Does everyone understand the party with 218 seats, even if one of them is occupied by

[Eliot Rosewater]

Satan, decides everything that happens and doesnt happen in Congress and the party with 217 decides nothing, period?

Do our "vote the issues" people understand that the party with 218 doesnt just decide what is law but what is even VOTED on in the first place?

Does the MATH discussion make sense now?

I am not asking if someone agrees with me, these are the facts.

[FromMissouri]

1. do you realize

all those banners at the bottom of your posts are kind of obnoxious? I've been a DU lurker without an account for ten or twelve years, and one of the things about that kind of non-account is that we don't get to see the sigs. Just signed up and now I see all those flamboyant flags. WTF, you know? We already know where you're coming from. But now there they are, over and over and over.

[mcar]

4. Do you realize

That many DUers have banners? Do you plan to criticize them all, or just Eliot?

Me, I think support of Planned Parenthood is a very good thing. What do you think?

[CrispyQ]

7. At the top of the page, click on My Account.

Somewhere under Preferences is User signature lines on posts. Set that to Remove. No more distraction.

[FromMissouri]

86. than you. I will

Just got here. Got to learn the culture.

[pennylane100]

17. All I see is a Planned Parent banner, is that what you are complaining about.

However, I let my membership lapse and your post reminded me to resign. If there other things that I do no see (until I renew later today) how annoying can they be to make you devote your post to complaining about them.

[IronLionZion]

22. Do You Realize??

[Scruffy1]

23. I like your banner. n/t.

[LuckyCharms]

24. Heavens to Murgatroyd!!!!!!11!1!!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

28. !!!

[LuckyCharms]

31. .

LOL

[BumRushDaShow]

32. I'm sorry I had to do it.

[LuckyCharms]

33. Glad you did...gave me a laugh!

[tymorial]

63. Lol!

Exit stage left.

[marble falls]

29. Of all the people here to pick on, Elliott without a doubt is one of kindest and most informed....

If your criteria is banners, you came to exactly the wrong place.

[Eliot Rosewater]

45. LOL, thanks, and I just realized that two of my banners are gone, I added something to my sig

and I guess it moved two of them out...Wait, now I see all 3, what is going on? Is it dependent on how much I type in the post?

Ahh yes, it does, watch, this post will have one banner

wait now it has 3

confused

[Eliot Rosewater]

46. and this has them all

[lordsummerisle]

30. I like your banners as well, tastefully done

The ones I find distracting are the ones with multiple videos going...

[Aristus]

34. You've probably picked up on how we DU-ers don't like one of our own being bullied.

(If you're 21 posts in, and spewing all over someone's profile, then you're not one of our own...)

Especially over something as noble and worthy as Planned Parenthood.

So, FromMissouri, why don't you show us how much you want to make it up to us...

[FromMissouri]

87. okay, I knew you guys were sensitive

but I was just mentioning how distracting the same banners are, over and over. Actually, I had been following the thread from an earlier post, and dropped out of my 'member' status so I could read it without all the distraction. Thought I'd pass along a comment, is all. But you guys really are kind of sensitive, which is one reason why I never joined for over a decade of reading.
The Democratic primaries in which I have worked, beginning with Gene McCarthy, were all-out battles. I always assumed Democrats were fighters, who after the primary, worked to elect the candidate we chose.
And frankly, I take pride in not being "one of our own". Deal with it.

[Aristus]

90. "Gee, you guys are so sensitive!"

The eternal battle-cry of people who weren't expecting to be treated like jerks just because they were behaving like jerks.

Anyway, what you deplore as 'sensitive' , the rest of us call 'looking out for one another'. It's a fairly common human trait. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you've never seen it in action before.

[IronLionZion]

35. Someone from the Show Me state should welcome someone showing their banners

[Demsrule86]

36. Well avert your eyes is my best advice.

[Rollo]

38. Hey, get a load of my banners!

LOL!!!


.

[herding cats]

40. I, for one, adore your sig images.

[Rollo]

91. :)

[herding cats]

39. Have you been following this DUer about a lot the past few weeks you've been able to view sig lines?

I'm asking because there's lots of members with much more in their sig line than this one. Many are even animated. It just seems like an extremely odd thing to fixtate on. Many, of us have sig images which represent our convictions. It's part and parcel for a political forum.

