Random Political comments...

bodhesatva said:
Here's a good simple test for whether you are a pragmatic or purist Democrat:

Joe Manchin is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. He is a Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Coal, NRA member Democrat. "Hey!" You might say. "That doesn't sound very liberal at all. We should primary him and try to get a true progressive in to office there!"

If this was your thought, please know one other thing: every other major politician in West Virginia is a Republican. The Governor, the other senator, the congressmen... all of them. And just today some polls were taken and these are the approval ratings of different politicians in WV:

Manchin (D Senator) 51/34
Capito (R Senator) 40/38
Trump (R President) 48/39
Justice (R Governor) 34/44

As you can see, this pro-life, pro-gun, pro-coal Democrat *is the most popular politician in the state.* And for Democrats like me, he has repeatedly and aggressively protected Obamacare, and has consistently voted to reduce our troop levels in foreign wars. And yet some Democrats want to primary him because he's not a true liberal (and they're right, he's not). If a primary sounds like a good idea to you, then you have a very different perspective than I do even if we both identify as "liberals."

Democrats can run a pro-choice, environmentally conscious, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage candidate in West Virginia, and feel great about running a candidate who reflects all our values, without compromises. And then we will get crushed in the general election, because West Virginians will have none of it.
Click to expand...


Most progressives IMO are just getting ankle deep into the political process and don't know how the overall machine works.
The WHOLE game is about compromise and then hoping you have enough allies to get the big stuff done.

Manchin is about as progressive as Trump's big toe. He's only good for a vote here and there in the Senate. Once his vote is no longer reliable, I think it's time to dump him. He's not really a Dem anyway and his only other value is preventing the GOP from getting another seat in the Senate.
But he if he keeps voting (R), what's the point of continuing to invest in him by the DNC??
 
bodhesatva said:
Here's a good simple test for whether you are a pragmatic or purist Democrat:

Joe Manchin is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. He is a Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Coal, NRA member Democrat. "Hey!" You might say. "That doesn't sound very liberal at all. We should primary him and try to get a true progressive in to office there!"

If this was your thought, please know one other thing: every other major politician in West Virginia is a Republican. The Governor, the other senator, the congressmen... all of them. And just today some polls were taken and these are the approval ratings of different politicians in WV:

Manchin (D Senator) 51/34
Capito (R Senator) 40/38
Trump (R President) 48/39
Justice (R Governor) 34/44

As you can see, this pro-life, pro-gun, pro-coal Democrat *is the most popular politician in the state.* And for Democrats like me, he has repeatedly and aggressively protected Obamacare, and has consistently voted to reduce our troop levels in foreign wars. And yet some Democrats want to primary him because he's not a true liberal (and they're right, he's not). If a primary sounds like a good idea to you, then you have a very different perspective than I do even if we both identify as "liberals."

Democrats can run a pro-choice, environmentally conscious, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage candidate in West Virginia, and feel great about running a candidate who reflects all our values, without compromises. And then we will get crushed in the general election, because West Virginians will have none of it.
Click to expand...
Standing ovation!
I smell logic and pragmatism. Tell that to the block heads in Florida that want stricter gun laws. All of the blue states already have their own stricter gun policies but the democrats are in the gunshine state trying to do the same smh. Gotta wonder if they like failure, they need to drop the no win policies in order to get more "progressive" policies implemented. Their idea of gun regulations won't work in the south. Florida is not much different than Texas when it comes to guns. Can't deal with it then why not go to a blue state with those that agree?

Florida is purple so there is opportunity for more "progressive" policies here. For one we are the first southern state to approve medical marijuana. It may even go on the ballad for recreational use.
 
andreboba said:
Most progressives IMO are just getting ankle deep into the political process and don't know how the overall machine works.
The WHOLE game is about compromise and then hoping you have enough allies to get the big stuff done.

Manchin is about as progressive as Trump's big toe. He's only good for a vote here and there in the Senate. Once his vote is no longer reliable, I think it's time to dump him. He's not really a Dem anyway and his only other value is preventing the GOP from getting another seat in the Senate.
But he if he keeps voting (R), what's the point of continuing to invest in him by the DNC??
Click to expand...
Drop the cookie cutter all or nothing mentality for more gains in the real word.
That's what I don't get about politics. What makes you think there are only two sides when there are many issues on the table?
 
andreboba said:
Most progressives IMO are just getting ankle deep into the political process and don't know how the overall machine works.
The WHOLE game is about compromise and then hoping you have enough allies to get the big stuff done.

Manchin is about as progressive as Trump's big toe. He's only good for a vote here and there in the Senate. Once his vote is no longer reliable, I think it's time to dump him. He's not really a Dem anyway and his only other value is preventing the GOP from getting another seat in the Senate.
But he if he keeps voting (R), what's the point of continuing to invest in him by the DNC??
Click to expand...

I really like this chart which shows how often Senators vote with Trump. Most Republicans vote 90%+ of the time with Trump. The least conservative Republican Senator in the country votes with Trump almost exactly 80% of the time. Joe Manchin *is* the most conservative Democrat senator, but he only votes with Trump 55% of the time. Manchin's West Virginia Senate Colleague, Shelley Capito, votes with trump 94% of the time. That's about what you could expect if you replaced Manchin with another Republican from West Virginia.

Voting with Trump 55% of the time instead of 94% of the time. That's what compromise buys you if you're willing to work with people you don't completely agree with, and it seems like a big deal to me.
 
Last edited:
bodhesatva said:
I really like this chart which shows how often Senators vote with Trump. Most Republicans vote 90%+ of the time with Trump. The least conservative Republican Senator in the country votes with Trump almost exactly 80% of the time. Joe Manchin *is* the most conservative Democrat senator, but he only votes with Trump 55% of the time. Manchin's West Virginia Senate Colleague, Shelley Capito, votes with trump 94% of the time. That's about what you could expect if you replaced Manchin with another Republican from West Virginia.

Voting with Trump 55% of the time instead of 94% of the time. That's what compromise buys you if you're willing to work with people you don't completely agree with, and it seems like a big deal to me.
Click to expand...
You are waaay to rational for politics. Please sell me a map to your home planet. Thanks in advance.
 


The police officer was caught stating something similar to we only kill black people.

smh

 
Last edited:
Seriously, people obviously can't get past hate so just bring back the gladiator days and go at each other in the colosseum like real men. Raise money by letting people pay to see it. People still love to shed blood and therefore are no different than those that lived thousands of years ago. At least in the ancient days they weren't cowardly about it.

People actually had a code of honor and would sometimes challenge another man to a duel. Only one walked away, but the difference was that they both handled it like real men. Hell it was like that as late as the 1800's. Bring it back.

If the violence won't stop (it won't) at least end the cowardly shit.
 
How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

Excerpt - "In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.”

In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”

That same year, a Democratic Senator wrote, “...When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

"The blogger was Glenn Greenwald.
The columnist was Paul Krugman.
The Senator was Barack Obama..."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...s-immigration-mistake/528678/?utm_source=feed
 
Beasty said:
...

People actually had a code of honor and would sometimes challenge another man to a duel. Only one walked away, but the difference was that they both handled it like real men. Hell it was like that as late as the 1800's. Bring it back.

If the violence won't stop (it won't) at least end the cowardly shit.
Click to expand...
Ahh, like Aaron Burr, who challenged Treasury Secratary Alexander Hamilton to a duel, and killed him? Crazy days.
 
Bliss said:
Ahh, like Aaron Burr, who challenged Treasury Secratary Alexander Hamilton to a duel, and killed him? Crazy days.
Click to expand...
The only time the government should tell men how to handle their disputes is when those men can't come to an agreement themselves. If they agree to duel then they can agree on guns, knives, chains, fists or whatever.

It would actually make for a more respectful society. People would think twice before being shitty knowing that they could be challenged to a duel. It would follow the same principle as "an armed society is a polite one"

Nothing wrong with men having balls and a code of honor and actually being men like they always were from at least 4000bc - 1800ad.

We could end the overly feminized sneaky cowardly tendencies of today's society without any loss of our humanity.
 
Bliss said:
How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

Excerpt - "In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.”

In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”

That same year, a Democratic Senator wrote, “...When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

"The blogger was Glenn Greenwald.
The columnist was Paul Krugman.
The Senator was Barack Obama..."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...s-immigration-mistake/528678/?utm_source=feed
Click to expand...


Taking quotations out of their original context just adds to the political white noise on social media.
 
Beasty said:
The only time the government should tell men how to handle their disputes is when those men can't come to an agreement themselves. If they agree to duel then they can agree on guns, knives, chains, fists or whatever....
It would actually make for a more respectful society. People would think twice before being shitty knowing that they could be challenged to a duel. It would follow the same principle as "an armed society is a polite one"

Nothing wrong with men having balls and a code of honor and actually being men like they always were from at least 4000bc - 1800ad.

We could end the overly feminized sneaky cowardly tendencies of today's society without any loss of our humanity.
Click to expand...
Most definitely agree with your second paragraph.
 
Bliss said:
How were they taken out of context. That's what they said.
Click to expand...

The very next paragraph in your link said this...

"Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

So here we have intelligent people grappling with a very difficult issue trying to find elusive answers, what was your point in posting the article in the first place?
 
Loki said:
The very next paragraph in your link said this...

"Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

So here we have intelligent people grappling with a very difficult issue trying to find elusive answers, what was your point in posting the article in the first place?
Click to expand...
Well, I disagree with you. I don't think it's a "very difficult issue" at all. It's very simple, rather. What is your point of asking me why l posted 3 political quotes in a Ramdom Politixal comments thread?
 
Bliss said:
Well, I disagree with you. I don't think it's a "very difficult issue" at all. It's very simple, rather. What is your point of asking me why l posted 3 political quotes in a Ramdom Politixal comments thread?
Click to expand...

"What we have here is a failure to communicate", I was not asking why you were posting political quotes in a political thread, I was asking what statement you were trying to make. You have been clear that you "feel"(imo contrary to very easily proved facts) that Obama was "soft" on immigration, yet your link seems to paint a different picture.

As far as illegal immigration being a "very simple" issue, surely you can see the massive implications to the farming industry, housing industry, landscaping industry, and other financial sectors, if all illegals were kicked out of the US tomorrow. Not to mention the human toll of families being ripped apart, hardships ect. Now hear me clearly, none of this is to say that illegal immigration should be excused or overlooked, protecting our borders is important, and along with the numerous good that immigrants, both legal and illegal bring, there are numerous ills, (criminal activities, extra burden on healthcare system, large sums of $ that goes out of the US back to the home country, missed tax revenues, ect.

So what is your "very simple" solution to all of those issues?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-5-trillion-hit-from-deporting-undocumented-workers/

“The economic contribution to U.S. GDP of the current unauthorized workers is substantial,” the researchers wrote. “Unauthorized workers may be responsible for 8 to 9 percent of the value-added in agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality.”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom