Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Angela Davis. Hits all the Democrats sweet spots. Great advertising too...."see, we care".

Who here is in on board with this one?

Of course the swearing in part might be a problem...."upholding the laws of the Constitution of the USA" and such....

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Biden’s short list

+++++++++++++

Why are they all of such a similar race...all of them?

Is race now the in thing to use to appoint folks to high places?

Is it now ethical to promise a very high government position to a specific and certain race profile in order to pander to and garner certain ethnic votes?

Quid Pro Quo indeed.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5

Why are they all of such a similar race...all of them?


A. Campaign Promise
B. About Time
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
Is it now ethical to promise a very high government position to a specific and certain race profile in order to pander to and garner certain ethnic votes?

Regarding the ethics of promising very high government positions (Supreme Court justices):

So you’re not upset about when a certain race profile (white) was used to pander to and garner certain ethnic votes the first 191 years of our nation’s history.

And you your not upset about when Reagan made a campaign promise to use a certain sex profile (female) to pander to and garner certain female votes after over 200 years of all males.

And your not upset about when Trump made a campaign promise to use a certain religious profile (anti-abortion) to pander to and garner certain religious zealot’s votes.

But your upset because Biden made a campaign promise to use a certain race and sex profile (black and female) to pander to and garner certain ethnic votes.

Now we know what really upsets you, and it’s not ethics.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Regarding the ethics of promising very high government positions (Supreme Court justices): The issue you ignore is promising positions based on race in exchange for "vote for me"

So you’re not upset about when a certain race profile (white) was used to pander to and garner certain ethnic votes the first 191 years of our nation’s history. Again, if ANYONE ran with the promise of specifically appointing whites or any other expressed quid pro quo arrangement based on race would be met with repulsion. Show me a POTUS who made that expressed promise.

And you your not upset about when Reagan made a campaign promise to use a certain sex profile (female) to pander to and garner certain female votes after over 200 years of all males. No idea what you are trying to post, but at that time frame I was not involved in politics, I was heavily invested in paying my own way through college and professional school. Did not vote for Reagan... Sorry, maxed out back then on getting me through.

And your not upset about when Trump made a campaign promise to use a certain religious profile (anti-abortion) to pander to and garner certain religious zealot’s votes. Since when is right to life a "religious profile"? I can be part of one, but not a given. Just look at many Catholics. Was this based on race, as this thread is about??? NO!!!!

But your upset because Biden made a campaign promise to use a certain race and sex profile (black and female) to pander to and garner certain ethnic votes. YES and as far as I know, it is a first and hopefully last racist effort.

Now we know what really upsets you, and it’s not ethics. You pretend to know what you cannot otherwise understand. Keep those wolf tickets to yourself please,

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This pick will give Liberals a chance to DISCOUNT someone's accomplishments, and use their normal hyphens, and let it be known that only majority-race Liberals, can bestow upon "people of color" their good station in life.

Too bad the future judge won't just be a "Justice" - she'll be a "black woman" to them.

Just like they don't refer to "African American Males" - as men.

Either way, they replace a Lib Judge with a Lib Judge.....what a big win.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Either way, they replace a Lib Judge with a Lib Judge.....what a big win.

++++++++++++++++

Dear Leader-

It now means that racist promises/quid pro quo and continued race baiting has gone mainstream in the Democratic Party. Remember that when you vote going forward.

A lib-Scotus is not a big deal, but the means are a major step towards promoting racist practices. I hope that also applies to certain folks who need the services of a neurosurgeon...make that race based too!

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Again, if ANYONE ran with the promise of specifically appointing whites or any other expressed quid pro quo arrangement based on race would be met with repulsion. Show me a POTUS who made that expressed promise.

We would NEVER state explicitly what our unwavering implicit policy was for almost two hundred years.

Hence, we never nominated a black person to the Supreme Court for 180 years.

But you’re right, no president ever said that out loud.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We would NEVER state explicitly what our unwavering implicit policy was for almost two hundred years.

Hence, we never nominated a black person to the Supreme Court for 180 years.

But you’re right, no president ever said that out loud.

++++++++++++


Hence, we never nominated a black person to the Supreme Court for 180 years. I wish this was understood by you because you are color blind, but two words...CLARENCE THOMAS. Just the wrong political persuasion blinds you, right?

MLK is rolling in his grave over the racism displayed.

