Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Elections are won in the primaries
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 113 (820744)
09-26-2017 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
09-23-2017 9:44 AM


RAZD writes:
quote:
But he was up against a progressive conservative in the primary
Um, you do understand what the term "oxymoron" is, yes?
There is no such thing as a "progressive conservative."
quote:
One that backed universal healthcare, working family values (minimum wage, family leave) ... would you vot for them in the primary?
See...none of those things are "conservative." Up against any other conservative, such a person will be identified as being for "socialized medicine," "welfare handouts," "coddling," and then let's not forget all the racist codewords that will then come along for the ride.
There is no such thing as a "good" Republican.
Indeed, elections are won in the primaries...but the primaries are won a dozen years before the election in all the other races Democrats ignore such as governor, attorney general, tax assessor, school board, etc., etc. If you want a good candidate for president, you needed to have started voting for said candidate a dozen years ago when they were on the ballot for mayor. By the time you get to national office, it's a bit late to complain about the lack of people you'd like to vote for.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2017 9:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2017 12:12 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2017 1:32 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 20 of 113 (820768)
09-27-2017 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
09-26-2017 11:56 AM


ringo writes:
quote:
Trump managed to overthrow the Republican Party from the inside
Trump didn't "overthrow" anything.
Trump is the GOP.
The GOP is Trump.
Everything Trump has put forward has been what the Republicans have been talking about for decades. The only thing he has done is scratch off the racist codewords.
Isn't it interesting that there were "good people on both sides" with regard to the Nazi march but somehow there aren't "good people on both sides" regarding the NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.
There's a reason that most voters for Trump still support him.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 09-26-2017 11:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 09-27-2017 3:08 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 113 (820827)
09-28-2017 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by LamarkNewAge
09-27-2017 5:20 PM


Re: Obama had 60 votes and could have made D.C. and Puerto Rico states.
You need to rethink your title, there, LamarkNewAge.
It's a common complaint that "The Democrats had 60 votes!"
Really?
Name the date that the Democrats actually achieved 60 votes in the Senate.
Hint: Al Franken.
Now, name the date that the Democrats lost those 60 votes.
Hint: Ted Kennedy.
There was a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for about four months.
Besides, you don't need a filibuster-proof majority in order to have a territory become a state. It only requires a simple majority.
On top of that, becoming a state generally requires that the territory wants to do it. They need to create a constitution that is in line with the US Constitution. Has DC done that? Puerto Rico did it in 1952, but it never progressed. The referendums in Puerto Rico for statehood have been "interesting," to say the least. There was one in 2012 that had multiple questions that generally seemed the population was in favor of statehood. This led to the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act in Congress to have a vote regarding statehood that, should it pass, would required the President to start the process. That was 2015 and no action has been taken.
There was another referendum in 2017 that overwhelmingly voted for statehood (500K+ for statehood vs 6700 for territory and 7600 for independence)...but only 23% of the population voted and thus the outcome has been called into question. The referendum was non-binding, at any rate.
DC voted in 2016 for statehood but since it's a federal district, not a territory, and its existence is explicitly described by the Constitution, it would probably require a constitutional amendment to establish it. After all, the 23rd Amendment is specifically to allow DC to vote for President and Vice President.
But notice that all of this was in the last few years.
Again: When was there a 60-vote majority in the Senate held by Democrats? And when did it go away?
quote:
Democrats could have achieved so much during the super majority 2009-2011 congress.
You *really* need to rethink that. Again:
When did the Democrats achieve 60 votes in the Senate?
Hint: Al Franken.
When did it go away?
Hint: Ted Kennedy.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-27-2017 5:20 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by xongsmith, posted 09-28-2017 2:56 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-28-2017 3:54 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 113 (821062)
10-02-2017 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LamarkNewAge
09-28-2017 3:54 PM


