My genuine wish is that someday it will be acceptable to point out the Democrats' failings, half-assed efforts, or half-hearted messaging, without fear campaigning ("OH YEAH WELL TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS") coming into the picture at all.
You can complain about the Democrats all you want. People do it all the time, on this forum, within the political left, etc, etc. But it will remain true that there is no alternative for the kind of legislative and governmental actions being discussed here.
We've been highlighting specific things the Democrats could be doing that they aren't. For pages now. I'm not sure why it keeps getting ignored or turned into another patronizing lecture.
Because, as the part of the conversation you have been ignoring for pages continually responded, is that even while the Democrats don't do all the things we want them to, you can't change their political priorities without proof of concept for it securing elections. Specifically by winning local/down-ticket elections on the platform and in primaries (where possible).
Why should I have to prove to Democratic leadership that its in their best interest to actually argue for and fight for the things they already claim to believe in?
Maybe we could keep running on "well the GOP is really really bad on this issue guys". Its worked wonders so far.
My genuine wish is that someday it will be acceptable to point out the Democrats' failings, half-assed efforts, or half-hearted messaging, without fear campaigning ("OH YEAH WELL TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS") coming into the picture at all.
I know right?
And what else I know is you and others are complaining that the Democrats aren't worth supporting.
Well, since you didn't ask, my actual position is that the Democrats are blinded by the comfort of their class and their own white privilege and best case scenario are hollowed out from the actual left and having their corpse worn like we're trying to evade the Men in Black. They've inherited tools they don't know how to use and are going to get us killed.
They shouldn't be treated as allies, but the least powerful opposition.
[removed]
CelestialBadger on
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
My genuine wish is that someday it will be acceptable to point out the Democrats' failings, half-assed efforts, or half-hearted messaging, without fear campaigning ("OH YEAH WELL TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS") coming into the picture at all.
You can complain about the Democrats all you want. People do it all the time, on this forum, within the political left, etc, etc. But it will remain true that there is no alternative for the kind of legislative and governmental actions being discussed here.
We've been highlighting specific things the Democrats could be doing that they aren't. For pages now. I'm not sure why it keeps getting ignored or turned into another patronizing lecture.
It's like there's a cognitive inability to envision someone who would vote against a Dem in the primary, vote for that Dem in the general, and still criticize that Democrat.
"I don't like what they did during the DACA shutdown."
"We have a two party system. You want a Republican? This is how it is. Use primaries to get rid of them. Still vote for them in the general."
"Doing that already. Am I allowed to criticize them or discuss their missteps now? No, I still don't understand the system? Okay."
Except step 1 is actually
"The Dems arent worthy of my support and I won't vote for them".
Sometimes, sure it is. For people who say that, perhaps it's worth examining how they got to that point instead of bludgeoning them with "What are you gonna do? Vote Republican?"
That's pretty much immediately step 1 as soon as a Democrat kinda fucks up.
Like y'all were saying that because they decided they wouldn't burn the whole country down for DACA.
And again i get why some folks are down for burning it all down. Unfortunately burning it all down hurts a whole shit load of folks, and isn't a light decision
This is actually scary. People left-of-center who would prefer the country burns than vote for a Democrat, because Democrats aren't perfect. It makes me think of a child who asks for a chicken sandwich, but gets a turkey sandwich and throws a fit because turkey isn't quite as good.
This kind of shit is super fucking tedious and bears no resemblence to anything I've actually argued. Its just emergency rhetoric. "Break in case of Criticism".
You don't stay home on election day to "teach them a lesson" because the only lesson they learn is that you are a non-voter who can be safely ignored.
The quotation marks are funny because it implies I said something I never actually did.
My genuine wish is that someday it will be acceptable to point out the Democrats' failings, half-assed efforts, or half-hearted messaging, without fear campaigning ("OH YEAH WELL TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS") coming into the picture at all.
You can complain about the Democrats all you want. People do it all the time, on this forum, within the political left, etc, etc. But it will remain true that there is no alternative for the kind of legislative and governmental actions being discussed here.
And there is a group of people forever excusing the Democrats' legit shortcomings on immigration reform (and other issues). The Democrats can somehow never be wrong or at fault for things.
As we're seeing, some of you are outright berating us for being critical. "Go do it yourself then!" as Enc has been posting. Yes let me start my political career right now and maybe in a couple decades I'll be in a position to have a seat and hope other people have seats too?
Or maybe we can tell or representatives (who by the nature of their jobs need to be listening to their constituents) to handle the matter and handle it right. And in the position where they don't have the votes, don't abandon the cause or put out "oh well" type messaging.
Sure, you can do that. It doesn't change the facts though, which is that there is no alternative solution here that doesn't involve electing Democrats.
You asked when it would be acceptable for people to not point out that the other option is actively working against your policy desires. The answer is never because it is and will remain true. It's a basic fact of the system.
PS - ENC's point is that if you are mad about what the Democrats are doing the answer is to change the party. And part of that is getting involved in the politics of the party at some level or another. Doesn't mean you have to run or become a Senator or something but pressure pushing upwards from the lower levels of the party changes things.
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
And for that matter, immigration reform has constantly been tabled and pushed to the tail end of terms. Which means there's no time to actually get the task done. You can say that the Dems will fix this as soon as they are in power again but there's enough history in our lifetimes to show that they sit on their hands on the issue. Even before Trump and the current GOP cocked things up to be worse, things were bad. Which means the Democrats were okay with things being bad. And that isn't good enough anymore. "Well we won't make things better but we won't make things worse either!" People view it as an oppressive choice either way.
PS - ENC's point is that if you are mad about what the Democrats are doing the answer is to change the party. And part of that is getting involved in the politics of the party at some level or another. Doesn't mean you have to run or become a Senator or something but pressure pushing upwards from the lower levels of the party changes things.
lmao I just posted in favor of replacing party leadership and moving the entire machine left and I get accused of "burning down the country". Its not honest.
Thinking about how nasty people get to immigrants when they get angry about something or -God forbid- vocal about it, it comes down to how people view the role of immigrants in the service of their politics. The point of your Mexican, black, whatever immigrant is to be a kind of colorful accessory, and you become virtuous by the association. But the point of an accessory is to make you look good and not to yap yap yap angrily about whatever its dumbass wants. What people want immigration to be about, above all else, is themselves.
This seems a strange read of the situation considering these exact kind of arguments have happened around every issue on the left where the party and it's supporters aren't seeing eye to eye. I can remember these exact same arguments and comments around third-party voting as far back as 2001. It's like the basic dynamic of left-wing politics.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
And for that matter, immigration reform has constantly been tabled and pushed to the tail end of terms. Which means there's no time to actually get the task done. You can say that the Dems will fix this as soon as they are in power again but there's enough history in our lifetimes to show that they sit on their hands on the issue. Even before Trump and the current GOP cocked things up to be worse, things were bad. Which means the Democrats were okay with things being bad. And that isn't good enough anymore. "Well we won't make things better but we won't make things worse either!" People view it as an oppressive choice either way.
Look at the legislative history. It passed multiple times. The only reason it's not law is because of the filibustering- which was maintained mostly by Republican action (and a couple red state DS trying and failing to appease their racist electorate).
So yes they could have passed it. By nuking the fillibuster. Would you like Trump with a 50 vote majority instead of 60? Because I would not.
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
Fencingsax on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Campaigns are built on promises. Conviction means those promises get acted on. As I've said, Democrats have had multiple opportunities in my lifetime to get immigration reform pushed through, but they don't because they don't care. They campaign that they do, but then they don't act.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
This is actually scary. People left-of-center who would prefer the country burns than vote for a Democrat, because Democrats aren't perfect. It makes me think of a child who asks for a chicken sandwich, but gets a turkey sandwich and throws a fit because turkey isn't quite as good.
This kind of shit is super fucking tedious and bears no resemblence to anything I've actually argued. Its just emergency rhetoric. "Break in case of Criticism".
I genuinely don't understand how you can read people's posts on this forum and conclude that they refuse to criticize Democratic politicians. I mean the things that have been said about Harry Reid alone...