There are all kinds of identity politics to play....play away and please be as forward and direct as Biden did. Racism alive!

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ww
Hence, we never nominated a black person to the Supreme Court for 180 years. I wish this was understood by you because you are color blind, but two words...CLARENCE THOMAS. Just the wrong political persuasion blinds you, right?


Over the top ironic:

1. Thomas nominated by Bush I (R) to replace Thurgood Marshall;
2. Senate judiciary chaired by today's Brandon (D);
3. Over the top sexual harassment complaints leveled at Thomas by Anita Hill
(She was so incensed and hurt by the harassment she followed him from Dept of Ed to EEO Commission)
4. After several days of raking him over the Ms. Hill's coals, sent nomination to full Senate without recommendation GOOD OL' BRANDON!

Thomas confirmed in Senate, 52 to 48.

All happened 'just' 30 years ago. Didn't we just see this same movie only a year or two ago? Sure does sound familiar, doesn't it? Seems like it was only yesterday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_....

Can we all have a "LET'S GO BRANDON" cheer?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
I wish this was understood by you because you are color blind, but two words...CLARENCE THOMAS. Just the wrong political persuasion blinds you, right?

My opposition to Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his race. Nor did I get angry at Reagan for nominating a black man. I got angry at Reagan for nominating an incompetent and completely partisan fool.

MLK is rolling in his grave over the racism displayed.

Hardly.

Martin Luther King supported affirmative action. There is a wealth of talent and legal experience embodied in the CVs of the black women on Biden’s short list that make them excellent candidates for nomination to the Supreme Court. Just on their credentials and judicial experience alone, Amy Coney Barrett can’t hold a candle to several of them.

Perhaps you’re simply angry that Angela Davis is not on the list
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Hey Rev, you only see color when it suits you.

Quid pro quo racism is just fine says you.

The ONLY reason is now HAS TO BE BLACK AND A WOMEN is because Biden pandered it to get votes. Racism on display!

I agree the best person for the job might be Black and a woman or whatever, but to promise that prior to election and afterwards is Quid Pro Quo RACIST.

No, MLK would not see this as judgement on character, as the promise is race/gender based.
Period.

The 60's called and they want your current politics back.

WW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey Rev, you only see color when it suits you.</>

Give me an example of my only seeing color when it suits me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Your comment...Hence, we never nominated a black person to the Supreme Court for 180 years.

Now you ask....Give me an example of my only seeing color when it suits me.


Duh?

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Your comment...Hence, we never nominated a black person to the Supreme Court for 180 years.

And it stands as true.

Nobody nominated a black man (let alone a woman) until LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall.

And the reason nobody nominated a black person was because NOBODY EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

And if they did think about it, they immediately dismissed it as unrealistic.

That’s called “systemic racism”- an attitude that everybody shares, but nobody talks about, and which everybody would deny if questioned.

And that’s why 180 years went by before a president nominated a qualified black man as a USSC justice.

You think that Biden’s short list is racist because it contains 4 names of black women.

I don’t. Each of those women is supremely qualified by temperament, education and judicial experience to serve well as a justice.

Undoubtedly, regardless of which one is chosen, Republican opposition research will drag up some incident that happened 20 years that will be made the centerpiece of Republican opposition to her confirmation. Democrats did the same with Bork, Thomas and Kavenaugh, though in Bork’s case, the opposition was more substantially identified as being philosophical.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You think that Biden’s short list is racist because it contains 4 names of black women.

+++++++++++

That is yet another over the top lie.

The issue is he offered to do this to garner votes per-election and he restricted the field to Black and Female only. That is where it gets racist.

Identity politics and racism at the front.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The Trump cult Republicans will oppose the nomination based mostly on the lies and BS that Tucker Karlson spews

Republicans are now in a quandary of their own creation on that score.

They’re criticizing Biden for not being “tough enough” on Putin on the one hand, while with the other hand, they are tuning the television or radio to Brother Tucker, who has been spouting the Kremlin’s talking points in so many areas- most recently proclaiming himself a supporter of Russia in its dispute with Ukraine.

All while calling the rest of us “communists”.

Makes perfect sense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
To illustrate how much as an anomaly this is, if I as an employer offered jobs to the public and would only review candidates solely based on race and gender, I would be sued.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
The issue is he offered to do this to garner votes per-election and he restricted the field to Black and Female only. That is where it gets racist.

And yet, for 180 years, only white men were nominated, because they were the only ones even remotely considered.

Biden’s short list of black women is the “right” thing to do, the fair and just thing to do. And yes, it will garner political support for him; he is a politician after all- just as the politician Donald Trump garnered political support for himself by developing a short list of 18 anti-abortion nominees from which to draw his three nominees to lock in the evangelical vote.

One difference between Trump and Biden…..

Trump gave no evidence of being anti-abortion before he ascertained that such a position would win him the presidency.

Biden, on the other hand, has initiated, supported, and voted for civil rights and voting rights his entire life.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To illustrate how much as an anomaly this is, if I as an employer offered jobs to the public and would only review candidates solely based on race and gender, I would be sued.

The problem with the sentence above is your placement of the word “solely”.

The people on his short list are all accomplished jurists. He’s not including one single burger flipper at Mickey D’s.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now, here’s your assignment- go find some rock to turn over in order to find that his nominee had an affair twenty years ago, or plagiarized someone else’s homework back in college or law school, or whose mother or father illegally entered the country from Jamaica or some such……… so that you can claim that your opposition to her nomination is an honest one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Now, here’s your assignment- go find some rock to turn over in order to find that his nominee had an affair twenty years ago, or plagiarized someone else’s homework back in college or law school, or whose mother or father illegally entered the country from Jamaica or some such……… so that you can claim that your opposition to her nomination is an honest one.

++++++++++++++

Just show us why it is ok to promise to only nominate based on a very specific sex and gender? Race baiting.

An employer cannot do that without being sued. You give this guy a pass, this time.

The vetting process is what it has become. The Democrats set the bar with Kavanaugh. Essentially you will now have issues with the same kind of effort put forth in this vetting round....it is even going to be.....wait for it.......racist to pose such questions I bet.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
To illustrate how much as an anomaly this is, if I as an employer offered jobs to the public and would only review candidates solely based on race and gender, I would be sued.

The problem with the sentence above is your placement of the word “solely”.

The people on his short list are all accomplished jurists. He’s not including one single burger flipper at Mickey D’s.

+++++++++++++++

I have told you what the issue is, you keep trying to change it so you do not have to address the obvious racist pandering.

It is restricting the field based on race and gender by pandering for votes. I don't care their credentials because their first screening was based on fulfilling a race and gender requirement. That screen is illegal for any other employer to attempt.

The process is racist plain and simple.


ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It'll be the typical from Club 401k....

"I don't want to be bothered to talk about generational, structural poverty, death, lack of education or even housing for a constituency that I *pretend* to care about"....but now I get to yell "racist!" and then "misogyny" for a few months.

It's good that President Biden doesn't think enough about Obama or his pick otherwise he'd nominate corrupt Merrick Garland.

Either way - Club 401k - in their arrogance - saw Mitch and Trump literally steal a Supreme Court pick.

Big deal, replace Breyer - who cares. I know the Right won't do it - but unless there's true radical stuff - the Right should shut up, and deprive Club 401K the chance to wag the dog from the crappy outlook most Americans have on the country - and yell "race!" "misogyny!" from the non-diverse enclave bubbles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just show us why it is ok to promise to only nominate based on a very specific sex and gender? Race baiting.

No. It’s called “justice” and “fairness”, terms that so many on your side mis-identify as race baiting.

The right positively despises these terms- justice and fairness. My guess is that the dismantling of white privilege is a fearful thing to them.

You can’t quote Martin Luther King while simultaneously denying the centrality these terms (and their very biblical meaning) had in his writing and teaching.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
but now I get to yell "racist!" and then "misogyny" for a few months.

Willswill is the person yelling “racist” in this thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Willswill is the person yelling “racist” in this thread."

In this instance will is correct.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. It’s called “justice” and “fairness”, terms that so many on your side mis-identify as race baiting.

+++++++++++++++

Who appointed you to your judge-ship?

Why would a private employer who attempts to interview folks for a job with the same up front "qualifications" be sued?

You make exceptions to appease you phony sense of "justice". Just like looting for peace and justice.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
You make exceptions to appease you phony sense of "justice". Just like looting for peace and justice.

Nobody here has justified looting. And only a handful of people in the country have attempted to do so, and all of them have been challenged by more persuasive and well known voices.