Re: Obama had 60 votes and could have made D.C. and Puerto Rico states.
LamarkNewAge responds to me:
quote:
The fact that we have nationalists in congress dictated the (non) direction we went in.
So now you're changing your argument. First, you were saying it was Obama's fault because Congress didn't do it when they had their (microscopic) "filibuster-proof majority." Now you're blaming Congress.
But you still haven't addressed the issue that the *territory* is the one that has to initiate it. Congress doesn't force statehood on a territory that doesn't want it. Puerto Rico has not been forthcoming. While it seems clear that most of the territory would like to become a state, they haven't done what they need to do to get it done.
Should Congress help? That's a separate question, but it's something that Puerto Rico needs to manage. And given what just happened to the island due to Maria, the path to statehood just got more complicated. There's already a financial crisis in the territory. If they were to become a state right now, that would alter things quite a bit and shift responsibility such that Congress would have more to do to help the state.
And none of that addresses the fact that DC is constitutionally mandated. If DC were to become a state, then some other area of the country would need to be carved out to be the new capitol and all governmental offices that currently exist in DC would need to move to the new district. That would be a massive blow to the newly created state of DC.
quote:
Some well placed moles can really stop something from even being whispered about.
You seem to have forgotten that there is a bill in Congress regarding statehood for PR.
And "moles"? Really?
quote:
This should have been a front burner issue.
Why? Or, more importantly, what are you going to do about it? Who are you voting for to help make it a bigger issue?
quote:
I read enough on this issue (though I forget a lot and never knew enough) to know that the congress is the decision making body.
Well, since you didn't seem to know that PR needs to manage the call for statehood and didn't seem to understand that DC cannot become a state without a constitutional amendment, I think you need to read a bit more.
quote:
Why?
I thought you said you read. Didn't you read why? If you disagree with the conclusions, then now would be the time to come forth with your arguments. There is a legitimate argument to be made that a poll of such a small portion of the population isn't exactly "legitimate." That doesn't mean that the sentiment isn't there, but rather than it doesn't appear to be a genuine call. After all, Congress is the one that needs to vote on this. Do you really want to go with them saying that you only have less than a quarter of the population willing to stand up and say they want to be a state?
quote:
Perhaps her whole purpose in getting elected in this ultra Democratic district (where a Democrat would always win anyway) is to be a nationalistic mole?
There's that word "mole," again.
quote:
Don't say I'm a "conspiracy theorist".
If you don't want to be identified as a "conspiracy theorist," then stop acting like one.
"Mole"? Really?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-28-2017 3:54 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 113 (821063)
10-02-2017 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
09-30-2017 8:40 AM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
RAZD writes:
quote:
the neolib wing (Hillary etc)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Clinton..."neolib"...(*chortle*)
Oh, it's precious that you think that. Tell us, RAZD, is Elizabeth Warren a "neolib"? Because she signed off on Clinton's Wall Street plan. Is Bernie Sanders a "neolib"? Because he and Clinton had a 93% concordance in their voting records in the Senate. What about Obama because the two of them were in agreement 94% of the time.
Seems you've got a bit of CDS: Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Perhaps you might want to consider all that pontificating you do about "cognitive dissonance" and rethink what you know about Clinton and "neoliberalism."
Neolibs wouldn't call for a raise in the minimum wage, but Clinton did.
Neolibs wouldn't call for managers of financial institutions that cause disasters to be denied their bonuses and to be fired when they are in charge of systemic corruption, but Clinton did.
Neolibs wouldn't call for the overturning of Citizens United, ending of superPAC secrecy, and disclosure of corporate donations to shareholders, but Clinton did.
Clinton called for the ending of private prisons. Is that a neoliberal position?
Is Clinton the biggest liberal we have? No. But to pretend that she is some sort of "neolib" is to deny reality.
quote:
that refuses to take up issues of interest to the people that would bring them out to vote: living minimum wage, family leave, women's rights, voting rights, universal healthcare, right to organize, etc.
You do realize that Clinton was championing many of those issues, yes?
If not, why not? There's a reason that Clinton won the second largest number of votes for a presidential election. There's a reason that Clinton's speech regarding women's rights is considered one of the most important speeches made in history.
quote:
Instead they seem to think that "republican lite" is the path to victory ... with corporate sponsors ...
People hate corporate sponsorship of candidates because they see this as corruption.
No, they think that "Republican lite" isn't real. After all, if you're going to vote for Republican values, why not vote for the Republican? After all, they're not Democrats and we all know what being a Democrat means. Means yer one of them librul commies who hates Christmas and Murrika. Yeah, Ossoff made more headway than any other Democrat in that district, but he was still "Republican lite" and the voters decided to vote for the real Republican.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 8:40 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 113 (821064)
10-02-2017 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
09-30-2017 12:44 PM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
NoNukes writes:
quote:
Sounds to me like you are just rehashing your issues with Bernie not getting the nomination. Again
And let us not forget, not only did she beat Sanders, she beat him by a bigger margin than she beat Trump.
And that was in RAW votes. In a smaller election, geared toward the more liberal population, Clinton beat Sanders by 4 million votes compared to the 3 million by which she beat Trump.
So unless someone is arguing that the Democratic Party has become overwhelmingly "neolib," then Clinton is hardly the "Republican lite" that some would have us believe. Clinton Derangement Syndrome lives on.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2017 12:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 113 (821066)
10-02-2017 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
09-30-2017 4:17 PM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
RAZD writes:
quote:
The democrats have, apparently, no idea of what a core issue is that is of concern to the voters.
Yeah...the second largest vote total in history. They clearly have no idea what voters want.
quote:
They effectively hog-tied Obama's second term
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! They hog-tied Obama's *FIRST* term. Have you forgotten that the Republicans literally had a secret meeting on the very night of Obama's first inauguration to specifically plan how to obstruct his entire agenda and ensure that he only had one term?
quote:
and would have done the same to Hillary ... unless they could magically win house and senate seats, which Hillary was incapable of doing.
Right...because they would have rolled over for Sanders...as if he was capable of magically winning Congress. Please explain how Sanders was going to get Congress to pass a $15 minimum wage.
quote:
It was -- and still is -- a(n increasing) failure to have and promote core issues that appeal to voters.
Yep...second largest vote count in history. They know nothing about what appeals to voters.
quote:
Which only would have delayed the inevitable descent into the maelstrom.
