US Politics XIV: Vote for Pedro

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t understand what the Dems are afraid of.

If any of us were to break the law, we are punished.

Why can’t the Dems do the same to the GOP who are literally destroying the foundations of democracy?

I get it, you send letters so when you go to court you can show that you tried by the book. But the second those deadlines were missed, these people should have been held in contempt.

Do they really think independents will switch over to Trump once we officially find out he’s in the bag for Russia/China/Saudi???
 
I don’t understand what the Dems are afraid of.

If any of us were to break the law, we are punished.

Why can’t the Dems do the same to the GOP who are literally destroying the foundations of democracy?

I get it, you send letters so when you go to court you can show that you tried by the book. But the second those deadlines were missed, these people should have been held in contempt.

Do they really think independents will switch over to Trump once we officially find out he’s in the bag for Russia/China/Saudi???
They're really bad at this. That's how we got to where we are now in the first place.

They're worried about going high when they go low and doing the right thing and being polite and decent and shit, while the other side only worries about winning.

The GOP has had charismatic firebrands on political talk radio and t cable news networks for decades stirring up the old white dudes, and the Democrats counter with... late night talk show hosts? GTFO.
 
Last edited:
The public option doesn't work. You have to kill private insurance. Healthcare can't be a right and a commodity. There's no middle ground here. It will never be sustainable until you get single payer. This isn't some litmus test thing. There's no fathomable way to make any of it work until private insurance is killed. Compromise doesn't win this, because you can't compromise with companies built to profit off suffering.

+1

x1000

Don’t understand how people don’t understand this. The concept of healthcare and health insurance working in parallel is invalid. Insurance can top off health care though in series.

I mean just to see how much premiums have soared since coverage became "mandatory" should make this obvious to even the simplest of minds.
 
The public option doesn't work.

Biden is way behind the times with the public option stuff. That's just over. The base and most of the American public has moved on and anybody on the Dem side who is still talking about it is living in the past. It's honestly akin to Don't Ask Don't Tell in the late 2000s.

The Democrats are delusional if they think they can still play nice. One of the main reasons why I am against Biden (and by extension Booker and O'Rourke) is that they don't seem to get this at all.
 
I agree with you. Well, I guess my reaction was not of surprise, I mean it’s obvious they will protect trump at all costs. I guess my reaction comes more out of the frustration that this administration is getting away with murder and nothing seems to get done about it. The will to protect trump has done far more damage to the Republican Party than if they would have done the right thing at the beginning. Ie they should have dealt with him before they nominated him as I recall many republicans at the time were speaking against him. As soon as he got nominated they all coward and went back on their words like Paul Ryan.
Their initial revulsion to Trump was calculated; he made them look bad, and he was so blatant and indiscreet in everything he did that he threatened to give up the game. They went along when they realized they couldn't stop him. Everything they'd been doing since Reagan got into office led to this. Trump, or someone like him, was inevitable. They tied culture war nonsense to their party platform in order to survive. As their awful economic policies slowly degraded things over 30 years, people were going to demand answers eventually. Trump is lumbering fool who hasn't learned a single fact since the early 1980's, but plenty of people are happy to blame immigrants for economic woes. So they followed the winds where it took them.

McConnell being in charge really allowed this all to happen. He's the ideal party leader in the era of Trump because he doesn't give a shit about media perception or ideology. The only thing he wants is control of the Senate and to make money for the people who help him maintain that. By being against any actual policy or stance beyond enriching the right people, it was easy for him to get everyone in line behind Trump.

Trump has been a blessing for them for a couple of reasons. They have learned that they really can hide in plain sight for the most part. As long as you never apologize and always have a scapegoat, you really will never be held accountable for anything. They may lose a vulnerable senator or congressperson here or there, but by being much better at politics and capitalism than the Democrats, who have little in the way of any actual goal, they are going to continue to win 80-90 percent of the time where it matters most.

Republicans will only actually stand up to Trump if he does something that impacts the bottom line. Think of them preventing him from closing the US-Mexico border, or forcing Moore and Cain to withdraw their Federal Reserve nominations. That's all you'll get from the Republicans.
 
From Kamala Harris' speech at the NAACP, this is really worth repeating because it's something we hear over and over again - the glorifying of the Midwestern ONLY WHITE voter, the suggestion that only a Joe Biden can reach them and the sacrificing of essentially every other component of the Dem base.

There has been a conversation by pundits about "electability" and "who can speak to the Midwest?" But when they say that, they usually put the Midwest in a simplistic box and a narrow narrative. And too often their definition of the Midwest leaves people out. It leaves out people in this room who helped build cities like Detroit. It leaves out working women who are on their feet all day - many of them working without equal pay. And the conversation too often suggests certain voters will only vote for certain candidates regardless of whether their ideas will lift up all our families. It's shortsighted. It's wrong. And voters deserve better.
 
That gets into why I hate the conversation about red states and how they deserve their fate for voting for the wrong candidates. When you've got Mississippi with 37 percent of its population black, and snarky liberals are saying "maybe the blue states should let the red states wallow in their own misery!" how is that productive beyond making those libs feel superior?
 
That gets into why I hate the conversation about red states and how they deserve their fate for voting for the wrong candidates. When you've got Mississippi with 37 percent of its population black, and snarky liberals are saying "maybe the blue states should let the red states wallow in their own misery!" how is that productive beyond making those libs feel superior?

Those are typically discussions on boards like this, brought on by some right wing Trumper agitating. They're no more or less productive than any online conversation frankly.
 
Trump has been a blessing for them for a couple of reasons. They have learned that they really can hide in plain sight for the most part. As long as you never apologize and always have a scapegoat, you really will never be held accountable for anything. They may lose a vulnerable senator or congressperson here or there, but by being much better at politics and capitalism than the Democrats, who have little in the way of any actual goal, they are going to continue to win 80-90 percent of the time where it matters most.
On this point, I think this is a really good read:

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/teenage-pricks-pareene

The ultimate aim of this Protecting Our Boys rhetoric became clear at Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school—he at the prestigious all-male Catholic school Georgetown Prep, she at a nearby all-female prep school—triggering a wide-ranging investigation of what turned out to be a remarkably debauched 1980s adolescence. We saw how Kavanaugh’s friends had bragged—in their high school yearbooks—using code words for Quaaludes and Bacardi 151 cocktails at “Beach Week,” a tradition of unsupervised teenage partying that surely seemed bizarre to people raised in America’s relatively puritanical middle class.

If it is perfectly normal for American adolescents and young adults to experiment with drugs, alcohol, and casual sex, it’s also true that the boozing, groping—and worse—at these elite schools seems to have been institutional, tacitly condoned by any ostensible authority figures with the power to rein it in. Everything we learned about Kavanaugh’s high school days—the drinking, the apparently common date rape at packed house parties, the routine sexual humiliation of women—happened under the noses, but not under the direct supervision, of those authority figures. This arrangement was plainly designed in part to give the members of the adult world plausible deniability but also to preserve the fiction that the elite institutions they entrusted their children to were shaping future leaders of great moral character.

And when the mask was torn off, the response of Kavanaugh and his defenders was not embarrassment or shame but instead a hysterical and rabid defense of Kavanaugh and the social settings that produced him.

Some old pre-Trump playbook might well have had Kavanaugh playing at contrition, saying he’d matured, and promising to make amends. But the new strategy, borrowed from the boss himself, was to not give an inch—not to let the bastards get away with trying to stop a good American boy from getting away with something. So Kavanaugh threw a snarling, angry, self-pitying tantrum and lied about obvious things, like the crude and demeaning sexual jokes in his yearbook, and his own youthful penchant for drinking to the point of blacking out. Repeating ridiculous lies in an increasingly aggrieved fashion, knowing you were lying, knowing everyone else in the room knew you were lying, and that it simply did not matter—all this was exactly the sort of show of dominance that America needed to get back on track.

The strange thing was that, while the Kavanaugh nomination really was almost derailed by that initial credible accusation of sexual assault, his confirmation only became more certain as more details and context were reported about the incident. This was decidedly not because any of these details were in any sense exculpatory but because they should have constituted a much broader indictment.

A large part of the desperation that members of the conservative intellectual class mobilized in order to “get to yes” with Kavanaugh was because the case against him almost immediately morphed from one individual accusation of assault to a broad and very well-supported indictment of their entire class. What was revealed was not that Kavanaugh the man was individually monstrous but that he was a product of a monstrous milieu. The case against Kavanaugh was the case against the culture of Georgetown Prep, of fraternities at elite colleges, of the entire social world that produced the entire conservative elite. So the more we learned about its horrors, the more urgent it became to find Kavanaugh innocent and to join him in safeguarding the sacrosanct life chances and career achievements to which he was—and they were—entitled.

That’s why no one told Trump to ditch him and replace him with some ideologically identical Federalist Society goon who hadn’t been credibly accused of sexual assault. It’s also why Senator Lindsey Graham’s red-faced outburst at the confirmation hearing made sure to paint Kavanaugh as the victim of a historic injustice, goading him into further self-pity:

GRAHAM: Would you say you’ve been through hell?
KAVANAUGH: I— I’ve been through hell and then some.

What made all this the stuff of Dantean hyperbole was the simple, self-evident truth that Kavanaugh was “a good kid.” Good Kids are determined to be good not according to their actions, which are frequently quite bad, but by their standing. On this status-driven reckoning of the natural order of things, the worst thing imaginable is for a good kid to be denied future opportunities to wield power.

Even Senator Ben Sasse, a professional critic of the president’s temperament with a side-hustle as an author of books about how to raise your children well, took to the Senate floor to make a grand show of feeling bad about how the president spoke about the Kavanaugh accusations, and then voted for Kavanaugh’s confirmation anyway.

We could have had exactly what Sasse and the rest of the Seriousness Brigade claim to want: an honest discussion of what moral lessons parents and institutions are teaching, or failing to teach, our children. Instead we had a prolonged national meltdown on behalf of all the American teens who, because of the excesses of #MeToo, may yet miss out on the pleasures of behaving like the protagonists of Porky’s.

...

Legitimizing complete irresponsibility is also exactly why the mainstream, respectable GOP eventually embraced Trumpism. It’s a force that protects the monstrously unfair world they’ve built. They want to ensure that righteous mobs don’t dismantle the institutions that crank out Jared Kushners and Brett Kavanaughs, so they go along with the big lie, aimed at their lessers, that the people who want to destroy those elite institutions are also determined to punish “your son.” A movement that is designed to preserve the privilege of teens like Brett Kavanaugh to behave poorly and still run the country is telling less-privileged white teens that it’s actually fighting for their much more meager privilege to be racist and piggish and not face consequences.

The whole thing is worth a read, for how it has outlined the play acting so many go through to pretend the right is not what it is. But I highlight this part in particular for its relevance to this discussion. And it does circle back to my disgust with Biden continually talking about how great his friends in the Republican Party are, and how Trump is an aberration.
 
Last edited:
The public option doesn't work. You have to kill private insurance. Healthcare can't be a right and a commodity. There's no middle ground here. It will never be sustainable until you get single payer. This isn't some litmus test thing. There's no fathomable way to make any of it work until private insurance is killed. Compromise doesn't win this, because you can't compromise with companies built to profit off suffering.

I'm not saying that the end goal should single-payer. Now go ahead and get it passed sometime in the next decade or two...

I think there has to be a well thought out, tiered plan over a a fairly long time frame in order to implement it without being the party that sunk GDP and boosted unemployment by knocking out private healthcare in one fell swoop. Bernie has no such plan that he has shared. He just states what we need but gives no roadmap on how to get there.

And isn't the public option pretty much what Canada has now? They have a "two-tiered" system where there are private insurers and government insurance.
So, not sure how your blanket statement of "the public option doesn't work" holds water.
 
I mean just to see how much premiums have soared since coverage became "mandatory" should make this obvious to even the simplest of minds.

Because there was no public option. Not sure how you can say that the public option didn't work when well... there never was one.

I think even the simplest minds would be able to see that if private insurers had to keep and attract customers who are free to choose a cheaper option, then their prices would need to go down to stay in business. If not, see ya later.

Again, I'm not against single-payer. But no one. No one. Has laid out a plan to implement it with any detail. Saying we will tax the billionaires and pay for it, is laughable and soft baby food for the simple minded. Dismantling a 2 Trillion dollar a year industry that employs nearly 3 million people isn't a simple or quick process without consequences both expected and unexpected.
 
And isn't the public option pretty much what Canada has now? They have a "two-tiered" system where there are private insurers and government insurance.
So, not sure how your blanket statement of "the public option doesn't work" holds water.

Yikes, no.

