StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) And there it is. If you can beat them, invalidate them. No, it was an honest question because he messed up the timeline of the ACA pretty badly there in an attempt to refute what someone else was saying. Also the Afghanistan thing, which was pointed out to him before by NSS iirc.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 02:21 PM) How long have you been following politics? The topic was whether he made good on what he ran on. There's no need for your recycled arguments from 2010. I'm not sure why this post is so aggressive or what it's even supposed to mean. I was just pointing out the history of what Obama did and then why he failed to achieve what he wanted on immigration. He chose to focus on healthcare first, lost his congressional majorities, and then couldn't get the legalisation he wanted passed. That's not an argument, that's just what happened. I asked when you started following politics because I know you're relatively young, and this isn't the first time you've missed something pretty major from early on in Obama's presidency. It wasn't an insult. If you don't know the timelines of the ACA battle and then the Republican wave, you really miss the whole setup of how we got to where we are now.

Meant "he" there, autocorrect/predict. I think it's fair to say it both ways on immigration; yes Obama failed to accomplish what he set out to do, but it wasn't because he deliberately broke a promise or didn't try. He just simply couldn't get it done with an uncooperative Congress. The first two years were eaten up by the push for health care, and after the Republican/tea party wave in 2010, any sort of immigration reform was DOA.

Rabbit honest question, when did you start following politics? Being unaware of when the legislative battle for the ACA took place seems kinda crazy to me.

The ACA was passed in 2010. It was also pointed out to you previously that you campaigned on increasing the presence in Afghanistan while drawing down in Iraq. Congress explicitly blocked his attempts to cost Gitmo. Congress also did nothing in immigration reform, with Obama doing what he could via executive orders for the dream act.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 01:01 PM) I honestly don't know the answer to this - have their been studies to figure out how many votes we're talking about here? 80k in a single state seems like an awful lot when you're talking about misinformation tactics. This is why i'm fully behind mail in ballots in every state. Get rid of this argument once and for all. Yes, but I'm on my phone so if I remember links later. And that was 80k combined across three states, not 80k in each. All mail ballots are actually ironically more prone to voter fraud, but it's not been a problem in Washington or Oregon where they've been implemented.

Could his ego let him do that?

Buy the EC is a state wide election, as are governorships and Senate seats. If you win by 20k votes and suppressed b21k city votes, it doesn't matter that "the city" still voted Democratic.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 12:52 PM) How so? I just don't get how there was never a necessity to have an ID to vote from the get go. How do they moderate if people already voted? How they do they know an individual is a legal citizen from that state? Don't poor conservatives typically live out in the sticks and poor liberals typically live in big cities? I would imagine it's easier to get an ID in the south side of Chicago than it would be in Appalachia no? People really think these policies are the reason Trump won by 77 electoral votes? It may not be easier to get that id of you live in the city and they've shut down the local dmv's and severely limited the hours. These are things that have happened and will continue to happen. Voter suppression plays a role in politics. Saying "it caused this outcome" in a particular case is hard to say with certainty, but while you chose to highlight the EV margin, that obscures that the number of votes he won those states by was really only a handful, about 80k. There's lots of stuff out there on how this type of voter suppression works in theory and in practice.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) What is a non-partisan rationale for voter suppression laws and opposition to them? Is the idea that the requirement to show an ID disproportionately affects the left? I have never put any time into learning this stuff. Perhaps it's more than having an ID and I don't understand it but that seems like not much of an issue. Everyone I know has an ID. It's not just voter ID, there are also changes to polling places and times that disproportionally negatively impact voters who are likely to be Democratic. Voter roll purges as well that sweep up legitimate people. Poor people and poor minorities in particular are less likely to have the types of ID's required by these laws, and you'll also see all sorts of dubious political ads targeting minority voters that threaten various legal things that may or may not be true. The intent is to depress turnout. The main thing with these laws is that there's zero evidence they're even necessary.

It's also not "nice" to follow through on campaign promises that are routed in prejudice, ignorance and stupidity. And seriously, the idea that trump is somehow trustworthy and hasn't been influenced by big donors is just absurd and requires someone to have basically ignored everything about Trump and his appointments so far.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 01:13 PM) This line isnt going to work, it didnt work before the election, its not going to work now. If you really want to get rid of Trump, you need to stop feeding into exactly what he wants. Focus on his failures, and yes, it will take time and patience for those failures to happen. I mean its just like the his Taj Mahal casino. It didnt file for bankrupcty in the first month, it took a year. I don't think anything will persuade the people who are cheering on this first disastrous week, to be honest. And besides, I thought "telling it like it is" was supposed to be a good thing these days? If this is what someone is cheering on, then they've got some pretty repugnant views.

They have multiple offices, try each one. Write letters. Keep calling.

So mad about posts that they have to register an account to lash out incoherently, too much of a coward to use their normal account.

Who's sad alt account is that?

Filibuster only lasts as long as the majority wants it to. Individual senators are loathe to give up that power, but it could happen. Democrats did it for certain appointments after Republicans refused to even consider any for a couple of years under Obama. Ultimately it's another undemocratic veto point in an already undemocratic body so I'm not a fan ideologically, but as long as it's there they need to use it every bit as much as the Republicans did while in opposition if not more. Republicans, conservatives and moderates who might not be fans of Democrats but may be troubled by specific actions that trump and the Republican Congress are taking need to contact their representatives, too.

Keep pressure on your representatives and senators. A few thousand calls out of millions of people can be enough to influence their votes and positions. I posted a link in the dem thread, but find local organizations and do what you can to help build grassroots movements. I know I've been too passive myself. Find out what campaigns you can volunteer for once the 2018 elections ramp up even if they're not your district, and don't forget about local elections coming this April.

This is worth sharing again. "What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next." Elliott Lusztig on twitter (@ezlusztig): Hannah Arendt in her book The Origin of Totalitarianism provides a helpful guide for interpreting the language of fascists. She noted how decent liberals of 1930s Germany would "fact check" the Nazis' bizarre claims about Jews like they were meant to be factual What they failed to understand, Arendt suggests, is that the Nazi Jew hating was not a statement of fact but a declaration of intent. So when someone would blame the Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1 naive people would counter by saying there's no evidence of that. What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next. Did 3 million "illegals" cast votes in this election? Clearly not. But fact checking is just a way of playing along with their game. What Trump is saying is not that 3m illegals voted. What he's saying is: I'm going to steal the voting rights of millions of Americans.

I http://laist.com/2017/01/25/death_valley_n..._park_joins.php

Cross posting, but start now and start local. https://www.indivisibleguide.com/local-acti...-action-groups/

Start now and start local.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) I haven't responded to most of the individual Holy s*** moments of this young Presidency. But I have to say, this story hit me hard. The combination of outright racism, lack of either honesty or memory (or both - scary either way), and the fact that he's driving policy based on 2nd hand anecdotes... somehow this particular vignette delivered it a little stronger. None are a surprise - just this was a striking illustration. President Donald Trump to publish weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants "It can't happen here" has already become "it's happening here."

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 10:10 AM) Nope. Quite a bit was brought out on the Answer by Joe Walsh yesterday on this. This same delusional mindset now runs our country.

Wrote emails to Durbin and Duckworth this morning, will call their offices when I get back to Chicago

they're not even trying to hide it. One small step for Trump, one giant leap for fascism today.