Says who? Is your cognitive dissonance still affecting you? By your logic, Sanders would have hardly been any better. After all, he had a 93% concordance with Clinton. And with folks like Elizabeth Warren signing off on Clinton's Wall Street plan, I guess that means she's a shill so there would be no help from any Democrats.
quote:
don't exist in the DNC. Look at Wasserman-Schultz for example, and Pelosi (who thinks we are doing fine), and the new imposed chairman of the DNC ...
BWAHAHAHAHA! You honestly believe that, don't you? Your cognitive dissonance is truly deep, isn't it?
quote:
Except that it has been -- and was -- independent voters that elected the president.
So let's work this through: Clinton beat Sanders in a Democratic primary by more votes than she beat Trump by and got the second largest vote total in history, but somehow she doesn't connect with voters.
Hmmm...Wisconsin had a voter suppression of 200,000 and how many votes did she lose it by? What about Pennsylvania and Michigan? It has long been known that the country regularly votes more for the Democrat than the Republian...and yet somehow the Republicans are in charge of the country. There are system problems among the leadership of the Democrats, yes, but let's not pretend that there aren't other forces at play. After all, these problems have long preceded 2016.
quote:
Except that it is about issues that get voters to the ballots, not Bernie. Bernie was popular because he had the issues that appealed to the voters.
And yet, in a contest of Democrats, Clinton beat him by a million more votes than she beat Trump...whom she beat, as you seem to have forgotten.
quote:
Bernie won the open primaries because the independents could vote.
No, he didn't. Your cognitive dissonance over this has led to your protracted Clinton Derangement Syndrome. For those states that held open or semi-open contests, Clinton won four more states than Bernie did:
Four open caucuses of which Bernie won all 4.
Two semi-open caucuses of which Bernie won 1 and Clinton won 1.
Seventeen open primaries of which Bernie won 5 and Clinton won 12.
One semi-open primary which Clinton won.
Eleven closed caucuses of which Bernie won 6 and Clinton won 5.
One semi-closed caucus which Bernie won.
Fourteen closed primaries of which Bernie won 2 and Clinton won 12.
Nine semi-closed primaries of which Bernie won 4 and Clinton won 5.
And again, simply going off of raw votes, Clinton had 4 million more votes than Sanders. That's a million more votes than she beat Trump by. The idea that the system was "rigged" against Sanders is nothing more than your cognitive dissonance.
He lost.
Not only did he lose the nomination, he lost by your own criterion: Open primaries. 12 to 4. Even with all the open or semi-open races, Clinton won more.
And again, she got the second largest number of votes in history.
quote:
He lost the closed primaries because the independents couldn't vote.
Nope. He lost the closed primaries because the voters preferred Clinton. That's why she beat him by more votes than she beat Trump.
quote:
As long as dems ignore and belittle independent voters they will continue to lose. It's simple math.
And as long as your cognitive dissonance is in charge, you're going to continue to believe that.
Clinton won both liberals (84-10) and moderates (52-41). She didn't win those who identify as "independent," but the label "independent" doesn't mean they actually consider voting for either candidate. In fact, independents regularly vote for their candidate. I, for example, am not a Democrat but an Independent...but I have never voted for a Republican.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 4:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2017 8:51 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 48 of 113 (821140)
10-03-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
10-02-2017 8:51 AM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
How many house seats did they take back from the republicans
How many senate seats did they take back from the republicans
How many governor positions did they take back from the republicans
How many state house seats did they take back from the republicans
How many state senate seats did they take back from the republicans
How many mayoral positions did they take back from the republicans.
Yeah, the democrats know what the voters want.
Right...because the electoral playing field is level.
You do understand that because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, it takes millions of more votes for a Democrat to win a seat in Congress than for a Republican, yes? More people voted for the Democrat than voted for the Republican and yet somehow, Congress is in Republican control.
So yeah, Democrats do know what voters want. You're so fond of Sanders' claim that "the system is rigged," but you're failing to see how.
quote:
So you agree with me that he was hog-tied in the *SECOND* term, thanks.
So you still fail to understand that he was hog-tied *IMMEDIATELY.* You're trying to find significance in the second term by ignoring that the exact same thing happened in the first, thus showing that the problem was not a "first term/second term" thing.
And you wonder why you keep failing.
quote:
By stumping for it at the state level -- you should read what he said about it. Curiously we are still winning that battle as $15/hr is still being won -- see recent article on Target.
And have you read Clinton's statement regarding the minimum wage? If that is truly the hill you're dying on, why the hell are you upset with her?
Did she want to raise it?
To what?
Why did she think that amount was the one to raise it to?
Would she have been OK with more?
Did you really just vote to install a President that actually said that wages are too high because the alternative wasn't aiming high enough in your opinion? Do you honestly believe that if Congress had come up with a plan that would raise the minimum wage to $15 with policies for managing the costs and other effects, Clinton would have vetoed it because it was "too high"?
quote:
We now see Elizabeth Warren signing on to his Medicare for All policy.
That doesn't answer my question. Is Elizabeth Warren a shill for Wall Street? She signed off on Clinton's Wall Street policy.
Do you even know what it was?
quote:
Because of the primary system.
Nope. Because she won. The details have been spelled out for. Open or closed, Clinton beat Sanders.
By a lot.
By more raw votes than she beat Trump.
quote:
Good for you. Now break it down by economic class.
And since unemployment was at some of its lowest points, what does that tell you about why they were voting the way they were? You seem to think that Republicans actually pay attention to reality. There's a reason we talk about that "basket of deplorables." When they are told that stole their jobs, they're not going to pay attention to explanations about automation, financial policy, changes in economic markets, and the like.
If you're from a coal state and you are told that Democrats "hate coal" and that's why there are so few coal jobs, you're not going to listen to the facts regarding the case...and it will be difficult to tell that to a coal worker who has lost their job. As I pointed out in other posts, the fact that the unemployment rate is low doesn't mean much when you're the one out of a job.
You are making the creationist argument, RAZD: Facts be damned.
quote:
Blaming anyone other than Hillary and the DNC is just poor loser childish bickering.
Ignoring reality is just cognitive dissonance.
She won.
By a lot.
She had the second largest vote take in history.
quote:
Issues like $15/hr minimum wage, medicare for all, family leave, and others that benefit working people will.
Clinton was for all of that.
Why don't you know that?
You keep saying that she didn't "earn" your vote and you give criteria by which she would have "earned" that vote and yet you keep ignoring the reality that she met those criteria.
So since she met the criteria you put forward as what it takes to "earn" your vote, why didn't she?
Your cognitive dissonance is massive.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2017 8:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 113 (821952)
10-16-2017 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
10-15-2017 2:41 PM


