Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 12:10 AM
339 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,532 Year: 29,138/21,208 Month: 1,204/1,847 Week: 127/452 Day: 1/126 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Elections are won in the primaries
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 113 (820759)
09-26-2017 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
09-23-2017 10:06 PM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
For me, all of these issues would be deal breakers for politicians running for state-wide office. Many of them are deal breakers for local politicians. Now your own state's Republicans may not be as screwed up as North Carolina's but at least some of you have even more dicked up Republicans (are you feeling me Texans).

If I were to register for and vote in a Republican primary, my most likely motive is to select a loser that could not beat a Democrat. Your mileage may vary.

Well that is one way to go.

What I am thinking of is trying to broaden the message to the voters.

There is wide support for the idea that a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a family with housing, food, and other basic needs, and if the wages do not allow that, then a minimum wage law would be preferable to government assistance.

"We support efforts to ensure that habitual drug users are not on public assistance rolls."

"We reaffirm our support of voter ID and the repeal of straight-ticket voting."

"We support partisan elections for all offices."

"Suppliers and consumers of illegal drugs should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law."

and I see no problem with a progressive (sorry Rhain) conservative taking these positions. Being progressive means moving forward not backward.

And here is the catch-22. Once the candidate does repudiate all of that, he must have a reasonable answer to "Why the bleep are you a Republican"

Because I'm not a bleeding heart liberal socialist commie democrat, and I follow the core values of my grandfather and grandmother.

The idea is to change the dialog.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2017 10:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2017 11:53 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2017 1:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10127
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 17 of 113 (820763)
09-26-2017 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
09-26-2017 5:57 PM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
and I see no problem with a progressive (sorry Rhain) conservative taking these positions. Being progressive means moving forward not backward.

Except that some of those positions would be huge steps backward.

Let your principled conservative take those positions. I am not voting for him. And I notice you shortened my list. Was there anything on that list that was a deal breaker for you?

You appear to have given up hope. Good luck with the Republicans.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 5:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 9:22 PM NoNukes has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 18 of 113 (820765)
09-27-2017 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
09-26-2017 5:57 PM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
Because I'm not a bleeding heart liberal socialist commie democrat, and I follow the core values of my grandfather and grandmother.

As far as I know, I and my ex-wife's families were always Republicans, whereas we were Democrats.

NoNukes, have you ever watched the movie, Watchmen? Everybody's living in a degenerate Republican's wet dream in which any non-Republican vote is voting for the commies.

Several years ago, my brother-in-law, long retired from civil service and a life-long Republican, one day suddenly declared to me that he had come to realize that, as a retired person, the Republicans were not his friends. A breakthrough? No. A few years later at an inter-family gathering that same brother-in-law learned that I had voted for Obama and he was absolutely bewildered that anybody could have voted Democrat. Rather, knowing that the Republicans are not his friends, how could he have voted Republican?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 5:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 12:36 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 113 (820766)
09-27-2017 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rrhain
09-26-2017 3:51 AM


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.

True, though perhaps not for Rrhain's exact same reasons.

Gerrymandering. I remember one district in So Calif that linked a beach community with an area very seriously inland over an extremely narrow unpopulated area. So who controls gerrymandering? The party in power.

Do you really want to control elections? Control the gerrymandering.

Every ten years, there's a census. Every wonder why? Because that census is how the government knows how to appropriate the population to their representation in the House of Representatives, which is appropriated by population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 09-26-2017 3:51 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6229
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(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 responded

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

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 21 of 113 (820784)
09-27-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by dwise1
09-27-2017 1:17 AM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
dwise1 writes:


Rather, knowing that the Republicans are not his friends, how could he have voted Republican?

Because he detests liberals more than he dislikes Republicans.

I think I am about the only Democrat in my immediate family, and I live in a deep red state (Idaho), so I think I can speak with some authority on the issue. If family discussions tend towards politics I just shut up and start taking notes. It is absolutely fascinating.

If there is one thread that runs through my family's loyalty to the Republican party is their false sense of persecution. They think the liberals are out to do away with Christians and Christianity. There is also a strong racist tone to it as well, but it leans more towards xenophobia. They have watched the world around them change drastically (e.g. gay rights, black president, internet) and it frightens them. Look up the craziest conspiracy theories found on Snopes.com and those are the things coming out of my mother's mouth. The one bright spot is that some of my family is at least open to the idea of single payer universal healthcare.

Overall, they view Democrats as the Devil, literally and figuratively. Any disagreements they have with the Republican party is not going to be enough to push them to the Democrats. Their party of choice is baked in at this point, as it is further supported by the people they talk to at church and drink coffee with at the local diner in a town of 600. There are times when I wish I could secretly video tape their discussions on politics and post it online. I think a lot of jaws would hit the floor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2017 1:17 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 113 (820788)
09-27-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by anglagard
09-24-2017 9:22 PM


Re: No Quarter
Do you know of any Republican office holder that is a counterexample, because I don't.

No, but I know a lot of republicans that are and that don't like their choices from either party.

Also IMHO the same applies to all Republicans and most Democrats with regard to "working family centered." All they care about is reelection and as a result only representing and rewarding rich donors, to hell with anyone else.

They flat-out don't deserve my vote or anyone else outside of that less than 1%.

Exactly, which is why we need better/more choices in the primaries.

I absolutely disagree because it is already happening. For example Sander's fight for Medicare for all. It does have cosponsors, something unimaginable but a few years back. It and any other humane legislation will increase over time and the Democrats will have one choice "Adapt or Die."

We have only just started. I will likely not live to see the promised land but dammit, I will fight for it until my dying breath.

Indeed, but it will all come for naught if republicans control the district lines and state governments.

I have a better idea - vote for those against gerrymandering.

Indeed, but until then the elections are won in the primaries for the districts as gerrymandered. So instead of waiting for the general election to cast a useless vote against a pre-determined race, take the election to the primaries of those districts: if it is republican district then run the race in the republican primary.

If the elections are run in the primaries, then take the election to the primaries and run all the general election candidates in the primaries.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anglagard, posted 09-24-2017 9:22 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14002
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 23 of 113 (820790)
09-27-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
09-27-2017 3:33 AM


Rrhain writes:

Trump is the GOP.
The GOP is Trump.


I don't think that's true. Trump is Trump and even that changes from day to day.

The GOP tried everything in their bag of tricks to keep him out. They'd gladly get rid of him if they could.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2017 3:33 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 3:20 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 24 of 113 (820792)
09-27-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
09-27-2017 3:08 PM


ringo writes:

I don't think that's true. Trump is Trump and even that changes from day to day.
The GOP tried everything in their bag of tricks to keep him out. They'd gladly get rid of him if they could.

That's only because he is erratic and a PR nightmare. As far as policy goes, he is as Republican as it gets. Even his supposed giant infrastructure plans are nothing more than 1 trillion in tax cuts to construction companies. The road that led to Trump started with Newt Gingrich in the Clinton years when Republicans decided that their best strategy was just to oppose whatever the Democrats came up with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 09-27-2017 3:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 09-27-2017 3:54 PM Taq has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14002
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 25 of 113 (820796)
09-27-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
09-27-2017 3:20 PM


Taq writes:

As far as policy goes, he is as Republican as it gets.


What policy? The Republican Congress won't touch anything he proposes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 3:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 4:14 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 26 of 113 (820797)
09-27-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
09-27-2017 3:54 PM


ringo writes:

What policy? The Republican Congress won't touch anything he proposes.

Massive tax cuts for the rich. Muslim ban. Border security. Ending Obamacare and kicking people off of Medicaid. Throwing away the nuke deal with Iran. Throwing out regulations in order to allow large companies to pollute more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 09-27-2017 3:54 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1034
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 113 (820812)
09-27-2017 5:20 PM


Obama had 60 votes and could have made D.C. and Puerto Rico states.
He choose not to.

I still remember the 2010 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania where Arlen Specter (rip) and Joe Sestak were arguing over who would fight harder to support Washington D.C. statehood.

Specter was the 60th Democratic vote and a filibuster could have been broken.

Puerto Ricans just voted like 97%-3% for statehood (the opposition boycotted because they knew they would loose) though turnout was only 23%.

There are lost of prominent Democrats in New York that are nationalists. I was shocked and disgusted to find out (during the Oscar Lopez Rivera parade commotion) that the City Council Speaker was a supporter of Puerto Rican independence. Nydia Velazquez has been a long serving U.S. congresswomen and she is a disgusting nationalist too. She called the vote (from months ago) a fraudulent vote since turnout was only 23%. She said it was a sham vote that in no way represents the will of the Puerto Rican people.

Actually the Governor of Puerto Rico said that these mainland nationalist politicians (including the prominent Democrats mentioned above) are the ones out of touch and insisted that they could never be elected to the city council in Puerto Rico itself.

The Democratic party has a nationalistic mindset so we never laid the groundwork for a binding Puerto Rican statehood vote to take place.

The Republicans are a mountain of excuses (the massive Puerto Rican debt is their biggest excuse for not allowing a binding vote among Puerto Ricans) so don't expect much from them.

Democrats could have achieved so much during the super majority 2009-2011 congress.

Democrats might take the Senate in 2020 or 2022 but any time (which will only be during a national Democratic tidal wave) they take thee House, it will be very brief. Puerto Rican and Washington D.C statehood would have given them 4 more Senators and at least 5 more congressmen, so the Senate would have structurally been at least close to 50-50 (right now the Republicans have a slight structural edge in the upper chamber), and the House would have been at least somewhat less strongly GOP (and possibly almost down to a very slight GOP structural edge if there is ever fair nationwide redistricting).


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2017 3:24 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2017 5:05 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 113 (820821)
09-27-2017 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
09-26-2017 11:53 PM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
Except that some of those positions would be huge steps backward.

Let your principled conservative take those positions. I am not voting for him. And I notice you shortened my list. Was there anything on that list that was a deal breaker for you?

You appear to have given up hope. Good luck with the Republicans.

Curiously what I am proposing is alternative candidates to the republicans -- in the primaries.

Again, if the gerrymandering guarantees that a republican candidate wins the district, then the actual election takes place in the primaries, and the only real hope you have for electing a progressive candidate is to run in the republican primary.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2017 11:53 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2017 1:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6229
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


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 responded

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

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10127
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 30 of 113 (820831)
09-28-2017 5:05 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.
He choose not to.

No, Obama did not choose to do make DC a state. DC is constitutionally barred from becoming a state. The constitution had to be amended just to give DC residents the right to vote. The president has no role in passing a constitutional amendment, other than asking for it.

Did you look into the facts before posting?

Democrats could have achieved so much during the super majority 2009-2011 congress.

The supermajority lasted only a few months. Weren't you here for that?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-28-2017 3:40 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017