Well… I’m responding to you saying they should use this to get young people to vote. I’m saying that’s not a good idea because it’s manipulative and only serves to highlight all the ways they haven’t followed through on student loan debt, instead they keep touting tiny band aids and legislation signed into law by Bush Jr.
Sure, but that’s the bare minimum. That’s not going to inspire apathetic voters. Claiming credit for a Democratic Congress / George W Bush admin era piece of legislation is not very impressive.
Especially since the Democrats passed it with a 49+2 / 49 majority in the Senate (and filibustering still very much a thing), so it’s a stark contrast to all the stuff they claimed wasn’t possible during the Biden admin because they simply didn’t have a strong enough majority in the Senate even without a Republican president. I know times are different now, but it kind of paints a circle around the lack of legislative backbone this administration has had.
Idk, it feels manipulative to me. All they’ve done here is follow through on existing policy. I have higher standards for being impressed than doing what you’re required to do, even if others before you failed to do so.
Yeah, my first thought was “they’re all queueing up to vote Kamala because their concerns about Biden were adequately responded to.”
Warren ran in 2020. Hillary won in 2016 because of superdelegate bullshit creating an air of inevitable victory before a single vote had been cast and the DNC actively working to suppress the Sanders campaign through smear tactics and a severely limited debate schedule.
They just need time to catch up with her recent decision to become a black person.
A favorite for me is “That’s not a good prize!”
No, no, he has to get the couch off first.
Yeah, man. I’ll gnaw your face off.
- Teh C.
I said consummate Vs. Consummate!!
We had that light switch installed for you so you could turn the lights on and off. Not so you could throw light switch raves!
Calmly? You invoked a sexist term and then when I called you out on it you called me “triggered” and now “butthurt.” It’s very clear what kind of person you are now, and it’s not the even-tempered tolerant person you like to paint yourself to be.
I do want an honest discussion, my first comment was very respectful of our differences of opinion. You then immediately brought in bigotry-charged name-calling to the thread.
Being a bigot “calmly” isn’t something anyone should ever tolerate.
You were the one who brought the sexist term “Bernie Bro” in. That’s a cheap smear campaign term designed to invoke sexism. Stop using it.
When you want to talk without your unnecessary insults and sexist terms, I’m happy to talk.
God, these people are so fucking intolerant of any criticism of their party, it’s absurd. I really tried to engage in an honest discourse and the person reverted straight back to petty sexist bullshit and nonsequitors, ignoring what I said entirely.
It’s such an embodiment of the out-of-touch Democratic party and how they can’t possibly fathom any other point of view.
I tried to engage you in honest discourse explaining my position and you immediately went straight to all of your favorite one-liners designed to undermine without actually addressing anything.
All of your points are easily refuted and I’m happy to write them out if you need me to, but it’s a conversation that’s been done to death since 2016. I’ll do one: “Bernie Bros” voted Hillary better than Hillary supporters voted for Obama. Leave your sexist bullshit at home unless you want to admit your camp is racist.
Since you seem willing to engage in discourse about this, I feel similarly to the person you replied to and can explain my position. I don’t want to discourage anyone from voting, I have two goals:
I’m guessing we agree on #1 and disagree on the premise of #2. I see #2 as a systemic pattern that really launched after the 2008 primaries when Obama disrupted the plan to place Hillary in the White House. It came to a head in 2016 and has been rippling ever since.
I never believed Joe should have run again in the first place, and in the last month it became clear that him running was detrimental to #1. So we push for him to step aside, while I still think he shouldn’t have run in the first place. He steps down, and you feel satisfied because goal #1 is protected. But I’m deeply unsettled by the damage that has been done to #2. The Democrats just figured out how to skip the voice of the people entirely.
The last time this happened (1968 primaries, eerily similar) the Democrats launched a committee to reform the primary process into what it is today. A big improvement over what it was before, but Biden just revealed a significant weakness in it.
I’m happy to vote for Harris to fulfill #1, I’m thrilled that there was a surge in registrations. But if the Democrats don’t address the critical problem of this process we all just witnessed, I fear #2 becomes unreachable. The Democrats are our only hope of saving our democracy, so if they abandon democracy within their party (like I have seen happening over the last 16 years), it’s a hollow victory.
Looks like we’re back in full “you can’t criticize the Democrats at all or you’re a Russian troll” territory. I hate this sycophancy.
I’m with you on this one. The Democrats have been skirting democracy to the best of their ability for years. I’m glad we’ve got a better chance of defeating Trump now, but I’m unwilling to concede the democratic process of nominating candidates. If we celebrate this fucked up process instead of holding their feet to the fire, they’re just going to learn that actually they don’t need to bother involving the people at all. We cannot give a single inch to the plutocrats at the top.
I feel like this speech was unnecessary. It only made me feel worse. I need the Democrats, and especially Biden, to stop soapboxing about “saving democracy” and “presidents are not kings” when they literally just skipped the democratic part of choosing a nominee for it to be handed down like a crown.
In fact, I’d feel a lot better if they apologized for it and told us how they were going to stop it from happening in the future.
We did not have a real primary, incumbency primaries are always just going through the motions without real challenge. Had Biden chosen to do the right thing and not seek reelection in the first place, we would have had a real primary. As it stands, we will have the first nominee since 1968 to win the nomination without a single vote from the people.
That year was such a disaster that it resulted in the creation of the current system of national binding primaries. The fact that our system is so fragile that the voice of the people can still so easily be skipped is extremely problematic. This situation demands reform or else the Democrats can take advantage of this anytime they want to avoid hearing what the people want.
Uh, no. That’s pretty clearly not what I’m saying.
I’m saying I expect my government to do more than simply follow through on 17 year old laws and pretend like that’s some amazing achievement. And student loans in particular have been abysmally handled by Biden, both in his Senate career and his failed promises to the populace when running for president.
“But the Supreme Court”: yes, but they were a known obstacle and he still chose to delay any attempt for two years in order to try to double dip, which still ultimately failed. He knowingly left the people with crushing student loan debt to suffer while waiting for a politically expedient time to even try. And he failed anyway, so why wait?