Joe Biden 2021

[bad_teammate 13,125]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"Not handing the Republicans two future senate seats on a silver platter is the promotion of white supremacy"

Why do you say this like you have the authority or expertise to prognosticate such a thing? Manchin is going to lose WV next time anyway and Arizona isn't like WV.

Do you even realize what HR1 is and what it does to help Democratic voting bases? Do you seriously think the Dems turn out to be net LOSERS if the abolish the filibuster to get HR1 through? Answer honestly please.

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Galaxy-level brain takes from Hugo and B_T.  Both seem like they'd be happier in the minority, just bitching.  

HR1 is how we get and keep a durable majority you centrist troll.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Why do you say this like you have the authority or expertise to prognosticate such a thing? Manchin is going to lose WV next time anyway and Arizona isn't like WV.

Do you even realize what HR1 is and what it does to help Democratic voting bases? Do you seriously think the Dems turn out to be net LOSERS if the abolish the filibuster to get HR1 through? Answer honestly please.

Because it's shown time and time again that progressives lose in centrist states, despite your wishcasting. Does it always have to be that way? No. Can the DNC get better at messaging and change that? Sure. But right now, reality is that far-left candidates don't win in purple states. If you make Sinema persona non grata to the D base, one of two things will happen:

- She will get primaried from left, handing the seat to the Republicans
- She will win the primary but still be too damaged to beat the R candidate

 

I understand what HR1 is. I also understand that as soon as the Rs control the government again it will be overturned instantaneously because the filibuster is gone.

The goal is to find a way to get lasting legislation, not something that will be around for a few years until Rs own the government again. 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The goal is to find a way to get lasting legislation, not something that will be around for a few years until Rs own the government again. 

And what is that way?

Lay it out for me.

[gmr548 16,463]

Because it's shown time and time again that progressives lose in centrist states, despite your wishcasting. Does it always have to be that way? No. Can the DNC get better at messaging and change that? Sure. But right now, reality is that far-left candidates don't win in purple states. If you make Sinema persona non grata to the D base, one of two things will happen:
- She will get primaried from left, handing the seat to the Republicans
- She will win the primary but still be too damaged to beat the R candidate
 
I understand what HR1 is. I also understand that as soon as the Rs control the government again it will be overturned instantaneously because the filibuster is gone.
The goal is to find a way to get lasting legislation, not something that will be around for a few years until Rs own the government again. 

Rs would absolutely overturn the filibuster to get rid of HR1 or anything else they want to. It’s not remaining in place forever if Democrats decide not to scrap it. It remains in place until Republicans control the senate and decide they want something passed.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And what is that way?

Lay it out for me.

Win the battle of public perception and either get a supermajority or make it so popular that the GOP has to vote for it or commit political suicide. Same as it always was.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, gmr548 said:

Rs would absolutely overturn the filibuster to get rid of HR1 or anything else they want to.

It's almost physically painful that we're in 2021 and people like Brad and Js1 still don't understand this.

[BradInATX 9,208]

 

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

It's almost physically painful that we're in 2021 and people like Brad and Js1 still don't understand this.

The Republicans just had four years worth of opportunity to overturn the filibuster and didn't. 

"Why don't people think that this doomsday scenario that has literally never happened despite hundreds of opportunities is inevitable?!?! Idiots!!"

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Win the battle of public perception and either get a supermajority or make it so popular that the GOP has to vote for it or commit political suicide. Same as it always was.

So the exact same strategy we've been using... how well has it worked?

If we get HR1 passed and implemented then we have a strong chance to maintain a majority. And even if we don't, we can say, "Look at the voting rights the Republicans are stripping away right now!" as they dismantle HR1. Without HR1 in place what is our actual argument? "Oh, we were going to do some cool stuff but you kind of have to visualize it in your mind's eye!"

The argument that we can't take a step forward because Republicans might make us take a step back is absolutely insane.

You really need to go read Letters from a Birgmingham Jail.

[BradInATX 9,208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So the exact same strategy we've been using... how well has it worked?

If we get HR1 passed and implemented then we have a strong chance to maintain a majority.

 

LOL. HR1 = Democratic supermajority forever, in the land of unicorns and rainbows and cotton candy!

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, BradInATX said:

LOL. HR1 = Democratic supermajority forever, in the land of unicorns and rainbows and cotton candy!

It's telling that you have to turn into this kind of caricature of a troll to avoid the basic reality of how good HR1 will be for Democrats when it comes to voting and elections.

If we abolish or reform the filibuster to get HR1 through then we are far more likely to retain power. Agree or disagree?

So afraid of losing you don't even bother to think about winning.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

It's telling that you have to turn into this kind of caricature of a troll to avoid the basic reality of how good HR1 will be for Democrats when it comes to voting and elections.

If we abolish or reform the filibuster to get HR1 through then we are far more likely to retain power. Agree or disagree?

So afraid of losing you don't even bother to think about winning.

 

Of course it would help the Democrats, for the 4-6 years it took until it got abolished. 

Agree or disagree: Democrats are stupid and will always find a way to lose eventually

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The Republicans just had four years worth of opportunity to overturn the filibuster and didn't. 

Except they actually did: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.amp.html

[bad_teammate 13,125]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Of course it would help the Democrats, for the 4-6 years it took until it got abolished. 

Why would we operate under the presumption that it's going to get "abolished" if we also realize it helps us retain power?

Getting rid of HR1 wouldn't be simple. Citizens would suddenly be given a ton of different voting options and rights and major changes would be made. And all of that would have be reversed piece by piece while we (ostensibly) howl at the moon as Republicans re-destroy our voting rights.

Your idea of a plan is to win over the hearts of the voters such that we get a supermajority to get HR1, doing it in an environment which you acknowledge (?) is unfair and weighted tremendously against us. Right?

So let's say we abolish the filibuster, get HR1, get all those helpful reforms in. Then we lose and the Republicans abolish HR1... now what? Aren't we right back where we were before? The worst possible outcome is ending up at square 1.

Quote

Agree or disagree: Democrats are stupid and will always find a way to lose eventually

Yes, which is why I'm saying they need to stop acting like Democrats.

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Except they actually did: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.amp.html

No, well, you see, that was the judicial filibuster. The LEGISLATIVE filibuster is sacred to Republicans and they totally won't touch it ever and Lucy is going to let me kick this football and I am oh so excited.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9,208]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why would we operate under the presumption that it's going to get "abolished" if we also realize it helps us retain power?

Getting rid of HR1 wouldn't be simple. Citizens would suddenly be given a ton of different voting options and rights and major changes would be made. And all of that would have be reversed piece by piece while we (ostensibly) howl at the moon as Republicans re-destroy our voting rights.

Your idea of a plan is to win over the hearts of the voters such that we get a supermajority to get HR1, doing it in an environment which you acknowledge (?) is unfair and weighted tremendously against us. Right?

So let's say we abolish the filibuster, get HR1, get all those helpful reforms in. Then we lose and the Republicans abolish HR1... now what? Aren't we right back where we were before? The worst possible outcome is ending up at square 1.

 

 

Back at where we started? What? No we're not back where we started. We now have a Republican leadership that can do whatever it wants because there's no filibuster anymore. 

If you repeal the filibuster it needs to be done in such a way that you have legislation lined up to ensure that the Republican party as it exists today literally never holds power again. And that's not possible today.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9,208]

"Donald Trump supports the ending of the filibuster. So you should be a little bit nervous if Donald Trump supports it.

Whether you’re in the majority or the minority, I think you have to protect minority rights. I don’t think you can just simply shove everything through. There’s an argument for that, by the way, but that’s not where I am right now."

 

Quick, b_t - what stupid idiot shitlib  said this?!

Edited March 8, 2021 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The republicans just attempted to overturn a presidential election by force...so I’m a little surprised at the “everything will be fine” attitude with regards to the Biden administration/dem apologists.

[wildcat09 29,187]

39 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Because it's shown time and time again that progressives lose in centrist states, despite your wishcasting. Does it always have to be that way? No. Can the DNC get better at messaging and change that? Sure. But right now, reality is that far-left candidates don't win in purple states. If you make Sinema persona non grata to the D base, one of two things will happen:

- She will get primaried from left, handing the seat to the Republicans
- She will win the primary but still be too damaged to beat the R candidate

 

I understand what HR1 is. I also understand that as soon as the Rs control the government again it will be overturned instantaneously because the filibuster is gone.