I and many other have many criticisms for Democrats, but I refuse to pretend that because they don't go as far on many issues as I wish they would that they are remotely the same as Republicans. Or that refusing to vote as though 'this time they'll learn their lesson' is a good idea.
I want them to stand up and fight! Not just for the DACA kids but for all immigrants! I think it would be a winning position as well as the right thing to do to be seen standing up for them. I also live in a liberal Massachusetts bubble so I can't claim to know for sure that it would be the case, but I do wish they would try.
This is actually scary. People left-of-center who would prefer the country burns than vote for a Democrat, because Democrats aren't perfect. It makes me think of a child who asks for a chicken sandwich, but gets a turkey sandwich and throws a fit because turkey isn't quite as good.
This kind of shit is super fucking tedious and bears no resemblence to anything I've actually argued. Its just emergency rhetoric. "Break in case of Criticism".
I genuinely don't understand how you can read people's posts on this forum and conclude that they refuse to criticize Democratic politicians. I mean the things that have been said about Harry Reid alone...
I and many other have many criticisms for Democrats, but I refuse to pretend that because they don't go as far on many issues as I wish they would that they are remotely the same as Republicans. Or that refusing to vote as though 'this time they'll learn their lesson' is a good idea.
I want them to stand up and fight! Not just for the DACA kids but for all immigrants! I think it would be a winning position as well as the right thing to do to be seen standing up for them. I also live in a liberal Massachusetts bubble so I can't claim to know for sure that it would be the case, but I do wish they would try.
I've never said or advocated either of these things.
I don't know how "Democratic lack of conviction hurts their election chances" gets translated into "don't vote to teach them a lesson".
Styrofoam Sammich on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
So they got the vote the demanded, they lost; as they have every time it's come up so far. Should they have stayed in shutdown? Maybe. But saying for sure that that would have got them anything doesn't seem plausible to me.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2018
We're advocating the Democrats get their shit together and at least continue believing in doing the right things. How does that end up as "oh so you want the Republicans to win in 2018" in some of your eyes? Is there an implication that the Democrats shouldn't change / be changed going on?
Henroid on
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
My genuine wish is that someday it will be acceptable to point out the Democrats' failings, half-assed efforts, or half-hearted messaging, without fear campaigning ("OH YEAH WELL TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS") coming into the picture at all.
You can complain about the Democrats all you want. People do it all the time, on this forum, within the political left, etc, etc. But it will remain true that there is no alternative for the kind of legislative and governmental actions being discussed here.
We've been highlighting specific things the Democrats could be doing that they aren't. For pages now. I'm not sure why it keeps getting ignored or turned into another patronizing lecture.
Because, as the part of the conversation you have been ignoring for pages continually responded, is that even while the Democrats don't do all the things we want them to, you can't change their political priorities without proof of concept for it securing elections. Specifically by winning local/down-ticket elections on the platform and in primaries (where possible).
So Democrats shouldn't do what's right RE: immigration reform / stopping people being deported, they should only do what is safest for their political career?
Should? No. In an ideal world they would do what's right for that purpose. We don't live in that world. National politicians of all stripes are career politicians. Every last one of them. They are motivated by:
What threatens their re-election (showing in primaries and down-ticket that if they don't support this cause they will be flipped for someone who does).
What advances their career (showing that if they support an issue, they will have more opportunities for advancement).
What their personal grudge/focus issue is (which is the reason they got into politics, usually a local, but specific, issue that impacted them in their youth).
And they are motivated in that order. This has been the case since the first elections in the US, and has only grown to be more of a career process over time due to how highly we fund our politicians, how well they are able to accept lobby money legally, and how few term limits we have across our congress. For that to change you would need the politicians themselves to vote to end their benefits, set regular term limits, and lower their salary to minimum wage or set by the people via national election. Nobody is going to do this. It will never happen, regardless of political affiliation.
So it really comes down to pressuring your legislative folks via the first two items, because that third item is where things get wild. For democrats, the third item is usually a progressive, improving quality of life for people like themselves (and perhaps others) they drove them into politics. For the GOP, it is almost always based on racism, corporate profits, or ensuring the family fortune.
