The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
The second sentence of the article:
On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles.
The Democrats aren't shifting right, they're looking to pull Trump left.
That's usually how its framed. But its dumb because they can't introduce any legislation. The GOP will kill everything in committee at best.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
The second sentence of the article:
On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles.
The Democrats aren't shifting right, they're looking to pull Trump left.
That's usually how its framed. But its dumb because they can't introduce any legislation. The GOP will kill everything in committee at best.
Trump would probably be far less inclined to not call out the GOP for getting in his way.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
The second sentence of the article:
On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles.
The Democrats aren't shifting right, they're looking to pull Trump left.
That's usually how its framed. But its dumb because they can't introduce any legislation. The GOP will kill everything in committee at best.
If trump introduces good legislation I absolutely want dems to vote for it. It will give them fine cover in swing states.
"Hey now, I voted with trump to expand maternity leave and for a new bridge right here in Wyoming. The Republicans wouldn't let him build it! Who has your back here? Me or my opponent!"
And then they can use that cover to filibuster and delay all the horrible crap. Trump likes succeeding more than anything else. He'll give up if he starts getting frustrated with things.
Every days delay in horrible shit counts. Demographics are changing. Views are changing. We can hold the line.
Trumps policy is going to be whatever the last person that whispered in his ear says. He has no ideology, and certainly no overarching interests. This is where the congress is really going to fuck us, because they do have those things and they are bent on dismantling the 20th century.
Apparently Trump has said he's going to Ban all lobbyists from Washington? There's a huge loophole in the "Registered" part but that seems a bit odd...Aren't lobbyists kinda....important? I mean, it's not just NRA lobbyist, it's environmental and all kinds of other good lobbyists.
Dems are going to have be very selective with the filibuster, others the pubs will absolutely nuke it.
They ain't going to put up with the bullshit they themselves did.
I think Republicans at one point or another have shown that they realize nuking the filibuster would eventually bite them in the ass extremely hard.
They had the chance back during Bush, when they controlled everything. The main argument against it was exactly this.
Then again, this was pre-Tea Party, so who knows?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."
This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy.
Now, will something come of this? We'll see, I guess.
Apparently Trump has said he's going to Ban all lobbyists from Washington? There's a huge loophole in the "Registered" part but that seems a bit odd...Aren't lobbyists kinda....important? I mean, it's not just NRA lobbyist, it's environmental and all kinds of other good lobbyists.
This is something I've brought up in discussions with people when they talk about curtailing lobbying, that when you do so you're not just eliminating lobbyists for groups you don't like or disagree with but also the ones you like and agree with.
On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."
This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy.
Now, will something come of this? We'll see, I guess.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
The second sentence of the article:
On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles.
The Democrats aren't shifting right, they're looking to pull Trump left.
That's usually how its framed. But its dumb because they can't introduce any legislation. The GOP will kill everything in committee at best.
Let them, Dems need to fight back. Show the populace what they're fighting for them - give them bills that would be bad PR for them to kill or not bring to a vote. Dems need bills and policies to work with, and the GOP to give reasons for ignoring or destroying, then advertise this everywhere - the press, internet, interviews, websites etc.
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
It's stupid, because the GOP is never going to let those bills out of committee, or of they do, they'll attach so many shitty amendments that Dems end up either voting against "maternity leave" or whatever, or being implicit in fucking over minorities to get it through for white women only.
And then Donald might change his mind and not sign it anyway!
The only winning move is not to play.
That's worse than the current situation, it basically leaves America without an opposition party to Trump and his administration. It'll depress turn outs further and alienate voting blocs on our own side. Why would they stay with Dems if they give up fighting for them?
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
It's stupid, because the GOP is never going to let those bills out of committee, or of they do, they'll attach so many shitty amendments that Dems end up either voting against "maternity leave" or whatever, or being implicit in fucking over minorities to get it through for white women only.
And then Donald might change his mind and not sign it anyway!
The only winning move is not to play.
That's worse than the current situation, it basically leaves America without an opposition party to Trump and his administration. It'll depress turn outs further and alienate voting blocs on our own side. Why would they stay with Dems if they give up fighting for them?
"not playing" as in refusing to let the GOP pass anything, good or bad--basically, running the GOP's own playbook against them. Did Obama have no opposition party?
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
It's stupid, because the GOP is never going to let those bills out of committee, or of they do, they'll attach so many shitty amendments that Dems end up either voting against "maternity leave" or whatever, or being implicit in fucking over minorities to get it through for white women only.
And then Donald might change his mind and not sign it anyway!
The only winning move is not to play.
That's worse than the current situation, it basically leaves America without an opposition party to Trump and his administration. It'll depress turn outs further and alienate voting blocs on our own side. Why would they stay with Dems if they give up fighting for them?
