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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)20. I don't have "goals" and even if I did, they don't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to
how Congress will vote on this issue.
This isn't about ME, you know--so why are you trying to make it so?
The points I made remain--this is not a representative sample, no one has been polled as to their views, and this article is just a mishmash of supposition.
Start calling around and getting people on the record as to their intent, then they'll have something.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 [View all]
bigtree
Sep 2013
OP
Keynes said it was better for a government to pay people to dig holes and fill
HardTimes99
Sep 2013
#14
You're right, of course. Villain Rotation is a ploy that has worked. No need to give it up.
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#5
Are all those "likely to" support and will "definitely" back the use of force chicken-hawks?
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#4
The politically correct term for Chicken Hawks is "Soaring Eagles" please use the correct term
Dragonfli
Sep 2013
#34
Republicans far more likely to oppose military action, while Democrats were likely to support it
progressoid
Sep 2013
#7
So far 35 members of the Progressive Caucus were among those included in the OP link.
pampango
Sep 2013
#21
My figures are so far: Progressive Caucus-18 no, 10 yes, undecided 7; tea party caucus-20 no, 1 yes,
pampango
Sep 2013
#9
When most Democrats supported the Amash amendment on the NSA, did you think it was interesting?
David Krout
Sep 2013
#16
I don't have "goals" and even if I did, they don't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to
MADem
Sep 2013
#20
Yup. We need Rand Paul :(. Pelosi and Feinstein are hacks when it comes to Natl Sec. .
dkf
Sep 2013
#28
This article is in error about the Iraq War Resolution vote. A majority of Democrats opposed.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#35
It seems to correctly indicate in 2002 "Democrats in the House provided 'the bulk of the opposition'
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#38