The DNC Reports Lowest Fundraising Since 2003

[Padawanbater2]

When did Pelosi explicitly say she didn't support universal healthcare? In her words, not in the videos that you like to post that provide you thought guides, she explicitly said she supported universal healthcare. If you are referring to her saying she wasn't supporting the introduction of a bill next year, then I refer you to your own words about a Republican held congress. By the way, Clinton isn't a private citizen and her beliefs are not important. I'm not up on what Feinstein said, so without argument, I'll just cede your point. What those two women who are public officials say is pretty much swamped by a movement in both houses. A majority of house Democrats have signed onto a bill sponsored by Dem John Conyers that would expand Medicare for all in all 50 states. Sanders is working on a version for the Senate, there is nothing to hang a hat onto, but I think it will receive good support.

Believe what you want but what you are saying is patently false.

In your own narrative, it doesn't matter to you what Democrats do. You still bash them. In 2014, when Democrats held a majority in the Senate, they in fact did support the repeal of CU. That is in the Congressional record and not subject to debate. A filibuster by Republicans defeated the measure. By villifying Democrats for entering the measure and being stopped by the opposition, you are trying to have it both ways. If any Democrats HAD voted against the measure, you'd be all over it as proof of BAD Democrats and I'd agree. That every democratic caucus Senator supported the measure and still failed, you claim the same. Simply weak thinking.

They had 54 votes, why didn't they invoke the nuclear option to override the 60 votes required to defeat a filibuster to overturn Citizens United?

 

[Padawanbater2]

yes, by 37.

and 69 is larger than 30 by 39.

are you getting it yet?

or is it more "I WANT MY ICE CREAM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"?

See what I mean? There it is, in the 2nd or 3rd reply after your argument was challenged. I'm going to call this the "Buck fallacy"

 

[UncleBuck]

See what I mean? There it is, in the 2nd or 3rd reply after your argument was challenged. I'm going to call this the "Buck fallacy"

would you rather lose seats?

what am i saying, of course you would. you think republican governorship is the greatest thing that can happen to the democratic party.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I've pointed out that there is evidence that rejecting large donations, PAC money and Corporate donations is a poor choice if the objective is to win back Congress.

No you haven't. You've espoused your opinion of as much without providing the evidence to back it up

Ossoff and Quist are examples that are both inconsistent with your conclusion; Ossof spent more (more than any other house race in American history) and lost by more than Quist, who spent significantly less and closed the gap by more

Democrats raised more money during the 2016 election cycle yet fared worse in electoral results, more evidence

Clinton raised/spent more than Trump and she lost


You mark these up to your claims that the free media coverage did her in without ever offering anything quantifiable to base it on. You don't know how much of an effect the media played on Clinton's loss, nobody does, it simply cannot be quantified, so saying Trump received more media coverage and that's why he won is an unverifiable claim. It is your opinion.

 

[Padawanbater2]

would you rather lose seats?

Your strategy lost over 1,000 seats during Obama's presidency. Anyone wishing to continue your strategy must obviously support Republicans.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ossof ... lost by more than Quist

this is false and you have been corrected repeatedly on it. why do you keep trying to advance known lies?

 

[UncleBuck]

Your strategy lost over 1,000 seats during Obama's presidency.

if you lose an election for a seat you never had 5 times in a row, did you lose any seats?

be honest now and don;t lie like you are known for repeatedly doing.

 

[Fogdog]

They had 54 votes, why didn't they invoke the nuclear option to override the 60 votes required to defeat a filibuster to overturn Citizens United?

The rules changes to enable the nuclear option applies to appointees made by the president. Even then, it's only been used twice. What you suggest is possible but unprecedented in our history.

 

[UncleBuck]

The rules changes to enable the nuclear option applies to appointees made by the president. Even then, it's only been used twice. What you suggest is possible but unprecedented in our history.

he's just a whiny little crybaby who wants his ice cream NOW

 

[Padawanbater2]

What you suggest is possible

Democrats invoked the nuclear option in 2013, it was not unprecedented, especially with poll numbers like this;

Even if you believe it was unprecedented, and that was enough of a reason not to invoke it, how could you still hold that opinion after seeing these numbers? Does democracy mean nothing to you?

 

[Padawanbater2]

to confirm judges appointed by the president

..Confirming what I said previously about not setting precedent

They didn't invoke the nuclear option because establishment Democrats don't actually support repealing Citizens United. They had the chance then and there and they chose not to do it. The precedence argument is weak as fuck.

 

[Padawanbater2]

their platform and votes all say different

Then why didn't they invoke the nuclear option and get rid of it once and for all in 2014 when they had the votes to do it?

 

[UncleBuck]

Then why didn't they invoke the nuclear option

even if they did that and gave republicans an excuse to pass any legislation they wanted in the future with 51 votes it still would not have passed the republican controlled house. they would have ceded precedent to future republican congresses for absolutely nothing.

you really are a whiny petulant child and you probably suck at strategy games like chess.

 

[Fogdog]

No you haven't. You've espoused your opinion of as much without providing the evidence to back it up

Ossoff and Quist are examples that are both inconsistent with your conclusion; Ossof spent more (more than any other house race in American history) and lost by more than Quist, who spent significantly less and closed the gap by more

Democrats raised more money during the 2016 election cycle yet fared worse in electoral results, more evidence

Clinton raised/spent more than Trump and she lost


You mark these up to your claims that the free media coverage did her in without ever offering anything quantifiable to base it on. You don't know how much of an effect the media played on Clinton's loss, nobody does, it simply cannot be quantified, so saying Trump received more media coverage and that's why he won is an unverifiable claim. It is your opinion.

OK, I'll just repost something I just said

Your theory that the public will flock to a liberal candidate if only he swore off PAC and corporate money is practically untested. There are a few election results that show this hypothesis is probably false. Sanders' own run in the Democratic Party primaries for one. A few others along with Sanders failed but not enough to conclusively say it is false. On the other hand, no election results to say it could be true.

First, Sanders lost bigly to Clinton. Since then, every candidate that Sanders supported has lost. Alternatively, there is no candidate yet who has won on this issue. As I said in my first post, the evidence against is weak but the evidence for is nonexistent. And yet you are afraid of testing the hypothesis that foregoing legal campaign donations is a winning choice. I say, let's prove it in the primaries.

Regarding the point on free media coverage, I'm not going to rehash the past election with you. I said that Trump had excellent free coverage. That's well documented. I said that in rebuttal to your claim that Democrats lost in spite of outspending Republicans. If you factor in almost 1 billion dollar edge that Trump received in free media attention the difference isn't nearly as stark as you say.

Here is one article:
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html

 

[Fogdog]

Then why didn't they invoke the nuclear option and get rid of it once and for all in 2014 when they had the votes to do it?

I don't just believe that using the nuclear option to force legislation through a fililbuster is without precedent, I'm stating a fact that it has never happened in the history of the United States Senate. The only two times it has been used is 2013 and 2017 to force judicial nominees.

..Confirming what I said previously about not setting precedent

They didn't invoke the nuclear option because establishment Democrats don't actually support repealing Citizens United. They had the chance then and there and they chose not to do it. The precedence argument is weak as fuck.

Really? You claim to know what Senators are thinking? Do you know how insane that sounds?

The Senate holds tradition and its rules of procedure dearly. There has been much debate and discussion about maintaining the filibuster as an important power that every Senator has. The reason given for not invoking the nuclear option is that Senators on either side would rather lose to a filibuster than break that power. Unlike you, I'm not just making up an argument, that's what I find when I read about the process and why it's only been used twice in our entire history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

You don't like my reason? Fine. But what I said is much closer to the truth than your mind reader fantasy.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Then why didn't they invoke the nuclear option and get rid of it once and for all in 2014 when they had the votes to do it?

Your posts over the last year have been critical of the Democrats on a daily basis.

So, what party is closest to your current beliefs? Most people vote for the party closest to their beliefs.

Nobody gets everything they want, as far back as I can remember. And that's pretty far back.

That's a straight forward, direct question that doesn't require a wall of post.

Don't be totally disenfranchised, that solves nothing at aIl.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Your posts over the last year have been critical of the Democrats on a daily basis.

So, what party is closest to your current beliefs? Most people vote for the party closest to their beliefs.

Nobody gets everything they want, as far back as I can remember. And that's pretty far back.

That's a straight forward, direct question that doesn't require a wall of post.

Don't be totally disenfranchised, that solves nothing at aIl.

I can't speak for pada, but there is no doubt that it is the Democrats. All I ask for is that they represent the wishes of their constituents, and only their constituents. I have a hard time believing that they do when they accept hundreds of millions of dollars from special interests and corporate America.

If the wishes of their constituents don't line up with my wishes, then I can live with that. I cannot live with my wishes taking a back seat to Dow chemical company though.

 

[Padawanbater2]

what party is closest to your current beliefs?

Obviously the Democratic party is closest to my current beliefs

But that's not saying much when closest isn't close at all

The reality is that neither party is close to my beliefs because both parties are far right of center

Don't be totally disenfranchised

As if I have a choice in the matter at all. This is where your friends would call me racist if I expressed the same opinion, implying you choose to be disenfranchised. I won't do that though because I know that's not what you meant and I'm not a horrible person

 

[Padawanbater2]

debatable.

From anyone else, I might feel obligated to defend myself from such accusations. From someone like you, or those that would defend you, not so much

 

[Fogdog]

Obviously the Democratic party is closest to my current beliefs


As if I have a choice in the matter at all. This is where your friends would call me racist if I expressed the same opinion, implying you choose to be disenfranchised. I won't do that though because I know that's not what you meant and I'm not a horrible person

So, now that you've begun to whine about unfair treatment, I've been meaning to ask you a question, well actually I have asked and I guess you just forgot to reply.

I've heard a lot of talk where you say you support a men's rights movement. Could you please explain the difference between men's rights and women's rights?