The goal is to find a way to get lasting legislation, not something that will be around for a few years until Rs own the government again. 

Sinema is entirely replaceable.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Sinema is entirely replaceable.

With another moderate, sure. I don't even like Sinema. But I also don't like doing stupid impulsive shit that's counterproductive in the long-term just to make the Hugo's and bt's of the world feel good for a little bit.

Edited March 8, 2021 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13,125]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Back at where we started? What? No we're not back where we started. We now have a Republican leadership that can do whatever it wants because there's no filibuster anymore. 

So? Isn't that how this is supposed to work? You win a majority and you get to pass legislation that you ran on achieving?

What you seem to be advocating is just eternal stalemate which is... exactly what Republicans actually want. Nothing big happens, just endless trench war where everything slowly gets worse.

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"Donald Trump supports the ending of the filibuster. So you should be a little bit nervous if Donald Trump supports it.

Whether you’re in the majority or the minority, I think you have to protect minority rights. I don’t think you can just simply shove everything through. There’s an argument for that, by the way, but that’s not where I am right now."

I, like Brother Bernie, do not advocate abolishing the filibuster.  A simple return to the standing filibuster is all we require.

A very dishonest and disingenuous argument from you Brad, which is unsurprising. Bernie has long advocated a return to the standing filibuster. You are attempting to use this quote to make it seem like he wants it to stay exactly as it is, which is dishonest.

Sanders supports a so-called talking filibuster. With the support of 51 senators such a change in Senate procedure would force opponents of a bill to stand up on the Senate floor and explain their reasons, at length if they desired, for opposing a bill. The change would put an end to the current practice of routinely requiring a 60-vote majority to even consider a bill through the exercise of a silent objection.

“In the Senate we must protect minority rights and members should have as much time as they need to make their arguments but they must be willing to come to the Senate floor and make their case. The Senate is supposed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body. Our rules must let us deliberate, not obstruct,” Sanders said.

2013

[bad_teammate 13,125]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

With another moderate, sure. I don't even like Sinema. But I also don't like doing stupid impulsive shit that's counterproductive in the long-term just to make the Hugo's and bt's of the world feel good for a little bit.

- Securing voting rights for working poor and minorities
- Ending Republican voter purges and suppression
- Dramatically curtailing corporate and dark money in politics
- Ending gerrymandering

"impulsive shit that's counterproductive in the long-term"

lol

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

So? Isn't that how this is supposed to work? You win a majority and you get to pass legislation that you ran on achieving?

What you seem to be advocating is just eternal stalemate which is... exactly what Republicans actually want. Nothing big happens, just endless trench war where everything slowly gets worse.

I, like Brother Bernie, do not advocate abolishing the filibuster.  A simple return to the standing filibuster is all we require.

A very dishonest and disingenuous argument from you Brad, which is unsurprising. Bernie has long advocated a return to the standing filibuster. You are attempting to use this quote to make it seem like he wants it to stay exactly as it is, which is dishonest.

Sanders supports a so-called talking filibuster. With the support of 51 senators such a change in Senate procedure would force opponents of a bill to stand up on the Senate floor and explain their reasons, at length if they desired, for opposing a bill. The change would put an end to the current practice of routinely requiring a 60-vote majority to even consider a bill through the exercise of a silent objection.

“In the Senate we must protect minority rights and members should have as much time as they need to make their arguments but they must be willing to come to the Senate floor and make their case. The Senate is supposed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body. Our rules must let us deliberate, not obstruct,” Sanders said.

2013

 

Where in our discussion have you specified that you're advocating for the standing filibuster rather than full repeal?

Show me, ye bastion of honesty and totally not shifting the argument when you say stupid shit!

[bad_teammate 13,125]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

Where in our discussion have you specified that you're advocating for the standing filibuster rather than full repeal?

Show me, ye bastion of honesty and totally not shifting the argument when you say stupid shit!

The post you responded to an hour ago that started all this you stupid fucking troll.

"Failure to do whatever it takes, including reform/abolition of the filibuster, is the promotion of white supremacy, full stop."

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The post you responded to an hour ago that started all this you stupid fucking troll.

"Failure to do whatever it takes, including reform/abolition of the filibuster, is the promotion of white supremacy, full stop."

 

"abolition"

 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

And what's the word right before that one, darling?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

With another moderate, sure.

I mean, Arizona has another dem Senator that was just elected and up for re-election next year that has so far been to the left of Sinema...so....

[BradInATX 9,208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And what's the word right before that one, darling?

 

"The other day I toilet papered and burned down a house"

"You burned down a house?!"

"Dumbass, what was the other thing I said right before 'burned down a house!?' - that's what's important here!!"

 

 

[Bruh Man 3,160]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

I understand what HR1 is. I also understand that as soon as the Rs control the government again it will be overturned instantaneously because the filibuster is gone.

The goal is to find a way to get lasting legislation, not something that will be around for a few years until Rs own the government again. 

Jesus this is such a dumb pussy take.
 

let’s not do something bold to save democracy because the big bad Republicans will just reverse it next time they’re in the WH. Wow. Imagine Republicans talking like this. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Bruh Man

[bad_teammate 13,125]

4 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Jesus this is such a dumb pussy take. Wow. 

yes

-----------------------
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
-----------------------

What Brad is advocating here is the infinite perpetuation of the obnoxious negative peace.

Like the white moderate in King's time, the Brad/centrist has come to peace with the terror of the moment and normalized it in his mind such that he thinks that those who fight back are the ones creating tension.

[BradInATX 9,208]

5 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Jesus this is such a dumb pussy take.
 

let’s not do something bold to save democracy because the big bad Republicans will just reverse it next time they’re in the WH. Wow. Imagine Republicans talking like this. 

 

Imagine thinking that doing something that gives Republicans literal carte blanche to do anything they want next time they have the three branches of government is smart.

"We've been losing the gunfights for years, let's turn it into a grenade launcher fight!"

 

Instant gratification world. Too much social media and too many parents that don't tell their kids no. 

[bad_teammate 13,125]

27 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"The other day I toilet papered and burned down a house"

"You burned down a house?!"

"Dumbass, what was the other thing I said right before 'burned down a house!?' - that's what's important here!!"

Yet more hysterical trolling.

Even the abolition of the filibuster is nothing like burning down a house. The filibuster is an invention; it isn't in the Constitution and it wasn't even in the original rules of the Senate. The founders opposed the filibuster. The procedural filibuster we have now was invented in the 1970s or so.

Quote

Instant gratification world. Too much social media and too many parents that don't tell their kids no. 

You're just a conservative.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Imagine being opposed to a more democratic system of government. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

You're just a conservative.

My take on the filibuster is identical to Bernie's. 

Brad and Bernie Sanders, centrist trolls.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So? Isn't that how this is supposed to work? You win a majority and you get to pass legislation that you ran on achieving?

What you seem to be advocating is just eternal stalemate which is... exactly what Republicans actually want. Nothing big happens, just endless trench war where everything slowly gets worse.

Godamnit @BradInATX you have me agreeing with b_t.    He's not wrong, above. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Imagine being opposed to a more democratic system of government. 

I'm not opposed to HR1. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Godamnit @BradInATX you have me agreeing with b_t.    He's not wrong, above. 

He is.

Perpetual escalating rubberbanding is worse than incremental change. Neither are ideal. But the rubberbanding will do nothing but exacerbate the death spiral.

 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

He is.

Perpetual escalating rubberbanding is worse than incremental change. Neither are ideal. But the rubberbanding will do nothing but exacerbate the death spiral.

 

HR1 passes and it becomes death of GOP.   Will now be center and progressive.  

[BradInATX 9,208]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

HR1 passes and it becomes death of GOP.   Will now be center and progressive.  

Like I said above, if they could structure HR1 so that's the case, then I'm all for nuking the filibuster and passing it. But I don't think that's a realistic take. Even if the democrats didn't constantly shoot themselves in the dick, conservatism always finds a way back in our country. We don't even know that PR would vote blue. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by BradInATX

[fattyflattie 4,636]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

We don't even know that PR would vote blue. 

But we do know DC will.  We do know ex-cons will (due to fucked up policies, the majority will likely be POC afterall).  And we know that generally, we are a progressive society.  Not at the rate some want, but we always progress forward.  At some point, it's too much to overturn.  

[bad_teammate 13,125]

19 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

My take on the filibuster is identical to Bernie's. 

You want a return to the talking/standing filibuster?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

It’s remarkable Manchin can water down legislation and it’s framed as him just playing the game as designed but if the progressive wing in the House tried to pull shit like that the narrative would be much different. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

You want a return to the talking/standing filibuster?

Yep. It will force Republicans to put skin in the game and not just obstruct everything for the sake of obstructing on their way out the door to the Hamptons.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

For a fun experiment, search the phrase "talking filibuster" or "standing filibuster" and find many posts from me saying things like

"Don't end the filibuster. Just make it a talking filibuster with a normal vote after the grandstander collapses."

All the way back to 2019, when centrists were mad at Bernie for saying we should do filibuster reform instead of abolition. I'm standing in exactly the same place I have for over 2 years at this point and some of y'all went from "WE HAVE TO NUKE IT!" to "WAIT WAIT DON'T EVEN TOUCH IT BECAUSE REPUBLICANS MIGHT BE MEAN!"

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

I don't understand the idea that it's bad to take advantage of the fact that Dems control the executive and both sides of the legislative branches.  It's a foregone conclusion that the next time the Republicans hold such an advantage, they will absolutely do whatever the fuck they want.  If the Democratic Party's platform is that beneficial to the public, then the thing to do is to wield that power and prove it, driving down the odds of the Republicans ever regaining that advantage.

I mean, it's naive and optimistic, sure.  It beats cowering in the corner and guaranteeing the outcome.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,825]

maybe someone should start a filibuster thread

[Bruh Man 3,160]

37 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Imagine thinking that doing something that gives Republicans literal carte blanche to do anything they want next time they have the three branches of government is smart.

"We've been losing the gunfights for years, let's turn it into a grenade launcher fight!"

 

Instant gratification world. Too much social media and too many parents that don't tell their kids no. 

I find it so ironic that you're making this insane doomsday point on a piece of legislation that is literally a preventive measure from that occurring again.  

With HR1 you get fair district lines, same-day voter registration, strict guidelines on voter purges, etc. Meaning Republicans would have to finally win on a fair playing field. 

If they find a way to win total control of the gov't under those circumstances, you should have learned from the ACA repeal effort that it is difficult to get rid of popular legislation. And if they do do it, who gives a shit. At least we get a fair redistricting cycle for a decade. 

I genuinely cannot believe you are being this much of a coward. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

I find it so ironic that you're making this insane doomsday point on a piece of legislation that is literally a preventive measure from that occurring again.  
With HR1 you get fair district lines, same-day voter registration, strict guidelines on voter purges, etc. Meaning Republicans would have to finally win on a fair playing field. 
If they find a way to win total control of the gov't under those circumstances, you should have learned from the ACA repeal effort that it is difficult to get rid of popular legislation. And if they do do it, who gives a shit. At least we get a fair redistricting cycle for a decade. 
I genuinely cannot believe you are being this much of a coward. 

We're not talking about HR1. We're talking about the filibuster.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

BradinATX: Decider of what we're talking about.

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

BradinATX: Decider of what we're talking about.

 

The conversation the entire time has been about the filibuster. I support HR1 fully, as anyone who isn't a piece of shit should.

[ndawg 1,242]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Imagine thinking that doing something that gives Republicans literal carte blanche to do anything they want next time they have the three branches of government is smart.

I can't agree with this. Republicans have already given themselves "literal carte blanche to do anything they want." There is absolutely no reason to be worried about moving too strong against the GOP. They won't "retaliate," and not because they will exercise restraint, but because they're so far past the point where they have any need to exercise restraint at all. At best, the Republicans might choose to respect a Democratic filibuster if they found the calculus favorable.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

The conversation the entire time has been about the filibuster. I support HR1 fully, as anyone who isn't a piece of shit should.

False. BruhMan and I were talking about HR1 and the filibuster and you came in with a disingenuous mischaracterization to derail the conversation into only about whether to abolish the filibuster or leave it alone.

Please stop your derail.