Which is where we are coming from when we talk about this through pragmatism. Both parties are shit by their structure, especially at the national level, but there is a significant difference between the two as far as the health of the nation.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Campaigns are built on promises. Conviction means those promises get acted on. As I've said, Democrats have had multiple opportunities in my lifetime to get immigration reform pushed through, but they don't because they don't care. They campaign that they do, but then they don't act.
So what's DACA then? The whole thing we are arguing about? Was it "nothing"? It's an immigration amnesty enacted by the Democrats. They wanted to go further but Republicans blocked them.
Block everything they can, hold up Congress with endless speeches. Hold rallies in front of Congress. File endless demands for information from ICE and relevant organizations. Threaten legal proceedings for ICE abuses. Get in front of every mic and camera and talk show they can. Lay down in front of a fucking bus.
Join the protests that form, speak out more, start campaigning on this issue.
Anyone arguing about this in the vacuum of "right now with this Congressional makeup" is doing so in an effort to make the Democrats the powerless victims as opposed to the immigrants in danger of being deported.
You are like a person whose home is burned down by an arsonist, but you don't blame the arsonist, you blame the fire department who couldn't save it. After you voted to cut the fire department funding.
Maybe don't blame the mexican-american for people facing deportation because he's unhappy with Dem choices.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
Maybe don't blame the mexican-american for people facing deportation because he's unhappy with Dem choices.
I want Democrats to do better on immigration, which is why I want them in power. The more power they get, the more opportunity they have to show conviction. When they hang onto power by a hair's breadth, they have to pay more lip-service to the semi-regressives in their rank. For instance, the Democrats have to take into account the anti-immigrant feeling in blue-collar left-leaning white midwesterners, because they need their votes. If they could luxuriate in a solid majority, they'd be more able to say "Let's listen to someone else's concerns for a while."
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
Democratic leaders are backing off of their demand that "Dreamer" protections be a part of the 2018 budget negotiations.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders had hinged their support for last month’s budget caps deal on a commitment from Republicans to consider legislation salvaging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, they’ve signaled they won’t hold a similar line heading into next week’s expected vote on an omnibus spending bill.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Campaigns are built on promises. Conviction means those promises get acted on. As I've said, Democrats have had multiple opportunities in my lifetime to get immigration reform pushed through, but they don't because they don't care. They campaign that they do, but then they don't act.
So what's DACA then? The whole thing we are arguing about? Was it "nothing"? It's an immigration amnesty enacted by the Democrats. They wanted to go further but Republicans blocked them.
You are like a person whose home is burned down by an arsonist, but you don't blame the arsonist, you blame the fire department who couldn't save it. After you voted to cut the fire department funding. You congratulate yourself in cutting the fire department funding, since they are useless wastes of space who never intended to try and save your house anyway.
Comments that get personal like this are not helpful to discourse. Refrain from them going forward.
Maybe don't blame the mexican-american for people facing deportation because he's unhappy with Dem choices.
I want Democrats to do better on immigration, which is why I want them in power. The more power they get, the more opportunity they have to show conviction. When they hang onto power by a hair's breadth, they have to pay more lip-service to the semi-regressives in their rank. For instance, the Democrats have to take into account the anti-immigrant feeling in blue-collar left-leaning white midwesterners, because they need their votes. If they could luxuriate in a solid majority, they'd be more able to say "Let's listen to someone else's concerns for a while."
Almost the entire country is being swept up in a disgusted recoil and we're supposed to tamp down on the base's enthusiasm I guess.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
But I want the vote to win, and getting there means voting for democrats.h
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
What is that point exactly?
They aren't thinking like technocrats, they are thinking like legislators. The bill can't pass so nothing can be done till after the election.
Now some people are calling for a stand on the issue anyway. Make some noise and so on. Balanced against that are the downsides of pushing this issue hard and the opportunity cost of focusing on this rather then other potentially achievable asks in upcoming legislation.
