Probably should, yes. But if your evidentiary threshold for an ousting is a vote against the party line, then you'll not be left with many representatives-- not just in the US Democratic Party, but pretty much anywhere, including most socialist and progressive countries in history. You'd be left with an exceptionally pure, exceptionally small group of curmudgeons in a city hall somewhere.
If we ignore previous conversations, sure. But the point that has been made to you before, specifically, is that this exact issue has caused entire party promises fall through. Specifically this was brought up before with the public option during the ACA debate when it was the champion of the public option (who is not one of those three) who suddenly lost his spine when a public option was on the table.
The original point was blaming Jill Stein for something Democrats are more complicit in than she is. The signal here from the important people in the party (and Joe Manchin who is admittedly a DINO) is that Amy Barret is okay. The guy who was almost vice president has said that there's not a problem with her.
It doesn't really matter, he's absolutely useless.
Not if he is the seat we need to have a majority. Having a majority is the only thing that is more important than replacing democrats with progressives in our hostile takeover because without the majority, we are rendering the progressive seats we already flipped useless. We have to let the progressive seats we already flipped do what they can to leverage getting progressive passed/ added to other bills. Without the majority we flipped those progressive seats for nothing. Conservative democrats like this putz can't vote on conservative agenda if the GOP doesn't set the agenda. We just have to give the progressives a chance to play " keep away" by leveraging the majority leader to keep conservative agendas tabled. Tabled in the same way Mitch is doing right now in the Senate to everything Pelosi passes. When Democrats control it they can let the conservative agenda collect dust as well, but none of that happens without a majority.
A majority that doesn't exist without Joe Manchin isn't a majority at all.
It does, because we can still get what we need passed via beg, borrow, bribe and blackmailing.
This isn't ignoring previous conversations; this is elaboration. "This exact issue" is... congressmen voting against the party line, which is hardly something "exact" and is something to be expected within any political party on the planet; it does not constitute evidence of conspiracy.
Yes, that's the message from that guy. The necessary extension of what you're arguing is that Senator Sanders is somehow secretly sending that message as well, regardless of how he voted, because he's a Senator.
Well it's easy to see a pattern when there's a pattern. I'll turn this around and say everything looks like isolated incidents when you isolate them from other incidents.
This is a case of a judgement call, one that has to be made and has been made by a great many people. We can see who's not helping, we can see who tanks votes at key points. We can see why they do it too. We know who's funded to "take a hit" every once in a while. We can see how disingenuous voting records are.
I'm not isolating incidents from other incidents. I'm isolating the pattern from people who have not acted in any way to fit the pattern, and have not provided any such incidents.
Yes, we can see who's not helping. My point is that's not what you're doing. You're casting your net over people regardless of whether they're helping or not, because they have a (D) after their name.
The problem here is that in an effort to identify a simple explanation, you've amalgamated every political issue into one. Voting against the party on this issue (say, Barrett) means they're part of the same cabal that voted against the party on a different issue (say, DoD).
If they had all the power, all the congressmen, that 5% would be outvoted by the 95%. The only reason they ever constitute a deciding vote (which they didn't with Barrett anyway, remember) is because the rest of the 46% necessary to form a majority is Republican. Remove that 46% by giving "all the cards" away, and the majority dissolves. We're back to 5-vs-95.
Well no, because I have shown when these other Democrats have shit the bed too. But I'm supposed to forget about that because we're just talking about 5 Democrats here.
If the shoe fits, and it does fit. Having a D next to their name is not something that fills me with trust.
While this is true, I expect at least some loyalty to the policies I want, and the Democrats don't enact the policies I want. If I try and point that out I'm told it's the Republicans fault. If I then point out every time the Democrats help I'm told it doesn't count. It's bullshit. The Democrats are complicit.
This is what's infuriating, because...
And I won't hear this from a goldfish.
You've shown when one or two have voted against your wishes in other votes, yes; you've not provided anything for the majority of them.
You're not expecting "at least some", though, are you? You're saying quite explicitly that 95% fidelity is not enough, because of a belief that the remaining 5% is secretly coordinated between them to deny your agenda getting through.
This isn't actually an example of what we were discussing, though, is it? I didn't say that with a Congressional majority the Democrats would legislate on a purely progressive agenda. That is transparently false.
You're merely claiming poor memory on my part because I haven't interpreted events in the same way as you.
We're going to cut everything else out here because it can be summed up as "You're wrong and don't pay attention"
Me the fifth time this conversation happens:
You are correct that this is just class warfare. It is always one set of rules for the poor and another for the wealthy. The wealthy can do as they please, the poor are forced to suffer. All of the obstacles that they keep putting in is just to force the woman to run out of money before she can do anything. The poor cannot afford extra doctors appointments, because they cannot afford to do any of this in the first place. Each visit costs money they do not have to spend. Every extra expense added is just one more hurdle for the poor. Hurdles that do not exist for the the wealthy. They can fly over to another country at will do so as they please regardless of what laws and rules they inflict on the poor here.
Silly, you don't even have to look at their voting record that far back, it is blatantly apparent that isn't true just by looking at their recent voting records. LOLMe the fifth time this conversation happens:
www.govtrack.us
*shrug* I'm not dumpster diving in the voting records bin. It's my own personal opinion that it is most likely that Democrats from conservative districts will vote in line with keeping their seats in conservative districts on issues those particular conservative districts get really antsy about. It's easy to forget that our national legislative leaders are actually fundamentally local and regional leaders, and that politics at home are the greatest determinant for their votes.Silly, you don't even have to look at their voting record that far back, it is blatantly apparent that isn't true just by looking at their recent voting records. LOL
Unfounded accusations are unfounded.
Congressional Votes Database - GovTrack.us
It just gets irritating when people say stuff because someone else said it on twitter but they don't even look it up for themselves before they repeat it and take it for fact. Doing your own homework is important for a reason.Roll Call Votes by the U.S. Congress
Information on how to ascertain member support for legislation through the use of roll call votes.www.congress.gov
Right, stop there for a minute: the public option was not included in the bill.
Right, I don't think you're actually paying attention to what I've been writing, because I don't disagree with most of this.
Eh, a spreadsheet would be nice, but I don't need that much. Just evidence of conspiracy beyond sharing a job title would be enough.
Pssst
USA