"not playing" as in refusing to let the GOP pass anything, good or bad--basically, running the GOP's own playbook against them. Did Obama have no opposition party?
I misread you. Sure do that, and what I suggested. Bills like the above also present an opportunity to drive a wedge further between the establishment/moderates and Trump's administration.
Here's hoping that Pegida and the AfD don't become any more mainstream or stronger.
Luckily, the CSU is filling that niche nicely..
Edit: the CSU is the Bavarian sister party of the CDU, Merkel's party. They're always a bit more to the right and coined the phrase "no space to the right of us", either meaning "no one to the right of us is electable" or "we will run to the right was far as we can", depending on how you see it..
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
Agreed. Lets not lump all midwesterners into Trump's core supporter, which is part of the problem.
I fell into a linkhole and ended up at a Vice article from last month that listed the rejected Clinton campaign slogans. And I'll never complain about Stronger Together again.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Posts
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
Plus the main fuckups are going to be his responding to events terribly.
his policy right now is maternity leave. not parental leave. it's only for working mothers. unless they drastically changed it. I can't remember.
That's usually how its framed. But its dumb because they can't introduce any legislation. The GOP will kill everything in committee at best.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Trump would probably be far less inclined to not call out the GOP for getting in his way.
If trump introduces good legislation I absolutely want dems to vote for it. It will give them fine cover in swing states.
"Hey now, I voted with trump to expand maternity leave and for a new bridge right here in Wyoming. The Republicans wouldn't let him build it! Who has your back here? Me or my opponent!"
And then they can use that cover to filibuster and delay all the horrible crap. Trump likes succeeding more than anything else. He'll give up if he starts getting frustrated with things.
Every days delay in horrible shit counts. Demographics are changing. Views are changing. We can hold the line.
They ain't going to put up with the bullshit they themselves did.
A good reminder on why I left South Africa.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-administration-will-ban-lobbyists-enact-five-year-lobbying-ban-after-leaving-government/ar-AAkoz5i?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
They had the chance back during Bush, when they controlled everything. The main argument against it was exactly this.
Then again, this was pre-Tea Party, so who knows?
I think you might see it fall this time around though, especially whenever trump nominates whatever terrifying supreme court nominee he goes with
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Looks like KO climbed out from under his week long post-election bender.
---
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/will-congress-investigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign Now, will something come of this? We'll see, I guess.
This is something I've brought up in discussions with people when they talk about curtailing lobbying, that when you do so you're not just eliminating lobbyists for groups you don't like or disagree with but also the ones you like and agree with.
No nothing will come of this
Well, what they felt back in all the way in even just 2006-ish can't be counted on anymore..
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Let them, Dems need to fight back. Show the populace what they're fighting for them - give them bills that would be bad PR for them to kill or not bring to a vote. Dems need bills and policies to work with, and the GOP to give reasons for ignoring or destroying, then advertise this everywhere - the press, internet, interviews, websites etc.
That's worse than the current situation, it basically leaves America without an opposition party to Trump and his administration. It'll depress turn outs further and alienate voting blocs on our own side. Why would they stay with Dems if they give up fighting for them?
"not playing" as in refusing to let the GOP pass anything, good or bad--basically, running the GOP's own playbook against them. Did Obama have no opposition party?
Tell me again I'm paranoid for seeing the fascist parallels in our rather recent past.
I misread you. Sure do that, and what I suggested. Bills like the above also present an opportunity to drive a wedge further between the establishment/moderates and Trump's administration.
Hey, it's just a little yellow star and crescent to be attached visibly to any Muslim's clothing, it's not a big deal.
Hey why are those internment camps suddenly producing such a smoke?
It's not an internment camp; it's protective custody! We put them there for their protection!
Why is the soap stone? No reason...
The protective custody is necessary because the people would hurt them!
Due process is not necessary, what are you, an enemy of America?
We've got a camp for that, too..
'until we get a handle on how to do background checks' probably means forever
This year, Cthulu resigned because it wasn't evil enough.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Luckily, the CSU is filling that niche nicely..
Edit: the CSU is the Bavarian sister party of the CDU, Merkel's party. They're always a bit more to the right and coined the phrase "no space to the right of us", either meaning "no one to the right of us is electable" or "we will run to the right was far as we can", depending on how you see it..
http://m.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-services-alarmed-about-potential-russian-interference-in-elections/a-36413582
I think some years down the line, things like this would be considered an act of war
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
Agreed. Lets not lump all midwesterners into Trump's core supporter, which is part of the problem.
https://news.vice.com/story/clinton-rejected-campaign-slogans-wikileaks
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.