US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]

ChippyTurtle · Feb 13, 2020

that thing where moderates can unite and beat Bernie....come on just dangle your death with one of them as VP...one of them would bite.

Though in seriousness, i bet the shifting moderate field is his greatest strength, none of them actually retain any true support beyond "moderate" and with trump, just a little shove and some compromise should bring them in.

Wilf Netherton · Feb 13, 2020

"Dangle your death" is a very odd phrase, lol.

ChippyTurtle · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
I'm just going to lay it out and be honest here.

I see what the GOP has become, where their leaders cower in fear from doing the clearly right thing, because they are trapped in a party with no room for diversity of thought.

I WANT progressive voices dragging sad, older, kinda-broken politically people like me along and fighting to do more than my pessimism allows me to think possible. But I don't want that to come at the expense of having voices of myself, my neighbors, my family that aren't on the same page but are all loyal, donating, longtime Democrats, squashed by the same kind of fear that's fatally poisoned the GOP. And when I see replies like the one above to Amy's response on that Culinary Union post-yeah, not encouraging.

Big tent, but there's an intolerant left out there that I am super uncomfortable with. Not here in this thread, but they are all backing the same candidate and it's like elephant in the room for me when you think about the Democrats in a post-Trump era.

Republican scare-mongering. Every time I think about this boogie man of minority hard left overtaking the party, i remember most democrats in congress, senate and house are moderates. Their voting districts are purple or light blue, and our infighting after 2018 convinced me neither can overtake the other in either direction.

Those fucking Republicans were crowing over the Squad and Pelosi fighting, while they fully became Trump's lapdogs and promoters.

Xaszatm · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
I'm just going to lay it out and be honest here.

I see what the GOP has become, where their leaders cower in fear from doing the clearly right thing, because they are trapped in a party with no room for diversity of thought.

I WANT progressive voices dragging sad, older, kinda-broken politically people like me along and fighting to do more than my pessimism allows me to think possible. The party is yours even if it doesn't happen this time around, the writing is on the wall.

But I don't want that to come at the expense of having voices like myself, my neighbors, my family that aren't on the same page but are all loyal, donating, longtime Democrats, squashed by the same kind of fear that's fatally poisoned the GOP. And when I see replies like the one above to Amy's response on that Culinary Union post-yeah, not encouraging.

Big tent, but there's an intolerant left out there that I am super uncomfortable with. Not here in this thread, but they are all backing the same candidate and it's like elephant in the room for me when you think about the Democrats in a post-Trump era.

So I've never read that story. I'm just responding to what I see whenever I click through on Twitter here, and it's 80% ok this is just a contested primary and 20% mega yikes. At least in '08 the PUMAs and HillaryIs44 types kept it in a medium where politicians and journalists could just ignore them and not have it blasted in their inbox.

It's one of the blessings and curse of the internet age, where its harder to ignore the population or groups who are active online for better and for worse.

Deleted member 176 · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
So I've never read that story. I'm just responding to what I see whenever I click through on Twitter here, and it's 80% ok this is just a contested primary and 20% mega yikes. At least in '08 the PUMAs and HillaryIs44 types kept it in a medium where politicians and journalists could just ignore them and not have it blasted in their inbox.

The examples in this article were mostly overblown or outright misleading and misreported. That's why it got a lot of blowback, like when Fox News has the exact same "concerned voter" surrogate who you later learn is the head of Woman For Trump PAC or something like that.

Crocodile · Feb 13, 2020

The big issue is that we are all terminally online and politically active so we are constantly exposed to the "bad Bernie fans". I can say to myself, accurately, that most Sanders supports are chill people but that doesn't change the fact that every time there is an election I see the dumbest takes from exclusively Sanders supporters on my social media (and elsewhere). It's exhausting being exposed to nonsense even if you know in your heart it doesn't represent a majority opinion/sentiment/etc.

Arm Van Dam · Feb 13, 2020

File this under "No fucking shit, Sherlock"

John Kelly, Trump's former chief of staff, says North Korea is playing the U.S. and won't give up its nuclear weapons. Suggests that Trump's personal diplomacy and summitry with Kim have been futile. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/john-kelly-alexander-vindman-north-korea-and-trump/606496/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share …

Mekanos · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
The big issue is that we are all terminally online and politically active so we are constantly exposed to the "bad Bernie fans". I can say to myself, accurately, that most Sanders supports are chill people but that doesn't change the fact that every time there is an election I see the dumbest takes from exclusively Sanders supporters on my social media (and elsewhere). It's exhausting being exposed to nonsense even if you know in your heart it doesn't represent a majority opinion/sentiment/etc.

I see a lot of dumb internet posts from people who support just about every candidate out there.

Let's not play that game, because nobody wins.

Deleted member 176 · Feb 13, 2020

Mekanos said:
Let's not play that game, because nobody wins.

Hey, Jack. You want to see who wins? What about a pushup contest? First to 50 has the best supporters.

Deleted member 20630 · Feb 13, 2020

Hours Left · Feb 13, 2020

Arm Van Dam said:
File this under "No fucking shit, Sherlock"

What a blistering rebuke. We finally have the fabled adult (who was once) in the room.

Crocodile · Feb 13, 2020

Mekanos said:
I see a lot of dumb internet posts from people who support just about every candidate out there.

Let's not play that game, because nobody wins.

"Everyone does/says dumb shit" is true! However, its also a bit of a handwave. People who use social media (and this website) are younger and more liberal than the average Democrat. Among these spaces, the primary spaces many of us have to discuss politics, supporters for particular candidates (and subsets of those supporters) are disproportionately represented. People saying this or writing this aren't (usually) trying to be jerks, they are just articulating their experiences. When someone mentions this or writes this, it's (most of the time) not an attempt to slander all Sanders supporters and it will be super helpful if people (I'm speaking in general, not directly specifically at you) who support Sanders and feel they are being reasonable not take slight on behalf of the bad elements of their ingroup.

Deleted member 1570 · Feb 13, 2020

I forgot about John Kelly...

Mekanos · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
"Everyone does/says dumb shit" is true! However, its also a bit of a handwave. People who use social media (and this website) are younger and more liberal than the average Democrat. Among these spaces, the primary spaces many of us have to discuss politics, supporters for particular candidates (and subsets of those supporters) are disproportionately represented. People saying this or writing this aren't (usually) trying to be jerks, they are just articulating their experiences. When someone mentions this or writes this, it's (most of the time) not an attempt to slander all Sanders supporters and it will be super helpful if people (I'm speaking in general, not directly specifically at you) who support Sanders and feel they are being reasonable not take slight on behalf of the bad elements of their ingroup.

The poster that started this chain of posts received a warning for inflammatory generalizations, so it should probably fall on behalf of the people making these generalizations to not do so when it isn't especially productive and only stokes the flames of arguments and needless division, something that originally got this thread locked.

if you see someone acting in a way that you deem unacceptable, it's probably best to tell that person directly rather than use it as an example to bludgeon a large, diverse group. I'm gonna assume the vast majority of people on this website would throw all of their energy behind Sanders if he received the nom, and as one of the frontrunners, if not the frontrunner, ultimately I'm not sure what good we're doing by talking about candidate support groups in such broad terms.

Like I'm all for talking about Sanders' issues as a politician and candidate, but really, what good is it to make harsh generalizations about his supporters when so many of them are on this forum, in this thread? There's millions of people out there on the internet saying stupid things, we could be here all day if we talked about crazy hot political takes on Twitter or Facebook or whatever, they're never-ending. I don't think it helps make for a very productive conversation though. I mean if you just want to vent about random Sanders supporters, then don't be surprised if Sanders supporters on this forum find it unwelcoming.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
"Everyone does/says dumb shit" is true! However, its also a bit of a handwave. People who use social media (and this website) are younger and more liberal than the average Democrat. Among these spaces, the primary spaces many of us have to discuss politics, supporters for particular candidates (and subsets of those supporters) are disproportionately represented. People saying this or writing this aren't (usually) trying to be jerks, they are just articulating their experiences. When someone mentions this or writes this, it's (most of the time) not an attempt to slander all Sanders supporters and it will be super helpful if people (I'm speaking in general, not directly specifically at you) who support Sanders and feel they are being reasonable not take slight on behalf of the bad elements of their ingroup.

It would be even more helpful not to make inflammatory generalizations with the sole purpose of trying to get digs in at Bernie supporters. Like Mekanos said, there are a lot of people who say dumb things, there are a lot of bad actors, I don't know what point is of signaling out Bernie supporters other than to make people angry.

fragamemnon · Feb 13, 2020

I mean if Sanders gets the plurality of delegates-not even the majority, I'm 100% all-in for him and anything else is complete injustice to the voters in the party.

