Alright, they'd be right wing in any country that the US and it's citizens should be aspiring to model themselves after.
Alright, they'd be right wing in any country that the US and it's citizens should be aspiring to model themselves after.FFS, they wouldn't be "right wing" in any other country. That's just utter nonsense, no matter how many times people spout this claim.
That's not true either.Alright, they'd be right wing in any country that the US and it's citizens should be aspiring to model themselves after.
Following rightward by enacting expansions in social safety net programs and expanding consumer protections?
Where do y'all come up with these ideas that Dems are "right wing"?
No. It's the apologia for failure that is.It’s #bothsides brain worms like this that is killing our country.
Americans can't figure out gun control with children being murdered in their schools almost every day. America has actual Nazis being elected to official positions in the government. And immigrants? Are you really bringing that up, right now? You can only blame Republicans so much for the current state of affairs, given how often Democrats have held large swathes of the government over the last few decades.That's not true either.
Democrats have been to the left on many issues relative to European countries people frequently look to. LGBTQ rights are a big thing that Democrats have been far to the left compared to peer countries.
And ask Europeans about their social safety nets when they start to apply to immigrant groups and watch them go off.
Can you point to the areas where Democrats have held large swaths of the government to implement the changes you think they should have made? Trifecta power has been slim for decades for Democrats, and in the last decade, it has been slim majorities with a hostile SCOTUS.Americans can't figure out gun control with children being murdered in their schools almost every day. America has actual Nazis being elected to official positions in the government. And immigrants? Are you really bringing that up, right now? You can only blame Republicans so much for the current state of affairs, given how often Democrats have held large swathes of the government over the last few decades.
Can't Hogg simply say he's a woman and be done with all of this?"The challenge by Oklahoma Democratic Committeewoman Kalyn Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hogg and Kenyatta in the February race for vice chair, is not related to the ongoing tension between Hogg and the national party over his push to support primary challenges against incumbent Democrats.
Instead, it was based off Free's claim that the handling of the vice-chair vote gave the two men an unfair advantage amid the national party's requirements that its executive committee achieve gender balance."
DNC panel recommends redo of vote that elevated David Hogg to vice chair after procedural concerns
The recommendation could also affect the post held by Malcolm Kenyatta, a Pennsylvania state legislator.www.nbcnews.com
How to tell us you're a bigot while telling us you're a bigot.Can't Hogg simply say he's a woman and be done with all of this?
What’s funny about this is if he goes you will say it’s bad for democrats as they are losing youthful energy but if he stays you will say it’s bad for democrats for some other reason. (In reality it barely matters either way)Hogg was going to be an anchor around the party (what's left of it) anyway.
No it's definitely good if he leaves.What’s funny about this is if he goes you will say it’s bad for democrats as they are losing youthful energy but if he stays you will say it’s bad for democrats for some other reason. (In reality it barely matters either way)
Keep going, Peter Schiff!
It really doesn't matter either way as who staffs the DNC is basically irrelevant. Again, most people didn't even know what it was until Bernie Bros needed a reason to explain his defeat.No it's definitely good if he leaves.
But you're ultimately right - who gives a shit about a party polling in the 20s.
People really lack an understanding that political parties as an institution are extremely weak in the US. Any jerkwad can register to run on whatever party line they want thanks to state ballot access and primary laws, and the state parties can't do jack shit about it.It really doesn't matter either way as who staffs the DNC is basically irrelevant. Again, most people didn't even know what it was until Bernie Bros needed a reason to explain his defeat.
It's funny, every time the argument comes up that Democrat's haven't had control, all I can think of is 'Republicans have never needed a trifecta to get what they want done'.Can you point to the areas where Democrats have held large swaths of the government to implement the changes you think they should have made? Trifecta power has been slim for decades for Democrats, and in the last decade, it has been slim majorities with a hostile SCOTUS.
Regardless, how does that make them "right wing"?
I think the big reason Republicans switched to having the courts legislate for them is they haven't been able to enact their agenda outside of tax cuts for rich people even when they do have a trifecta.It's funny, every time the argument comes up that Democrat's haven't had control, all I can think of is 'Republicans have never needed a trifecta to get what they want done'.
I'm confident there's a myriad of things the Democrats could have leveraged courts to strike down in the same way, if they were so inclined. Citizens united would have been a great one to start with. Y'know, if they were interested in getting money out of politics of course.I think the big reason Republicans switched to having the courts legislate for them is they haven't been able to enact their agenda outside of tax cuts for rich people even when they do have a trifecta.
It's kind of hard for Democrats to do the same thing because while a judge can strike down something like the ACA if they feel like it, it's not like a judge can write their own ACA and implement it.
If the idea is they should expand the courts and kill a lot of these shitty precedents sure, but still most Democratic priorities are legislative and Republican priorities are not so there's some asymmetry there.I'm confident there's a myriad of things the Democrats could have leveraged courts to strike down in the same way, if they were so inclined. Citizens united would have been a great one to start with. Y'know, if they were interested in getting money out of politics of course.
The courts, as they currently exist, have decided that plain language statutes don't actually let Democrats do what they want to do. Without a large enough majority to check the courts, what could they do?I'm confident there's a myriad of things the Democrats could have leveraged courts to strike down in the same way, if they were so inclined. Citizens united would have been a great one to start with. Y'know, if they were interested in getting money out of politics of course.
I guess my point is, Republicans are growing toward the light, while Democrats point at Republicans and say 'Look at them! They're just growing toward the light!' while we get fucking trampled on.If the idea is they should expand the courts and kill a lot of these shitty precedents sure, but still most Democratic priorities are legislative and Republican priorities are not so there's some asymmetry there.
And that right there is my issue with present democrats. Throwing hands up, saying 'what can we do, what can they do, nothing can be done, we must weather the blows and hopefully in 2-4-6-8-?? years we'll have more power and somehow not be in concentration camps/dying from climate change'.Without a large enough majority to check the courts, what could they do?
And that right there is my issue with present democrats. Throwing hands up, saying 'what can we do, what can they do, nothing can be done, we must weather the blows and hopefully in 2-4-6-8-?? years we'll have more power and somehow not be in concentration camps/dying from climate change'.
Again, somehow, time after time, Republican agendas get made reality. We're literally sending immigrants to concentration camps, that's how far we've come from the green new deal.
I completely agree that there is more Democrats could do to oppose Republicans and it's extremely frustrating that current leadership won't do it. They are focused on winning the midterm elections when what they should really be focused on is defending the country.And that right there is my issue with present democrats. Throwing hands up, saying 'what can we do, what can they do, nothing can be done, we must weather the blows and hopefully in 2-4-6-8-?? years we'll have more power and somehow not be in concentration camps/dying from climate change'.
Sure, but they are doing that by throwing the Constitution in the trash. Democrats could do that too of course, but one of their priorities is to defend the constitutional order so that doesn't really work. It's asymmetric warfare.Again, somehow, time after time, Republican agendas get made reality. We're literally sending immigrants to concentration camps, that's how far we've come from the green new deal.
You can't play the game by the rules when the other side doesn't think there are any rules at all.
My issue right now is that only one side is playing by the rules, and the other is intending to kill members of the rule-players if they get in the way. I'm an avid supporter of the constitution but it isn't worth the paper it's written on if all its supporters end up buried under history.I completely agree that there is more Democrats could do to oppose Republicans and it's extremely frustrating that current leadership won't do it. They are focused on winning the midterm elections when what they should really be focused on is defending the country.
Sure, but they are doing that by throwing the Constitution in the trash. Democrats could do that too of course, but one of their priorities is to defend the constitutional order so that doesn't really work. It's asymmetric warfare.
Still though, I think a lot of Democrats don't fully appreciate what that means. As I said before the election if people really thought Trump was going to win and then become a dictator the right move was to strike first. People didn't seem to be a big fan of that idea but to me that is the obvious and maybe only solution in that scenario.
I agree that at this point we've probably gone far enough that a return to the old constitutional order will not be possible. I've complained that for years we have relied on the idea that the president will be someone who is not a criminal or a wannabe dictator and however bad previous presidents like GWB were he wasn't trying to become a dictator.My issue right now is that only one side is playing by the rules, and the other is intending to kill members of the rule-players if they get in the way. I'm an avid supporter of the constitution but it isn't worth the paper it's written on if all its supporters end up buried under history.
I agree, I have a hard time imaging this situation ending up anywhere but supreme executive power, if not in law then de facto. It's borderline now, but congress could have him removed if he started raping members on the senate floor or something.I agree that at this point we've probably gone far enough that a return to the old constitutional order will not be possible. I've complained that for years we have relied on the idea that the president will be someone who is not a criminal or a wannabe dictator and however bad previous presidents like GWB were he wasn't trying to become a dictator.
Now though someone has done that and in the end our current system essentially allows the executive to do whatever they want. Seems like from here we either go the full dictatorship route or there's a significant conflict of some sort. I don't know what that looks like but those seem to be the options.
Aren't they already doing that whole kicking people out of things because if gender stuff with trans people?See, this is why people complain about DEI. Here they're trying to kick out perfectly good people just because of their gender.