• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

House Democrats are turning on themselves ...

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dud said:
Do not, I repeat DO NOT cross Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s-lash-out-at-moderates/ar-BBUdVVT?ocid=ientp



"House Democrats exploded in recriminations Thursday over moderates bucking the party, with liberal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatening to put those voting with Republicans “on a list” for a primary challenge.

In a closed-door session, a frustrated Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lashed out at about two dozen moderates and pressured them to get on board. “We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision,” Pelosi said, according to two people present but not authorized to discuss the remarks publicly.

But Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the unquestioned media superstar of the freshman class, upped the ante, admonishing the moderates and indicating she would help liberal activists unseat them in the 2020 election.
Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, said she told her colleagues that Democrats who side with Republicans “are putting themselves on a list.”
“She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,” Trent said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Triggering the blowup was Wednesday’s votes on a bill to expand federal background checks for gun purchases. Twenty-six moderate Democrats joined Republicans in amending the legislation, adding a provision requiring that ICE be notified if an illegal immigrant seeks to purchase a gun.

That infuriated liberals who have railed against ICE’s role in conducting mass deportations and embarrassed Democratic leaders who couldn’t keep their members in line on a high-profile bill.
The Democratic infighting reflects a fractured caucus and diverse freshman class, with dozens of moderates elected in districts that President Trump won in 2016 at odds with hard-charging liberals. The split has exposed divisions among Pelosi and her top lieutenants, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), over the party strategy to keep its newfound majority."


The article continues ...
Click to expand...
Personally, I think she could be the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party since I can remember. She is basically a mirror image of Trump (well, probably without the racism). The dems do not need an "anti-Trump", someone just as radical, opinionated and confrontational as he is (but liberal instead of conservative). They need someone with moderate policies that appeal to the mainstream and at least have some chance to be implemented.
 
ondma said:
Personally, I think she could be the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party since I can remember. She is basically a mirror image of Trump (well, probably without the racism). The dems do not need an "anti-Trump", someone just as radical, opinionated and confrontational as he is (but liberal instead of conservative). They need someone with moderate policies that appeal to the mainstream and at least have some chance to be implemented.
Click to expand...

Dems will figure out what we "need" all on our own. But thanks for your concern.
 
Jhhnn said:
Dems will figure out what we "need" all on our own. But thanks for your concern.
Click to expand...
Too bad Dems can't win by themselves. Add to the fact the system is rigged for Republicans and that Republicans tend to have much more consistent turn out, the Dems have to appeal to a broad range of people.

I like AOC but I promise the "fall in line or else" bit is much more harmful to the party than 26 members breaking ranks on a completely meaningless amendment to a completely meaningless bill.

The party still got their talking point that they voted for better background checks and Republicans voted against it. I don't really see how Dems will be attacked because this amendment was in the bill.
 
Jhhnn said:
Funny how she was just the candidate you claim we need...
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never made that claim at all. However, I had no problem with Hillary's policies (I *did* vote for her), she just had too much baggage, was an easy target for Trump to attack, and just was not appealing as a person.
 
ondma said:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never made that claim at all. However, I had no problem with Hillary's policies (I *did* vote for her), she just had too much baggage, was an easy target for Trump to attack, and just was not appealing as a person.
Click to expand...

Yeh, but she was " someone with moderate policies that appeal to the mainstream and at least have some chance to be implemented." Too bad the rest of the bullshit you offer got in the way.
 
ondma said:
Personally, I think she could be the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party since I can remember. She is basically a mirror image of Trump (well, probably without the racism). The dems do not need an "anti-Trump", someone just as radical, opinionated and confrontational as he is (but liberal instead of conservative). They need someone with moderate policies that appeal to the mainstream and at least have some chance to be implemented.
Click to expand...

You realize most of her policies ARE mainstream, right?

Most of the policies that conservatives and the political press deride as super left wing actually enjoy majority support among Americans, often overwhelming support. It’s the difference between what the donor class supports and what regular people support.

Why do you think people never say that Republicans need to appeal to the mainstream?
 
The problem that I see is that the Republican party has become irrationally insane united under a fanatical cult altered reality that is a threat to the nation. In the name of patriotism gone mad, it stands for everything that is the opposite of real American values. It is a virulent and necrotic disease and a threat to our own people and the world. Some can see this and some do not.

When the very fabric of reality comes under attack by madness I believe their can be but one moral response and that is to end the threat. This has to proceed mercilessly and without compromise. The Western values of the sacredness of the individual are at stake. In the fight against righteous certainty that can rationalize every evil for the attainment of their pretended sacred we have to ask how an equal but opposite response would not make sense. How to you answer cheaters with fair play.

No, I think the only natural answer, the one that will inevitably occur, is a radical and uncompromising left willing to fight fire with fire.