But this goes back to a thread earlier today about talking through our party diversity and having a big tent, and what Warren said last night. Big tents need to be that, and while at this moment we have a clear unifying urgency because Trump is so terrible, what would things look like if there wasn't the giant urgent existential problem out there to unify us?

It's scary, because it's just as bad if it is coming from any part of the party. I don't want to inflame the people here that are legit good people, just what I see like whenever I click through some of the posts embedded here (I should stop clicking through the posts embedded here!) just isn't right and feels awful to read.

aspiegamer · Feb 13, 2020

No news short of Trump tweeting an order to have someone killed is going to shock me anymore. And the senate still would never convict him.

fragamemnon said:
It's scary, because it's just as bad if it is coming from any part of the party. I don't want to inflame the people here that are legit good people,

Don't mind us. We all have horribly corrupt souls from being here 24/7.

just what I see like whenever I click through some of the posts embedded here (I should stop clicking through the posts embedded here!).

This is outstanding advice!

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
I mean if Sanders gets the plurality of delegates-not even the majority, I'm 100% all-in for him and anything else is complete injustice to the voters in the party.

But this goes back to a thread earlier today about talking through our party diversity and having a big tent, and what Warren said last night. Big tents need to be that, and while at this moment we have a clear unifying urgency because Trump is so terrible, what would things look like if there wasn't the giant urgent existential problem out there to unify us?

It's scary, because it's just as bad if it is coming from any part of the party. I don't want to inflame the people here that are legit good people, just what I see like whenever I click through some of the posts embedded here (I should stop clicking through the posts embedded here!) just isn't right and feels awful to read.

Trump is not that much different from any other republican in terms of their end goal. I would say Trump is going to be as good as it gets going forward, especially when the climate fascists start running in a decade or so.

Donald Trump isn't the urgent problem, it's the entire fascist republican party.

RastaMentality · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Trump is not that much different from any other republican in terms of their end goal. I would say Trump is going to be as good as it gets going forward, especially when the climate fascists start running in a decade or so.

Donald Trump isn't the urgent problem, it's the entire fascist republican party. i

This is true. A military hawk competent climate fascist Trump probably tops Andrew Johnson on WOAT list.

Icolin · Feb 13, 2020

bloomberg enters the posting wars

fragamemnon · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Donald Trump isn't the urgent problem, it's the entire fascist republican party.

There has to be some way to exorcise the Trumpist / facist part of the party from Republicans. Maybe it's just beating them senseless for a decade or more and forcing them to change, but we really can't go on with every election feeling like it's some kind of world ending nightmare if we slip up.

Mekanos · Feb 13, 2020

Icolin said:
bloomberg enters the posting wars

The meme world...?

Metal Gear Solid 2020, baby!

Crocodile · Feb 13, 2020

Most of the opportunities and time I get to talk about politics are online
Most of the online spaces I occupy are filled with young, left-leaning people
Many of those people have Sanders as their first choice
The vast majority of those people are pretty chill (its annoying I have to keep saying this very obvious point but it is what it is I suppose)
However, a good number of them, including people I know or follow for non-political reasons and even some of my friends, either have no idea what they are talking about or are kind of toxic when it comes to politics
I don't see this behavior as frequently with supporters of other candidates (even accounting for the fact I see fewer supporters of other candidates online)
That is frustrating, can leave a negative impression and can make online discourse a chore sometimes

This is my real, truthful experience. I'm just relaying what I'm seeing, I'm not trying to be an asshole. These aren't inflammatory statements and not a directed slander at any particular person. I should be allowed and able to say this without anyone taking offense, anyone assuming I wouldn't vote for Sanders in the GE, etc.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
Most of the opportunities and time I get to talk about politics are online
Most of the online spaces I occupy are filled with young, left-leaning people
Many of those people have Sanders as their first choice
The vast majority of those people are pretty chill (its annoying I have to keep saying this very obvious point but it is what it is I suppose)
However, a good number of them, including people I know or follow for non-political reasons and even some of my friends, either have no idea what they are talking about or are kind of toxic when it comes to politics
I don't see this behavior as frequently with supporters of other candidates (even accounting for the fact I see fewer supporters of other candidates online)
That is frustrating, can leave a negative impression and can make online discourse a chore sometimes

This is my real, truthful experience. I'm just relaying what I'm seeing, I'm not trying to be an asshole. These aren't inflammatory statements and not a directed slander at any particular person. I should be allowed and able to say this without anyone taking offense, anyone assuming I wouldn't vote for Sanders in the GE, etc.

