Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(47,263 posts)
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:08 PM Apr 2013

Do we really "need" these so-called Democrats?

From my many years with DU i found out that yes, we do need a majority so that we head the committees and set the agenda.

But what agenda have we set since the 2010 elections? What did we pass in the Senate where we have a majority (what most consider a majority, at least 50.01%)?

If and when we lose the Senate majority - could happen - I hope that our representatives will initiate a reformed filibuster. I hope that our side will initiate a vote to decide that 50.01% is a majority. Except, I suppose, in special events where a super majority is needed and I don't know any.

If they will hold, say, 52 or 54 votes, they will be wary of filibuster from our side. So let our side initiate a reform.

But I doubt that Harry Reid or Max Baucus are wise enough to do so.

Yes, I am pissed. I was when I saw those smiley faces of the five "hall of shame" so-called Democrats who voted against gun control.



36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do we really "need" these so-called Democrats? (Original Post) question everything Apr 2013 OP
Oh, man, I hate this: "so-called Democrats" Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #1
a democrat is someone who supports the platform of the party and votes accordingly nt msongs Apr 2013 #2
Maybe. Depending on who is writing up the definition. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #4
Gee. That's exactly what the tea-party Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #24
You know, that is EXACTLY what I said, isn't it? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #26
Yep. That is what you said. Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #28
Take off. You are not interested in anything I have to say. You want to scream at someone -- anyone! Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #29
If you were interested in saying something rather than take crap shots Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #30
That's your definition. tarheelsunc Apr 2013 #31
Then, please, tell me what does it mean to be a Democratic representative these days question everything Apr 2013 #13
Politics Cary Apr 2013 #3
You've been here that long, and still don't understand why Reid voted the way he did? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #5
So, in other words, he can't deliver the vote. Isn't that his job? firenewt Apr 2013 #12
No. treestar Apr 2013 #20
I am sorry that I did not pass your class question everything Apr 2013 #14
You start a thread with the title "so-called Democrats" and think someone else is condescending? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #16
Yes, we need these democrats Cosmocat Apr 2013 #6
I understand this. But what is the benefit that we've had from these question everything Apr 2013 #15
Dear god yes ... Cosmocat Apr 2013 #17
Thank you. Yes, I remember all the things that Romney "promised" question everything Apr 2013 #18
Yes, we need those Democrats. illegaloperation Apr 2013 #7
+1 Jamaal510 Apr 2013 #27
Unsure Joshua Pistachio Apr 2013 #8
What about the DiFi amendment ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #9
Somewhere in Democracy 101 you missed... TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #10
did that apply for IWR and USAPATRIOT? frylock Apr 2013 #11
The Iraq War had high poll numbers in some areas, less so in others... Hippo_Tron Apr 2013 #22
What does that have to do with anything? TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #23
evidently members of congress are obligated to vote as their constituents demand.. frylock Apr 2013 #25
Their constituents "want" these Democrats. Their choice, not yours. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #19
The herding cats thing treestar Apr 2013 #21
Imagine that! woo me with science Apr 2013 #33
Well you're pretending there are no Republicans treestar Apr 2013 #34
Oh, my. woo me with science Apr 2013 #35
Max Baucus voted for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Do you believe that ... 11 Bravo Apr 2013 #32
Seeing as we appear to have moved to the avebury Apr 2013 #36
 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
1. Oh, man, I hate this: "so-called Democrats"
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:20 PM
Apr 2013

The arrogance of thinking that someone or some group can accurately define what a Democrat is.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
4. Maybe. Depending on who is writing up the definition.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:07 PM
Apr 2013

We have a faction of "FDR Democrats" here who want to move the clock back 70 years. If their retro values don't line up with new ones, are they DINOs?

Jakes Progress

(11,121 posts)
24. Gee. That's exactly what the tea-party
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:06 AM
Apr 2013

is saying about republicans now. So you think it is a good thing that the tea party take over the republicans and the Democratic party be taken over by reagan-democrats and third way centrists?

I don't.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
26. You know, that is EXACTLY what I said, isn't it?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:38 AM
Apr 2013

You quoted me verbatim without missing a single nuance or injecting any ridiculous hyperbole. Well done!

In case you don't get it or try to twist this some way, I am being totally sarcastic. Your response is so effin' ridiculous it deserves only ridicule.

Jakes Progress

(11,121 posts)
28. Yep. That is what you said.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:40 PM
Apr 2013

Or maybe you can tell me you weren't bemoaning the FDR wing of the party for not ponying up to more trendy "new" Democratic ideas. So tell me what you did say. I read: "We have a faction of "FDR Democrats" here who want to move the clock back 70 years."