But in this way it seems to me, that the left becomes the right, justified or not.

According to my little knowledge on the subject, this issue was addressed by Islam. How does one follow a path of compassion in the face of evil so great that it can't feel empathy. The answer I have heard that Islam gave is that you destroy the proponents of evil mercilessly and without compromise right up to the point where they repent and submit.

How would such discipline be introduced into the Democratic party?

I think I would go with a nuclear option with an expiration clause but I do not know if such a measure could pass legal muster. I would end the ability of the minority party to add last minute amendments to bills that are clearly offered with the intention to divide the majority by making moderate Democrats is conservative districts risk backlash for a yes vote.

We already know that this works on Democrats by not on Republicans owing to Republican cult behavior.

This would end the ability of Republicans to engage is such swine behavior. If there is a feeling that in a normal Democracy where one party is not a cult perhaps the law could be structured such that it could be restored at such time as the political cheating Republicans engage in ends. Some of the provisions could be an end to voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.

Republicans have become moral swine and that can't be tolerated. The same cult of slavery that saw people not as images of the divine but as implements of personal enrichment is on the rise again. Do we really need another civil war?

I read this morning that Kevin McCarthy can't see any impeachable offenses but has no problem seeing Democratic malevolent intent.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...-payments-aren-t-impeachable-offenses-n978661

There is only one group of people on the entire planet who can't figure out the President is a criminal and it's the Trump idol worshipers of the American Republican party. They are the only people on the planet who don't realize they are nuts.
 
fskimospy said:
You realize most of her policies ARE mainstream, right?

Most of the policies that conservatives and the political press deride as super left wing actually enjoy majority support among Americans, often overwhelming support. It’s the difference between what the donor class supports and what regular people support.

Why do you think people never say that Republicans need to appeal to the mainstream?
Click to expand...
Oh, IDK, maybe because they won the last presidential election?
 
Jhhnn said:
Yeh, but she was " someone with moderate policies that appeal to the mainstream and at least have some chance to be implemented." Too bad the rest of the bullshit you offer got in the way.
Click to expand...
What do you think prevented her from getting elected? She wasnt liberal enough?
 
Jhhnn said:
I'm just calling you on your bullshit. Hillary isn't the topic.
Click to expand...
I don't see how she can't become part of the discussion seeing as how she ran against Sanders and lost the election at a time when many were warning that because of the focus of her message that would happen. I can't personally see how anybody can deny that having been warned this would happen and dismissing the warning and losing thereafter, there isn't anger at Sanders for even existing. People don't like being told they are blind. Some will learn and others will just dig in and deny deny deny. And here comes Sanders again. What a bastard.

Democracy is dead and can only be revived by meaningful political participation by the American people generally, not by the 1%. This is the only thing that matters, and that aim is not served by identity politics.
 
Jhhnn said:
I'm just calling you on your bullshit. Hillary isn't the topic.
Click to expand...
To you maybe, since it doesnt agree with your perception of reality. Nice deflection though, to avoid answering the question of why she lost/Trump won. And you seem to be taking a page out of Trumps book, insulting and name calling arguments you apparently have no logical response to.
 
ondma said:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never made that claim at all. However, I had no problem with Hillary's policies (I *did* vote for her), she just had too much baggage, was an easy target for Trump to attack, and just was not appealing as a person.
Click to expand...


That’s the truth in a nutshell. She had a lot to put on her resume but it was the baggage and being very unlikeable gave Trump the in. Whether you agree with him or not Trump does have a very likeable personality that draws people. Guy is a salesman and sold the shit out of MAGA. Hilldawg had nothing to counter that.
 
Ahhh.... MysticjBryd / Slow / Geosurface / PJABBER's Mom bought him a new pair of socks...

Yet another #walkaway I voted for Obama / Hillary / I was a Democrat farm troll...

Russia must really be a shit hole and very boring... Pass the keyboard.

Next...
 
fskimospy said:
If you’re trying to determine what is mainstream millions of votes seems to matter. No?
Click to expand...
Not sure what we even disagree about. If you say Hillary is mainstream, I would mostly agree with you. My contention (which another poster rudely derided as "bullshit")
is that Hillary lost mainly because of her baggage (the e-mails, Benghazi, Bill's affairs (which somehow were construed as being something wrong with Hillary)), the fracturing of the party due to conflicts with Sanders, and her general lack of personal appeal.
 
ondma said:
Not sure what we even disagree about. If you say Hillary is mainstream, I would mostly agree with you. My contention (which another poster rudely derided as "bullshit")
is that Hillary lost mainly because of her baggage (the e-mails, Benghazi, Bill's affairs (which somehow were construed as being something wrong with Hillary)), the fracturing of the party due to conflicts with Sanders, and her general lack of personal appeal.
Click to expand...

She got slimed & you're still spreading it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top