Okay but what is the point of you saying this? What can anyone here do about your experiences? You should occupy different places if people are making you feel uncomfortable or tell them that they're making you feel uncomfortable. I dont share your experiences, the majority of Bernie people I interact with are great. I don't get what the point if this post is.

Ac30 · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
There has to be some way to exorcise the Trumpist / facist part of the party from Republicans. Maybe it's just beating them senseless for a decade or more and forcing them to change, but we really can't go on with every election feeling like it's some kind of world ending nightmare if we slip up.

Only if they start losing, repeatedly, will this change. The party itself is only a small part of the problem - the base is what's driving this, and they're totally onboard the white nationalist authoritarian train

JesseEwiak · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Okay but what is the point of you saying this? What can anyone here do about your experiences? You should occupy different places if people are making you feel uncomfortable or tell them that they're making you feel uncomfortable. I dont share your experiences, the majority of Bernie people I interact with are great. I don't get what the point if this post is.

Of course you're going to have good experiences with Bernie supporters online - you support Bernie. Meanwhile, anybody who doesn't follow the leftist line bit by bit, or more accurately, doesn't think Bernie and his campaign is doing everything correctly and perfectly, is treated as a Republican-lite neoliberal who wants to kill sick people.

AncientReptileBrain · Feb 13, 2020

JesseEwiak said:
Of course you're going to have good experiences with Bernie supporters online - you support Bernie. Meanwhile, anybody who doesn't follow the leftist line bit by bit, or more accurately, doesn't think Bernie and his campaign is doing everything correctly and perfectly, is treated as a Republican-lite neoliberal who wants to kill sick people.

i see a lot of this rhetoric here, but i don't see much actual discourse. like, okay... maybe instead of passively whining, quote an actual person and make an argument?

i don't say that aggressively. i'd like to see some back and forths -- who knows, I might learn something!

Crocodile · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Okay but what is the point of you saying this? What can anyone here do about your experiences? You should occupy different places if people are making you feel uncomfortable or tell them that they're making you feel uncomfortable. I dont share your experiences, the majority of Bernie people I interact with are great. I don't get what the point if this post is.

The last page and the start of this page was all about this topic. Addressing questions like: Is there a small minority of highly visible Sanders supporters contributing to intraparty disunity? How many of them? How big is this effect? Or is it a non-issue? I decided to contribute to the conversation by relaying my personal experiences.

FWIW, I don't think this is an online-only thing:

I don't think Sanders himself is especially divisive (I think he has improved on this point a lot from his 2016 campaign). But this is a real source of tension (but again is it a lot? is it a little?) that probably shouldn't be handwaved away. It's probably helpful to Sanders to not handwave it because margins matter and even a few extra votes can go a long way in the delegate game.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

JesseEwiak said:
Of course you're going to have good experiences with Bernie supporters online - you support Bernie. Meanwhile, anybody who doesn't follow the leftist line bit by bit, or more accurately, doesn't think Bernie and his campaign is doing everything correctly and perfectly, is treated as a Republican-lite neoliberal who wants to kill sick people.

I didn't know it was so bad. Jesus... the only thing I can think of that would stop the injustice of being called a neoliberal is if we all just came together and supported Bernie. Unify the party, put aside our differences, and deliver healthcare as a human right to everyone in this country.

Pixieking · Feb 13, 2020

Arm Van Dam said:
File this under "No fucking shit, Sherlock"

Whatyearisthis.jpg

Mekanos · Feb 13, 2020

JesseEwiak said:
Of course you're going to have good experiences with Bernie supporters online - you support Bernie. Meanwhile, anybody who doesn't follow the leftist line bit by bit, or more accurately, doesn't think Bernie and his campaign is doing everything correctly and perfectly, is treated as a Republican-lite neoliberal who wants to kill sick people.

So your response to a call for the ceasing of inflammatory generalizations is to use an inflammatory generalization?

