Unknown Soldier
Member
You Whig the Democrats and start a new party. The "Justice Democrats" is a start but if change from within doesn't work, a new party will have to arise from the smoking ashes of the Democratic Party.
-
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.
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
You Whig the Democrats and start a new party. The "Justice Democrats" is a start but if change from within doesn't work, a new party will have to arise from the smoking ashes of the Democratic Party.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
You still have the ability to resist. I feel like I always tell you this in every doom and gloom thread.
(I'm not trying to put you down, I just want you to have some hope.)
Ghostshark
Member
We have the majority of the country that didn't vote for him and add to his abysmal disapproval rates, and people that are regretting their vote (probably because they were ignorant of what they were voting for.) The citizens won't take this lying down. If it gets bad enough, there will be riots and possible civil war, but let's hope it won't come to that. The women's march proved that there are people willing to get out of their homes to demonstrate.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yes, they would have. Seeings as they voted for anti-TPP and anti-outsourcing, which are traditionally, left leaning positions.
We have the people. we have the majority and we will resist no matter what.
Lord Frieza
Member
I am only one person and can only do so much since I work a 50 hour a week job that's third shift. What I do, aka voting in all elections, donations to public broadcasting, PP, ACLU and environmental causes, doesn't amount to much. No, they aren't worthless, but I have no political power whatsoever, which is the real power, and on top of that I live in a blood red state (TN).
One person can make all the difference, because one person can influence another, and then they can influence another. Ideas and actions spread, and strengthen. You are but one person in an collection of millions who are resisting this fascist regime that is festering in the highest office in the land. Every action you do, no matter how minor, helps.
Believe me, there are others who will believe it's hopeless, that what they could do would amount to nothing and so they sit and do nothing, and not surprisingly, as a collective, all those people could have accomplished something. So never say your contribution is worthless, as part of the collective, your contribution is helping more than you realize.
old manatee
Banned
The real danger of a Republican presidency is the Democrats rubber stamping everything.
Which is all the more reason they should have joined together and opposed: to show they're capable of fighting that fight. The fact that even against clearly unfit candidates and a huge wave of anti trump sentiment, they still couldn't vote as a block doesn't bode well for later. Their base is losing faith they're capable of growing a spine, and the GOP certainly isn't worried, as they'll know they can always peel a few dems off when they need it. A few unanimous opposition votes, even unsuccessful, imo would do a lot to give their base hope that when the time comes, they will fight.
The fact that they could, in theory, group up if they need to block something filibusterable, is pointless if they can't prove they will ever actually do it.
It doesn't even have to be all the cabinet. A few of the more terrible ones, like Devos and tillerson would do, both as a symbol of resistance and to make the GOP truly own their horrible choices.
Smh.
Lord Frieza
Member
Well, I hope you're right then.
I disagree.
I just don't understand how Democrats could have gone through the last year and not have finally learned the obvious freaking lesson that, despite how much you may not want it to, optics fucking matter. It does. Full stop.
Democrats are madder and more energized than we have been in over a decade. And we're not taking to streets and protesting in unprecedented numbers because we want our leadership in Congress to desperately search for ways to work with Donald Trump and his Republican minions. No, were taking to the streets because we want to RESIST. That Democrats like Schumer don't understand this is a remarkable moment of tone-deafness.
And the thing is Democrats don't have any actual power here. Republicans have the numbers, and the discipline to vote in lock-step, such that if they want every single one of Trump's cabinet picks to go through, they're going through regardless of how the Democrats vote. And Republicans know that, so they don't give a shit how Democrats vote. So absent any actual power, Democrats could at least do the symbolic thing. The thing that would send a clear message to their voters that YES, we see you, we hear you, we're with you, and we're going to fight. That some Democrats don't see the worth in doing the symbolic thing after the results of this election is maddening.