And I'm genuinely unsure if they could actually make enough noise to satisfy people legitimately pissed off about what is happening with Dreamers because ultimately you can't actually fix the issue till a little under a year from now assuming November goes well.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
What is that point exactly?
They aren't thinking like technocrats, they are thinking like legislators. The bill can't pass so nothing can be done till after the election.
Now some people are calling for a stand on the issue anyway. Make some noise and so on. Balanced against that are the downsides of pushing this issue hard and the opportunity cost of focusing on this rather then other potentially achievable asks in upcoming legislation.
We've gone over this so, so many times. Their job does not start and end with floor votes.
Only the Democrats would hand wring over the downsides of pushing for something that's wildly popular.
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
The activists seem to be spending most of their time yelling at people who already support them so on this issue maybe not. There are exceptions though:
(And this is coming from someone who thinks the Dems aren't great at messaging)
Basically the question is this: Would a shutdown convince anyone who didn't vote Yes to vote Yes. How does this pressure the GOP to pass the bill or failing that lead to a majority in November that will.
Right now they think the answer to that is "It won't". Part of that is they didn't handle it well last time. Even assuming perfect messaging though I'm not sure it would work.
The vote will not win because the Republicans are going to vote against it. You can't really fix that without getting Republicans out of power.
And you can't get them out of power unless you can convince people that the only alternative party will do what they want them to.
Which people don't.
That is why they don't vote for Democrats. Because following the end of Carter's administration, and the rightward push to regain "Reagan Democrats," former core groups of the Democratic constituency have felt abandoned and as though they only get the barest of assurances that the Party leadership and it's representatives in Congress care (in part because part of the shift after Reagan was to up and abandon the classical constituencies of the party, in favor of a rightward shift believed to appeal to the Reagan Democrat), which don't get followed up on. But oh man do the prerogatives of their donors get followed up on.
Also for those proclaiming the ability to shape the party through primaries: What happens when your representative or senator is running unopposed? What do you do then when you're an average citizen who either doesn't meet the constitutional requirements or the funds or any myriad other reason that keeps them from running themselves?
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
What is that point exactly?
They aren't thinking like technocrats, they are thinking like legislators. The bill can't pass so nothing can be done till after the election.
Now some people are calling for a stand on the issue anyway. Make some noise and so on. Balanced against that are the downsides of pushing this issue hard and the opportunity cost of focusing on this rather then other potentially achievable asks in upcoming legislation.
We've gone over this so, so many times. Their job does not start and end with floor votes.
Only the Democrats would hand wring over the downsides of pushing for something that's wildly popular.
Legislating actually does end with floor votes. No votes, no law, no policy change.
And it's not really wildly popular in a way that matters. Gun control is wildly popular too but goes nowhere because it doesn't have the right kind and distribution of support.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to actually show some conviction on things. Using the word "perfect" mischaracterizes the criticism with hyperbole.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
So what's the threshold?
We're talking about immigration reform and stopping people from being deported. The threshold is easy to figure out.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
We know that, please stop repeating it. If you would listen, the point is the Democrats messaged surrender rather than continued vigilance when they get the chance.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
What is that point exactly?
They aren't thinking like technocrats, they are thinking like legislators. The bill can't pass so nothing can be done till after the election.
Now some people are calling for a stand on the issue anyway. Make some noise and so on. Balanced against that are the downsides of pushing this issue hard and the opportunity cost of focusing on this rather then other potentially achievable asks in upcoming legislation.
We've gone over this so, so many times. Their job does not start and end with floor votes.
Only the Democrats would hand wring over the downsides of pushing for something that's wildly popular.
Legislating actually does end with floor votes. No votes, no law, no policy change.
And it's not really wildly popular in a way that matters. Gun control is wildly popular too but goes nowhere because it doesn't have the right kind and distribution of support.
Also, nobody voted based on the issue of being for gun control, and now they are, so more legislators are listening
And then when someone brings up these issues, instead of actually meaningfully engaging with the critique, we get the wonk equivalent of mansplaining to immigrants and second generationers about how they're wrong, totally don't understand, and really it's the GOP's fault.