Do you think you are improving the discussion by doing this?

This might be surprising, but there is a lot of disagreement in leftist circles, and painting this broad brush helps nobody.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
The last page and the start of this page was all about this topic. Addressing questions like: Is there a small minority of highly visible Sanders supporters contributing to intraparty disunity? How many of them? How big is this effect? Or is it a non-issue? I decided to contribute to the conversation by relaying my personal experiences.

FWIW, I don't think this is an online-only thing:

I don't think Sanders himself is especially divisive (I think he has improved on this point a lot from his 2016 campaign). But this is a real source of tension (but again is it a lot? is it a little?) that probably shouldn't be handwaved away. It's probably helpful to Sanders to not handwave it because margins matter and even a few extra votes can go a long way in the delegate game.

Again nobody here can do anything about your experiences, if someone is making you feel uncomfortable online, there are block/ignore/report tools on almost every social media site and I encourage you to use them. Bernie supporters get attacked just as harshly (probably even more so) than any other candidate's supporters.

JesseEwiak · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
I didn't know it was so bad. Jesus... the only thing I can think of that would stop the injustice of being called a neoliberal is if we all just came together and supported Bernie. Unify the party, put aside our differences, and deliver healthcare as a human right to everyone in this country.

I agree, we should guarantee health care as a human right, then look to a variety of countries like France, the Netherlands, Japan, Australia, and Germany who all do much better than America, instead of deciding that it's single payer or you want sick people to die. ,

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

JesseEwiak said:
I agree, we should guarantee health care as a human right, then look to a variety of countries like France, the Netherlands, Japan, Australia, and Germany who all do much better than America, instead of deciding that it's single payer or you want sick people to die. ,

Good, so I expect you to vote for Bernie in the primary.

JesseEwiak · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Good, so I expect you to vote for Bernie in the primary.

If the choice is actually between Bernie & Bloombeg and it's actually close here in Washington, I'll vote for Bernie.

Otherwise, I won't be shamed for my choice in voting, and either vote for Warren if she's still running, or write-in John Kerry.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

JesseEwiak said:
If the choice is actually between Bernie & Bloombeg and it's actually close here in Washington, I'll vote for Bernie.

Otherwise, I won't be shamed for my choice in voting, and either vote for Warren if she's still running, or write-in John Kerry.

If you want to vote for a candidate with a shot of winning that's going to guarantee health care as a human right, at this point it looks like Bernie is the only candidate for you. Welcome.

Crocodile · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Good, so I expect you to vote for Bernie in the primary.

All the Dem candidates (except maybe Bloomberg? I have no idea what his health plans are) believe healthcare is a human right. Just not everyone agrees Single-Payer is the only way to do that or the most likely way to succeed in the short term.

XMonkey · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
Trump is not that much different from any other republican in terms of their end goal. I would say Trump is going to be as good as it gets going forward, especially when the climate fascists start running in a decade or so.

Donald Trump isn't the urgent problem, it's the entire fascist republican party.

Uh, Trump is absolutely the urgent problem. As is the Republican Party. One we can deal with relatively soon, the other is gonna take time no matter what.

Steel · Feb 13, 2020

Icolin said:
bloomberg enters the posting wars

I mean, that's literally what 4chan Trump supporters did. If it's effective my negative faith in humanity will dig even deeper, but I could see it helping Bloomer. I hate everything about his rise.

fragamemnon · Feb 13, 2020

I want to go back to a post/linked item earlier today about Amy Klobuchar:

Klobuchar: ‘We need to build a big tent’ for anti-abortion Democrats

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a “big tent” for people of different beliefs, including those …

thehill.com

Now it's important to note here that she's pro-choice, would 100% put in pro-choice judges, fully fund planned parenthood, get rid of the terrible gag rule, etc. Basically be indistinguishable from any other Democrat in practice.

There are going to be places in the country that elect conservative Democrats that are against abortion personally-maybe even horrified by it-but still pro-choice for all the reasons that makes sense to the rest of us. They speak about it in complicated terms to their constituents because it's a complicated issue, and their constituents understand because they are nuanced and complicated on it too. Their supporters aren't single-issue abortion voters, because people are generally complicated and not one-dimensional. But if you ask those voters "are you OK with abortion, yes/no?", they would flat out say "no, I hate it". And the most important policy positions on abortion are on flashpoint issues that are hard to talk about without shutting people out.