Re: Texas ...
RAZD writes:
quote:
So there is hope. And another place to try Faux Republican Progressive candidates
No, for you forget about how legislatures work, or specifically the national House of Representatives and Senate.
In the House, there is a vote for the Speaker. This always falls along party lines. Even if you vote for the "good" Republican, that Republican is going to vote for the horrendous candidate that is put forward by the Republicans to be the Speaker rather than allow the Democrat to be the Speaker. Thus, we will continue to have Ryan as Speaker of the House and thus, it doesn't matter how "good" you think your Republican is: The Republican agenda will be the only thing that is allowed to the floor. You really think your "good" Republican is going to vote against the Republican for Speakership? Not if they expect to remain a Republican.
Have you forgotten the "Hastert Rule"? It's a bit misnamed because Gingrich followed it, too, but it's how the Republican Party has been running things in the House since the 90s: Only if a majority of Republicans would vote for a bill is it allowed to a vote. Even if a majority of the House would vote for the bill, it will never see the light of day unless a majority of the Republicans will vote for it. So congratulations on your "good" Republican...it won't do any good because the only votes that are going to come are going to be the ones your "good" Republican is going to go "bad" on.
In the Senate, it's more direct: Whichever party has the majority is the one that has the control and by convention, it is the one that has the longest record. So your "good" Republican won't stop McConnell from being in charge of the Senate. And again, the party in control sets the agenda and the bills you wish your "good" Republican would vote for will never see the light of day.
That's why there is no such thing as a "good" Republican. The system is designed to perpetuate the power of the party that managed to get the most seats. The only way you could get anything done out of this is to vote the entire Republican party out of office and replace them with "good" Republicans.
So why not just vote for the actual candidate who champions those policies you are seeking to have enacted rather than a fake one who can't do what you want them to do? Why vote for a fake Republican when you can vote for a real liberal? One who isn't ashamed to call themselves such? One who doesn't have to keep up the facade to maintain their ability to get votes from other Republicans by voting against your interests?
Your strategy is to put up a candidate whom you know is going to sell you out immediately and will continue to sell you out in order to maintain their ability to get elected all because you hope they might vote a certain way on a certain bill? A bill that will likely never make it to the floor due to the leadership that this fake candidate installed?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2017 2:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2017 8:02 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 77 of 113 (821987)
10-17-2017 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
10-16-2017 8:02 AM


Re: Texas ...
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
The strategy is to elect a progressive to the house by winning the republican primary.
And you honestly believe that a Republican is going to vote for a Democrat for Speaker of the House?
Exactly how does a Republican being elected to the Senate result in a Democrat becoming the leader of the Senate? That isn't how the rules work. Whichever party has the majority automatically gains leadership. It doesn't matter how "good" you think your Republican is, their mere existence in the Senate guarantees that Mitch McConnell remains in control and thus, no liberal bill of any kind will ever make it to the floor.
quote:
The progressive would side with the democrats not the republicans.
BWAHAHAHA! How? By immediately defecting as soon as they're sworn in? Because given the way the rules work, that's the only way it'll happen. If the Republican decides to vote for the Democrat for Speaker, they will never get any committee assignments and thus, they will have absolutely zero influence in Congress. They won't be able to manage bills in committee and their amendments will get no co-sponsors from the majority and thus will never get put into play. And again, there is absolutely no way the Republican can change the leadership of the Senate because the rules state that their mere existence results in the Republicans having the leadership if they are in the majority.
That is the way our system of government works: Winner takes all. To vote for one is to quite literally vote for *ALL* of them. There is no such thing as a "good" Republican. If they were that good, they wouldn't be a Republican. Their mere existence as a Republican necessarily gives power to all the rest.
Cleaning up the Republican Party isn't going to happen by tricking them into voting for a progressive. You need to convince Republicans that their current candidates do not have their best interests at heart and that Democrats do.
Once the Republicans have been neutralized, you can continue your work on improving the Democratic Party. The unreliable friend is to be chosen over the guaranteed enemy.
quote:
How else do you expect to win back a majority in the house?
Working to end voter suppression, working to end gerrymandering, working to expand Democratic exposure, and doing the hard work of getting Democrats into power at the lower levels so that they are in a better position to be electable candidates at the higher levels. Beyond Dean's 50 State Strategy, we need to pay attention to every race at every level. Fake candidates do not help this. Any attempt at advancing a "liberal" agenda by a Republican will immediately be pounced upon by the "real" Republican, the voters will go along with it, and you'll end up with not just a Republican, but a Republican that will make Teabagging Republicans look like Bernie Sanders. After all, Roy Moore won his primary.
You didn't think you could just snap your fingers and make it happen, did you?
We've seen this attempt at splitting the middle before and it never works. Why is this time going to be any different?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2017 8:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2017 9:45 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 83 of 113 (822035)
10-18-2017 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
10-17-2017 9:45 AM


