Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
10b4me
Social climber
Lida Junction
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 08:37am PT
|
Next we need to strip the presidential ability to go to war without a formal congressional declaration.
Reign in the tyrants!
Agree 100%
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 08:49am PT
|
^^^Yep^^^
And, it begins with a congress that won’t rubber stamp what the pres says or does.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 09:42am PT
|
Looks like Bernie's hat is officially in the ring....
My own reaction? <shrug>
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 10:32am PT
|
As I recall, there were four Dems in 2016 who hung in there long enough to be considered legit candidates: Hillary; Jim Webb; that forgettable governor from Maryland, Governor what’shisname; and Bernie. Hillary ran on her legacy; Webb was too far right for the party (and kind of weird, too); whatshisname remained whatshisname; and Sanders was the only true lefty. Now, he has much more competition in a field that is already much more crowded overall. While no one who has yet announced is nearly as far left, Warren is solidly progressive, and the average candidate tends to be left of what 2016 offered. He certainly has much more competition this time.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 10:41am PT
|
For all of the histrionic reactions from the Left to Trump's idiocy, I don't think responding with a bunch of ultra-lefty candidates is a winning strategy. Especially when none of the current offerings provide the real winning characteristics of being intelligently progressive, an inspiring vision that reaches working Americans, and a campaign strategy that can communicate this effectively and push back hard against Trump's wall of bullsh#t.
Substantial political experience, and an age that feels relatable would be nice bonuses. Just ain't seeing that with any of the current crop.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 10:46am PT
|
If all this leads to a curtailing of presidential power to 'declare' national emergencies to begin with, then I'm all for it.
Next we need to strip the presidential ability to go to war without a formal congressional declaration.
Reign in the tyrants!
DMT
On the one hand, I believe presidential overreach is a real problem, on the other, where do you draw the line?
If some country, say Iran, shoots down a US fighter plane in international airspace, the president cannot have a military response without a formal congressional declaration?
Emergency declarations can be abused, but there is a reason the executive is given emergency powers. Say some highly contagious and frequently fatal bird flu hits. The president can't declare an emergency to take steps to slow the spread? The country has to wait for congress to act first?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 10:50am PT
|
I don't think responding with a bunch of ultra-lefty candidates is a winning strategy
Every party has their extreme fringe. Responding with a bunch of ultra-lefty candidates might be a good thing. They can split the ultra-lefty vote and maybe somebody better will win.
My priority is somebody with the best shot of winning the general election. I don't think that is Bernie or Warren. A secondary priority is somebody who would be under 70 by the end of a second term in office.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 10:51am PT
|
Usually, a nominee drifts towards the center as November approaches.
August, right now Klobuchar sounds interesting.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 10:56am PT
|
I get the value of having candidates who are on the far end of their Party's spectrum- it does have value in moving truly progressive ideas more into the front. However, being too far on that spectrum is alienating to their own Party, and easy to pick apart by the opponent.
Most disturbingly, though, is the way the ultra-leftys get so enamored and obsessed with their candidate that once it becomes clear they aren't going to be nominated, they sulk and stay home or vote for some other person that has 100% ZERO chance of winning. How does that even remotely serve their interests?
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 11:06am PT
|
All the attention is on the Presidency in 2020
Yet hardly a peep about what is equally important, having a Democratic Senate
And that means the Dems would have to pick up a net four Senate seats, very tall order
especially this cycle when the republicans defend in mostly right leaning states
A Dem President and a Dem House with a Republican Senate means there is a zero
chance that any "progressive" plans become law
forget about Medicare for All, forget about Free College, forget about campaign finance law
forget about a Green New Deal, forget about a Dem President getting his judges through a Republican Senate
You really never read about the DNC's big plan for taking back the Senate do you?
and neither do I hear the growing number of Dem candidates talking aggressively about the need to take the Senate, what's up with that?
maybe they think, rightfully, that the voting public does not even know which party is currently in the Senate majority, much less there are 100 Senators, why confuse them?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 11:52am PT
|
Norton, they are going to have to get rid of the filibuster, too. The current senate could do it too, and I think it would be the right thing to do.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 12:10pm PT
|
The Dems won the house by not running against Trump. They put up quality candidates and stuck to issues.
The filibuster must stay intact to thwart our clearest threat- an imperial President.
Regarding healthcare, tuition and campaign finance; The steady march of justice, one step back and two steps forward will get things done by regular order over time...a long time.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 12:46pm PT
|
The filibuster must stay intact to thwart our clearest threat- an imperial President.
How so?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 01:29pm PT
|
Same old st00pid sh!t and nothing new from the forum politardium crew .....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 01:33pm PT
|
I have mixed feelings about doing away with the filibuster. When a Party is out of power in all three houses, there needs to be some way to put the brakes on the bulldozer. It's true enough that in a representative democracy, those three houses were voted into power by the people, but the majorities that put them there are only slight- it's not like there is an overwhelming mandate from voters.
And we all know that the bulldozer agenda oftentimes has little to do with the interests, or reasons why voters put them into power in the first place.
Maybe some kind of built-in limitation to it?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2019 - 01:44pm PT
|
have mixed feelings about doing away with the filibuster. When a Party is out of power in all three houses, there needs to be some way to put the brakes on the bulldozer. It's true enough that in a representative democracy, those three houses were voted into power by the people, but the majorities that put them there are only slight- it's not like there is an overwhelming mandate from voters.
And we all know that the bulldozer agenda oftentimes has little to do with the interests, or reasons why voters put them into power in the first place.
Maybe some kind of built-in limitation to it?
I don’t see that it is doing much good for Dems now, considering the major bills last Congress—tax bill and ACA repeal—weren’t subject to filibusters.
At some point, we need to get some major sh#t done, and it won’t if Congress ties its own hands.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!