The place where we disagree is over the scale of looting, and equating it to what happened on January 6th.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Trump cult is now busy pretending that they are offended by Biden's promise to nominate a qualified Black female to the USSC justice position that is opened up by Breyer's retirement.

Why would anyone care what these idiots spew? Seriously. Anyone still part of the Trump/GQP camp today is either a lying racist insurrectionist who has decided to reject facts, logic and reason for cult lies and argle bargle, or they have decided that they like the company of lying racist insurrectionist who have decided to reject facts, logic and reason for cult lies and argle bargle. Either way, they are irrelevant to any logical conversation.

Since we do not have an actual appointee to consider yet, their rejection of the very idea of a Black female on the bench sounds like the definition of prejudice to me. It certainly isn't an argument based on the qualifications of the candidate. But that clearly won't matter to these cult worshipers anyway. We all know that it would not matter whether Biden appoints a 50 year old White male or a duck-billed platypus to the court. The Trump cult Republicans will oppose the nomination based mostly on the lies and nonsense that Tucker Karlson spews in their direction. They are idiots. They are racists. They are insurrectionists. They are liars. So . . . like I asked before . . . Why would anyone care what these idiots spew?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Why would anyone care what these idiots spew?

Because they have THE power to do even greater damage to this country than they already have. We gave it to them when Democrats failed to support Hillary and allowed the cult of Trump to take power. Now they have the Supreme Court (as I predicted, should Hillary lose the election), and no way to get it back once they've legalized overturning the will of the voters in just enough states to give them permanent power.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We gave it to them when Democrats failed to support Hillary and allowed the cult of Trump to take power. Now they have the Supreme Court (as I predicted, should Hillary lose the election), and no way to get it back once they've legalized overturning the will of the voters in just enough states to give them permanent power.

Right. How does reading, listening to, or studying modern day GQP mythology prevent any of this?

Democrats could have prevented a lot of future mythological GQP monster damage if they had learned some discipline and passed BBB and the Voter Rights act, but they failed. As far as I can tell, Democrats only want to point out how ridiculous Republican stories and tales are compared to the facts. They don't have the backbone and discipline to take action.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
Democrats could have prevented a lot of future mythological GQP monster damage if they had learned some discipline and passed BBB and the Voter Rights act, but they failed.

"They" is two people, name Sinema and Manchin.

All the rest of the Democrats -- including likely every registered Democrat in the country -- were on board.

So you are attempting to blame "the Democrats" because in two states with largely red voting majorities, two people who ran as "Democrats" but who are not entirely immune to the selfishness of craving re-election and/or higher office, prevented the rest of the party from doing the right thing. I rather think that's blaming the wrong people, myself. The only reason we were so dependent on two unreliable people whose commitment to Democratic principles are contingent on their own ambitions is that too many people in the party refused to support one of the most qualified candidates ever to run for the office on the outrageous claim that she wasn't "pure" enough in her own principles.

And so we got Trump. And so we got a divided Senate. And so we got a 6-3 Supreme Court, all of which was predictable (and predicted) while Bernie Sanders refused to eagerly, passionately argue in her favor as against the obvious threat of fascism under her opponent.

I'm profoundly sick of "Democrats" who continue to argue that all we have to do is bash Biden and "the Democrats" just as you all did when you bashed Hillary in order to force America to vote as you would have them vote. Sadly, "America" should have long since been revealed, even to the likes of you, as far less enamored of justice for the poor or minorities or democracy itself than they are of their own tribe, of their own ignorance, of their own perceived well-being.

Sinema and Manchin are not "the Democrats." They are two selfish individuals with more power than they would have had, had not Trump ever darkened the door of the White House. People who helped to elect him by bashing Hillary gave those two people the power they don't deserve.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm profoundly sick of "Democrats" who continue to argue that all we have to do is bash Biden and "the Democrats" just as you all did when you bashed Hillary...

Neither I, nor anyone I have read in this thread has bashed Hillary or Biden. I, personally, supported Hillary and Biden with both my time and my money. Your overgeneralizations of the progressive Democrat vs corporate Democrat divide are not accurate or helpful. If Democrats do not work together, they fail. That's what is happening. You don't want to admit it. I don't see how your denials help anything. But you sound self-righteous about your belief that everyone should be ignoring Democrat failures. In my experience, if you do not admit your failures, you will fail to address the problems that resulted from them. That's why I reject your arguments that by discussing these failures, I am somehow being a bad Democrat while your insistence that Democrats only make excuses and never admit failure is what good Democrats do.

