pfife Posted June 5 Posted June 5 (edited) Some people get triggered when you blame republicans for electing republican presidents and implementing republican polices. Edited June 5 by pfife 1 Quote
chasfh Posted June 5 Posted June 5 17 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: All I know is someone is triggered. 1 Quote
chasfh Posted June 5 Posted June 5 19 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: Are you going to telling me a more influential congressman in Michigan or not? I don’t live in Michigan, so I don’t care who’s influential in Michigan. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 5 Posted June 5 1 minute ago, chasfh said: I don’t live in Michigan, so I don’t care who’s influential in Michigan. Yeah I figured you wouldn't name one and cop out. We're done here. Quote
pfife Posted June 5 Posted June 5 2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: Yeah I figured you wouldn't name one and cop out. We're done here. Lmao pretty rich hoss Quote
chasfh Posted June 6 Posted June 6 16 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: Yeah I figured you wouldn't name one and cop out. We're done here. It’s not so much a copout as it’s irrelevant. She’s an elected representative in a national governing body. Her influence within Michigan is of secondary importance at best, especially since Trump would have won the election even if Michigan went to Kamala. You might consider asking me whether I believe Rashida is the most nationally influential congressional rep from Michigan. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) I don't agree that her influence in MI is of secondary importance wrt the election. The question (at least to me!) is whether given her particular status and particular constituency, she was in a better than average position to have a positive influence on the election in her district and left it on the table or worse, was counter productive. I don't think whether what she did/didin't do was dispositive to the whole national election is relevant to a judgement about her. 'Trump wins without MI' could be said about many of states the dems could have but didn't win and in each of them things went wrong for the Dems and each of those things was important and would be better not to happen in the next election! All that said, the party as a whole still has to widen it's appeal if it's ever going to get back to a functional majority. What it's doing now is not working, and given the current DNC leadership I would have to say they are going in the wrong direction still. Edited June 6 by gehringer_2 Quote
chasfh Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) If what we're debating is how influential she is in a very narrow sense within a very narrow geography at a very specific point in time, and disregarding everything else, then that tells me everything I need to know about how much my hair should be on fire when it comes to Rashida Tlaib in general. Edited June 6 by chasfh Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) 49 minutes ago, chasfh said: It’s not so much a copout as it’s irrelevant. She’s an elected representative in a national governing body. Her influence within Michigan is of secondary importance at best, especially since Trump would have won the election even if Michigan went to Kamala. You might consider asking me whether I believe Rashida is the most nationally influential congressional rep from Michigan. Edited June 6 by Motown Bombers Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 6 Posted June 6 18 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I don't agree that her influence in MI is of secondary importance wrt the election. The question (at least to me!) is whether given her particular status and particular constituency, she was in a better than average position to have a positive influence on the election in her district and left it on the table or worse, was counter productive. I don't think whether what she did/didin't do was dispositive to the whole national election is relevant to a judgement about her. 'Trump wins without MI' could be said about many of states the dems could have but didn't win and in each of them things went wrong for the Dems and each of those things was important and would be better not to happen in the next election! All that said, the party as a whole still has to widen it's appeal if it's ever going to get back to a functional majority. What it's doing now is not working, and given the current DNC leadership I would have to say they are going in the wrong direction still. Dems have been winning. The only times they haven't won have been against Trump and they threw the one person who beat Trump under the bus and ran him over several times. Dems won down ballot in five states Trump won. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 6 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: Dems have been winning. The only times they haven't won have been against Trump and they threw the one person who beat Trump under the bus and ran him over several times. Dems won down ballot in five states Trump won. If you are happy with party I'm happy for you. Right now I'm just not very optimistic they can get back to where they were in Jan 20, 2008 even with Trump dead and buried. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 6 Posted June 6 38 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: If you are happy with party I'm happy for you. Right now I'm just not very optimistic they can get back to where they were in Jan 20, 2008 even with Trump dead and buried. The last time they were at 2008 levels was the 1960's. Gerrymandering alone will ensure they don't get to that level. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: The last time they were at 2008 levels was the 1960's. Gerrymandering alone will ensure they don't get to that level. But 2009 was the last time they were actually able to enact any domestic policy, so that has to be target if you want to do any more than just be able to claim you are in office. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 6 Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: But 2009 was the last time they were actually able to enact any domestic policy, so that has to be target if you want to do any more than just be able to claim you are in office. They had 60 senators for like two months and ended up losing Massachusetts. Biden got more passed with 50 senators. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 20 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: They had 60 senators for like two months and ended up losing Massachusetts. Biden got more passed with 50 senators. Biden's big accomplishment was something it was easy to agree on though (spend money in everyone's district!) - no real policy fight there like ACA was. But sure - I want the Dem's ambition as a party to be higher. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 6 Posted June 6 16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Biden's big accomplishment was something it was easy to agree on though (spend money in everyone's district!) - no real policy fight there like ACA was. But sure - I want the Dem's ambition as a party to be higher. Of course there was a policy fight. No Republican voted for it and he had to fight with his own party to get Manchin and Sinema onboard. A lot of the spending was expanding subsidies for Obamacare, prescription drug caps, Medicare drug negotiation, and record spending on climate change. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Of course there was a policy fight. No Republican voted for it and he had to fight with his own party to get Manchin and Sinema onboard. A lot of the spending was expanding subsidies for Obamacare, prescription drug caps, Medicare drug negotiation, and record spending on climate change. I wouldn't describe Sinema and Manchin as fighting on policy, more along the line of grandstanding for ego and attention. YMMV, Quote
pfife Posted June 7 Posted June 7 13 hours ago, chasfh said: If what we're debating is how influential she is in a very narrow sense within a very narrow geography at a very specific point in time, and disregarding everything else, then that tells me everything I need to know about how much my hair should be on fire when it comes to Rashida Tlaib in general. She must be influential, otherwise one poaster will look really weirdly embarrassingly obsessed with an inconsequential person and it would be much better to be really weirdly embarrassingly obsessed with a consequential person Quote
mtutiger Posted June 7 Author Posted June 7 (edited) 16 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: If you are happy with party I'm happy for you. Right now I'm just not very optimistic they can get back to where they were in Jan 20, 2008 even with Trump dead and buried. I'm not all that happy with the current state of the Democratic Party but Bombers is more or less right IMO... There is zero harm in acknowledging this I would add this is, at least at this moment, a deeply polarized country, much more deeply polarized than it was in 2008. I agree with the need to break that, but we need to be clear that is something that will not be broken in one Midterm and Presidential election cycle... It's more of a generational problem Edited June 7 by mtutiger 2 Quote
chasfh Posted June 7 Posted June 7 Because of how events are rapidly evolving, I now have an active hope that I do not die at the hands of someone who is opposed to my principles, ethics, morals, or beliefs. 1 Quote
romad1 Posted Tuesday at 11:55 AM Posted Tuesday at 11:55 AM GOP Rep Announces Sudden Retirement in Shock Twist for Trump Man, this guy must be reading some tea leaves. Quote
mtutiger Posted Tuesday at 12:33 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 12:33 PM 37 minutes ago, romad1 said: GOP Rep Announces Sudden Retirement in Shock Twist for Trump Man, this guy must be reading some tea leaves. IIRC correctly, he wanted out last Congress and had to be talked out of it. If Don Bacon retires (like he kinda sounds like he's going to per a profile of him in the NYT this weekend), that's going to be a tell. Quote
RatkoVarda Posted Tuesday at 12:47 PM Posted Tuesday at 12:47 PM Green is a guy who goes through the MAGA motions, but you can tell his heart was never into it. I guess he decided to save what remained of his soul. Quote
pfife Posted Tuesday at 01:03 PM Posted Tuesday at 01:03 PM Solid choice to stick around and make sure you vote yes on some of the worst legislation ever. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.