Support NeoGAF

[Angry Fork]

How anybody can say these things with a straight face is hilarious.

No the glorious socialist revolution hasn't come.

Thank god.

Says the empire supporting nationalist who thinks the US has been a force for good in the world since the 50s despite the overwhelming history/evidence to the contrary.

Being in favor of the most basic welfare-state proposals currently being ignored by your liberal darlings isn't socialist revolution btw (although I do want the latter).

You sound very confused.

It is a fact to anyone paying attention that lesser of two evils strategy has moved the country further right on most issues since the 80s, not left.

 

[Coriolanus]

Welcome back, Fork. You were missed

Could you elaborate on the obama bit, specifically in your beef with the way he handled healthcare being more Right than Bush?

It is a fact to anyone paying attention that lesser of two evils strategy has moved the country further right on most issues since the 80s, not left.

Wouldn't you limit that just to economical aspects?

 

[East Lake]

It is a fact to anyone paying attention that lesser of two evils strategy has moved the country further right on most issues since the 80s, not left.

Do you think a socialist would win an election?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html

CNN is doing the NRAs work. Cuts the number of shootings from 74 (the correct number) to 15 because the others weren't "Oregon type shootings".

I think the people hurt and killed in those other shootings really care about CNN's characterization. The gun-fetishists are already claiming Everytown 'lied'

So on Wednesday, CNN took a closer look at the list, delving into the circumstances of each incident Everytown included.

Everytown says on its web site that it gleans its information from media reports and that its list includes school shootings involving a firearm discharged inside or on school grounds, including assaults, homicides, suicides and accidental shootings.

CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Oregon -- a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school. That works out to about one shooting every five weeks.

Also Glenn Greenwald decided to comment on US politics. Spews nonsense:

@ggreenwald
What kind of crazy, insane fanatics would decide they don't want to be represented in by Eric Cantor? Why would they hate DC establishment?

 

[Angry Fork]

Welcome back, Fork. You were missed

Could you elaborate on the obama bit, specifically in your beef with the way he handled healthcare being more Right than Bush?

ACA is a right wing program so Bush 2 and his ilk would have supported it if it wasn't put forth first by democrats.

Wouldn't you limit that just to economical aspects?

And the national security state, drug war (until recently), immigration (deportations), free/open internet.

Do you think a socialist would win an election?

No not in anything other than local elections, but I'm not saying we must have commie presidents/senators right now, just ones that are to the left of what they are now.

But even when it comes to local elections liberals are scared of challenging establishment people, like what happened with the working families party and Cuomo in NY a couple weeks ago.

If Warren doesn't run for Pres I'm hoping Bernie Sanders does, and if he does every liberal should support him. But I know they won't, most in this thread won't that's for sure.

 

[KingK]

I would pay good money for the opportunity to vote for Bernie Sanders. I doubt he'd win the primary, let alone the general, but I think he'd be very effective at dragging the nominee to the left.

 

[The Librarian]

ACA is a right wing program so Bush 2 and his ilk would have supported it if it wasn't put forth first by democrats.



And the national security state, drug war (until recently), immigration (deportations), free/open internet.



No not in anything other than local elections, but I'm not saying we must have commie presidents/senators right now, just ones that are to the left of what they are now.

But even when it comes to local elections liberals are scared of challenging establishment people, like what happened with the working families party and Cuomo in NY a couple weeks ago.

If Warren doesn't run for Pres I'm hoping Bernie Sanders does, and if he does every liberal should support him. But I know they won't, most in this thread won't that's for sure.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Speaking of those economics credentials:

Brat, just asked by @chucktodd whether there should be a minimum wage, says "I don't have a well-formed response." The man is an economist.

Looking at the profile they have of him on Vox, this guy sounds great. I do love how both the nominees in this race are professors at the same college.

