-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Liberal voters warn Democratic officials: resist Trump or be replaced
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
- Status
ryutaro's mama
Member
Liberal Tea Party?
We'll see.
We'll see.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So how do we reconcile this with the overlap with the 73% of Americans who want them to work with Trump?
Because neither side of that argument is going to be able to go it alone
Because neither side of that argument is going to be able to go it alone
"In areas of agreement" ie, don't be obstructionist just for the sake of it...
ThisGuy
Member
I hate it when people say that or give him a chance.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Where are they in agreement?
This is a dangerous game. They need to obstruct every outrage but blanket obstruction will harm the process of governing America. And it will hurt them in the midterms. They should obstruct obvious outrages like Vos or (then) Flynn and amplify hidden outrages like the environmental garbage they're trying to slide through but cooperate on rational picks and bills.
Fulminator
Member
Yeah, I don't get how this works
Yes this isn't true. Only in areas of agreement. 99% will be areas of disagreement
Those 73% want democrats to work with Trump on areas of agreement.
The only possible area of agreement is infrastructure and perhaps saving medicare and medicaid if that wasn't a bunch of BS.
And a strong base who is committed to kicking out traitors has a lot more power than that 73% due to our primary system. I mean, they can actually kick out traitors, just like the Republican primary voters did to 'traitorous' republicans.
It's going to take more than one flimsy opinion poll to make Dems overlook the crowds they can actually see outside their offices.
Anyway, Dems should have seen this coming. Any Democrat caught trying to work with this administration is a fool.
He has been given a months worth of time and has only proved his critics resoundingly correct in their complaints. He had more chances to prove himself in a month than most presidents have in a year. How many chances do we have to give this guy before we can say fuck him?
Bound to happen. Bernie awaken the progressive branch of the Democratic Party into a passionate fire; they're angry, they're highly active, and they want the party to listen.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
This admin is too reprehensible to work with IMO. If they need a strategic vote, be clear that it is that. No Dem should be "delighted" to work with them.
I feel like thats just a blanket response people give and not really representative of anyone's ideology
Truth.
I'd rather challenge the Republicans and other parties, and rally on that. It is harder to get 100% of one side than it is to get 0% of the other sides.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Good. It's been a long time coming. It's sad that it took the orange man for it to happen. People should have been up in arms back in 2009 when the dems gutted Obamacare by removing the government option to make republicans and blue dogs happy. If we had a public option the ACA might not be in quite as precarious of a position as it is today.
Btw, those blue dogs? They got decimated in the next cycle anyway. So a lot of good that did...
Btw, those blue dogs? They got decimated in the next cycle anyway. So a lot of good that did...
This is not Bernie.
This is not just the progressive wing.
As someone actually involved with a lot of the shit that's about to go down here in Philly, trust: it's the party itself.
Nobody, from moderate to progressive Democrat, wants to see our officials kowtowing to Republicans right now.
Bernie didn't wake anybody up. Losing that election to a fascist did.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Where the fuck were you all on election day? I bet at least half of these suddenly outraged "activists" didn't vote for Hillary because she didn't pass their purity test.
Saltiness aside, godspeed in your efforts and don't fucking stay home next time.
Saltiness aside, godspeed in your efforts and don't fucking stay home next time.
Shy Fingers
Banned
I'd be willing to listen to some infrastructure proposals, you know, of the not wall kind, for starters.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Even if he happened to, I don't know if you'd be willing to admit it.
SerTapTap
Member
Aside from TPP I can't think of a single good thing the dude has done. There is no effective difference between resisting all his policies and "only the bad ones"
You can't pretend this administration is just some Republican people are mad at for being Republican and that there's a Good Side to be had here.
bizarre assumption
TPP would have protected American jobs moving into the future.
It wasn't a perfect agreement, but scrapping it wholesale was definitely not a good thing.
GutsOfThor
Member
Awesome to see! I'm currently keeping an eye on my two Dem Senators for their actions and will be ready to vote them out next year should they work with this shitbag administration.
Kite
Member
I mean, it's Brooklyn.. a very liberal area in a very liberal city. Chuck Schumer would be wise to listen to his constituents or he will be primaried and be gone. It's not like there is a danger of a Republican winning I don't think. But I would not take this as some widespread thing.
Come on don't do this. Hillary recieved almost 66 million votes. I'm pretty sure that's more votes than any President in history outside of Obama.
Voters showed up, and I'm willing to bet the Bernie or busters played a rather insignificant role in the election, especially when you had Obama voters in the rust belt and elsewhere swing to Trump this time.
Blame the EC. Blame Hillary's camp and their poor campaign. Don't blame the voters.
No. It's a fact the turnout was low.
And a lot of liberals claimed Hillary was just too evil to vote for. So third party, and bernie write ins etc.She won the popular vote though. But a low turnout none the less.
People seemed to not grasp what a Trump win meant, and why 4 years of a predictable and responsible party would be preferable to 8+20 trump and Scotus.
I've seen so many galvanized to act now, that were both sides morons, before the vote. It takes a lot for people of privilege to realize the way the world works.
For a lot of people, it took trump winning.
plagiarize
Banned
Right. And there aren't going to be too many of those, so I think we're good, mostly.
Of course, a perfect agreement in Trump's eyes seems to be one that comes at no detriment to the USA. The idea of giving something up to get something else, seems alien to him.
He's going to fail time and again in dealing with other countries, as he already has. Look at Australia putting him in his place for crying out loud.
I was pro TPP too. But it's true to say it was dead no matter who got elected President. It was a very easy 'win' for Trump to sign that executive order.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
If I had a dollar for the number of people I heard say they'd vote for Bernie but couldn't vote for Hillary and thus voted for Stein or Johnson or even Trump, I'd have many dollars. Tremendous dollars. People won't even believe the number of dollars I'd have, believe me.
That said, as salty as I am, I'm still on their side because fuck this fascist bullshit administration.
Yep. It's a loss that I hope stays with us for generations.
Fight it out in the primaries, but when that shit is over you get the fuck over yourself and vote.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
This election was decided by ~80,000 votes in three states that a lot of things could have swung it the other way.
And don't blame the voters? They're the ones who actually voted in Trump (or didn't vote at all), so they definitely deserve the blame! Bizarre to think otherwise.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
This right here. Areas of agreement is at best, one or two things, specifically what you mentioned.
plagiarize
Banned
So then your choice becomes entirely about your principles.
If your vote can't swing something one way or another, are you going to vote against the shit he tries to do ('shit' meaning the shit stuff, not all the stuff)?
If a dem won't take a stand on an issue when there vote is basically meaningless, then, yep. Primary the fucker. Not having enough votes to do anything, means you don't have to worry about getting blamed for something failing to move forwards, and you can vote your conscience (or at least your voters conscience).
We delay as much as we can (and good job there so far) until we can get the seats we need to do more than delay. That's where we are at. If all you can do is delay...
You fucking delay.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
At this point, Trump could find a way to fund a 400 billion dollar infrastructure initiative without adding to the debt, and you would still have some anti-trumpers frothing at the mouth and threatening to primary anyone that votes for it.
plagiarize
Banned
100% this.
Primary any democrats you want.
But vote for whichever Democrat wins unless you want to keep the GOP in control of everything.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Agreed.
plagiarize
Banned
Sure. But they'd almost certainly be a minority if that 77% figure is right.
If Trump proposed a healthcare system that was cheaper and covered more people than the ACA I'd be for it. If he proposed a true infrastructure initiative like you describe, I would be for it.
When he actually does something I like, I will pat him on the head.
But he hasn't given me a chance yet.
Exactly.
Dems not having the numbers in congress is all the more reason for them to listen to their base and obstruct. What's the fucking point in wheeling and dealing with your votes when Republicans don't need them? As we have seen, they're going to do what they want regardless of how Democrats vote.
And maybe throw universal healthcare and free higher education in there too! Trump! Trump!
I don't even know what your point is with what you said other than to try to get a snide remark in against people not likeing Trump. Because so far, Trump has not been reasonable, the response to Trump has not been unreasonable. The Republicans, not the Democrats, have the recent history of obstructing for the sake of obstructing.
But sure, let's throw out magic hypotheticals to make it seem like anybody that opposes Trump are the unreasonable ones.
BrutishMrFish
Member
And the Republicans will always turn whatever Democrats do into a negative anyway.
First it's "You voted against DeVos? You're just being obstructionist!" and then it's "Why didn't you tell us she was bad?!"
Or else it's "Oh, you voted for DeVos? Well you should have known she was bad!"
Republicans exploit appeasement and shows of good faith every single time.
At this point Trump could say he has a cure for cancer but he lies through his teeth seemingly every other sentence. Why should we believe anything he says when his actions go in the exact opposite direction.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked