Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Not really surprising and sadly something that’s not going to be resolved anytime soon even after Democrats find their way back to power, since Union representation and promotion is usually pretty low on the priorities list even for the most leftist democrats.
Seems like a pretty complicated issue. My knee-jerk reaction is actually in favor of the ruling... the ruling is basically saying "non-members don't have to pay Union fees" which just seems like common sense.
Except, the idea behind the laws is that non-members still get the benefits of collective bargaining, so the idea is that they should still financially pay some (smaller) fee for the benefits that they're getting, whether they asked for it or not.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Unions have a serious case of Tragedy of the Commons attached to their usual activities, where it's individually rational for any one worker to not pay fees and gain most of the benefits anyway, but if they all do that they're all worse off most of the time. I'm mildly surprised that some Republican hasn't yet tried to ban unions outright.
Theoretically that would run afowl of first amendment freedom of sssembly protections.
Besides, it’s better to just discredit the ideas of unions by limiting their power and then point at how they don’t improve anything/ make things worse. It’s starve the beast as applied to the labor movement.
Edited by Mio on Jun 27th 2018 at 11:17:46 AM
People keep saying "I'm glad the more progressive candidate won" but they're not actually providing any evidence that this "Justice Democrat" (God that idiotic name) is more progressive than the left-wing Democratic Congressman she replaced. Which is a huge part of the problem with this narrative to begin with.
Since 2016, people have been continuously pushing the narrative that Sanders and those associated with him are the left-wing of the party. They're not, for a wide variety of reasons that we've gone through before, including but not limited too their generally weak support for most social issues and their total inability to vet their candidates, resulting in misogynists, racists, and anti-Semites being listed among their primary contenders.
Now, I'm not seeing anything about this woman that suggests she's a bigot which is good. I'm not seeing anything that suggests she's an idiot or a social regressive. Which is good. But I'm also not seeing any evidence for the constantly repeated statement that she's more progressive than the guy she's replacing. People are simply taking it on faith, or citing "Justice Democrat" support for her as proof.
The "Justice Democrats" have shown that "kissed Sanders' ring", not "strong left-wing positions" is their bar for support. So don't use their backing a candidate as evidence of that candidate's left-wing credentials.
To reiterate a point regarding Crowley's loss that it seems the Justice Dems (and those here that oppose them) have missed - a big part of why he lost was his refusal to debate his opponent. Instead, he sent out a proxy to do it for him
while he attended an event in Queens. That shit does not fly in a time where Congress-critters are skipping out on Town Hall meetings and otherwise generally avoiding their constituents. It's part of why Katko is considered vulnerable - he's held teleconference-type "town halls", but not actual face-to-face ones.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 27th 2018 at 8:27:47 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"And why Mc Connell cancelled the summer recess, in order to try and force that effect.
Edited by Deadbeatloser22 on Jun 27th 2018 at 4:24:47 PM
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Yeah, that's underhanded as hell - the difference being, though, that (as I edited my post to add) not only did Crowley send out a surrogate to debate in his place, he did so because he was attending in Queens at the same time
.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 27th 2018 at 8:28:37 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
x6
So which is it, is this "progressive wing" (for lack of a better phrase) barely more left-wing than the rest of the Democratic Party and talking themselves up or is their platform unelectably radical and they only won because their opponent was a dreadful campaigner? Those seem mutually exclusive unless you're saying that the Democratic Party should move to the right as a unit.
Amber isn’t talking about the progressive wing, he’s talking about the Sanders wing, which while it has overlap with the progressive wing is not the same thing.
The Sanders wing runs the entire political spectrum, some of them are right wing homophobes, some of them are card carrying socialists, most of them are unorganised and not used to political campaigning.
There’s never been a problem with the ideas of the left wing members of the Sanders wing, but they aren’t all left wing and many of the ones who are left wing are just strait up bad at politics.
I am a Corbyn supporters and even I’ll hapily admit that many of his people are bad at messaging and managing the media.
@Amber, I don’t think anyone here has said that she’s more progressive, but having a more younge and diverse bench of candidates is a good thing, particularly when it comes to representing minority areas.
It seems that policy wise nothing has changed, but we’ve swapped a middle aged white man out for a younge women of colour, I still call that progress.
Edited by Silasw on Jun 27th 2018 at 3:53:15 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIf these people knew how to politic, they wouldn't be so pretentious.
That's part of the problem. They're part of the same populist craze that elected Trump. Some of them even voted for him! Because what they're looking for is an "outsider", someone who doesn't know how to politics, who can't play the game, who plans to just sit there and ineffectually bang on about how, "I'm right, you're wrong, nyeh nyeh nyeh!"
The Unicorn Brigade has always been trying to elect kings to Congress. People who will get what they want done merely by declaring that it shall be so. They don't want people who make deals, who compromise, who work across aisles on mutual goals, who build professional relationships with their predecessors and even their defeated competition to try and get as many different ideas as possible.
But that's how you get shit done in a democracy. And that's the problem. The Far-Left and the Alt-Right are too busy bickering over what form our authoritarian dictator should take to notice that the rest of us are trying to run a democracy.
Since 2016, people have been continuously pushing the narrative that Sanders and those associated with him are the left-wing of the party. They're not, for a wide variety of reasons that we've gone through before, including but not limited too their generally weak support for most social issues and their total inability to vet their candidates, resulting in misogynists, racists, and anti-Semites being listed among their primary contenders.
Now, I'm not seeing anything about this woman that suggests she's a bigot which is good. I'm not seeing anything that suggests she's an idiot or a social regressive. Which is good. But I'm also not seeing any evidence for the constantly repeated statement that she's more progressive than the guy she's replacing. People are simply taking it on faith, or citing "Justice Democrat" support for her as proof.
The "Justice Democrats" have shown that "kissed Sanders' ring", not "strong left-wing positions" is their bar for support. So don't use their backing a candidate as evidence of that candidate's left-wing credentials.
This. When it comes to being "progressive", the "Justice Democrats" are Tautological Templars. It's a buzzword to them. They use it the same way Trump uses phrases like "fake news" or "witch hunt"; it's there to advance a narrative, not to have a proper definition.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jun 27th 2018 at 10:13:32 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.So on the one hand the GOP has demanded "civility" from the opposition. Whatever that means.
On the other...
Trump Supporter Allegedly Throws Poop at Red Hen While Shouting ‘Make America Great Again’
@Tobias: That's a very broad brush you're painting Justice Democrats with. Also, very hyperbolic, I had never seen anyone claim they want a dictatorship with their preferred candidate instead of a democracy, because it's simply not true.
@Ambar: In my view, there's not that much differentiating them in terms of policy, but in what they do, she supports a federal job guarantee, replacing the ICE and was fiercely campaign on a Medicare for All policy. The seat will remain blue, that's all that matters now.
Life is unfair...Poor little Republican snowflakes, they can dish it, but just can't take it. Truly the Glass Cannons of mudslinging.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Ugh, that Supreme Court decision. From what I've read on this thread months ago, the infamous "right-to-work" laws are exactly that, right? The inability for unions to bill non-members for their work benefiting members and non-members alike?
So, in effect, that would mean the Gorsuch SC just made the entire fifty states "right-to-work" states...
"That's a very broad brush you're painting Justice Democrats with. Also, very hyperbolic, I had never seen anyone claim they want a dictatorship with their preferred candidate instead of a democracy, because it's simply not true."
Is it not? Expecting candidates to kiss the ring of an individual before being endorsed by a faction is a hallmark of one-man-rule and goes against the principle of collegiality upon which a democratic republic is built.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Don't call them the Far-Left. They're not, and doing so only legitimizes their propaganda about being the radical wing of the Party.
The problem with the Unicorn Brigade is not that they embrace hard left positions. It's that they refuse to understand how politics works, and are often Single Issue Wonks who judge how "progressive" a person is based on one or two criteria.
I've been saying this since 2016, but we have to abandon using terms like "Far-Left" to describe the worst elements among Democrats and progressives. Both because it's misleading and because it plays to their narrative.
There is nothing "progressive" or "far left" about Jaffe's racism and misogyny. There is nothing "progressive" or "far left" about Canova's anti-Semitism and misogyny. There is nothing "progressive" or "far left" about Sanders' Confederacy remark, or his "it's not enough to say vote for me, I'm a woman" cracks, or his insistence on "abandoning identity politics."
The worst of the worst on the stupid left aren't Stalinists. They're bigots who happen to want government assistance and legal narcotics.
Speculation time: Did Michael Avenatti Just Hint He’s Running for President in 2020?
Honestly, we could do a lot worse.
![]()
Stalinists and tankies are far worse than the so-called Unicorn Brigade, no question about it for me. In their eyes, no mass murder is bad if in the name of Communism and America can only do harm (it would be better if it stood still and watched the world burn instead).
Edited by Grafite on Jun 27th 2018 at 6:46:00 PM
Life is unfair...