I find it fascinating that this critique is your response to this specific OP. It makes no sense, really. It makes me wonder if there are underlying issues in play here?

I'd welcome you, but as you've said you're an old timer here. You know the ropes here already.

[FromMissouri]

92. actually, when I did the post,

although I've been reading for over a decade, I've never felt I had anything to contribute. Then when I joined and all of a sudden all of these things popped up, I'm not interested. It's like ads, and I've always used an ad blocker. All I thought I was saying was that it was distracting. I apologized to the original poster. I just have a thing about extraneous crap. Bouncing things and all. I started discussing issues back when it was text only on BBS. And I'm not sure changes have been improvements. I really didn't mean offense. And I've been instructed how to turn off the sig lines, and they're off.

[herding cats]

93. I can understand how that is, but I'm curious now what prompted you to reply to me about this now?

It seems odd considering the volume of people who commented you didn't reply to, and the amount of time which has passed and number of posts you've made since then.

[Rhiannon12866]

42. Go to the top of the page on the right and click on My Account

Scroll down to where it says "User signature lines on posts" (next to last) and click on "Remove" rather than "Display" and you should be all set, you won't see them anymore. Lots of DUers have signature lines, but you don't have to see them.

[FromMissouri]

89. than you I will

just a dumb newbie, right

[Fla Dem]

56. Why does it bother you that a DUer has banners on their posts?

This is what you have posted on your profile page:

My actual reason for signing up for an account is to thank all of the DU posters I've been reading all these years, who have kept my spirit alive and provided links and arguments and insights. I use DU as my start page, and there are days when it's all I need. So thank you, all of you.

I'm thrilled you have received positive energy from DU over the years.

So why then come on here and bash a DUer, who has positively contributed to DU. It's almost looks like you're itching for a fight.

And BTW, there is only 1 banner on their account not "all those banners", that would imply many, many banners.

[phleshdef]

57. Go away.

[mercuryblues]

81. you can turn the banners off

Go to my account and go to "user signature line on posts" and hit remove.

[BoneyardDem]

84. You can turn off signature lines, instead of diverting the topic from the OP

if you've been lurking for 12 years, you know better.

[maxrandb]

2. Not to mention

that the party with 218 seats, even if one is held by Satan, also controls EVERY FUCKING COMMITTEE in Congress and has SUBPOENA POWER.

In fact, since a large percentage of Americans don't give a shit about politics and just want to be entertained, I'd promise the spectacle of dragging the entire corrupt Retrumplican administration in front of committee after committee. I'd have them so fucking tied up responding to subpoenas and requests for documents and testimony, they wouldn't have time to fucking destroy everything we've built over 240 years.

Want to see just what the fuck Jarvanka are doing in the White House? You need subpoena power to do that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

47. Thank you, I noticed someone managed to divert this thread to nonsense about banners

Hmmmm....thanks for responding to the topic and thanks to others who defended me.

[magicarpet]

60. Driven by childish desires...

I want my pony...

I want my unicorn - who shits purple glitter that has the fragrance of day old lilacs.

Political results are secondary - childhood desires and fantasies reign supreme.

[Matthew28]

3. I agree 100%

This is what is important.

Control of the floor
Control of the vote
And control of the COMMITTEE.

If we have a few moderate blue dogs. Well, that means we have power. Stopping the republican agenda with a majority is also good even if we can't pass bills alone.

[elocs]

6. Exactly!

Every Democratic House member, no matter how imperfect they may be when it comes to supporting Progressive/Liberal causes, counts towards the Democrats controlling the House. Such a Democratic representative likely comes from a congressional district that would never, ever, ever elect a Progressive Democrat but they would elect a Republican. And that Republican would count towards the GOP controlling the House and its agenda.
This is a very, very simple concept that I don't know why so many on the Left have problems grasping it.

[mcar]

5. It is simple math, Eliot

We get the majority, we control the agenda, the investigations, the everything Congressional.

BTW, as someone who has been attacked at times for my avatar, love your banners!