In short, you are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong way. That is leading to failure. . . failure to pass important legislation and failure to win over voters. Both failures are going to hurt Democrats far more than discussions about strategies to prevent the unity and discipline problems I am discussing. Look at the polls. Your arguments are losing voters.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
In short, you are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong way. That is leading to failure. . . failure to pass important legislation and failure to win over voters.

Since you clearly understand what's "wrong" with the Democratic Party, do explain -- please -- clearly -- precisely what should have been done to convince Sinema and Manchin to adjust the filibuster so as to pass either the Build Back Better or either or both of the voter protection acts.

Because I cannot see ANYTHING which wasn't actually tried -- from pressuring them to kissing their backsides. You cannot force someone to do something if they are determined not to do it -- unless you have some power to use actual physical force. And even then, quite often, it won't work.

The Democratic Party didn't "fail." It simply didn't have enough power to force two stubborn and selfish individuals to do something they didn't want to do. And your notion that "the Democrats" have to "unify" does nothing to explain how to do that, when the majority can be thwarted by the slimmest of minorities, under the current circumstances. And, yes -- I do think that the refusal of the progressive contingent bears great responsibility for its refusal to see America as America actually is -- split between those who would gleefully support the continued repression of the poor and the "different" and those who wish to make America live up to the hype -- "justice for all." They keep threatening the only party willing to work towards that while trying like hell to prevent actual fascism and recognizing that a lethal minority of Americans are irrationally afraid of "socialist" policies -- so irrationally afraid they're willingly embracing racism and "otherism" in an effort to protect what they rightfully see as their own privileges.

If the progressives can ever achieve the utopia they (and, truth be told, most Democrats, including me) seek in the long term, they certainly can't achieve it right now. And trying to force it upon the Democrats who are just trying to prevent the worst of the backsliding on both social and economic issues brought on by the shift in demographics and the attendant rise of the fascist is thwarting their efforts and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "Look!" exclaim the fascists. "They're taking over! They want to steal your stuff! They're COMMUNISTS, and they will put you in prison and make America into their s-hole country! Vote Trump, and he'll protect the power you've always had over those 'other' people!"

You are fighting the wrong people. It's not the "failing" Democratic Party. It's the monsters on the right who are WINNING. Not because Democrats are failing, as a party, but because their efforts are being sabotaged by a couple of jerks on the right of the party and a bunch of naïve progressives on the left. Yeah. We need unity. But when we asked the progressives for unity when Hillary was nominated, the progressives said, "We'll only unify under Bernie." It took weeks for Bernie to give a half-hearted endorsement.

Stop pretending that the problem is "the Democrats." The problem is that there are several critical areas of interest and not everyone in the Democratic party considers the same issue as the most important. African Americans are being openly threatened by the right and are demanding that THEIR immediate needs be considered before all else. The progressives demand that the needs of the poor and exploited are the most important problem to address -- beyond any other issue. And those most rational understand that if we don't stop fascism in its tracks -- even at the expense of the other issues -- those other issues will not be addressed in any way again for a very, very long time -- if ever. And you keep asking for unity.

Unity under what pursuit? Because both of the first two contingents keep threatening to withdraw support from the party if their demands are not met -- and anyone with half a brain understands that, given our razor-thin margins in Congress, there is no hope whatever of getting all three of these issues adequately address right now. And we are further encumbered by a couple of Senators with critical power to withhold their votes based only on what they regard as what's advantageous for themselves.

Yeah. You're continued lecturing to "the Democrats" to achieve unity and get the job done in the face of the obstacles placed in their path is helpful as hell.

Not.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Democratic Party didn't "fail."

You keep saying that. Just like Tucker Carlson keeps saying that vaccinations don't work, and with the same impact on the results.

Democrats announced an agenda and plan to pass a lot of legislation. The total number of Democrats in Washington is sufficient to accomplish that goal. It didn't happen and it doesn't appear that it is going to happen.

Announce a goal. . . Face no unexpected surprises out of your control that would keep the party from the goal . . . and end up with no legislation. My gawd . . . that pretty much defines failure. It sure as heck isn't success, and the opposite of success is . . . wait for it . . . that's right . . . it's "failure". I didn't invent the English language, but I can read the dictionary. What do you want to call it when the achievement is the opposite of success?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Announce a goal. . . Face no unexpected surprises out of your control that would keep the party from the goal . . . and end up with no legislation. My gawd . . . that pretty much defines failure.