Then you suggested that they might be Democrats in name only because they weren't hip with the new democrats, that they were retro and behind the times.

My contention is that the liberal wing of the party is the real party. I'm not a fan of a big tent that would include Democrats who cower to the NRA and cut SS. So I suggested that your post seemed to suggest that you favor the move to the right, the centrist wing of the party.

Now I have explained it to you. You can apologize for your ridiculous ducking of your own silly post.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
29. Take off. You are not interested in anything I have to say. You want to scream at someone -- anyone!
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:44 PM
Apr 2013

... and here I am.

You made no attempt to comprehend what I said. Instead, you shot off on some fucking tangent that provided you some amusement by completely misquoting me and perverting my intentions.

Go. Away.

Jakes Progress

(11,121 posts)
30. If you were interested in saying something rather than take crap shots
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:58 PM
Apr 2013

maybe I would listen. You still don't address the issues that you yourself brought up.

Why do you think that what you call the FDR wing is so retro? Did you mean that retro was a good thing? Why did you suggest that it be considered that they should be tossed out of the party?

Perhaps if you were a clearer writer, people wouldn't have to "attempt to comprehend" what you write. Maybe if you didn't just shoot off some funking tangent and egotistically expect for people to unravel your encryptions, your intentions would be so perverted.

You go away. Or learn to write. Or at least stop whining when someone does attempt to unscramble your mish mash and disagrees with you.

tarheelsunc

(2,117 posts)
31. That's your definition.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:03 PM
Apr 2013

A "Democrat" is a member of the Democratic Party.
A "democrat" is someone who supports democracy.

At least according to Merriam-Webster, and probably any dictionary available anywhere in the country.

If they're registered as Democrats, whether or not we agree with them on the issues, they are Democrats. To describe the people mentioned in this thread, we have terms such as "Democrat in name only".

question everything

(47,263 posts)
13. Then, please, tell me what does it mean to be a Democratic representative these days
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:45 PM
Apr 2013

I don't know that background check would have prevented the massacres in Columbine, Virgina Tech, Tuscon, Aurora, Newtown and other places. But we have to start someplace. Those mega magazines are a start. Assault weapons are a start.

I am not going to get into definition of "assault weapon," but I don't understand why someone needs a weapon designed for military actions.

In the 90s, there were was a robbery around Los Angeles. Police officers had to get into a neighborhood gun store to get "assault weapons" because this is what the robbers had and the police did not.

Did any of these "Democrats" explain why they chose not to vote? Do they really want to side with Ted Cruz and Chuck Grassley instead of - gasp - McCain?

Please explain to me why voting against gun control means that you are a Democrat. Please explain to me what a Democrat should do about all the mass shooting - if at all.

The definition of a progressive is that one thinks about fellow human beings even when one's personal interests are not affected. We, Democrats, are different from those Conservatives who, say, support stem cells research only when a family member can benefit from them. We support gay marriage even when we don't know anyone who is affected by it. As opposed to Conservatives who support it when they find out that their son or daughter is gay.

So, please, tell me, why is voting against the gun law yesterday makes you a Democrat. And what should a Democrat - by your definition - should do to stem the gun violence. If at all.

Thank you

Cary

(11,746 posts)
3. Politics
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:53 PM
Apr 2013

I think you need to look at trends more than immediate results. We have rolled over on this issue for a long time and I think we're waking up.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
5. You've been here that long, and still don't understand why Reid voted the way he did?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:07 PM
Apr 2013

Come on. Pay attention. Learn something. If it's clear a motion to proceed will be lost, the Senate leader votes against proceeding, which gives him the right to bring the vote up again if he can win the necessary votes over. Even if you've managed to not see that some time in your vaunted "many years with DU" or the rest of your life, you could just read the reports of this vote:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against it for procedural reasons as Senate rules will allow him to bring up the measure again.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/senate-gun-control-roll-call-vote-senators-who-bucked-their-party-90226.html

treestar

(82,383 posts)
20. No.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:30 PM
Apr 2013

He can try to persuade, but it is up to each Senator how they vote.

I am sick of people acting like it would be a good thing for one person, be it the president or other leaders, to be so domineering people voted in ways they don't want to.

question everything

(47,263 posts)
14. I am sorry that I did not pass your class
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:47 PM
Apr 2013

I have never spent many hours at DU. I have a life. But I admit that I did not know something, perhaps asked - I don't remember - and got an answer. Are you willing to admit to something that you did not know and then found out?

You can explain something without being condescending. Or is it too much to expect?

Oh, don't bother.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
16. You start a thread with the title "so-called Democrats" and think someone else is condescending?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:56 PM
Apr 2013

When you talk about your "many years with DU"?