Posts
Why should I have to prove to Democratic leadership that its in their best interest to actually argue for and fight for the things they already claim to believe in?
Maybe we could keep running on "well the GOP is really really bad on this issue guys". Its worked wonders so far.
[removed]
That's pretty much immediately step 1 as soon as a Democrat kinda fucks up.
Like y'all were saying that because they decided they wouldn't burn the whole country down for DACA.
And again i get why some folks are down for burning it all down. Unfortunately burning it all down hurts a whole shit load of folks, and isn't a light decision
This kind of shit is super fucking tedious and bears no resemblence to anything I've actually argued. Its just emergency rhetoric. "Break in case of Criticism".
The quotation marks are funny because it implies I said something I never actually did.
Sure, you can do that. It doesn't change the facts though, which is that there is no alternative solution here that doesn't involve electing Democrats.
You asked when it would be acceptable for people to not point out that the other option is actively working against your policy desires. The answer is never because it is and will remain true. It's a basic fact of the system.
PS - ENC's point is that if you are mad about what the Democrats are doing the answer is to change the party. And part of that is getting involved in the politics of the party at some level or another. Doesn't mean you have to run or become a Senator or something but pressure pushing upwards from the lower levels of the party changes things.
lmao I just posted in favor of replacing party leadership and moving the entire machine left and I get accused of "burning down the country". Its not honest.
This seems a strange read of the situation considering these exact kind of arguments have happened around every issue on the left where the party and it's supporters aren't seeing eye to eye. I can remember these exact same arguments and comments around third-party voting as far back as 2001. It's like the basic dynamic of left-wing politics.
This sounds very much like a purity attitude to me. What good does "conviction" do us? Trump has more conviction in his racism than Clinton had in her anti-racism - but give me Clinton any day over Trump!
Jfc. First sentence "they don't have to be perfect"
They don't sit on their hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
Look at the legislative history. It passed multiple times. The only reason it's not law is because of the filibustering- which was maintained mostly by Republican action (and a couple red state DS trying and failing to appease their racist electorate).
So yes they could have passed it. By nuking the fillibuster. Would you like Trump with a 50 vote majority instead of 60? Because I would not.
So what's the threshold?
I genuinely don't understand how you can read people's posts on this forum and conclude that they refuse to criticize Democratic politicians. I mean the things that have been said about Harry Reid alone...
I and many other have many criticisms for Democrats, but I refuse to pretend that because they don't go as far on many issues as I wish they would that they are remotely the same as Republicans. Or that refusing to vote as though 'this time they'll learn their lesson' is a good idea.
I want them to stand up and fight! Not just for the DACA kids but for all immigrants! I think it would be a winning position as well as the right thing to do to be seen standing up for them. I also live in a liberal Massachusetts bubble so I can't claim to know for sure that it would be the case, but I do wish they would try.
I've never said or advocated either of these things.
I don't know how "Democratic lack of conviction hurts their election chances" gets translated into "don't vote to teach them a lesson".
So they got the vote the demanded, they lost; as they have every time it's come up so far. Should they have stayed in shutdown? Maybe. But saying for sure that that would have got them anything doesn't seem plausible to me.
Should? No. In an ideal world they would do what's right for that purpose. We don't live in that world. National politicians of all stripes are career politicians. Every last one of them. They are motivated by:
And they are motivated in that order. This has been the case since the first elections in the US, and has only grown to be more of a career process over time due to how highly we fund our politicians, how well they are able to accept lobby money legally, and how few term limits we have across our congress. For that to change you would need the politicians themselves to vote to end their benefits, set regular term limits, and lower their salary to minimum wage or set by the people via national election. Nobody is going to do this. It will never happen, regardless of political affiliation.
So it really comes down to pressuring your legislative folks via the first two items, because that third item is where things get wild. For democrats, the third item is usually a progressive, improving quality of life for people like themselves (and perhaps others) they drove them into politics. For the GOP, it is almost always based on racism, corporate profits, or ensuring the family fortune.