Re: Texas ...
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Exactly how does a Republican being elected to the Senate result in a Democrat becoming the leader of the Senate? That isn't how the rules work. Whichever party has the majority automatically gains leadership. ...
By doing it in enough districts that the democrats get a majority.
You do realize that that is literally the opposite of your strategy, right? You are advocating putting a "progressive" *Republican* candidate in the primary. When that candidate wins (which will never happen because the "real" Republicans will immediately call them out as "liberal" and will get absolutely no assistance from the Republican Party), their mere existence will prevent the Democrats from gaining control of the Senate.
So I ask you again: How does a Republican being elected to the Senate result in a Democrat becoming the leader of the Senate?
quote:
quote:
Cleaning up the Republican Party isn't going to happen by tricking them into voting for a progressive. ...
Still not the plan.
You can "plan" for 2 + 2 to equal 5, but that doesn't actually happen. Your whining about how "that isn't the plan!" doesn't change the actual results of your suggestion.
But that said, that is *precisely* what your plan is. You said so yourself, or have you forgotten your own argument out of some absurd need to be contrary given that you've been shown how it falls apart upon contact with reality?
Message 51
Agreed, and that is why we need to encourage more variety within the GOP primaries to get alternative ideas into the mix.
Now, do please explain how "we need to encourage more variety within the GOP primaries to get alternative ideas into the mix" is not merely another way of saying, "Cleaning up the Republican Party"?
For crying out loud, RAZD, your *original post* said exactly the same thing:
The way the gerrymandering has taken over the elections for representatives and senators -- with the tacit compliance of both parties -- it has now reached the point, imho, that the elections are won in the primaries.
Progressives are not going to change the democratic party from the inside.
Third party challenges rarely result in victory.
Time to run alternative candidates in republican primaries ...
Fiscally conservative
Working family centered
How is that not merely another way of saying, "Cleaning up the Republican Party"?
Exactly what is the point of these "alternative" candidates if not to change the Republican Party?
Ignoring the cognitive dissonance involved in your different analysis of Republicans and Democrats (if you can't "change the Democratic Party from the inside," exactly how do you plan on doing that with the Republicans? And if you can with the R, what makes you think you can't with the D?) you are being deliberately obtuse.
When you said that your plan was specifically to change the Republican Party, we believed you. For you now to whine that that isn't the plan means you repeated direct statements that isn't "the plan" means you weren't being exactly honest at some point.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2017 9:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2017 7:16 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 84 of 113 (822036)
10-18-2017 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
10-17-2017 9:21 PM