[Eliot Rosewater]

48. THANKS

[Bradshaw3]

8. The House also decides on whether to impeach

Yes, 218 is the number and 51 (with the two indies caucusing with the Dems) is the number in the Senate we have to get to save this country. It's that simple. But those facts for some on here are hard to accept.

[bearsfootball516]

9. It takes 67 in the Senate to impeach.

[GulfCoast66]

11. One correction...

The house impeaches. The Senate has the trial. Bill Clinton was impeached.

But your overall point is correct. There is almost no chance Trump will be impeached AND convicted. There is lively debate on DU about the wisdom of impeachment with no chance of conviction.

I think it would be a huge mistake but respect others opinions.

[bearsfootball516]

12. It's an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the don't impeach unless we know the Senate will convict, camp

Impeachment without conviction will only serve to super fire up the Trump base, imo.

Impeaching without conviction turns Trump into a martyr.

[Mr.Bill]

21. I think once we get the majority in the house,

We should impeach him daily. I mean Every.Fucking.Day. How many times did they vote to take our health insurance away? Make him the president that was impeached hundreds of times. It would also send a message to the world that we're not all crazy.

[Cosmocat]

43. Bush II

I was of a similar mindset with bush to to a certain degree. I mean they gave him a total pass on a rack, not even investigations much less discussions of impeachment.

He did so out of political expediency, because to engage in those kinds of Investigations would have been so crazy with Republicans being Republicans, they never would have gotten around to doing Health Care reform, I'm probably not bank or form.

It was probably the right thing on some level, but at the same time reinforced Republicans tendency to get away with whatever they can get away with.

The problem here is if there is ever been a president in history that needed to be impeached, it's this guy. If we set the precedent to not do what needs to be done with him, the bar set so low there's really nothing that a present will be able to be impeached for moving forward, outside of being a Democrat and breathing.

And honestly, if Democrats do get the house with enough of a majority to be able to see it through, what else are they going to do for the next two years. They're not going to be able to do any kind of legislation.

No, it's time that a line was drawn in the sand very distinctly, and fruit all time moving forward establish that the things that this president has said and done or wholly unacceptable from the White House.

Yeah it'll be a shitstorm, because Republicans are assholes. The Republicans are always going to be assholes, and there Comes A Time when our party has to step up have some f****** balls and make a stand for what this country really stands for.

[dameatball]

55. So many good choices.....arrest, convict, impeach, imprison, exile, shoot into space........

...........does anyone know if that "Phantom Zone" from Superman is still taking guests??

[Bradshaw3]

14. No it takes 67 to convict

The House impeaches, the Senate does the trial. 218 in the House can impeach. Whether there is a conviction is another matter. Regardless he needs to be impeached.

[bearsfootball516]

15. Correct, 67 to convict. So it's 67, not 51.

[Bradshaw3]

16. Never said it took 51 to convict

I was responding to the OP about the House and what could be done if the Dems take it. I added that they could also impeach. Then I said they needed 49 Dems to take the Senate. Never said anything about the Senate impeaching (because they don't as hopefully you've learned). Two different ideas. Come on, you can do it.

[bearsfootball516]

19. No need to try to be condescending.

I brought up the whole 51/67 thing because I thought you were talking in terms of trying to get Trump convicted in the Senate. I'd argue that although I'd love to have the senate majority, if we can take the house alone, that's enough to block Trump's agenda and then we have a much stronger chance to take the senate in 2020 when a lot more vulnerable Republicans are running.

[Bradshaw3]

20. Wasn't being condescending

You misinterpreted what I wrote so I tried to explain it better.
Yes Dems have a much better chance to win the Senate in 2020 but I believe they can do it this year with some luck. They won't have enough to convict if no repubs go along but if Mueller's report is damning enugh that could happen. IMO blocking his agenda is a good first step but he is so dangerous getting him out of office ASAP is priority number one.

[DFW]

26. Convict, but otherwise correct. However, it takes just 51 to reject a Supreme Court appointment

One Gorsuch is already too many.

Besides, 51 Democrats in the Senate means Yertle McTurtle no longer runs the place.

[ProudLib72]

10. Is Satan running against a republican?

I'm voting for Satan!

[ret5hd]

13. Satan OK...Franken bad

[Eliot Rosewater]

49. Stop attacking the Democratic leadership for doing what they did to Franken, please.

I hated what they did but they did it and either you support the D party and not the Nazis, or...

[ret5hd]

64. Are you speaking for the Democratic leadership in your support of Satan?

[Eliot Rosewater]

65. Just stop, we are supposed to support Democrats

[ret5hd]

66. And I contend that posts like this...

Do EXACTLY the opposite!
Support Satan! Really? Saying you would support Satan under any imaginable circumstance makes us look like absolute fools. Idiots. Imbeciles. And it only gives fodder to those that ridicule us. Go ahead fools, post in a public forum you would support Satan in an election.

I’m an atheist and thus have no belief in Satan. But I want those that responded here to sit and think a while, then post a response to me: So you are saying you will vote for evil incarnate just to win? Really? Do you mean that? If you do, then you are no better than what I am fighting against.

[Trumpocalypse]

73. Hope you like it up there

on the high horse of your principles. But is does nothing to help people or prevent the GOP from destroying our country.

Stalin was one of the most evil men in history yet FDR allied with him to destroy someone even worse, Hitler.

[ret5hd]

80. It aint a high horse...

Why don’t you invite some of the religionists posters here to respond...I notice none have. In fact, I think I will invite them. Let’s see what their opinion of this jackass-of-a-post is. Cmon guys, what’s yalls opinion of this?

[Trumpocalypse]

82. Yes it is.

BTW the purpose of this site is to support democrats and the democratic party.

[ret5hd]

83. Which I do. Find any post of mine that suggests otherwise.

[Trumpocalypse]

85. And they say

Denial is a river in Egypt.

[yardwork]

18. Kick for more readers

[LuckyCharms]

25. I like your banners. n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

27. Heh, I agree with you. But there's something else you should realize. SATAN...in seat number 218

SATAN...in seat number 218 will get to dictate the entire policy of the party he/she belongs to.

We saw this when they were crafting Obamacare. TWO Democratic Senators, and ONE Democratic House Representative essentially SABOTAGED the whole damned thing. The reason Obamacare never had a Public Option was because of assholes like Nelson.

The same thing happens on every issue. Every Democrat in Congress is in agreement on a policy, and then two Democratic gadfly's from red states can swing the whole thing in the other direction.

So, I absolutely take your point, but also believe the Party needs to spend more energy crafting an ideology and message that is consistent with what the majority of Democrats want. Winning IS important, but SO IS being true to what you're supposed to be, and what you tell everybody else you are. They are both necessary, but insufficient conditions for success. You have to pay attention to them both.

[Demsrule86]

37. without 218 votes ideology doesn't matter we don't control what goes to the floor,

committees and have no power to investigate or subpoena. We will never have the majority without blue dogs. Thus we may be limited as to what we can do in some areas but I guarantee that it will be far better than any shit the GOP dreams up.

[Eliot Rosewater]

50. Exactly ., dont worry about what color to paint the walls until the fire is out.

[treestar]

53. All true, but as long as they aren't Republican

It's better than letting Rs run things. We have to deal with the system. It unfortunately gives anyone who wants no change more power than those who do.

[NurseJackie]

41. I think (for some) it's more satisfying to demonstrate their own purity...

... like good old Susan Sarandon. They'd rather "send a message" for the sake of their own vanity, instead of doing everything possible to defeat the GOP and put the GOP in the minority for the sake of our country and the most vulnerable among us.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. I keep hoping my MATH threads will someday get 100% approval. Not yet.

[NurseJackie]

61. Math requires thinking and logic and an appreciation for facts. The problem is...

Math requires thinking and logic and an appreciation for facts. The problem is trying to reach those who lack an appreciation for those cold aspects and who instead prefer the warmth of following an emotional response. Instead of making difficult decisions or strategic decisions based on facts and logic, there are those among us who find comfort in the luxury of indulging their vanities and who take comfort in flattering themselves by "following their heart" and their desire to "send a message" or to "punish the party". The Steins and Naders and Sarandons of the world are totally worthless, in my opinion... a complete waste of time... we're better off focusing on GOTV efforts. Having said that, although that type are lost to us, we can't afford to simply ignore them. Instead, we must still be diligent in debunking their lies and arguments so that they don't deceive and poison the minds of other voters.

[Eliot Rosewater]

62. Putin and trump are trying to kill us, first it will be the gays and the POC and Muslims, but we are

next and if you are a woman you are at the front of the line.

[Trumpocalypse]

74. Well said.

It is all about vanity.

[Lee-Lee]

44. Ive been preaching that control is more important than purity for a long time

But some people seem to feel that it’s better to be a minority party who had great “pure” candidates who lost isntead of a majority party who has some compromise candidates in the seats.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Preaching should no longer be necessary, if you are not for control visa vi math, you are NOT

a democrat, you are NOT a liberal.

period

[dameatball]

54. I get it. Since I started voting in 1972 I have always voted for a Democrat, except for......

.......the time I voted for a local Independent because there were no "D's" on the ballot.
And I have no opinion on what people put on banners or whatever. It's their account and their business.

[Eliot Rosewater]

58. Common sense then, good for you.

[dameatball]

59. I knew the "I" very well. He got 67%.....:)

[stranger81]

67. Here's some more math for you.

According to the most current Gallup polling, 28% of Americans self-identify as Republicans, 27% of Americans self-identify as Democrats, and a whopping 42% of Americans self-identify with neither party.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The Democratic Party cannot win in 2018, or in any other year, by capturing the votes of yellow dog Democrats alone. To put us over the threshold, independents have to be convinced to join us as well.

And that requires us to up our game. To CHANGE. To speak to more blocs of voters. If independent voters thought the Democratic Party platform was perfect the way it is, they would ALREADY BE DEMOCRATS.

Appealing to people on the issues that matter to them is the only way to win.

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. There is no credible source that says there are more cons than dems.

And anyone who supports trump can go fuck themselves, I never want their vote

ANY poll that says there are more registered GOP than DNC is bullshit.

Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

[stranger81]

69. There's a link to Gallup right there in my post.

Now you can explain why Eliot Rosewater is more knowledgeable than Gallup.

[Eliot Rosewater]

70. IT is bullshit...easily disproven

A POLL of who makes NO Sense

Do you not understand the difference between asking 1000 random people vs ACTUAL REGISTRATIONS?

And not only is the existing number higher for dems

Overall, TargetSmart found that 42.6 percent of the new voters registered this year lean Democratic, and only 29 percent lean Republican (28.4 percent lean independent).

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/how-many-registered-voters-are-in-america-2016-229993


Your poll is meaningless, stop telling me I need racists to join me.

[stranger81]

71. Your numbers from "TargetSmart" -- whoever the hell they are -- address only new registrations

in 2016 -- not overall registration numbers.

And yes, the Gallup numbers are based on sampling, extrapolated through standard and well-accepted statistical methods. You know, more math.

But hey, there's no arguing with you. 27% is clearly enough to win. Because math.

[Eliot Rosewater]

75. So you admit I am correct that there are more dems, good. Now, if you will just understand

your argument that we need votes from racists, is not correct.

[stranger81]

76. No, and no.

I don't admit you're correct about the polling numbers. And I don't admit that a small core of yellow dogs will lead to a Blue Tsunami.

We need votes from independents to win. And that's a fact, jack.

After all, it's just math.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. YOu dont admit there are more registered dems than gop?

[stranger81]

78. No, I don't admit that a 2016 new registration study by an unknown entity

obviates the most recent numbers from Gallup sampling.

[Eliot Rosewater]

79. wrong

http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.

Pew Research

[loyalsister]

72. The endless condescension is not convincing or inviting

It doesn't. seem plausible that someone want to be a part of any group that initializes contact with criticism. That includes people who are not necessarily affiliated with any political party and especially those who loosely affiliate with Democrats. I would rather give people a chance to respond to what they hear from candidates and campaigns before assuming they can't count.

[FromMissouri]

88. my apologies

I did not mean to hijack this thread. I am sorry.
But I must take exception to the thesis. Yes, we need the majority. But we do not need to become cynical opportunists like Repugs. What about your banner issues? What about an anti-PP, anti LGBTQ racist who registers as a Democrat? I'm not going to vote for him or her.