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
6. Yes, we need these democrats
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

cause if they were not democrats, they would most likely be republicans ...

People just don't get it, there is no "middle" in DC.

There are republican's and democrats, about half of which are somewhat to very liberal and half of which are what once were considered the middle.

Just because they have a D behind their name does not mean they are liberal, it just means they aren't republicans.

question everything

(47,263 posts)
15. I understand this. But what is the benefit that we've had from these
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:50 PM
Apr 2013

individuals being Democrats, and thus chairing the Senate and its committees?

This is my questions. Has the Senate passed any significant rule since Jan 2011?

Would a Republican controlled Senate been any worse now?


Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
17. Dear god yes ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:09 PM
Apr 2013
Would a Republican controlled Senate been any worse now?

BO would have had major wrist surgery from having to veto a couple thousand abortion and gay marriage bills the last two years ...

I get that they haven't done much good in the senate, but better to have half democrats than full republicans.

Seriously, I am frustrated as anyone we can't get some common sense, meaningful progressive government out of these ass hats.

But, sadly, it could be a LOT worse.

Clarire McCaskill isn't Elizabeth Warren, but she ain't Todd Aiken, either.

illegaloperation

(260 posts)
7. Yes, we need those Democrats.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:22 PM
Apr 2013

Had we nominated a liberal candidate in Indiana last election, there would have been a Sen. Todd Akin in the senate.

The same thing can be said in Missouri and many other states.

On a side note, I do agree that we need talking filibuster. To pass the Senate should require a simple majority.

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
27. +1
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:46 PM
Apr 2013

Make no mistake--this is still a deeply divided country. As much as I and many of us on here would prefer the more liberal Dem in those races, being too far away from the "center" is a no-no if you're a Dem in a red state, and there are still a handful of red states. At least Blue Dogs will agree with us and pass our agenda most of the time, but Republicans rarely want to shift back to the center on anything.
The Congress Republicans are our #1 enemy right now.

 

Joshua Pistachio

(17 posts)
8. Unsure
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:22 PM
Apr 2013

There may be more liberal challengers who feel they would not get enough support from DNC in order to challenge the moderates.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
10. Somewhere in Democracy 101 you missed...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:38 PM
Apr 2013

the part about how politicians represent their districts or states and often tend to do what their constituents would like them to do, not what someone across the country says is the right thing to do.

Also missed was the part where if they do something their constituents really, really, hate, they might not get even the chance to lose in a general election should they be primaried over that one issue.



frylock

(34,825 posts)
11. did that apply for IWR and USAPATRIOT?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:51 PM
Apr 2013

do you have numbers to back up your assertion that constituencies wanted the Patriot Act, or favored the Iraq War Resolution?

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
22. The Iraq War had high poll numbers in some areas, less so in others...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:50 PM
Apr 2013

But the Iraq War is a good example of where a model representative would vote as a trustee rather than as a delegate. Public sentiment on the Iraq War shifted drastically once it turned into a quagmire and in just four short years. If a representative knows that their constituents support the war because they don't fully realize what it entails, they have an obligation to vote against the present will of their constituents to look out for their future interests.

With guns, it's less cut and dry. If someone's constituents are very pro-gun after Newton and Aurora, there's probably no event that is going to change their minds in the future.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
25. evidently members of congress are obligated to vote as their constituents demand..
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:30 AM
Apr 2013

was Baucus' constituency calling for him to vote on USAPATRIOT and going to war with Iraq, or are there exceptions to this rule?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
21. The herding cats thing
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:31 PM
Apr 2013

If you splintered the Democrats into many parties, then the Republicans would be in a great position.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
33. Imagine that!
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:49 PM
Apr 2013

With Republicans in office, we might get:

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:

A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner.
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executives to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's office

Oh, wait...

And now BILLIONS for nuclear bombs in Europe. Nobel Peace Prize, my ass.


Nobody is talking about "splintering" real Democrats. We are talking about ending a planned, deliberate, and malignant corporate infiltration and purchase of our party.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Well you're pretending there are no Republicans
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 03:22 PM
Apr 2013

That list could be more horrific.

But your characterization is an attempt to stretch things to interpret them as negatively as possible, plus not considering any of the more liberal things that have passed (see any right wing board for those and how it's the end of America) and as usual ignoring that Republicans don't splinter themselves.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
32. Max Baucus voted for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Do you believe that ...
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:07 PM
Apr 2013

a Montana Republican would have cast the same votes?

avebury

(10,946 posts)
36. Seeing as we appear to have moved to the
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:57 PM
Apr 2013

point of requiring super majorities (60+) votes on everything I guess it hardly matter unless the Democrats can get at least 60 senators voted into office and get them to adhere to the party line.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Do we really "need" these...