At time a time like this, shit like this makes it hard for people like me on the ground to make the argument that its not just 'Politics as Usual' in Washington and keep people motivated to get involved and STAY involved.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The power of a movement, generally speaking, lies not in the individual, but the sum of all the individuals together. You're too preoccupied with yourself. You're doing what you can that is within your power, and that's fine. Try not to focus too much inwards, and is possible, expand your perception outwards as well and connect with everyone else.
Or, you can take more of a leadership role to help guide and maintain the movement, although that takes a lot more time and effort than most people have. It's your choice, but don't be dissatisfied just because more people seem to be doing better than you. It's the social media fallacy of comparison.
For what it's worth, try and see if there are any Democrats on the local level around where you live who have a shot at getting elected. If so, volunteer for their campaign.
Also people tend to forget, it was the democrats who almost killed the ACA and killed the public option and refused single-payer. It was the democrats who ignored a lot of social issues in sake of getting re-elected. For years they ignored gay marriage or weed legalization, which in the end was pushed by regular people and society.
Re-election above everything else, only money for the big flashy races, ignoring almost everything on state and local level. But according to the other thread, you should not even criticize that now.
Re-election above everything else, only money for the big flashy races, ignoring almost everything on state and local level. But according to the other thread, you should not even criticize that now.
Perfectly stated. Schumer is one of the worst choices to possibly lead Democrats at any point in time, let alone this one.
StrategyFan
Member
it seems shortsighted to just approve appointments, even the ones that will inevitably win
they should be gathering ammo to impeach Trump, not creating the illusion that a large majority of Congress is aligned with him
having appointments confirmed by large margins makes it easier for Trump to distance himself from those picks instead of being held accountable when things go wrong
they should be gathering ammo to impeach Trump, not creating the illusion that a large majority of Congress is aligned with him
having appointments confirmed by large margins makes it easier for Trump to distance himself from those picks instead of being held accountable when things go wrong
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You're saying that their ability to filibuster any upcoming Supreme Court pick is pointless because of their current behavior? How so? They still can do it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
As a Democrat you should be interested in having a functioning government. No good comes out of the agencies not having their heads. And if the heads implement awful policies GOP and Trump will own that in 2018 and 2020.
Not to mention, you can't filibuster Cabinet Nominees anymore.
Not to mention, you can't filibuster Cabinet Nominees anymore.
shinra-bansho
Member
Tillerson and DeVos haven't come to full vote.
Only two Cabinet members have been approved. Mattis and John Kelly.
Haley as UN Ambassador.
And Pompeo as CIA Director.
Aside from Pompeo, (who is not a Cabinet level post), these are the least offensive of his picks.
Taking crossover votes for Nikki Haley as a sign that they can't filibuster William Pryor for the Supreme Court makes no sense.
Elaugaufein
Member
They're saying the theoretical ability to filibuster is meaningless if they can't practical do it (ie keep people in line). I don't think thats the case here since I don't think they were trying.
Lord Frieza
Member
Not when that functioning government is out to destroy you, I don't think
I like all that you said, and it is encouraging, but the bold is weird. I think maybe you misunderstood something on my end, because other people 'doing better' at anything really doesn't affect my views?
This, so much.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The government has too many aspects that help people. Trump can't get rid of it all without legislation.
Would you rather have Trump making the calls for Defense without Mattis being confirmed?
All Democrats have done is voted for SOME Trump cabinet nominees. We are talking as if they voted to repeal ACA.
I definitely hear all of this, and agree that in a time where they lack real power, these symbolic votes matter in keeping their base energized.
But I also think that we are probably amongst the most engaged voters, and that a lot of the base the party needs to show up during the midterms and 2020 aren't paying attention to the minutiae of cabinet confirmations, especially when news cycles are currently flooded with discussions of Trump's fixation on crowd sizes, "alternative facts", and whatever executive order is being declared that day. Though the cabinet is obviously very important, it doesn't garner the amount of media attention that Trump's SC nominee will garner. There Dems have no excuse, they NEED to hold the line there.
Please, tell me how someone like Elizabeth Warren voting YES on confirming someone like Ben Freaking Carson for a job that even he says he is unqualified for is an example of functionally governing. Especially when her vote is completely unnecessary to him getting confirmed. Hes getting confirmed anyway.
GillianSeed79
Member
If current Dems won't challenge Trump or the GOP, we need to elect new ones. This isn't going to happen though. Reason? Two minutes after the whole "Justice Democrats" thing was announced, lots of progressive Dems and people on GAF were basically like, "Nope," it's going to steal votes from the Dems, it's all just butt hurt Bernie Bros, We have to keep the spineless corporate shits in office, etc. I'm not saying I'm a fan of the "Justice Democrats" idea or anything, but I am a fan of primary-ing the shit out of Dems who don't or refuse to promote the liberal/progressive/left's agenda. The reason was Occupy Wall Street amounted to nothing is because there was no effort to actually run for office or challenge the status quo. The reason why the GOP controls all branches of government is because the crazy Tea Party actually targeted their base, not centrist, please all bureaucrats. I want a full on political revolution in the Democratic party. For now, I'll have to take to the streets. If the Women's March doesn't amount to actual political gains in local, state, or federally elected positions, then it's all for naught. I'm done capitulating. I'm ready to fight back.
Elaugaufein
Member
I think some of you are misreading the optics thing here too:
Feinstein for example has a pretty questionable history on Nat Sec oversight stuff (she's generally been pretty pro giving them free reign for anything but the most egregious breaches but goes in hard on those). This is probably because she's senior member of the Intellegence Committee IIRC and wants to maintain a good relationship there which means she probably doesn't give a fig about optics in this situation.
And most of the others are Red State Democrats who need to be able to go home and differentiate themselves from those coastal liberals which means bad optics to you are good for them. Limiting themselves to doing it on pointless things you can't block anwyay is pretty much the best you can ask.
Feinstein for example has a pretty questionable history on Nat Sec oversight stuff (she's generally been pretty pro giving them free reign for anything but the most egregious breaches but goes in hard on those). This is probably because she's senior member of the Intellegence Committee IIRC and wants to maintain a good relationship there which means she probably doesn't give a fig about optics in this situation.
And most of the others are Red State Democrats who need to be able to go home and differentiate themselves from those coastal liberals which means bad optics to you are good for them. Limiting themselves to doing it on pointless things you can't block anwyay is pretty much the best you can ask.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Simple. You sink Carson, who does Trump nominate next?
What if he nominates that Texas Congressman who introduced a bill that says that HUD can't build homes to fight segregation or specific for minority communities?
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14388934/warren-brown-carson-hud
Same thing with Mattis. Same thing with Pompeo. Same thing with Kelly. At the same time, no Dem voted for Tillerson in the committee.
Stop trying to have a liberal tea party that says we must just always oppose everything. Democrats are and should always be more educated and intelligent in their opposition.
And if do want to become a liberal tea party then we should all be rallying for passing of TPP since Trump opposes that too.
Fox Mulder
Member
I already have no faith in this country, so i wasn't expecting Dems to actually fight in Congress. The bullies won and dems just don't play that game.
This country is fucked.
This country is fucked.
Warren doesn't have the power to sink Carson, and she never did.
jakonovski
Member
For one, Trump doesn't seem to have transfered the control of his companies. https://www.propublica.org/article/...-from-his-companies-but-no-record-hes-done-so
Somehow the Democrats seem to think this is fine and not worth any attention.
Somehow the Democrats seem to think this is fine and not worth any attention.
What?
Lets just vote "yes", so we can at one point say :"come on guys, remember when we voted yes on your candidate back then?"?
Couldn't they have forced them to nominate an other(better) candidate?
capitalCORN
Member
Do worry, they're definitely flexing some deadly side eye.
cartoon_soldier
Member
No, you can't force President to nominate someone else. And this is Trump, that someone else could be him nominating Sean Hannity to lead CIA.
What is "picking your battles" anymore? The worst case scenario has happened.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The worst case scenario is Sean Hannity leading the CIA.
As I said in the very message you quoted - pick a fight where they can be united, where they can win and where a win will make a real difference.
There will be opportunities very very soon to do that, and shit, if the dems fold on stuff like DACA than 100% go after them, but for voting for Pompeo or Haley? this is unimportant.
shinra-bansho
Member
Mattis, Haley and Kelly aren't worst case scenario.
In all likelihood worse were floated behind closed doors. And thrown out (John Bolton again, anyone? Rudy?) because the votes weren't there even on the GOP side.
There are worse nominees than the ones who have come to vote.
So what happens when a candidate doesn't get the needed votes?
And aren't they able to block the second candidate as well?
Or does he get the job without vote?
You couldn't just say "no" till they nominate a candidate the Democrats are satisfied with?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Let me clarify: It sounds like you feel the world is moving and leaving you behind, which makes you perceive that your individual actions have no meaning. Also that you feel restrained in your ability to "do something" relative to, say, someone holding political office, or someone who has more money to donate to a cause, or someone who has more free time to volunteer, etc. Don't compare yourselves to them, just do what you can what is in your power to control. If and when your capability grows, the act in kind.
Ding ding ding.
And worse, playing the political game of voting yes for some of Trump's cabinet picks out of some misguided attempt for good PR (because trust, Republicans do not give one single fuck), is going against what Democrats themselves said they would do: work with Trump when he's being reasonable.
Most of these picks are not reasonable.
It's a abandonment of their principles for the sake of politics. And Hillary just paid the price for this.
jakonovski
Member
There's probably quite a few sympathetic Republican politicians waiting for the Democrats to go on the warpath against Trump, too. But they'll not move until the actual opposition does.
What I'm trying to say is that there's a nonzero chance that it will be Democrats who in the end enable Trump to stay a full term, or until he gets a stroke from all the stress or something.
What I'm trying to say is that there's a nonzero chance that it will be Democrats who in the end enable Trump to stay a full term, or until he gets a stroke from all the stress or something.
Politico seems to have found indications that appeasement will not be the tactic going forward:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-strategy-234206
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-strategy-234206
If this is a PR fight they're doing a shitty job of signalling any form of resistance or value to the horror cabinet of Trump. It's dumb as hell to try to appease the GOP, especially if it doesn't even matter.
It makes zero sense to play ball with the GOP any more. If the nominees were going to be appointed regardless of their votes, they should have voted no as their vote wasn't needed; voting yes doesn't gain them anything as no GOP member is going to remember or care later. And if their votes would have denied the nominee, well fucking deny the nominee till a decent one is suggested or deny for 8 years if you fucking have to. It's what the GOP would do and have done. Maybe actual purity tests for future democratic officials need to happen. Start leafing through the GOP playbook and fight dirty or don't bother showing up. The rolling over has to end.
This "picking your battles" thing is so stupid. Every Trump pick is getting in regardless if every Democrat votes no or not. With Mattis and Kelly I can understand voting them in, since they're basically the only decent picks, but nobody should be voting in fucks like Pompeo.
The best thing the Democrats can do in this situation is be the party of no and stand up against everything Trump does. The GOP did it and it got them total control of the country but the Democrats are too cowardly to do the same.
The best thing the Democrats can do in this situation is be the party of no and stand up against everything Trump does. The GOP did it and it got them total control of the country but the Democrats are too cowardly to do the same.
StrategyFan
Member
sounds like they don't have a unified tactic...
I think that resistance is going to be much more effective if you focus on someone like Tillerson.
I don't know, maybe it's the wrong tactical move, again, I don't think it matters all that much. I'm sure they will disappoint us all down the road for real, there will be time (and a need) for that outrage.
jakonovski
Member
"We'll do something soon, honest!"
Unknown Soldier
Member
That headline seems to have nothing to do with the content of the article. Politico needs to be slapped for doing this.
- Status