Not wrong. The cost of WW3 would likely be higher than if Ukraine can handle the dictator for NATO.
The Iraq and Afghanistan war is estimated to have Cost the US 4-6 Trillion Dollars. Over 20 years meaning 200-300 billion each year plus American lives.
Thus far, we have given 75 billion. Plus, another 61 billion. Totaling 136 billion for 2 years. Far less than the Iraq, Afghanistan war we fought for 2 decades. Bonds, no Americans’ lives sent over to be lost. The Ukrain funding is definitely worth the cost.
The Isreal war is another story. “Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves” — Confucius
Imagine if that funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars went into subsidising health care instead. Nobody ever asked how they’re going to pay for it.
And Israel is making the same mistake the US made after 9/11. The Taliban actually offered to rendition Osama Bin Laden to stave off an invasion, and I’m not sure anyone but the hawkiest of hawks wouldn’t have taken that deal knowing what we know now.
No, not really. The thing is, Johnson is exactly like MTG only not completely fucking stupid. He knows you cut deals now so that you can still be around when MAGA-world needs a sure bet to attempt to overturn the 2024 election results (only if Trump loses, of course).
so, McCarthy fucked them on a deal he cut, so they had no real reason to keep him around. Democrats don’t have the votes, presumably, to push their own candidate forward (though I wouldn’t be shocked if they could get one of the less psychotic republicans to join in,) so they’re not going to put their pick in, anyhow.
Johnson didn’t fuck them and stuck to the deals he’s cut, which is why the Howler Monkey #2 is pissed.
so, on the premise that Johnson will at least honor his deals and the next dumbass probably won’t… it’s more valuable to keep him around.
so, on the premise that Johnson will at least honor his deals and the next dumbass probably won’t… it’s more valuable to keep him around.
Oh I appreciate the realpolitik of it all, but let us not forget its an election year, maybe the most significant ever. The Democrats got what the needed from Johnson, but they really can’t appear to be playing ball ‘too hard’. Their leverage comes from him being on a string, not being confident in his position; likewise, being ‘partners’ with Republicans puts them in an awkward position (especially in the house) from a campaigning perspective. Strange bedfellows, but Democrats need to keep the “Johnson’s” at arms reach because individually, they need to win their races, and even moreso, chaos within the Republican party is marketing for Democrats moving into November.
but Democrats need to keep the “Johnson’s” at arms reach because individually, they need to win their races, and even moreso, chaos within the Republican party is marketing for Democrats moving into November.
they also need to maintain the visage of the adults in the room. Fucking over Johnson won’t accomplish anything, and likely get a worse candidate in office. It’ll give real ammunition to any one campaigning against them and take away the accusation that the republicans are obstructionist simply to be obstructionist.
Yep. They have to look both left and right at the same time, so I expect alternating narratives from honey moon lovey dovey to on the rocks romance broken, planted from both sides every 2- 3 weeks from now until November.
Do you think the House writ large needs to pass another bill before November or was this sufficient to earn their keep?
Do you think the House writ large needs to pass another bill before November or was this sufficient to earn their keep?
do you think there’s nothing that needs attention? no problems that require legislation to solve, no… I don’t know, aid packages to be signed. or relief for anything…?
I’m speaking purely in terms of sportsball/ realpolitik, in the most cynical manner possible.
Like, I can’t think about anything other than funding international war that both Democrats and Republicans agree enough upon to be worth bringing to the floor other than to say you tried and let it die so you can campaign on it.
I guess my thinking is that this might have been enough for at least the Democrats in the house to run on, if they can keep the Republicans annoyed enough at it being presented as a Democratic victory, and especially if they can point to Republicans revolting against Johnson as to why they can’t get any more done for this session of congress.
On the Republican side, the passage doesn’t seem like a victory for Republican voters. No real accomplishments other than being able to fund the Israeli genocide. I’m not sure how high that ranks of a priority that is for Republican voters. Like the genocide was fully funded, it didn’t really need the help, so it just doesn’t have the same staying power as funding the Ukrainian resistance does for Democratic voters.
I guess my thinking is that if we go into November without another single thing getting done in the house, the W for this season goes into the D column, almost certainly. So the need to get more done is mostly going to come from the R side of aisle.
I guess my thinking is that if we go into November without another single thing getting done in the house, the W for this season goes into the D column, almost certainly. So the need to get more done is mostly going to come from the R side of aisle.
the issue is that the DNC has become the “Any functioning adult” party. they’re going to take a hit if they vote and congress completely seizes up. better to work someone who won’t try to fuck you over than to get somebody whose going to be worse. and congress will completely seize up.