Is there room for elected officials and even rank and file members like them in the party? Does the "big tent" apply? Would the party ever seriously consider compromising to pass something that is a huge leap forward, such as federal law cementing Roe vs. Wade or getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, so that we can have a bill that passes and helps cover the exposed flank of our party that is living in areas where abortion is unpopular?

edit: I know this is a flashpoint, distorting mess of an issue, but the reaction to that article blew my mind in the other thread and I still don't know what to make of why listening and trying to include people who disagree on the issue was an immediate non-starter to the point of immediately disqualifying a candidate for suggesting that we don't shut them out.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
All the Dem candidates (except maybe Bloomberg? I have no idea what his health plans are) believe healthcare is a human right. Just not everyone agrees Single-Payer is the only way to do that or the most likely way to succeed in the short term.

I don't agree with this statement, Warren and Bernie were the only two candidates who were serious about delivering healthcare as a human right in some fashion, and Warren unfortunately has dropped off worse than I'd ever hope for.

XMonkey said:
Uh, Trump is absolutely the urgent problem. As is the Republican Party. One we can deal with relatively soon, the other is gonna take time no matter what.

The republican party has been the urgent problem for a large number of different communities and people outside the white rich one for a very long time, Trump is a urgent problem and it's vital we win but removing him on it's own is not going to fix the issues that continue to bring us republican presidents.

BADMAN · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
I want to go back to a post/linked item earlier today about Amy Klobuchar:

Klobuchar: ‘We need to build a big tent’ for anti-abortion Democrats

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a “big tent” for people of different beliefs, including those …

thehill.com

Now it's important to note here that she's pro-choice, would 100% put in pro-choice judges, fully fund planned parenthood, get rid of the terrible gag rule, etc. Basically be indistinguishable from any other Democrat in practice.

There are going to be places in the country that elect conservative Democrats that are against abortion personally-maybe even horrified by it-but still pro-choice for all the reasons that makes sense to the rest of us. They speak about it in complicated terms to their constituents because it's a complicated issue, and their constituents understand because they are nuanced and complicated on it too. Their supporters aren't single-issue abortion voters, because people are generally complicated and not one-dimensional. But if you ask those voters "are you OK with abortion, yes/no?", they would flat out say "no, I hate it". And the most important policy positions on abortion are on flashpoint issues that are hard to talk about without shutting people out.

Is there room for elected officials and even rank and file members like them in the party? Does the "big tent" apply? Would the party ever seriously consider compromising to pass something that is a huge leap forward, such as federal law cementing Roe vs. Wade or getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, that does so in a way that protects its majorities?

The problem here is the specific language of building a "big tent". It's been used in the past to justify center-right polices or to can center-left policies. Building a "bigger tent" might start off with having a nuanced discussion on abortion, but the path leads to securing states rights over abortion.

In other words, it sounds like she's willing to allow republican states to effectively ban abortion.

Steel · Feb 13, 2020

Boss said:
The republican party has been the urgent problem for a large number of different communities and people outside the white rich one for a very long time, Trump is a urgent problem and it's vital we win but removing him on it's own is not going to fix the issues that continue to bring us republican presidents.

The only way to fix the issue of continuing to get republican Presidents is to always run someone exciting, and never run anyone who's not a perfect public speaker. If you're thinking people vote for pubs because of actual economic anxiety well...

BADMAN said:
The problem here is the specific language of building a "big tent". It's been used in the past to justify center-right polices or to can center-left policies. Building a "bigger tent" might start off with having a nuanced discussion on abortion, but the path leads to securing states rights over abortion.

In other words, it sounds like she's willing to allow republican states to effectively ban abortion.

That's a stretch, it seems especially like a stretch after the defense of the Joe Rogan stuff.

Mekanos · Feb 13, 2020

The Democrat party should, in theory, stand for something, and I think women's rights is a pretty good thing to stand for.

A woman's right to choose abortion isn't a stance you can really compromise on. It's either they can or they can't.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

fragamemnon said:
I want to go back to a post/linked item earlier today about Amy Klobuchar:

Klobuchar: ‘We need to build a big tent’ for anti-abortion Democrats

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a “big tent” for people of different beliefs, including those …

thehill.com

Now it's important to note here that she's pro-choice, would 100% put in pro-choice judges, fully fund planned parenthood, get rid of the terrible gag rule, etc. Basically be indistinguishable from any other Democrat in practice.

There are going to be places in the country that elect conservative Democrats that are against abortion personally-maybe even horrified by it-but still pro-choice for all the reasons that makes sense to the rest of us. They speak about it in complicated terms to their constituents because it's a complicated issue, and their constituents understand because they are nuanced and complicated on it too. Their supporters aren't single-issue abortion voters, because people are generally complicated and not one-dimensional. But if you ask those voters "are you OK with abortion, yes/no?", they would flat out say "no, I hate it". And the most important policy positions on abortion are on flashpoint issues that are hard to talk about without shutting people out.

Is there room for elected officials and even rank and file members like them in the party? Does the "big tent" apply? Would the party ever seriously consider compromising to pass something that is a huge leap forward, such as federal law cementing Roe vs. Wade or getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, so that we can have a bill that passes and helps cover the exposed flank of our party that is living in areas where abortion is unpopular?

edit: I know this is a flashpoint, distorting mess of an issue, but the reaction to that article blew my mind in the other thread and I still don't know what to make of why listening and trying to include people who disagree on the issue was an immediate non-starter to the point of immediately disqualifying a candidate for suggesting that we don't shut them out.

I don't think we should be having discussions about a woman's right to her own body in 2020.

JesseEwiak · Feb 13, 2020

Mekanos said:
The Democrat party should, in theory, stand for something, and I think women's rights is a pretty good thing to stand for.

A woman's right to choose abortion isn't a stance you can really compromise on. It's either they can or they can't.

So, do you think the Democratic Party should not have endorsed John Bel Edwards, and thus, been OK with Medicaid not being expanded in that state, because I can tell you, there's zero chance a pro-choice Democrat is winning in Lousiana anytime soon.

BADMAN · Feb 13, 2020

Steel said:
The only way to fix the issue of continuing to get republican Presidents is to always run someone exciting, and never run anyone who's not a perfect public speaker. If you're thinking people vote for pubs because of actual economic anxiety well...

That's a stretch, it seems especially like a stretch after the defense of the Joe Rogan stuff.

I trust Sanders isn't going to change policy to appeal to people, but Klobuchar will. It's the moderate M.O.

Boss · Feb 13, 2020

Steel said:
The only way to fix the issue of continuing to get republican Presidents is to always run someone exciting, and never run anyone who's not a perfect public speaker. If you're thinking people vote for pubs because of actual economic anxiety well...

There are actually structural issues in regards to stuff like this and I don't think the only solution is having charismatic candidates.

Psamtik · Feb 13, 2020

Crocodile said:
I don't think Sanders himself is especially divisive (I think he has improved on this point a lot from his 2016 campaign). But this is a real source of tension (but again is it a lot? is it a little?) that probably shouldn't be handwaved away. It's probably helpful to Sanders to not handwave it because margins matter and even a few extra votes can go a long way in the delegate game.

It's definitely off-putting. I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary and will gladly do it again, but there's a really ugly element among the Extremely Online and it feels inescapable. I've found myself unfollowing some gaming personalities, podcasters, etc. whose work I've enjoyed for years - decades! - because it's just this endless stream of Chapo-adjacent Rat Pete shit, or whatever Enemy of Bernie must be destroyed this week.

JesseEwiak · Feb 13, 2020

BADMAN said:
I trust Sanders isn't going to change policy to appeal to people, but Klobuchar will. It's the moderate M.O.

I mean, except Sanders has already done that multiple times in his career.

Now, it's mostly been for good reasons, but for example, Sanders changed his position on immigration to appeal to people. In the early-to-mid 2000's, Sanders seemingly changed his position on gay marriage to be for national civil rights and called gay marriage a divisive issue, to appeal to people. He changed his position on guns, to appeal to people.

Also, Klob has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.

If you're OK with getting anti-trans voters who agree with Medicare for All, as long as you don't change positions on trans rights, there should be no issue with somebody w/ a 100% rating from PP saying anti-choice people are welcome, as part of the party.

US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]

User requested account closure

self-requested ban

▲ Legend ▲

User requested account closure

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

▲ Legend ▲

▲ Legend ▲

▲ Legend ▲

▲ Legend ▲