Re: Texas ...
RAZD writes:
quote:
In the republican primary for a progressive candidate running against the republicans in the primary where the district is gerrymandered to essentially guarantee the republican candidate picked in the primary will...
...lose in the primary and should there be a miracle and said Republican wins, said Republican will sell out all those "progressive" principles quite literally on the first day when in the House, they vote for the Republican Speaker of the House and in the Senate, their mere existence ensures Republicans maintain control. And by ensuring that Republicans retain control of Congress, no progressive legislation will ever see the light of day. Should they betray the Republican principles that the rest of the Party advocates, they ensure that they will get no committee assignments, no support from the Party for election, and will have absolutely no influence in the very body that they were elected to "introduce new ideas" into.
A fake Republican is still a Republican.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2017 9:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2017 7:17 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 90 of 113 (822087)
10-19-2017 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
10-18-2017 7:16 AM


Re: Texas ...
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
wrong again.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? You've already shown amazing cognitive dissonance regarding this topic. What makes you think you are reliable now? After all, your opening post contradicts you, RAZD. Have you changed your mind?
See, here's where you would attempt to rephrase your argument so that it wouldn't be misunderstood. That you're running away instead would seem to indicate that no, we're not wrong, you just can't defend your argument. You're sure it's right but can't explain why. Thus, the cognitive dissonance that you're so fond of accusing everybody else of.
Let me help you: What is the point of running a "progressive" Republican in the primary in districts that are gerrymandered such that only a Republican can win?
Key points you must address:

  • Could such a candidate even win? After all, the Republican machine will tear a "progressive" candidate to shreds and the Republicans in the Republican district will vote for the "real" Republican. So what's the point of running such a candidate?

  • Should a miracle occur and this candidate win, what would be the effects? The rules of Congress indicate that an elected Republican will then put other Republicans in charge of the House and Senate, ensuring that no "progressive" bills will ever see the light of day. Should this candidate fight against this tendency, they will be punished by the Republicans in power, making them ineffective. So again, what is the point of running such a candidate?

Remember, you said, and I quote:
that is why we need to encourage more variety within the GOP primaries to get alternative ideas into the mix.
So if that is not merely another way of saying, "Cleaning up the Republican Party," then what on earth does it mean?
Exactly what is the point of running a "progressive" Republican?
Be specific.
Edited by Rrhain, : Fixing comma splice.
Edited by Rrhain, : But apparently introducing another one.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2017 7:16 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2017 9:27 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 91 of 113 (822088)
10-19-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
10-18-2017 12:41 PM


Re: Still not getting it
RAZD writes:
quote:
My strategy is to get the liberal progressive voters in those districts to register as republicans to vote for a liberal progressive candidate in the republican primary. With one liberal progressive candidate against a field of republicans that split the republican votes, the liberal progressive could win the primary.
No, they couldn't.
It's been tried.
It has failed.
Democrats have tried it in the other direction: Running as a conservative in an attempt to get the disaffected Republicans to vote for them. Instead, the electorate voted for the "real" conservative. Why have Republican-lite when you can have the real thing? Have you forgotten the Ossoff election? While he was technically a Democrat, he opposed many of the core ideals of the platform, touting his conservative credentials.
And he lost. Oh, it was a lot closer than it should have been, but that isn't because the electorate was really warming up to "progressive" ideas but rather because they were pissed at Trump. And still, he couldn't get it together.
So since this has never worked, and since you insist that this isn't an attempt to clean up the Republican Party (despite you directly saying that it is), exactly what is the point?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2017 12:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2017 8:57 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 113 (822136)
10-19-2017 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
10-19-2017 8:57 AM


Re: Still not getting it
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
quote:
It's been tried.
Where and when? Please substantiate.
I did. Did you not read the post? I also mentioned another example previously. Did you miss that one, too? You responded to it. But, like this one, you cut everything out in order to pretend you already understood everything.
Hint: What did Harry S Truman say about this very thing? And when did he say it? To whom? Why? I know, I haven't mentioned it until now, but this is not exactly some obscure thing.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2017 8:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by DC85, posted 10-19-2017 11:07 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2017 8:16 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024