Toungue in cheek obviously but the point remains. I firmly agree with your point about the Democrats ability to campaign on the “Any functional adult” party, but that goes away if they elevate Republicans the level of ‘also being function adults’. Congress being seized up actually works for the Democrats so long as they can firmly pin it on Republicans, unless its explicitly a Democratic policy priority. Which is like… Maybe? But that works so hard against Johnson and the Republicans in the house; his leash just isn’t that long.
So my bet goes to stagnation, which I assess as a D’ win. If you think there is something both D’ and R’ can vote yes on going into campaign season, I’m all ears. Maybe marijuana legalization?
Abysmal political strategy. Like if you want to lose an election your party is already struggling in (as in, the Democrats are struggling), the Democrats should do exactly what you describe.
The only things on the table that Republicans are willing to work on are gigantic L’s for the Democrats. There is no issue (unless you have one you are holding back on, and again, maybe mj reform?) that Republicans would put forward that Democratic voters can support.
If they did what you are advising, Democrats would go from having ‘won’ the house game of the last 2 years (from the minority position no less), to having ‘lost’ the house game. It would be idiotic to give Republicans one iota of rope more than exactly what it takes to hang themselves.
The problem is that people are sick of exactly these games.
We want a functional government. Breaking it… because you got the ball and are going home isn’t going to convince any centrists to flip. Progressives also don’t see them doing enough.
They don’t have to agree to things. They just need to make as much of an effort. They’ll be more successful to that with someone who won’t move the goalposts every five minutes.
We nuke Johnson, they loose a seat at the table. The next guy simply can’t be trusted. Nobody wins.
We keep that seat, we can still nuke his plans… or not. It gives them more than they had before.
This is such a persistent myth about American politics. There is basically no evidence to suggest that a ‘center’ has ever existed outside of being a convenient narrative for NPR to orbit around. You don’t win American elections appealing to ‘centrists’ (who statistically don’t exist), you win them driving out a base. We have a strongly bimodal electorate that has only gotten more and more bimodal since the year 2000.
We have 3 demographics in American in order of volume: Independents, Democrats, and Republicans. Democrats, if they want to win, need to drive their base out, and expand it (if possible).
No Republican will vote Democratic in this election. The best you can do is get them to stay home. But no quantity of political capitol will bring them to the Democratic side. Its a complete waste of resources.
Democrats can only drive out their base (go after policy positions their base wants), or bring in independents (expand to policy positions independents favor). Its just naive to the current environment to promote working with Republicans as a viable path for house Democrats. It would be completely shooting themselves in the foot.
We have 3 demographics in American in order of volume: Independents, Democrats, and Republicans. Democrats, if they want to win, need to drive their base out, and expand it (if possible).
No Republican will vote Democratic in this election. The best you can do is get them to stay home. But no quantity of political capitol will bring them to the Democratic side. Its a complete waste of resources.
this isn’t entirely true. my dad, for example, has been a life long republican who will be voting for Biden- and did in the last election.
Besides which, Biden is a centrist. he’s only progressive compared to literal, actual fascists like trump, Desantis and Abbot. that he’s also slightly more progressive than Obama or the Clintons just demonstrates the two big camps inside the big tent.
the point I’m trying to make is that no matter what your goal is, you’re going to get closer to it with a known quantity like Johnson that whatever sack of smashed asshole they find next. Democrats don’t lose anything. but they might get something if Johnson owes them. and he’d owe them bigtime.
They don’t lose anything because they can still nuke any single effort done by republicans. its how we got the Ukraine aid passed- by nuking Israel aid until they complied.
Maga republicans will lose nothing if congress gets nuked. in fact, it’ll probably make their base happy. because “Murica, Fuck Yeah!” or… something.
Maga republicans will lose nothing if congress gets nuked.
Yeah except the election. MAGA has held the house now for two years and has jack shit to show for it. They’ve shown they can’t govern. Lets keep it that way. Stop extending olive branches to these people acting in bad faith. I’ve heard and understand your points, but you’re treating the house like there is time left on the clock to do anything and there simply isn’t, and you haven’t provided a single tangible thing to go after that both D’ and R’ could work on (I offered mj reform, I think that would be popular on both sides).
So you are simply wrong. Like flat out. There is only negative value for house Democrats to deepen or expand their relationship with house Republicans when they’ve already got the W. House Democrats don’t need to get anything done in the next 4 months because they got the aid bill passed, and can point to the incompetence of Republicans as to why nothing else got done. There is 0 political gains to working or supporting Johnson. Its only political costs. Working with the Republicans any further would be like throwing the ball instead of taking a knee when you can just run out the clock.
Democrats got what they wanted. Its time to take their W and go back to their home districts and campaign. Leave R’s with that shitsucking taste in their mouth.
They have the ability now to nuke any legislation that comes across. Dems already have the power.
Protecting him means concessions, it means moving the Overton window back to where it should be.
It means going on the offensive.
Instead you want memes and headlines. Take the pittance and go home. Is that it? Obstructionism is their play book. We start using it and it leads to the same dumb place.
It makes it easier for them to pass their fascist bullshit. Not harder.
You bruh. That’s your argument. Its what you’ve been arguing for this entire thread. Your argument, not mine.
That’s what working with Republicans is. Its an olive branch. Its redemption for the Republicans being so clearly in the wrong in terms of strategy for the past 8 years. Like they’ve been governing for a long time and have actually nothing to show for it. Now you’ve found an ally in Mike Johnson and you are saying house Democrats should work with Mike Johnson to do “stuff” , i.e., pass laws in the House. You are silly if you think you’ll get anything other than conservative legislation passed with Mike Johnson. And your argument is that House Democrats should? Bruh.
And if that isn’t the case, I’ve asked you what laws Democrats should go for, like whats the material position here, whats the specific policy or legislation, and you’ve offered none. Your ‘going on the offensive’ is just handing R’s the opportunity to turn a loss into a win. Its naive, poorly thought out, and you don’t even have a single bill or law to offer that Democrats could use this strategy with. You simply aren’t cynical enough to appreciate the cost of the strategy you’ve outlined, and its not clear you’ve even really though of it enough to have an answer considering you cant tell me what legislation they should go after.
Its incredibly naive and its generally kinda silly, the kind of piss-ant level “appeal to the moderates” analysis that Hillary used to beat Trump oh wait lose to Trump.
That’s what working with Republicans is. Its an olive branch. Its redemption for the Republicans being so clearly in the wrong in terms of strategy for the past 8 years
No. It’s taking the best action to advance democratic policies. We won’t get any policies or influence with whoever comes next.
Welcome to a split congress. Your position would give them free rein to try and pass whatever they want in the house.
It’s not an olive branch. It’s a leash.
And if that isn’t the case, I’ve asked you what laws Democrats should go for, like whats the material position here, whats the specific policy or legislation, and you’ve offered none. Your ‘going on the offensive’ is just handing R’s the opportunity to turn a loss into a win
Sealioning. Go watch some political news. If you can’t find something worthwhile, you’re not paying attention.
And again, it is not handing them a win. They win if we do get rid of him just as much as we lose. We gain nothing by it, but we give up that leash.
Your way clears the way for the fascists to do whatever the fuck they want, with no motivation at all to come to the table. At least with Johnson on the leash, we can block most of what comes down; and maybe get something meaningful.
Which is probably better than the headlines we’ll get.
Do you think the House writ large needs to pass another bill before November or was this sufficient to earn their keep?
Just off the top of my head? FAA reauthorization, FY2025 federal budget package, …oh that pesky temporary stopgap funding measure to re-up this summer, some election integrity bills…
Just off the top of my head? FAA reauthorization, FY2025 federal budget package, …oh that pesky temporary stopgap funding measure to re-up this summer, some election integrity bills…
Stop gap, for sure, same with FAA. Not sure election integrity is a ‘need to have’ for the House ‘writ large’. Would be a big feather for Dems, not sure Repubs care.
I’m still very dubious of the argument in favor of House Dems working with Repubs. Dems have finally wrangle the Repubs onto their heals, and giving out any unnecessary points seems counter productive. I think this because I think, for House Republicans, their biggest issue going into November is that they’ve got absolutely jack shit to show for their time in office, except for a few Democratic wins. From a Dem strategy perspective, it just doesn’t make sense to give the R’s anything to campaign on, and the R’s are extremely desperate for anything.
I’d rather suffer through a few more months of a do nothing congress, and then sweep the House into a Democratic super majority than offer some fawning victory lap points to only somewhat less extreme Republicans. I think Democrats are well positioned for that, but they need anything that comes out of the House to be a clear Democratic victory. Thoughts?
I’m still very dubious of the argument in favor of House Dems working with Repubs.
Compromise starts somewhere, and someone has to go first. Will it be the Dems? Probably. In 2024? Meh. Probably better to not.
I’d rather suffer through a few more months of a do nothing congress, and then sweep the House into a Democratic super majority
For the next Congress? Sure, why not? I know who I’m voting for already. I’m not young myself, but I have young adult chikdren. I’d like to see a more progressive agenda for their sake. The best tree is the one you planted 20 years ago. The next best tree is the one you plant today.
Yeah I think we’re pretty locked in at this point, at least in regards to preference. Turnout however, I think is completely up in the air. I also agree on just accepting impass at this point. If the Dems see this as an opportunity for bipartisanship, that’s just political suicide. They can cleanly make this a referendum on the very principal of modern republicanism as being obstructionist (worthless house), anti-women (RvW), criminals (Trump on trial). Like its pretty easy. Just go home and campaign.
Add comment