The video

Excerpt of transcript:

TODD: Where are you on the minimum wage? Do you believe in it, and would you raise it?
BRAT: Minimum wage, no, I'm a free market guy. Our labor markets right now are already distorted from too many regulations. I think [the] Cato [Institute] estimates, you know, there's $2 trillion of regulatory problems and then throw ObamaCare on top of that, the work hours is 30 hours a week. You can only hire, you know, 50 people. There's just distortion after distortion after distortion and we wonder why our labor markets are broken.
TODD: So should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: Say it again.
TODD: Should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: Um, I don't have a well-crafted response on that one.

I love this. Yeah, let's just throw some ObamaCare on top of that word salad, Dave.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Says the empire supporting nationalist who thinks the US has been a force for good in the world since the 50s despite the overwhelming history/evidence to the contrary.
.

Empire supporting nationalist? I prefer Internationalist (in the mold of WW's 14 points) mixed in with a bit of Realism.

Being in favor of the most basic welfare-state proposals currently being ignored by your liberal darlings isn't socialist revolution btw (although I do want the latter).

I would hesitate to call what you want supported as the 'most basic welfare-state proposals'.

It is a fact to anyone paying attention that lesser of two evils strategy has moved the country further right on most issues since the 80s, not left.

The democrats didn't move the country to the right, the people moved the country to the right. The dems went chasing votes. Your mixing cause and effect.

ACA is a right wing program so Bush 2 and his ilk would have supported it if it wasn't put forth first by democrats.



And the national security state, drug war (until recently), immigration (deportations), free/open internet.



No not in anything other than local elections, but I'm not saying we must have commie presidents/senators right now, just ones that are to the left of what they are now.

But even when it comes to local elections liberals are scared of challenging establishment people, like what happened with the working families party and Cuomo in NY a couple weeks ago.

If Warren doesn't run for Pres I'm hoping Bernie Sanders does, and if he does every liberal should support him. But I know they won't, most in this thread won't that's for sure.

this reads exactly like something a redstate's bizzaro liberal version. I'm not joking its almost a perfect mirror. Everything is a sellout and compromise of real values, nobody is a true liberal, accusations people on the left aren't committed to the cause.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Yeah, Bush II would have supported ACA and gay marriage, just like House Republicans would have supported immigration reform, if Democrats would just stop forcing them to oppose it!!

 

[Angry Fork]

Remember Obama preventing the review of immigration policies because he hoped to salvage something from the GOP, lol. After the Cantor stuff that's over and more time/effort from activists will have to be wasted just to get that little review back.

They're the ones that are radical though, Obama is doing the best he can. He has no real power unless it's to kill children overseas. Give him a break =(

Empire supporting nationalist? I prefer Internationalist (in the mold of WW's 14 points) mixed in with a bit of Realism.

You don't like internationalism unless it's for the benefit of the US.

The democrats didn't move the country to the right, the people moved the country to the right. The dems went chasing votes. Your mixing cause and effect.

The people support a welfare state, which democrats have continued to purposefully dismantle as much as possible to benefit their capitalist donors.

this reads exactly like something a redstate's bizzaro liberal version. I'm not joking its almost a perfect mirror.

Doesn't stop it from being true. It is truth that Obama is worse than Bush 2 on what I listed, but you're a Thomas Friedman-type "centrist" so I know you don't care.

 

[Coriolanus]

The democrats didn't move the country to the right, the people moved the country to the right. The dems went chasing votes. Your mixing cause and effect.

Ehh, that's kinda tricky. Current dude was elected on hope and change, after all.

 

[Angry Fork]

Yeah, Bush II would have supported ACA and gay marriage, just like House Republicans would have supported immigration reform, if Democrats would just stop forcing them to oppose it!!

He would have supported ACA if a predominately white, right wing group of politicians endorsed it (which was the case in the 90s.)

As for gay marriage, Obama was a bigot until 2012, that should be forever made clear to people who champion him on this. People like Huey Newton and Bayard Rustin were 40 years ahead of him, there's no excuse.

 

[speculawyer]

Well . . . I wonder if Iraq is going to take over the headlines?


Of course the GOP is going to blame it all on Obama .. . but does that mean they want us back into Iraq? Yeah, go ahead and run on that platform.

 

[RustyNails]

As for gay marriage, Obama was a bigot until 2012, that should be forever made clear to people who champion him on this. People like Huey Newton and Bayard Rustin were 40 years ahead of him, there's no excuse.

Such ALL or NOTHING views are incendiary grenades thrown into a discourse and denies the ability of people their agency to make choices, most of all a political discourse. Abraham Lincoln evolved on the status of slavery. Malcolm X evolved on his views towards whites. So did Muhammad Ali. Their entire accomplishments and views should be considered, not just how they were before x happened.

 

[dabig2]

He would have supported ACA if a predominately white, right wing group of politicians endorsed it (which was the case in the 90s.)

As for gay marriage, Obama was a bigot until 2012, that should be forever made clear to people who champion him on this. People like Huey Newton and Bayard Rustin were 40 years ahead of him, there's no excuse.

The good ol "too little too late".

 

[RustyNails]

PD, this one's for you

Abraham Lincoln rose to national prominence in the mid-1800s as a House member from Illinois, a state now affectionately known as the Land of Lincoln, and later as an iconic U.S. president.

But during a speech in Chicago on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton – who was born in Illinois – misidentified the state's most famous politician as a senator, not a congressman.

"A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York," Clinton said of the 2008 primary. "Just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward."

 

[Angry Fork]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/obama-cantor-immigration_n_5486448.html

Mmmm get ready for more attempts at compromise with a bunch of fascists. Which means worse and worse conditions for whatever proposal the admin will put forth.

Soon the requirement for getting immigration stuff passed will be deporting all current undocumented immigrants by cannon fire. And Obama would sign it to get the deal done.

Such ALL or NOTHING views are incendiary grenades thrown into a discourse and denies the ability of people their agency to make choices, most of all a political discourse. Abraham Lincoln evolved on the status of slavery. Malcolm X evolved on his views towards whites. So did Muhammad Ali. Their entire accomplishments and views should be considered, not just how they were before x happened.

I completely agree, nobody is black and white good or bad. There are people I respect who I think were wrong on some things, but I'd disagree on those without reservation. I would avoid making excuses for bad policies or opinions like so many liberals do with Obama.

I don't actually believe he was a bigot btw, just a coward and completely unprincipled, he didn't evolve, he just refused to show his real opinion. Obama's "accomplishments" have generally been a result of protests from below, pressure from the left, which is how it often works and that's fine, but it means he isn't responsible for those victories, because he would have avoided them if there was no fire to his feet.

A real leader to me would be going out there convincing people on the fence why x y z are good policies, and continue to go further and further, as much as they can, in a dictatorial way. Have open debates with the public and anyone of the opposition. He's not interested in doing any of this though because he's not a progressive, and is part of the establishment. There is no reason for him to dramatically upset things because there is no unified left opposition, and so-called liberals will support anything he does.

 

[East Lake]

I feel like this whole conversation is repeated every 3-6 months with AF.

Dems are corporate shills and aren't leftists. Okay.

 

[Tamanon]

Just don't even bother with Angry Fork guys.

 

[alstein]

I feel like this whole conversation is repeated every 3-6 months with AF.

Dems are corporate shills and aren't leftists. Okay.

That said, if you want leftist Dems, they could win now because the Republicans have gone so far right. Just need to start primarying Dems like Hillary, especially outside the South.

 

[Angry Fork]

PoliGAF 2014 [OT] - Poll watching, links to crazy right wingers, I <3 dems. NOTHING ELSE!!!11

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I don't get how one could say Dems are leftists with a straight face outside of teabagger circles.

This thread almost reaches a liberalism singularity at times.

 

[alstein]

I don't get how one could say Dems are leftists with a straight face outside of teabagger circles.

This thread almost reaches a liberalism singularity at times.

Poli-GAF, and most gaming message boards skew towards the age group that is most overwhelmingly liberal in the country. (which I guess is folks around 25-35) Also, most of the folks who are socially conservative in that age group would likely say things to get them banned on many boards (and deservedly so), or don't use the internet much.

I think folks younger are currently a bit more apathetic, folks older are more conservative due to being dealt a better economic hand and are a bit more likely to be socially conservative.

 

[East Lake]

PoliGAF 2014 [OT] - Poll watching, links to crazy right wingers, I <3 dems. NOTHING ELSE!!!11

A few different bumps in the road and you'd be listening to coast to coast am.

 

[Coriolanus]

I feel like this whole conversation is repeated every 3-6 months with AF.

Dems are corporate shills and aren't leftists. Okay.

To be fair, this is not exactly new. Vidal was saying that for decades.

It's nice to have people like AF around too, shakes things up a bit. He's quite on point with his OT quibble.

 

[benjipwns]

Hey guys, are we talking about corporate state that steals and murders regularly but supporting the two parties and their elites will really change things this time as long as we don't rock the boat, it's a Fabian strategy I promise, they're really on our side?

 

[Tamanon]

To be fair, this is not exactly new. Vidal was saying that for decades.

It's nice to have people like AF around too, shakes things up a bit. He's quite on point with his OT quibble.

I don't think anybody here was claiming Obama was some liberal firebrand. Just taking issue with his characterization as "to the right of Bush 43" which is just silly.

Obama has always been a moderate-to-conservative guy, it's one of the reasons I support him.

 

[KingK]

PoliGAF 2014 [OT] - Poll watching, links to crazy right wingers, I <3 dems. NOTHING ELSE!!!11

Eh, I don't think that's entirely fair. I understand and share your frustration at the fact that the left isn't really represented in America outside of a handful of Congressmen/women, but I think most people in this thread recognize that the Democrats are a pretty centrist party, and not really very left. I've also seen plenty of criticism of Obama for compromising before he's even asked to and shit in here. I think people would disagree with you that they're some far right party or something though, and most would certainly disagree with your assertion that Obama is to the right of Bush II. I tend to view them as a center-right coalition, with a few liberals who have nowhere else to go.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You don't like internationalism unless it's for the benefit of the US.

Not really. I think your applying your standards to my beliefs rather than what IR scholars term my philosophy

I did use the incorrect term. I mean liberalism/idealism in the mold of Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_in_international_relations

I think Realism provides good insights though I disagree with their starting point which makes it frustrating.

The people support a welfare state, which democrats have continued to purposefully dismantle as much as possible to benefit their capitalist donors.

People also support a limited government and opposed "government run health care" in certain polls. Square that circle.

Doesn't stop it from being true. It is truth that Obama is worse than Bush 2 on what I listed, but you're a Thomas Friedman-type "centrist" so I know you don't care.

How anyone can call me a Thomas Friedman type centrist after reading my post history is bewildering. And further reinforces the tea party comparisons, its some kind of tribal identification, some no true scotsman

Such ALL or NOTHING views are incendiary grenades thrown into a discourse and denies the ability of people their agency to make choices, most of all a political discourse. Abraham Lincoln evolved on the status of slavery. Malcolm X evolved on his views towards whites. So did Muhammad Ali. Their entire accomplishments and views should be considered, not just how they were before x happened.

but that takes away peoples ability to be better than others!

 

[PhoenixDark]

PoliGAF 2014 [OT] - Poll watching, links to crazy right wingers, I <3 dems. NOTHING ELSE!!!11

I wouldn't disagree with this or the general Obama water carrying atmosphere here, but you're way off on everything else. The ACA isn't something republicans would have passed a decade ago, in fact they've been trying to gut Medicaid for more than a decade - why would they agree to expand it, as the ACA does? If you cannot acknoledge the reality that the ACA has had a net positive impact on healthcare and is literally saving millions of people's lives, I don't know what to say. It's not perfect, it's a corporate giveaway, but it is doing good things. And in a decade I'd imagine it'll be even better, and sooner or later it WILL have a public option.

 

[East Lake]

To be fair, this is not exactly new. Vidal was saying that for decades.

It's nice to have people like AF around too, shakes things up a bit. He's quite on point with his OT quibble.

I actually agree that the dems aren't nearly left enough, but it doesn't shake anything up and is tedious every time it comes up. It's like when you're talking about anything vaguely related to privacy or rights and someone brings up the NSA. It becomes this one-note circus that seems to me to be mostly about lording over everybody else a supposedly enlightened view of politics.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A real leader to me would be going out there convincing people on the fence why x y z are good policies, and continue to go further and further, as much as they can, in a dictatorial way. Have open debates with the public and anyone of the opposition. He's not interested in doing any of this though because he's not a progressive, and is part of the establishment. There is no reason for him to dramatically upset things because there is no unified left opposition, and so-called liberals will support anything he does.

And you wonder why people don't subscribe to your philosophy? You literally say screw democracy If I don't get what I want. And then call others Fascists?

Hey guys, are we talking about corporate state that steals and murders regularly but supporting the two parties and their elites will really change things this time as long as we don't rock the boat, it's a Fabian strategy I promise, they're really on our side?

no

I actually agree that the dems aren't nearly left enough, but it doesn't shake anything up and is tedious every time it comes up. It's like when you're talking about anything vaguely related to privacy or rights and someone brings up the NSA. It becomes this one-note circus that seems to me to be mostly about lording over everybody else a supposedly enlightened view of politics.

Does anybody read the party platforms and things that are said in debates?

The 'not left enough' is the same thing as the RINO calls by the tea part. It pretends there are no consequences to actions and complete agreement with said polices. It says nothing

I don't get how one could say Dems are leftists with a straight face outside of teabagger circles.

This thread almost reaches a liberalism singularity at times.

Leftists? no. A Center-Left Party? Of course one could. Though I think what drives people on the far left insane is people don't want a state-controlled economy, the government mandating things and popular opinions ignored because certain people said they're ideas were stupid. People don't want the far left. Read leftists euro-gaf they scream the same frustrations just with more publicly owned companies and unions.

 

[benjipwns]

no

Are you sure? Hillary is a big defender of the corporate state...

Spoiler

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I also don't get the Obama water caring. Obama gets yelled at all the time in this thread for his policies. The problem seems to be is it's not enough for us to throw him under the bus and get a true liberal (tm) like the tea party does.

 

[RustyNails]

In two years we will all be carrying water for Hillary

Spoiler

to benghazi

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Spoiler

to benghazi

Anything to distract from Vince Foster

 

[Angry Fork]

People also support a limited government and opposed "government run health care" in certain polls. Square that circle.

Limited government on stasi-level surveillance, which you love.

As for healthcare, we know "medicare for all" is the same thing as gov-run healthcare. That doesn't mean the idea or terminology is wrong only a lot of people are too uninformed to realize it.

Facts do exist, if people choose falsities over reality than yes I'd be opposed to that kind of democracy. (ie There should be a state imposed monopoly on evolution in schools because it's a fact and it's science, despite calls for the "freedom" to teach lies like creationism. )

And you wonder why people don't subscribe to your philosophy? You literally say screw democracy If I don't get what I want. And then call others Fascists?

I meant defend opinions/principles they believe in with the verbal and physical force of a dictator, not shut out other opinions. Obama's centrist calm persona does nothing to help progressive ideas permeate throughout the population, at a time where it's needed now more than ever. This is helping to cause the right wing (who do have fiery, passionate, principled politicians) to pick up votes and sentiment that should belong to the left.

I'm not saying I expect this out of him btw, as I don't believe he's a progressive and isn't interested in changing the establishment, I'm just pointing it out to people who think he is.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Limited government on stasi-level surveillance, which you love.

As for healthcare, we know "medicare for all" is the same thing as gov-run healthcare. That doesn't mean the idea is wrong only a lot of people are too uninformed to realize it.

The NSA isn't the stasi and your second portion is the same old "The people are too stupid" argument

I meant defend opinions/principles they believe in with the verbal and physical force of a dictator, not shut out other opinions. Obama's centrist calm persona does nothing to help progressive ideas permeate throughout the population, at a time where it's needed now more than ever. This is causing the right wing (who do have fiery, passionate, principled politicians) to pick up votes and sentiment that should belong to the left.

I'm not saying I expect this out of him btw, as I don't believe he's a progressive and isn't interested in changing the establishment, I'm just pointing it out to people who think he is.

You want a Fox News of the left.

 

[Amir0x]

Republicans have/had/will have absolutely zero interest in allowing any legislation to pass that would be credited as a plus to Democrats. They've been doing this for the last 6 years. If anything, Republicans being unwilling to even talk about it is a good thing, because then they can't falsely paint the Democrats as being "against bipartisanship" when not a single Republican votes for the legislation in the end after Dems bending over backwards and dragging it to the right. There is no policy difference between the Tea Party and the establishment. Only strategic differences (Tea Party is less deceitful about their unwillingness to work with Democrats on anything).

Immigration reform was not going to happen with Republican majorities. Period. It's fantasy to think otherwise. At least now Republicans will have a harder time arguing that it's the Democrats' fault for not negotiating with them.

Becoming just as entrenched as them doesn't really help matters. As I said, the gridlock is severe either way. But, before they were talking about one or two issues, now they will talk about none. Before there was at least a few base of Republicans signal to discuss those issues or have discussed them openly, and now there will be none. Before Republicans had a bit of internal hand wringing about the debt ceiling, now it's even more possible they'd be pushed to an even further brink.

Any way we can quantify it, things just got worse. It may be in some form of incremental movement that you don't want to register, but we demonstrably have now got ourselves into an even worse gridlocked position.

 

[kehs]

Anybody think Cantor took a hit to prove that small money candidates can still makes moves, in order to quelch all this talk about campaign finance reform?

#constheo

 

[KingK]

The 'not left enough' is the same thing as the RINO calls by the tea part. It pretends there are no consequences to actions and complete agreement with said polices. It says nothing



Leftists? no. A Center-Left Party? Of course one could. Though I think what drives people on the far left insane is people don't want a state-controlled economy, the government mandating things and popular opinions ignored because certain people said they're ideas were stupid. People don't want the far left. Read leftists euro-gaf they scream the same frustrations just with more publicly owned companies and unions.

Now your just responding to AngryFork's strawman arguments with more strawmen. You're better than that. People who would prefer a Democratic party more in line with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren't "angry that there isn't a state-controlled economy." That's bullshit. A lot of us just want a party more in line with the standards of the Nordic countries, and that brand of democratic socialism. That isn't the same as communist Russia and you know it.

Becoming just as entrenched as them doesn't really help matters. As I said, the gridlock is severe either way. But, before they were talking about one or two issues, now they will talk about none. Before there was at least a few base of Republicans signal to discuss those issues or have discussed them openly, and now there will be none. Before Republicans had a bit of internal hand wringing about the debt ceiling, now it's even more possible they'd be pushed to an even further brink.

Any way we can quantify it, things just got worse. It may be in some form of incremental movement that you don't want to register, but we demonstrably have now got ourselves into an even worse gridlocked position.

I disagree. And I'm not advocating "becoming just as entrenched as them." I'm saying Democrats have been bending over backwards to negotiate and it has yielded zero results for six years, regardless of the Tea Party, so why would things have suddenly changed in the absence of this Cantor upset? Just look back at the healthcare debate. Republicans were "talking" about it for 6+ months. Democrats offered concession after concession, and Republicans still refused a single vote for the bill. This is their strategy. They are never going to vote for a bill that helps Democrats' image, so why does it matter whether they openly oppose any compromise, or pretend to be willing to compromise while never planning to follow through? At least this way people know better where the party actually stands.

 

[zero shift]

Reading Angry Fork's posts have me double check that I am not on Something Awful.

Poli-GAF, and most gaming message boards skew towards the age group that is most overwhelmingly liberal in the country. (which I guess is folks around 25-35) Also, most of the folks who are socially conservative in that age group would likely say things to get them banned on many boards (and deservedly so), or don't use the internet much.

I think folks younger are currently a bit more apathetic, folks older are more conservative due to being dealt a better economic hand and are a bit more likely to be socially conservative.

It can be summed up as nerds tend to be left wing, and gamers are nerds.

 

[Angry Fork]

The NSA isn't the stasi and your second portion is the same old "The people are too stupid" argument

If someone doesn't know medicare is government-run then yes they are uninformed, probably not stupid, but they just don't have the necessary information required to have an opinion on healthcare.

And if this is the case for the majority of people, then the education/political system has failed and 'democracy' isn't really democracy, it's open to whoever can lie most convincingly.

You want a Fox News of the left.

Yes that would be extremely useful, but with the actual facts and policy endorsements that would support working class people. The left needs a huge campaign of agitation and fire/brimstone attitude towards the establishment. Why any so-called progressive or liberal would be opposed to this (when it would benefit them) is beyond me. Msnbc isn't it either, not by a long shot.

 

[RustyNails]

Elizabeth Warren's Student Loan Reform bill failed in the Senate

bubu both sides.

 

[speculawyer]

Anybody think Cantor took a hit to prove that small money candidates can still makes moves, in order to quelch all this talk about campaign finance reform?

#constheo

LOL, No.

 

[Amir0x]

I disagree. And I'm not advocating "becoming just as entrenched as them." I'm saying Democrats have been bending over backwards to negotiate and it has yielded zero results for six years, regardless of the Tea Party, so why would things have suddenly changed in the absence of this Cantor upset? Just look back at the healthcare debate. Republicans were "talking" about it for 6+ months. Democrats offered concession after concession, and Republicans still refused a single vote for the bill. This is their strategy. They are never going to vote for a bill that helps Democrats' image, so why does it matter whether they openly oppose any compromise, or pretend to be willing to compromise while never planning to follow through? At least this way people know better where the party actually stands.

I don't believe you're understanding the nuance of my argument here. I made a visual aid.

Functionally, the end result before Cantor and after is that few if any bills were going to get passed. But, prior to Cantor, there were Republicans who indisputably had signaled they were willing to talk about immigration reform (it's what cost Cantor his seat, remember?), and there were mechanics in place to at least allow relatively (I stress this: RELATIVELY) saner heads prevail so the debt crisis didn't go even further.

Now, we won't even have that. So, whereas in both scenarios we were unlikely to pass bills, in one of these scenarios there was an ember, in the other it has been blown out by a tornado.

 

[kehs]

LOL, No.

Will see you during the Cantor/Boehner 2016 run.

 

[KingK]

I still, to this day, 6 years after I started following politics, can't get over the fact that 56-38 is a failed vote...

edit: @Amirox

I understand what you're saying, but I think any differences you're talking about are just cosmetic, not functional. I believe, based on the past 6 years, that any Republican discussion about passing immigration was not serious. It was dishonest, and only meant as a means to blame Democrats and Obama for not being bipartisan, so that they could still get some moderate Republican voters that actually do want immigration passed. The Tea Party just disagrees with that political strategy, and would rather truthfully say that they will never pass immigration. The ember you speak of was never actually there. It was just a fake lightbulb candle. I don't view the illusion of possible bipartisanship as something that is functionally any better, and possibly worse than, outright refusing to negotiate on it.

With regards to the Debt Ceiling, I tend to agree with PD on this. No matter how much Tea Party influence there is, as soon as Wall St. and K Street push their full influence, no Republican is going to allow us to default. They might push it even further than before, but they'll cave before a default.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Now your just responding to AngryFork's strawman arguments with more strawmen. You're better than that. People who would prefer a Democratic party more in line with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren't "angry that there isn't a state-controlled economy." That's bullshit. A lot of us just want a party more in line with the standards of the Nordic countries, and that brand of democratic socialism. That isn't the same as communist Russia and you know it.

Some do. Sure but I wouldn't say that's leftist. But center-left.