We have public health care. We also have insurance companies that exist to "top up" our healthcare. You basically get it through your employer or if you're self-employed you can get it on your own but it covers supplementary healthcare like dentistry, physio, massage therapy, prescription drugs, upgrading to private hospital rooms. It doesn't deal with primary healthcare like medical treatment, doctor's appointments, surgeries, medical procedures and so on.

The mere mention of "two-tiered" is basically a death sentence for any political party here.
 
Again, I'm not against single-payer. But no one. No one. Has laid out a plan to implement it with any detail. Saying we will tax the billionaires and pay for it, is laughable and soft baby food for the simple minded. Dismantling a 2 Trillion dollar a year industry that employs nearly 3 million people isn't a simple or quick process without consequences both expected and unexpected.

It's a fair point for sure. But I imagine the bulk of those jobs could be transferred to state agencies which would be running the state's public healthcare. That is a MASSIVE source of employment and budgetary expense here.
 
Yikes, no.

We have public health care. We also have insurance companies that exist to "top up" our healthcare. You basically get it through your employer or if you're self-employed you can get it on your own but it covers supplementary healthcare like dentistry, physio, massage therapy, prescription drugs, upgrading to private hospital rooms. It doesn't deal with primary healthcare like medical treatment, doctor's appointments, surgeries, medical procedures and so on.

The mere mention of "two-tiered" is basically a death sentence for any political party here.

Gotcha. Ok, i always heard it was a "hybrid" public and private system. But thank you for clarifying.

I'm all in for single payer. But can anyone here point me to any candidate, that has a sensible plan that they have articulated?
 
From Kamala Harris' speech at the NAACP, this is really worth repeating because it's something we hear over and over again - the glorifying of the Midwestern ONLY WHITE voter, the suggestion that only a Joe Biden can reach them and the sacrificing of essentially every other component of the Dem base.

I totally agree with Harris' statement. Whomever is the nominee will have to appeal to BOTH the more blue collar, or rural working class voter AND the working class in the metro areas that are a higher percentage of minorities.
If Hillary had more appeal to either of these she might have won. But she didn't. If she had matched 2012 turnout in Metro areas in WI, MI, and PA, she would have won. That shows that its not just white voters that the candidate needs to appeal to.

There are as you said many different components of the Democratic base. College educated women, usually highly concentrated in the suburbs. African American voters, Latino voters, younger voters, LGBT, and for much of the party's history - Union members, which skew into that white working class area. But who are the most reliable?

The most reliable? African American voters over 40 (especially women). Right now, Biden is leading in that category by almost FIFTY points. College educated women are the next most reliable. Hillary did not do that well with them. But there was about an 8% shift to the Dems from 2016 to 2018 midterms.
Union/"working class" white vote has slumped in the last decade. Biden has a solid base of support there, so may gain back a healthy percentage.
The youth vote is a joke. Fools gold now and will always be.

Bottom line - the number one most important thing to Dem voters when asked about this election is - electability. Over any policy stances. That means they just want Trump gone.
Right now, the only candidate that I see that actually crosses over racial, educational, and "class" lines is Biden, although voter age is still an issue.

Sanders does well on crossing over with class and age groups, but his non-appeal to minorities will always be an albatross around his neck.

Harris I think is probably second best. She is tough and smart and could definitely pull together a path to victory. Biden/Harris unstoppable. But I do think a Harris/Buttgieg, a Harris Klobuchar, Harris/Warren? or a Harris Castro would be a winning ticket. Harris/Sanders???? Not sure he would settle for VP.
But looking at the rest of the field, i find it hard to see anyone that checks enough boxes to be sure winner.
Either way Harris will not come out a loser. If she doesn't get the nomination, there is probably a 99% chance she is the VP pick.
 
I'm not saying that the end goal should single-payer. Now go ahead and get it passed sometime in the next decade or two...

I think there has to be a well thought out, tiered plan over a a fairly long time frame in order to implement it without being the party that sunk GDP and boosted unemployment by knocking out private healthcare in one fell swoop. Bernie has no such plan that he has shared. He just states what we need but gives no roadmap on how to get there.

And isn't the public option pretty much what Canada has now? They have a "two-tiered" system where there are private insurers and government insurance.
So, not sure how your blanket statement of "the public option doesn't work" holds water.

i don't buy this "compromise and small steps over a long period are the only possible way" notion. that attitude would have meant LGBTQ+ people would almost certainly only have the option of "civil union" today. we didn't accept a half-ass compromise then in the face of "it's too much too fast to ask for full marriage equality right now," and look where we are today.
 
Last edited:
also, jill biden has unilaterally declared that "it's time to move on" over the anita hill thing so i guess we're not allowed to discuss her husband's total lack of genuine remorse about that any longer.
 
Yikes, no.

We have public health care. We also have insurance companies that exist to "top up" our healthcare. You basically get it through your employer or if you're self-employed you can get it on your own but it covers supplementary healthcare like dentistry, physio, massage therapy, prescription drugs, upgrading to private hospital rooms. It doesn't deal with primary healthcare like medical treatment, doctor's appointments, surgeries, medical procedures and so on.

The mere mention of "two-tiered" is basically a death sentence for any political party here.

Wait, you all treat dentistry like it's not an actual Healthcare too? Why the hell is this?
 
It's a fair point for sure. But I imagine the bulk of those jobs could be transferred to state agencies which would be running the state's public healthcare. That is a MASSIVE source of employment and budgetary expense here.
Right, I think a lot of proposals would start with the concept of essentially nationalizing the major private insurance companies, transitioning those jobs to being more about how to connect people with the treatments that they need.
 
that notion's probably inherited from our british ancestors.

giphy.gif
 
Bernie has no such plan that he has shared. He just states what we need but gives no roadmap on how to get there.
But he has.

Not only has he proposed detailed Medicare-for-All bills several times, he has revised each time based on the feedback that he has received. His most recent bill made adjustments proposed by Pramila Jayapal in her bill to provide for long-term care. He took feedback from those who said his bill fell short for people who need it the most, and made the necessary adjustments.

The payment for the plan comes from a combination of increased taxes on individuals and businesses over the course of a four-year transition that essentially takes the spending they are currently doing for healthcare, and moves it to funding a Medicare-specific tax that is moderately higher to accommodate coverage for everyone. As you might imagine, more evenly distributed healthcare results in significant savings for all involved. Business owners will make a stink about not being allowed to write off their healthcare payments to employees on their taxes any longer, but they're going to save quite a bit on the individual costs themselves.

It's clearly a bill with the need to transition in mind, due to the four-year buffer, and it highlights options for current and proposed examples of the progressive tax. For example, there is a certain amount of money you need to make to even be required to pay this tax. (I believe it's something like $29,000 a year.)

Obviously, a big part of his plan, and really any plan to try to start fixing the US economy, does involve revising the tax code to have the wealthy pay more. That's the only way forward with any meaningful reform. If that's too much for you to stomach, I don't really know what to tell you.

The real difference between Sanders and those from the center-left are how they talk about it. Sanders doesn't get into the muck about the specifics of the finances because that doesn't rally people to vote. Clinton spent 2016 mostly talking about rhetoric (i.e. Donald Trump is rude!) and then saying "I have plans on my website!" She didn't frame the healthcare discussion beyond "Obamacare was a success that just needs some tweaks."

Sanders has plenty of plans too, but messaging has to be about health justice, not tax codes. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand, and why it's interpreted as him not being able to back up his talk ... unless you're really just anxious about how feasible it is to take on the capitalist system. Which is fair! But that's a different argument altogether, and one that will exist whether or not you try to the half or quarter measures of other candidates.

We don't need a Rhodes scholar to tell us we can do this; most countries already do much better than we do with far fewer resources. There are plenty of proposals to outline how to do it, many of them quite good. Sanders has a plan; it's just a matter of whether or not you're actually on board with putting a real fight for healthcare rights.
 
that notion's probably inherited from our british ancestors.

:lol:

Comment of the day.

But yes, dentistry is entirely private, though I am not sure about people on social assistance. Maybe they get it subsidized.

All children in Ontario have free prescription drugs until age 18.
 
I'm watching Tucker Carlson because, eh, fuck it I'm bored.

This is some high comedy. They just had George Papadopoulos on to try and prove that the Deep State was spying on every republican, and the proof was because the CIA was interested in Papadopoulos when he worked for Carson, pre-Orange Douche Monkey.

At what level of self loathing do you have to be at to watch this and say "oh my god, the deep state was spying on every republican!" Vs "ummmmm perhaps it's because George Papadopoulos is a slimey bastard"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom