Political Discussion

😂 😂 I guess a few years ago this take would be surprising. "If you though Louis XVI was in charge of the Democratic party, you are mistaken!"




God damn, I wish I was more optimistic about my vote against this sycophant counting.
 
dhodo said:
😂 😂 I guess a few years ago this take would be surprising. "If you though Louis XVI was in charge of the Democratic party, you are mistaken!"




God damn, I wish I was more optimistic about my vote against this sycophant counting.
Click to expand...

See Lindsey gets it.
 
dhodo said:
At least he got completely ratioed on that bizarre thread.
Click to expand...
Yeah except I think that (a) he’s largely correct and (b) that rules! The only thing he’s wrong about is that he’s a little ahead of himself - we have a lot more work to do before we create a Democratic Party that is truly responsive to the interests of working people, but the progressive wins in the last two primary cycles are a good start, and more importantly seem to have created a workable model going forward.

To me the only funny thing about that thread is the rank hypocrisy of it - for any post-2009 Republican to scoff at the notion that “The idea of working with [opposing party president] to accomplish objectives to help America is a one way ticket to political exile“ would be ridiculous, but for Cocaine Mitch’s most reliable ally to type that and not immediately burst into flames is frankly incredible. But calling out Republicans for hypocrisy got boring about a decade ago.
 
Space Wanderer said:
Yeah except I think that (a) he’s largely correct and (b) that rules! The only thing he’s wrong about is that he’s a little ahead of himself - we have a lot more work to do before we create a Democratic Party that is truly responsive to the interests of working people, but the progressive wins in the last two primary cycles are a good start, and more importantly seem to have created a workable model going forward.

To me the only funny thing about that thread is the rank hypocrisy of it - for any post-2009 Republican to scoff at the notion that “The idea of working with [opposing party president] to accomplish objectives to help America is a one way ticket to political exile“ would be ridiculous, but for Cocaine Mitch’s most reliable ally to type that and not immediately burst into flames is frankly incredible. But calling out Republicans for hypocrisy got boring about a decade ago.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding his intent. I agree with you that he is correct in some ways. But, I interpreted his intent of saying it like the French Revolution was a bad thing, putting him on the side of the monarchy being the preferable side, considering his past comments about the radicals in the Democratic party. Growing up in the state he represents, we certainly weren't taught history like the French Revolution was on the wrong side of it.

Perhaps I'm so used to him speaking like a lunatic lately, I'm not giving him credit for actually making a fair observation. If so, I do think he is overstating their influence, as there are very different blue districts and simplifying it to say that one person who is very popular in some/many of them will take over the other is silly. It's really not an either/or two party choice, but I think he's right about it moving further left in many areas.

Agree that the gross hypocrisy of acting like refusing compromise is terrible is laughable coming from the party who spent the majority of Obama's presidency pledging to block him every step of the way.

I actually voted for Lindsey in a primary once, because we can vote in either, back when he was being challenged by a Tea Party asshole, because he used to have a reputation for being pragmatic and at least relatively willing to compromise. He was certainly the lesser of evils at the time and my vote for his opposition in the general was essentially symbolic. His about face in 2016 was/is disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Space Wanderer said:
I wore my mask for four hours in the high 80s heat. I didn’t mind Bowman putting his hand on my shoulder for the time it took to snap a selfie.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t extending judgement on either you or him. I was just surprised that he would take those chances being that he was running for election.
 
On the local news I saw a story about police reform. And how i's not actually possible for the most part. Defunding is possible, but true reform is not because of the unions. The only way to reform would be to completely disband and start over.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
www.cnn.com

Trump administration prepares major effort to protect monuments that includes US Marshals and executive order

The Trump administration is preparing a major effort to protect national monuments that President Donald Trump has described as part of the country's heritage, including assigning US Marshals to oversee them and signing an executive order meant to protect them, people familiar with the plan say.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
So, this is what he going to actually fucking do something about?

Edit: After brief consideration I've concluded it is because this is the only thing he's actually qualified for and knows how to do (i.e. he doesn't know how to lead in handling protests or pandemics). He's been wanting to appear to do something and now he's found a thing he can get his sorry mind around.
 
debianlinux said:
So, this is what he going to actually fucking do something about?

Edit: After brief consideration I've concluded it is because this is the only thing he's actually qualified for and knows how to do (i.e. he doesn't know how to lead in handling protests or pandemics). He's been wanting to appear to do something and now he's found a thing he can get his sorry mind around.
Click to expand...

I think this, like pretty much everything else he does, is more about signaling to his base that he is on their side and energizing their support. This is something moderate conservatives want and it's something that supremacists and nationalists want. It's a win all round. He maintains his law and order base. He signals the others. The Trump program is calculated and effective.
 
www.cnn.com

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to invalidate Obamacare

In the midst of a global pandemic with the presidential election just months away, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to invalidate the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law that enabled millions of Americans to get insurance coverage and that remains in...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

The Trump Administration overnight asked the Supreme Court to invalidate Obamacare. They are claiming the individual mandate is unconstitutional and all of Obamacare should be invalidated because of it.

Of course, as we all know the individual mandate is unconstitutional because of the republicans making of setting the penalty to $0, which means they don't have the power to enforce the mandate.

This is a huge issue because millions of people have signed up for Obamacare market plans during this pandemic when they lost their jobs / health insurance. If invalidated all these people and the millions of others will loose their health insurance.

This also means protections for pre-existing conditions will be gone as well. And with news just last night that COVID-19 is creating life long complications in more young people than previously thought this is a recipe for disaster.
 
Governor Baker talked about affordable housing and the bill he's been trying to get passed for years that is stalled during his press conference today. In additional to COVID-19 he was talking about the states relief plan.

Under Massachusetts State law, zoning must be approved by a super majority. Which is defined as at least 66.7%. This is making it near impossible for any affordable housing to be built. But with small boards / city councils for example, a super majority vote of a council of 5 people requires 4 out of 5 to vote in favor or 80%. A 3/2 vote will not pass.

He used Salem as an example. Salem is a vibrant community seeing all kinds of growth and with that property value increases. There is a serious lack of affordable housing and low income and minorities are being priced out of town.

The mayor of Salem has tried many times over the past 5 years to bring affordable housing to Salem. She has tried it designated in many different ways such such as senior living facilities, affordable housing, housing for the working class. And every Initiative failed by one vote.

Even though the majority of people and Salem want to see these housing projects including the majority of the city council. But a small vocal number of people opposing the vote are effectively very easily able to block it.

And why do people oppose affordable housing? They cite
  • Will decrease surrounding property values
  • Will increase crime and drug usage
  • It will change the community dynamics
I also can't but help feel institutionalized racism may be part of it. It's assumed that affordable housing will have a much higher minority population and therefor that would mean crime and drugs and reduce the neighborhood property values.

However, a luxury apartment complex with a hipster vibe targeting people who make $100,000 or more a year passes without any opposition.


The bill the governor is trying to pass requires a super majority vote as well, which is why it's been stalled for the last couple years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top