Framed this way, that's absolutely correct.

But the next question is, where did the failure come from? Was it in picking a goal that you couldn't achieve - legislation you never had the votes for? Or in having an achievable goal but failing to execute?

It's pretty clear so far that it's the former. The Democrats tried to pass legislation before checking to see whether they had the votes to pass it. The BBB should never have started at $3.5 trillion, but neither Schumer nor Pelosi nor Biden wanted to admit to the Democratic base that this was not the Congress for transformative legislation.

You're right in labeling that a failure.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
My gawd . . . that pretty much defines failure.


Well, no.

Passing the largest bipartisan infrastructure legislation in history, $1.2T -- something no other president has been able to accomplish in decades, even with majorities in both houses -- is, umm, wait for it... success. The administration has had several other wins, as well (a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, millions of Americans vaccinated, a record 6.4 million jobs created, rising wages and low unemployment, cutting child poverty nearly in half, and a record number of federal judges confirmed).

So when I take a test and receive a score of 70%, despite your claim, I have not failed.

And the last time I checked, Biden's presidency is not limited to one year but runs for a four-year term.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So when I take a test and receive a score of 70%, despite your claim, I have not failed.

The polls show us quite clearly and quantifiably that Democrats have not achieved a score of 70% . . . not even 50%.

Or do you consider 38% a passing grade too?
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/democratic-par...

That's failure. Knee-jerk Democrats can make all the excuses they want, they are failing to accomplish what they claimed they would accomplish and that is leading to a failure with American voters.

I know the corporate Dems don't want to admit it. They don't like it. They hate it when it is brought up. But refusing to talk about their short comings is not helping them or anyone else.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Knee-jerk Democrats can make all the excuses they want, they are failing to accomplish what they claimed they would accomplish and that is leading to a failure with American voters.

I know the corporate Dems don't want to admit it. They don't like it. They hate it when it is brought up. But refusing to talk about their short comings is not helping them or anyone else.


Why is it their shortcomings? Different people probably have different ideas about which Dems are "corporate Dems," but I'm pretty sure it wasn't corporate Dems that were making claims about what they would accomplish that ended up failing. Joe Manchin wasn't out claiming that the Congress would pass $5 trillion in new spending during the first legislative year.

Clearly, there was a failure by the Democrats to calibrate their claims of what they would accomplish to what they could actually accomplish. But that failure probably doesn't lie with the "corporate Dems." Democrats went into the 2020 election expecting that they would have a very good down-ballot result - but instead, the Blue Wave never materialized. Moderate Democrats blamed ideology, progressive Democrats blamed execution and organization - but no one denied that the Democrats severely underperformed expectations in the 2020 election:

As Biden voters celebrated in the streets this past weekend, Democratic politicians began to fight among themselves. Although they won the presidency, Democrats lost seats in the House and failed to flip a single state legislative chamber. What went wrong in down-ballot races?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/10/what-happ...

But Democrats led out the Congress with the idea that they would pass transformative, historic legislation, never re-adjusting to the very obvious reality that they would not actually be able to pass anything more transformative or historic than Joe Manchin (or any other single Senator) would be willing to vote for.

Indeed, a failure.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why is it their shortcomings?

Who do you think owns this: https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/democratic-par...


or this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And does it even matter? Dems are heading toward massive election disaster and their response is to say, "But we're better than Republicans and it's not our fault", oh . . . and also, "Shut up progressive and minority voters. Just shut up and accept it that Democrats lied about what they were going to do for you. They didn't really mean it."

Okay, corporate DEMs. Then just lose and let the nation be taken over by fascists. You are all right. Democrats are perfect and there is nothing we can do but make excuses for the Democratic party [lack of success] to do what they said they would do. It's better to simply lose massively than to admit failure and try to correct. Forgive me for hoping the Democrats were better than this and that we might be able to reverse the GQP march toward authoritarian rule. I see that you all believe that GQP rule is better than admitting failure or changing tactics.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Who do you think owns this?

You posited that those polling numbers were due to the Democrats failure to adopt the proposals they claimed they were going to adopt. If that's true, then people who "own" that would be the ones that made the promises that couldn't be kept. That's not likely to be the ones you refer to as "corporate Dems." They weren't out there promising historic, transformational changes.

Instead, if the polling is bad because there's a disconnect between what Democrats said they would do and what they have done, it's certainly because the Democrats promised more than they could do. Between the American Rescue Plan and the BIF, the Democrats successfully passed a massive amount of money to: i) keep the economy from failing due to Covid; and ii) fund improvements for a huge amount of infrastructure backlog. "Corporate" Democrats certainly weren't the ones promising to also adopt a longstanding wishlist of progressive priorities on top of that.

Democrats are perfect and there is nothing we can do but make excuses for the Democratic party [lack of success] to do what they said they would do.

The failure to do what they said they would do can arise from two different sources. Democrats could have been out there saying they would do things that they weren't able to do, and Democrats could be failing to do things that they could do but are choosing not to.

As people have told you, over and over again, the Democrats' failure to adopt historic, transformational changes isn't due to a failure of will. It's because they don't have the votes to do it. And they've known that since the day after the elections - there was no shortage of commentary about how powerful and necessary Joe Manchin, a fairly conservative Democrat, was going to be in the upcoming Congress.

So if the Democrats have failed to match their accomplishments to their promises, the fault probably lies with the folks making the promises that couldn't be kept. If the Democrats had said to the public at the beginning of Congress that their narrow majorities meant that they would be able to do big things to save the economy from Covid, big investments in infrastructure, and maybe one or three things off the progressive to-do list (say, a massive climate investment and two other things) - they would have been both telling the truth and be in a position now to have accomplished all those things. They didn't do that. So now the results don't live up to the expectations they set.

Again, it wasn't "corporate Dems" who set those expectations. So if the Democrats' polling numbers are due to failing to pass their agenda, look to the folks who set that agenda without checking to see if they had the votes for it.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your entire post is nothing but whimpering that the failure of the Democrats to do what they promised is not their fault. Blame is irrelevant to the problem. Deflecting blame does not change the Democrat predicament. They failed to pass the legislation they said they would pass. They are failing to convince American voters that their actions are worthy of approval. Those are the facts.

You can spew any rhetoric you want about who is or isn't to blame. If Democrats do not change their tactics and behavior, they are not going to change how they are viewed by voters. And if they don't change the way they are viewed by voters, then they lose big to Republicans.

You seem to believe that I want or need to blame corporate Democrats for the party's failure to pass meaningful legislation. But I do not. I do believe we can blame corporate Democrats for the complacency that is keeping the party from reacting to the dramatic decline in approval Democrats are now facing. But for Democrats to get something done clearly requires that all Democrats (especially those in the Senate) work together. If they do not do this, Democrats fail. That's what has happened. That is what is killing Democrat approval ratings.

So blame anyone you want. Failure is still failure. And that failure is not going away by denying failure nor by denying or deflecting blame. It's still failure. It still means losses in upcoming elections.

In general, ascribing blame seldom contributes to finding solutions. That exercise may help prevent similar problems in the future, but it won't fix the problem you are currently facing. You are falling into the trap that many Democrats are falling into. You are determined to say, "It's not the Democrats' fault". But that really isn't the point. It absolutely does not matter who is blamed. The failure has to be addressed or the problem remains.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But 24/7 trump blame is ok.

No wonder Goldman Sachs Democrats continue to discipline the Progressives.

How many times must these kids go to the woodshed before learning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It absolutely does not matter who is blamed.

Well, you're the one who mentioned the 'shortcomings' of corporate Democrats, and asked who owned the Democrats' poor polling numbers. I was just responding.

The failure has to be addressed or the problem remains.

True - but you can't address the "failure" unless you figure out what the "failure" is, and what's causing it. If the Democrats are getting pummeled in the polls because they're not passing the things they're trying to pass (that's not the only reason, but that's another conversation), then you have to figure out what the issue is in passing their legislation. Are they trying to pass things that don't have the votes, or failing to get votes they could get but just not executing properly?

How you address the failure depends on how you answer that question. One thing's for certain - you can't address the failure by perpetually lamenting that a conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin actually votes like a conservative Democrat, instead of a progressive Democrat.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are they trying to pass things that don't have the votes, or failing to get votes they could get but just not executing properly?

I first, just want to point out how stupid this statement really is. The problem I have been discussing is that Democrats have failed to vote with unity to pass key legislation. Now you want to assign blame for that failure as due to them not having enough votes. You are attempting to assign the blame for the problem to be the problem. I see no value in that hidden circular logic.

How you address the failure depends on how you answer that question.

No. Not at all. I know exactly how I continue to address the problem. That's the only thing I can control. I listen, read and research the topic. I try to present clear and accurate data. I explain my observations and thoughts on the subject in an attempt to influence others. I remain connected to the politicians I want to try to influence. I participate in activities and efforts to influence the public and politicians. I contribute both time and money to these efforts. Assigning blame has nothing to do with any of that. It is truly irrelevant. Assigning blame is almost always a waste of time and energy when attempting to correct a problem. Understanding blame can have value in formulating a solution, but assigning it or accusing people of being at fault almost never contributes anything of value to the solution. In fact, it often only exacerbates the problem.

So I will leave the assigning of blame to you.

One metric to measure progress is whether Democrats find a way to work together and begin addressing all of their constituents' needs through legislation that they pass. There are some people talking about ways to try to do this, but time prior to the next election cycle is getting short. The more important metric is a measure of approval of their actions by voters. If Democrats begin to succeed at the first metric (ie. they begin to pass legislation they promised to pass) and they do not also see a rise in their polling numbers, then I will re-consider my position on this topic. But I am confident that will not be the case. I fully believe that if Democrats begin to make good on their promises, they will gain in the polls. I just do not see how your obsession with getting me to assign blame will help at all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The problem I have been discussing is that Democrats have failed to vote with unity to pass key legislation.

Exactly. But you're not considering the possibility that the reason that they have failed to vote with unity to pass key legislation is because the specific form of key legislation they're trying to pass is not supported by enough members of Congress to get adopted.

For example, Matt Yglesias argues that Schumer could have passed a version of the BBB bill back in July, one that accomplished a lot of Biden's goals and met all of Manchin's red lines:

What does this get you? A lot. For $1.74 trillion you can:

Meet the Biden administration’s greenhouse gas emissions objectives.
Cut child poverty by about 20%.
Deliver two very popular items by capping insulin prices and helping the elderly with expanded Medicare coverage.
Safeguard the country against future pandemics.
Increase access to both preschool and Medicaid.

That would be a really good list of Joe Biden's achievements. So what’s the problem?


https://www.slowboring.com/p/chuck-schumer-should-call-the-b...

Now, the article points out that the problem is that this doesn't include every single priority that progressives wanted to include in a BBB bill. It would disappoint progressives who wanted a huge investment in child care (outside of pre-school), who wanted paid leave, and who wanted a bigger CTC.

And Schumer wanted to avoid that. So he never pushed for that kind of bill. Instead, he put the House bill that didn't pick and choose among progressive priorities, but instead used budget gimmicks to try to get below $1.5 trillion. And it died.

If Schumer did what I think he should have done, then some progressive advocacy groups would be mad at Schumer. Schumer instead chose a course of action that got all the relevant advocacy groups mad at Manchin instead. And when this led to deadlock, instead of hammering something out with Manchin, he pivoted to a doomed voting rights push, which again had the effect of making people mad at Joe Manchin rather than Chuck Schumer.

This isn't about assigning blame - it's about figuring out what went wrong. Democrats are not homogeneous - never have been, and never will be. The party has always included progressives, moderates, and conservatives. Saying that the problem is that the party is not adopting the sort of legislation they could adopt if every Senator was a progressive is like complaining that the Democrats weren't failing to adopt legislation in 2014 because there were too many Republicans. The existence of conservative Democrats who will not vote for deeply progressive bills is a fixed point that the party has to solve around, not change, in this Congress.

You have to craft your legislative agenda to the Congress you have, not the Congress you wish you had. If the Democrats had picked up the 52-53 Senate seats they were expected to get in 2020, they could have told Manchin to pound sand. They didn't. Their failure to adapt their 'key legislation' to that reality is preventing it from passing.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But you're not considering the possibility . . .

Hmmmm . . . You obviously are not reading anything I have posted, so I will not follow-up with this. It seems like a waste of time and energy to respond to posts when the poster does not appear motivated to learn or understand anything.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You obviously are not reading anything I have posted, so I will not follow-up with this.

I've read all your posts, and quite carefully - so if that's why you're bailing on the conversation, please be assured that I've done you the courtesy of reading what you've written.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top