but obviously a Republican senator is still going to vote pro-life. Sure, having a pro-life Alabama candidate isn't perfect, but if they vote Democrat on health, and tax, etc etc, it's better than nothing isn't it?
Besides, it isn't the job of political parties to come up with dogma and tell the people that's what they're voting for. The parties should represent what the people want. And if in Alabama the people want pro-life, well that's democracy. And it makes for a healthier party, having different views sitting around the same table.
 
The only way to touch Trump while he's in office is by impeachment. Mueller won't be prosecuting Trump for obstruction because he can't.

The most he can do is turn over any evidence that he has to the Speaker of the House, and the rest is up to Congress.

Yes and no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted, as opposed to members of Congress, where there is specific language to that effect. Question is in whether Mueller himself has the right to is different and would likely end up in the Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...97b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

Regardless... probably not best for Trump or his lawyers to publicly admit to obstruction of justice with and say it doesn't matter because neener neener neener you can't catch me.

Especially considering, ya know, Nixon and all.
 
Last edited:
I mean I think anitram's original point was of democrat's resources (why waste on *him* in Alabama). There's some point to that, but I think right now it's opportunistic. It's opportunistic for progressivism in Alabama on the fundamental sense.

Not to mention, this is Jeff Sessions seat we are talking about. Talk about an opportunity...
 
I mean I think anitram's original point was of democrat's resources (why waste on *him* in Alabama). There's some point to that, but I think right now it's opportunistic. It's opportunistic for progressivism in Alabama on the fundamental sense.

Not to mention, this is Jeff Sessions seat we are talking about. Talk about an opportunity...
But they're already running a candidate with resources. Why not a candidate more representative of the peoplr he or she is asking to represent?
 
I mean I think anitram's original point was of democrat's resources (why waste on *him* in Alabama). There's some point to that, but I think right now it's opportunistic. It's opportunistic for progressivism in Alabama on the fundamental sense.

Not to mention, this is Jeff Sessions seat we are talking about. Talk about an opportunity...

Yeah this was my point and also the fact that Nick said that if Doug Jones had been pro-life, he may have had a better chance. Well my response was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to (a) nominate a pro-life candidate which is in general opposition with the party and most of its supporters, who by the way are the ones that fund the party and organize the infrastructure, and (b) hope that some massive ass scandal takes down the Republican who, going into the race had like a 30-point lead. Sorry, but hindsight is 20/20 so I disagree with the suggestion that the Democrats should put up candidates to suit the majority (i.e. Republican) voters of Alabama.

Also lost in this is the fact that the Democrats have primaries and the same VOTERS of Alabama elected Doug Jones, a pro-choice candidate. So now we are telling them they are wrong and should elect a pro-lifer? I mean how do you say that out of one side of your mouth and out of the other say that the will of the voters of Alabama (majority pro-life Republicans) must be respected?
 
But they're already running a candidate with resources. Why not a candidate more representative of the peoplr he or she is asking to represent?

Why do you think that the Democrats of Alabama don't have the right to elect the candidate that THEY want to represent THEM in the Democratic primary?
 
Also lost in this is the fact that the Democrats have primaries and the same VOTERS of Alabama elected Doug Jones, a pro-choice candidate. So now we are telling them they are wrong and should elect a pro-lifer? I mean how do you say that out of one side of your mouth and out of the other say that the will of the voters of Alabama (majority pro-life Republicans) must be respected?

Fair point. I didn't realise there are primaries for these positions but yeah, that largely destroys my argument.
Curiosity... Did the primaries voters have a pro life candidate to vote for?

I think I get your position re resources being targeted, hindsight and regarding the principles and fundamental values of a party.
What I'm arguing is that if you're trying to take people with you, and a huge chunk aren't following, maybe you're not leading properly.
One of the overwhelming messages from disgruntled Republican voters is that the Dems are educated elites trying to tell us what to think, do and say.
If the goal is a. To be in government and b. To ensure someone like Trump/Bannon never makes it to government, surely the approach has to change.

I don't see why a party can't say 'here are our positions on things, and we hope in time the majority of Americans agree, but state by state we know there are differences of opinion and we respect that'.
 
Yes and no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted, as opposed to members of Congress, where there is specific language to that effect. Question is in whether Mueller himself has the right to is different and would likely end up in the Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...97b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

Regardless... probably not best for Trump or his lawyers to publicly admit to obstruction of justice with and say it doesn't matter because neener neener neener you can't catch me.

Especially considering, ya know, Nixon and all.

Well most Constitutional scholars agree that a sitting President can't be indicted. There are some who disagree (notably Rotunda who wrote that opinion piece and a guy named Eric Freedman), but personally I'm of the opinion that he can't be indicted. The Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ has generally taken the same position (that he can't be indicted) over the years. You and others can disagree and that's fine, and it's true the SCOTUS has never definitely ruled on it, so who knows. But in any event I don't believe Mueller is going to try to tread new ground with a case like this. There would be no reason to try to indict Trump while he was in office, especially if it's a process crime. The remedy here is impeachment and removal from office. It's reasons like this that there's an impeachment clause to begin with.

With regards to Nixon, the only reason he stepped down is because the Republicans in Congress decided it was time and went to him. It was either that or face impeachment. The political climate was much different then, so I don't know. Would this current crop of Republicans impeach Trump for obstruction? I'm not convinced. But maybe.

Of course, if Mueller comes up with something more, say conspiracy and a quid pro quo with the Russians, that would be something different entirely. But even in that case, I don't think he could or would indict Trump, it will still be up to Congress to impeach.

And I'm just saying...all everyone has talked about for a year is collusion to hack the election, now no one's talking about that and the thing of the moment on social media is OBSTRUCTION!!!... and I'm frankly not even convinced that there's a case there. And now it's so-called experts coming out of the woodwork saying, well maybe the Logan Act actually is a serious thing, and maybe you can indict a sitting President. I'm not convinced of any of that. A lot of people seem to be so obsessed with "getting Trump" that reason has just gone out the window. I'm sure there will be more guilty pleas and indictments ahead, probably for more process crimes. But I haven't seen anything so far that's going to result in Trump being "perp walked out of the White House in handcuffs" like so many people seem to be dreaming of. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
What I'm arguing is that if you're trying to take people with you, and a huge chunk aren't following, maybe you're not leading properly'.


Or maybe a bunch of that “huge chunk” are racists and misogynists. Not leading properly means not pandering to that?
 
Well most Constitutional scholars agree that a sitting President can't be indicted. There are some who disagree (notably Rotunda who wrote that opinion piece and a guy named Eric Freedman), but personally I'm of the opinion that he can't be indicted. The Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ has generally taken the same position (that he can't be indicted) over the years. You and others can disagree and that's fine, and it's true the SCOTUS has never definitely ruled on it, so who knows. But in any event I don't believe Mueller is going to try to tread new ground with a case like this. There would be no reason to try to indict Trump while he was in office, especially if it's a process crime. The remedy here is impeachment and removal from office. It's reasons like this that there's an impeachment clause to begin with.

With regards to Nixon, the only reason he stepped down is because the Republicans in Congress decided it was time and went to him. It was either that or face impeachment. The political climate was much different then, so I don't know. Would this current crop of Republicans impeach Trump for obstruction? I'm not convinced. But maybe.

Of course, if Mueller comes up with something more, say conspiracy and a quid pro quo with the Russians, that would be something different entirely. But even in that case, I don't think he could or would indict Trump, it will still be up to Congress to impeach.

And I'm just saying...all everyone has talked about for a year is collusion to hack the election, now no one's talking about that and the thing of the moment on social media is OBSTRUCTION!!!... and I'm frankly not even convinced that there's a case there. And now it's so-called experts coming out of the woodwork saying, well maybe the Logan Act actually is a serious thing, and maybe you can indict a sitting President. I'm not convinced of any of that. A lot of people seem to be so obsessed with "getting Trump" that reason has just gone out the window. I'm sure there will be more guilty pleas and indictments ahead, probably for more process crimes. But I haven't seen anything so far that's going to result in Trump being "perp walked out of the White House in handcuffs" like so many people seem to be dreaming of. Just my opinion.
And they got Nixon on the cover up, not the crime.

You'd have to have a pretty low opinion of Robert Mueller to think that he's letting Flynn walk, who has committed a multitude of actual, provable crimes, if there wasn't something else there, and there are very few people above Flynn.
 
Or maybe a bunch of that “huge chunk” are racists and misogynists. Not leading properly means not pandering to that?
For sure. A bunch of the huge chunk are those things. And a bunch aren't. You do believe that right? That not every Trump/Moore voter is a racist and/or misogynist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom