Examples of Democratic Party leadership

mooray said:

Well in your quote it mentions social expenses comprised of cash as being one of the benefits, which would include UBI, but regardless of the form, I'm not a fan of giving cash as a means of trying to care for people's basic needs, save for earned retirement programs like social security.

Totally agree about healthcare and it's one of the reasons why I want to move to Europe. The US always ranks thirty-something in quality of care, which is a joke. As we age, that becomes really important.

My opinion is that people are lifted out of poverty by providing them with the tools to do so, like education and healthcare, which was a reason why I liked Bernie, even though he's not really liked by most around here.

Totally agree about voting too.

Not sure why social security's upcoming shortage is false, but then somehow being dragged down. Can't really have it both ways. The latter is the reason for the former and they're not going anywhere, so...be worried about it.

Click to expand...

Because SSI is capped at about $124k income then it stops being withdrawn, because rich white guys decided that they don't want to pay taxes.

All it takes to fix it is to up the cap, and it is magically fixed. The threat of the sword is a tool that the right wing hate mongers have their propagandists use to scare people into crying about other spending taking it away.

As for Bernie, I would say for me it is not that I don't like him, it is just that he is Russia's choice, which tells me that they knew they could tank him in a national election (even if it is just scaring people with the boogyman 'Socialism').

Fogdog said:

I don't know why you are so fixated on UBI. That is not my argument. Your hand wringing doesn't do it for me either. That bit about social security "about to fail" is a false argument too. It's been dragged down by conservatives and the failures inherent in capitalism.

The US lags most of the developed world in the health and well being of its poor. We are a democracy and might choose to accept that condition. But then again, our society is in crisis, in part because the numbers of poor are growing. Those people are voting in larger numbers and the conservative status quo is threatened. Republicans know this. They are doing their utmost to take the vote away from poor people to keep them down. So, it's not as if we can just stand about muttering nebulous truthisms like "can't throw money at it" and expect things to work themselves out.

Click to expand...

Im starting to think that the word 'capitalist' is one of those loaded words that place people into some bullshit camp if they don't call themselves it, or not.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Social security is a matter of political will, not some impending crash. Voters will not accept across the board cuts in SS payments.

Click to expand...

What's impending is the systemic trend, which that it does not bring in as much as it pays out. To fix that, the voting probably needed to happen twenty years ago. However, a bandaid could happen last minute. Is that what you want though, to roll the dice on who's in charge when it's time to vote? Because the voting's going to happen in congress, not as a public measure, so people will need to have the foresight to know who they're voting for during their term and where they stand on it. That all sounds like a real gamble to me. Too willy nilly for something so important.

mooray said:

What's impending is the systemic trend, which that it does not bring in as much as it pays out. To fix that, the voting probably needed to happen twenty years ago. However, a bandaid could happen last minute. Is that what you want though, to roll the dice on who's in charge when it's time to vote? Because the voting's going to happen in congress, not as a public measure, so people will need to have the foresight to know who they're voting for during their term and where they stand on it. That all sounds like a real gamble to me. Too willy nilly for something so important.

Click to expand...

Yes, we have been burdened with a conservative majority for too long. Failure to accept reality has long been an irritating aspect of that crowd.

hanimmal said:

Because SSI is capped at about $124k income then it stops being withdrawn, because rich white guys decided that they don't want to pay taxes.

All it takes to fix it is to up the cap, and it is magically fixed. The threat of the sword is a tool that the right wing hate mongers have their propagandists use to scare people into crying about other spending taking it away.

As for Bernie, I would say for me it is not that I don't like him, it is just that he is Russia's choice, which tells me that they knew they could tank him in a national election (even if it is just scaring people with the boogyman 'Socialism').


Im starting to think that the word 'capitalist' is one of those loaded words that place people into some bullshit camp if they don't call themselves it, or not.

Click to expand...

uh oh

You said white

Some people don't like that word.

hanimmal said:

Because SSI is capped at about $124k income then it stops being withdrawn, because rich white guys decided that they don't want to pay taxes.

All it takes to fix it is to up the cap, and it is magically fixed. The threat of the sword is a tool that the right wing hate mongers have their propagandists use to scare people into crying about other spending taking it away.

As for Bernie, I would say for me it is not that I don't like him, it is just that he is Russia's choice, which tells me that they knew they could tank him in a national election (even if it is just scaring people with the boogyman 'Socialism').


Im starting to think that the word 'capitalist' is one of those loaded words that place people into some bullshit camp if they don't call themselves it, or not.

Click to expand...

I used the word properly. I can't help it if a word triggers some people. Capitalism was better than the Mercantilism it replaced but it fails in many ways. I laugh when right wing trolls call left side Democrats "communist fascists". Those same people can't handle criticism of capitalism. After all, Christianity and God created capitalism, right?

Fogdog said:

uh oh

You said white

Some people don't like that word.

I used the word properly. I can't help it if a word triggers some people. Capitalism was better than the Mercantilism it replaced but it fails in many ways. I laugh when right wing trolls call left side Democrats "communist fascists". Those same people can't handle criticism of capitalism. After all, Christianity and God created capitalism, right?

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to suggest you didn't use it right or anything like that, just was a bullshit thought I have had lately about the box that is the word 'capitalist' that if a politician doesn't call themselves they get painted as 'them'. And I am not sure if it is not just a bullshit troll set up anymore because it really doesn't describe (fully) how diverse our economy really is. I am not saying it is wrong, just with all the term trolling that is so easy to do today, it has my bullshit detector pinging.

I was not very surprised when that quick google search turned up the Soviet Union and post ww2 Republicans are behind the word's popularity today in politics.

I am still reading this, and don't know anything about the author/publication or anything, but it is interesting.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-011-9520-x

hanimmal said:

I didn't mean to suggest you didn't use it right or anything like that, just was a bullshit thought I have had lately about the box that is the word 'capitalist' that if a politician doesn't call themselves they get painted as 'them'. And I am not sure if it is not just a bullshit troll set up anymore because it really doesn't describe (fully) how diverse our economy really is. I am not saying it is wrong, just with all the term trolling that is so easy to do today, it has my bullshit detector pinging.

I was not very surprised when that quick google search turned up the Soviet Union and post ww2 Republicans are behind the word's popularity today in politics.

I am still reading this, and don't know anything about the author/publication or anything, but it is interesting.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-011-9520-x
View attachment 5078247

Click to expand...

Interesting article. People's capitalism reminds me of "compassionate conservatism".

Who would argue against being compassionate and for people?

Figured I would add, it is not about anything you said that triggered me into responding or anything. I noticed it first a couple weeks back with a reporter basically forcing Elizibeth Warren into having to say she is a Capitalist, and it struck me weird.

Like somehow you have to 'believe' in 'Capitalism' or be one of those scary 'Socialists'. And while free markets are great and all, things like Socialist school systems are still the greatest first generation wealth builder we have.

Fogdog said:

Interesting article. People's capitalism reminds me of "compassionate conservatism".

Who would argue against being compassionate and for people?

Click to expand...

lol if I argued against being compassionate for people I would be a dick right? So of course I wouldn't. I also paint a nice little box by suggesting someone is not 'pro-life', or any of the other loaded terms.

Im still reading through it though. Figured I would share the random thought with you.

Fogdog said:

Interesting article. People's capitalism reminds me of "compassionate conservatism".

Who would argue against being compassionate and for people?

Click to expand...

I started reading it from the beginning and damn if the first couple paragraphs don't give me a nice dose of confirmation bias.

hanimmal said:

I started reading it from the beginning and damn if the first couple paragraphs don't give me a nice dose of confirmation bias.

View attachment 5078253

Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought the term had been coined by Smith but I didn't take my class in the economic history of the US very seriously and only skimmed enough of the textbook on the subject of Adam Smith to avoid pulling my GPA down.

Mike Duncan's podcast on the Russian Revolution spends a lot of time on this subject in order to provide context for the downfall of the Romanovs. I haven't finished the series yet, I'm at the point were the royal family is executed. Segments detailing the rise of Lenin and Stalin's take-over are still ahead. It's a long story. Episodes 10.1-10.8 cover Marx's development of his theories we call Marxist communism as well as the competing ideologies of the day including Mikhail Bakunin's Anarchism and a brief history of class struggles.

I find his series very informative.

Lujan stroke jolts 50-50 Senate
News of Sen. Ben Ray Lujan’s (D-N.M.) stroke sent shockwaves through the Senate on Tuesday, underscoring the fragility of Democrats’ 50-50 majority.
Democrats are in the majority because they have 50 seats and the ability for Vice President Harris to break a tie. Lujan’s absence leaves them at 49 seats until he returns, with his office saying he’s expected to make a full recovery.

“It's just a reminder that in a 50-50 Senate any unexpected development could be a challenge to our moving forward on an agenda that the Democratic caucus shares,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who said he was very optimistic that the 49-year-old Lujan would make a full recovery.

Underscoring the narrow majority, Democrats on the Commerce Committee, which Lujan is a member of, almost immediately yanked three nominations that were expected to get votes on Wednesday. An aide noted that the agenda was being "recalibrated to take into consideration the need for all Democratic votes in order to move certain nominees forward."
The announcement appeared to catch senators off guard.

“Oh my god. I didn’t know that,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), asked by reporters about Lujan, said it was the first time that he was hearing the news.
“Oh, my God. I’ll find out. I did not know that, wow, ” Tester said.

Democrats still technically outnumber GOP senators for now.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) is in quarantine for the week because of COVID-19. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) also announced on Tuesday that he went into quarantine after testing positive for the coronavirus. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said that he expected Romney and Hoeven back next week.
Lujan’s office didn’t immediately respond to question about when he could return to the Capitol. But in a statement they said that Lujan—who at 49 is young by Senate terms—is “expected to make a full recovery.”

It’s not the first time that an absence has deprived Democrats of 50 votes and thrown the schedule into question.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) testing positive for the coronavirus, combined with the threat of a snowstorm, forced Schumer to delay, by a matter of days, votes on election-related legislation and an effort to change the legislative filibuster.

Democrats can confirm Biden’s nominees without Lujan at the moment because of the GOP absences. If all GOP senators are present, they’ll need Republican help to confirm the nominees.

Excerpt:

With Roe v. Wade in peril, the administration has made some moves to combat the attacks on abortion rights. But the president himself has yet to say the word “abortion."

“As the leader of the Democratic Party and the leader of the country, we would like to have more vocal and full-throated support of abortion from him,” said Destiny Lopez, co-president of the abortion rights organization All* Above All. “I would, in some ways, divide up Biden and his administration because I do think that the administration as a whole — through surrogates and different leaders within the administration — has been moving the ball forward on addressing attacks on abortion.”

I disagree. This is a state by state issue with the Supreme Court to decide whether or not bans follow constitutional limits. Elections matter. Republicans packed the Supreme Court through means both fair and foul but the fact remains, this country elected Trump and he had the opportunity to ram three anachronistic judges onto the SCOTUS. Biden has no place trying to influence the outcome. He is doing his legal best to defend abortion rights in the court. He's doing his job. It's up to the people to vote for appropriate representation.

Fogdog said:

The Supreme Court Could Gut Abortion Rights. Where's Joe Biden?

With Roe v. Wade in peril, the administration has made some moves to combat the attacks on abortion rights. But the president himself has yet to say the word “abortion."

www.huffpost.com

Excerpt:

With Roe v. Wade in peril, the administration has made some moves to combat the attacks on abortion rights. But the president himself has yet to say the word “abortion."

“As the leader of the Democratic Party and the leader of the country, we would like to have more vocal and full-throated support of abortion from him,” said Destiny Lopez, co-president of the abortion rights organization All* Above All. “I would, in some ways, divide up Biden and his administration because I do think that the administration as a whole — through surrogates and different leaders within the administration — has been moving the ball forward on addressing attacks on abortion.”

I disagree. This is a state by state issue with the Supreme Court to decide whether or not bans follow constitutional limits. Elections matter. Republicans packed the Supreme Court through means both fair and foul but the fact remains, this country elected Trump and he had the opportunity to ram three anachronistic judges onto the SCOTUS. Biden has no place trying to influence the outcome. He is doing his legal best to defend abortion rights in the court. He's doing his job. It's up to the people to vote for appropriate representation.

Click to expand...

the only problem is that the supreme court is out of balance, and regressive conservative republican justices are going to stomp on peoples rights, whether they do it first hand, or do it while supporting the supreme courts of states that agree with their anachronistic, repressive views...it will take a liberal court about one day to undo 90% of what fred kavanaugh flintstone and his cronies do to move the country back to the 1920s, but that court isn't going to exist till at least a couple of these republican cocksucking injustices die...they let Thomas on the court, and he's a fucking rapist, and they let kavanaugh on the court, and he's a fucking rapist...see where this is going? who is getting raped next? we all are...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

the only problem is that the supreme court is out of balance, and regressive conservative republican justices are going to stomp on peoples rights, whether they do it first hand, or do it while supporting the supreme courts of states that agree with their anachronistic, repressive views...it will take a liberal court about one day to undo 90% of what fred kavanaugh flintstone and his cronies do to move the country back to the 1920s, but that court isn't going to exist till at least a couple of these republican cocksucking injustices die...they let Thomas on the court, and he's a fucking rapist, and they let kavanaugh on the court, and he's a fucking rapist...see where this is going? who is getting raped next? we all are...

Click to expand...

Yep, the court is out of balance. But Biden runs the executive branch and the Supreme Court is head of the judicial branch. Biden has no authority there, he can't influence the court, nor should he.

Fogdog said:

Yep, the court is out of balance. But Biden runs the executive branch and the Supreme Court is head of the judicial branch. Biden has no authority there, he can't influence the court, nor should he.

Click to expand...

didn't say he should...
i will say they should have ten year term limits, and no reappointments....EVER....and that's 10 years too many for most of them

Roger A. Shrubber said:

didn't say he should...
i will say they should have ten year term limits, and no reappointments....EVER....and that's 10 years too many for most of them

Click to expand...

"should"

Maybe we should win some more seats in the Senate and keep the House in 2022. That would be first on my list of shoulds. Maybe then we can begin on your list of shoulds.

Fogdog said:

"should"

Maybe we should win some more seats in the Senate and keep the House in 2022. That would be first on my list of shoulds. Maybe then we can begin on your list of shoulds.

Click to expand...

that would be great. any ideas on how to achieve that? i'm going to vote, and i encourage everyone i know who shares my views to vote as well, and i actually try to act dismissive of voting around the magats i come in contact with...not sure what else i can do, short of physically incapacitating magats so they can't get to the polls. they don't seem to hold many democratic events in this area, or i would attend a few...
fox, newsmax, and oan are out there spreading bullshit, while AP, reuters, abc, npr, and others are spreading the truth...but i can't make magats watch or read anything...or not watch or read anything.
i'm hoping that enough democrats remain agitated and irritated for them to get off their asses and vote, and i'm also hoping (this will probably result in my being reincarnated as a snail) that covid killed enough magats that they just won't have the votes to get a majority in either house...
so get back to me when we can start on my list...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

didn't say he should...
i will say they should have ten year term limits, and no reappointments....EVER....and that's 10 years too many for most of them

Click to expand...

Term limits favor the bad actors.

Manchin would oppose on second Supreme Court nominee right before midterms
Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) told reporters Monday that he would not support confirming another nominee to the Supreme Court right before the midterm elections and would prefer to wait until the country knows which party will control the Senate in 2023.

Manchin told reporters that if another Supreme Court seat becomes vacant shortly before the Nov. 8 election, he would support holding off a vote on President Biden’s nominee to see if Republicans win back control of the Senate.

“I’m not going to be hypocritical on that. If it comes a week or two weeks before like it did with our last Supreme Court nominee, I think that’s a time it should go to the next election,” he said.


He’s being consistent with the position he and other Democrats took in the fall of 2020 after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September of that year.

Democrats insisted that then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wait until after the election to move a nominee so that the winner of the presidential contest could make the choice — the same position McConnell took in 2016 when he blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from getting a Senate hearing or vote.

Manchin was outspoken in opposing McConnell’s plan to speed President Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, through the Senate confirmation process before the 2020 presidential election.

“Rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee weeks before a presidential election has never been done before in the history of our nation and it will only fan the flames of division at a time when our country is deeply divided,” he said at the time.

“I cannot support a process that risks further division of the American people at a time when we desperately need to come together. I will not vote to confirm Judge Coney Barrett or any Supreme Court nominee before Election Day on November 3rd. I urge my Republican friends to slow down, put people before politics, and give their constituents a chance to vote.”

Moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined Manchin in calling for Republicans to await the outcome of the election to let the winner pick Ginsburg’s successor.

Collins at the time cited the treatment of Garland in 2016 as the reason why she wanted to hit the pause button on Trump’s nominee.

“When the Senate considers nominees to the United States Supreme Court, it is particularly important that we act fairly and consistently, using the same set of rules, no matter which political party is in power,” she said in late October 2020.

Murkowski voted against a motion to end debate on Barrett’s nomination and advance her nomination. But she voted “aye” on the final confirmation vote.

“I voted no on the motion to proceed yesterday because I have stated on multiple occasions since 2016 I do not believe the Senate should take up a Supreme Court nomination this close to a presidential election,” she said, explaining her no vote on the procedural motion.

printer said:

Manchin would oppose on second Supreme Court nominee right before midterms
Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) told reporters Monday that he would not support confirming another nominee to the Supreme Court right before the midterm elections and would prefer to wait until the country knows which party will control the Senate in 2023.

Manchin told reporters that if another Supreme Court seat becomes vacant shortly before the Nov. 8 election, he would support holding off a vote on President Biden’s nominee to see if Republicans win back control of the Senate.

“I’m not going to be hypocritical on that. If it comes a week or two weeks before like it did with our last Supreme Court nominee, I think that’s a time it should go to the next election,” he said.


He’s being consistent with the position he and other Democrats took in the fall of 2020 after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September of that year.

Democrats insisted that then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wait until after the election to move a nominee so that the winner of the presidential contest could make the choice — the same position McConnell took in 2016 when he blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from getting a Senate hearing or vote.

Manchin was outspoken in opposing McConnell’s plan to speed President Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, through the Senate confirmation process before the 2020 presidential election.

“Rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee weeks before a presidential election has never been done before in the history of our nation and it will only fan the flames of division at a time when our country is deeply divided,” he said at the time.

“I cannot support a process that risks further division of the American people at a time when we desperately need to come together. I will not vote to confirm Judge Coney Barrett or any Supreme Court nominee before Election Day on November 3rd. I urge my Republican friends to slow down, put people before politics, and give their constituents a chance to vote.”

Moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined Manchin in calling for Republicans to await the outcome of the election to let the winner pick Ginsburg’s successor.

Collins at the time cited the treatment of Garland in 2016 as the reason why she wanted to hit the pause button on Trump’s nominee.

“When the Senate considers nominees to the United States Supreme Court, it is particularly important that we act fairly and consistently, using the same set of rules, no matter which political party is in power,” she said in late October 2020.

Murkowski voted against a motion to end debate on Barrett’s nomination and advance her nomination. But she voted “aye” on the final confirmation vote.

“I voted no on the motion to proceed yesterday because I have stated on multiple occasions since 2016 I do not believe the Senate should take up a Supreme Court nomination this close to a presidential election,” she said, explaining her no vote on the procedural motion.

Manchin would oppose second high court nominee right before 2024 election

Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Monday said he would not support confirming another nominee selected by President Biden for the Supreme Court immediately before the 2024 presidenti…

thehill.com

Click to expand...

goddamn it i fucking hate manchin...even when he's right....