Which is where we are coming from when we talk about this through pragmatism. Both parties are shit by their structure, especially at the national level, but there is a significant difference between the two as far as the health of the nation.
No it really isn't. Because right now the Dems acting alone *cannot stop that*. They can only do so by getting at least a few GOPers to go along. (Probably more than a few, given the racist in chief is almost certain to veto).
So what do you want? How much are you willing to give the GOP before you want the Dems to say "No, DACA isn't worth that" and vote no?
Do you want a shutdown? Because because you've said no other people have said yes. If you do,how long? Etc.
So what's DACA then? The whole thing we are arguing about? Was it "nothing"? It's an immigration amnesty enacted by the Democrats. They wanted to go further but Republicans blocked them.
[removed]
I'm glad you asked!
----
Maybe don't blame the mexican-american for people facing deportation because he's unhappy with Dem choices.
But they didn’t just surrender. They got a vote, which was the whole point, but since they are in the minority the vote failed.
I want Democrats to do better on immigration, which is why I want them in power. The more power they get, the more opportunity they have to show conviction. When they hang onto power by a hair's breadth, they have to pay more lip-service to the semi-regressives in their rank. For instance, the Democrats have to take into account the anti-immigrant feeling in blue-collar left-leaning white midwesterners, because they need their votes. If they could luxuriate in a solid majority, they'd be more able to say "Let's listen to someone else's concerns for a while."
That Dem efforts ended with a vote they knew would fail is the whole point! Their leadership needs to think less like technocrats and more like activists.
Comments that get personal like this are not helpful to discourse. Refrain from them going forward.
That goes for everyone.
Almost the entire country is being swept up in a disgusted recoil and we're supposed to tamp down on the base's enthusiasm I guess.
But I want the vote to win, and getting there means voting for democrats.h
What is that point exactly?
They aren't thinking like technocrats, they are thinking like legislators. The bill can't pass so nothing can be done till after the election.
Now some people are calling for a stand on the issue anyway. Make some noise and so on. Balanced against that are the downsides of pushing this issue hard and the opportunity cost of focusing on this rather then other potentially achievable asks in upcoming legislation.
And I'm genuinely unsure if they could actually make enough noise to satisfy people legitimately pissed off about what is happening with Dreamers because ultimately you can't actually fix the issue till a little under a year from now assuming November goes well.
We've gone over this so, so many times. Their job does not start and end with floor votes.
Only the Democrats would hand wring over the downsides of pushing for something that's wildly popular.
The activists seem to be spending most of their time yelling at people who already support them so on this issue maybe not. There are exceptions though:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/12/19/daca-recipients-continue-press-jeff-flake-clean-dream-act/963611001/
(And this is coming from someone who thinks the Dems aren't great at messaging)
Basically the question is this: Would a shutdown convince anyone who didn't vote Yes to vote Yes. How does this pressure the GOP to pass the bill or failing that lead to a majority in November that will.
Right now they think the answer to that is "It won't". Part of that is they didn't handle it well last time. Even assuming perfect messaging though I'm not sure it would work.
And you can't get them out of power unless you can convince people that the only alternative party will do what they want them to.
Which people don't.
That is why they don't vote for Democrats. Because following the end of Carter's administration, and the rightward push to regain "Reagan Democrats," former core groups of the Democratic constituency have felt abandoned and as though they only get the barest of assurances that the Party leadership and it's representatives in Congress care (in part because part of the shift after Reagan was to up and abandon the classical constituencies of the party, in favor of a rightward shift believed to appeal to the Reagan Democrat), which don't get followed up on. But oh man do the prerogatives of their donors get followed up on.
Also for those proclaiming the ability to shape the party through primaries: What happens when your representative or senator is running unopposed? What do you do then when you're an average citizen who either doesn't meet the constitutional requirements or the funds or any myriad other reason that keeps them from running themselves?
Legislating actually does end with floor votes. No votes, no law, no policy change.
And it's not really wildly popular in a way that matters. Gun control is wildly popular too but goes nowhere because it doesn't have the right kind and distribution of support.
Also, nobody voted based on the issue of being for gun control, and now they are, so more legislators are listening