U.S. Politics: Moscow on the Potomac

[Toth]

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

Part of that division though is the continued hero worship of people who actively pushed for slavery, would you not agree?  How many decades should black people be forced to commemorate these stains on American history?  And they should keep doing it because it might hurt the feelings of white supremacists who have been at the breaking point since the end of the civil war?

This should have been done 100 years ago.

In regards to how to deal with monuments like this and the dipshits who still worship them, I guess the German perspective could be quite beneficial. It think completely demolishing anything connected with the darkest parts of your history might not be the most sensible thing to do in the long run. You want to educate your citizens, you want to confront them with the reality of what had actually happened. Leave the monuments of an inhuman regime standing around with no comment? Sure as hell not! You can be assured that they become gathering places for the dregs of your society who seek them for validation. So instead you better build a reminder around them that teaches about the history of the places and the crimes comitted by the people connected with them. You won't see Neonazis gathering at a KZ for the same reason. They want to white-wash history, cherry-pick the parts that validate their own views and avoid the ones that could remind them that what they're constructing is a stupid fantasy. I am strongly against dismantling all monuments that convey undemocratic messages. Because that is white-washing as well, it is erasure and just as toxic. I am however strongly in favor to make use of them for educational purposes, to invoke questioning their motives and rhetoric to train the critical thinking skills of the next generation so that they won't fall prey to similar, modern glorifications.

Neo-Nazis will never disappear, sadly. Their appearance is tightly connected with economic misfortune and people trying to claw themselves to a sense of superiority that they think is slipping away from them. Old monuments of actual Nazis or White Supremacists and Confederates won't make them magically appear when there are no other conditions met. Take current German Neonazis. I'm not talking about the confused isolationist neoliberal idiots of the AfD, but the few NPD and DVU crawling around in underdeveloped rural countrysides. You find them in more troubling numbers in former GDR territory, which is passing odd given the strict Denazification policy of the Soviets compared to the approach of the Western Allies. This is because they aren't necessarily direct descendants of the NSDAP, just a couple of miserable assholes who picked up an old Nazi party program and thought it sounds like cool shit. This is reflected in their poor economic position that makes these parties barely able to exist. They are still lurking around, but completely unrelated to actual Nazi strongholds, but among the angry, disillusioned and most of all the uneducated. And that last one is their major weakness. You can fight them with better education, effectively ridding them of future torch-bearers. Why else do you think your American Christian fundamentalists are such advocates for homeschooling? Why else do White Supremacists crop up far away from the economically successful coastal areas, but instead in the rural middle with its defunct school systems?

Sorry for the rambling. Just a bit food for thought. Right next to the dismantling of EPA, I think having someone who can't spell correctly in charge of your schools is one of the most severe blows the US is taking under this administration.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

ETA: The torches and chants of "Russia is our friend" leave me absolutely disgusted at how so many trainwrecked minds can coalesce and publicly spread their twisted shit. 

Really, that was the nauseating bit, not the "blood and soil" bit, the direct Nazi reference?

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-tax-cuts-deficit.html

Yes the Republican Party has a massive competence problem.

Quote

Donald Trump has said many strange things in recent interviews. One can only imagine, for example, what America’s military leaders thought about his rambling, word-salad musings about how to improve our aircraft carriers.

Over here in Econoland, however, the buzz was all about Trump’s expressed willingness, in an interview with the Economist magazine, to pursue tax cuts even if they increase deficits, because “we have to prime the pump” — an expression he claimed to have invented. “I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good.”

Well, we've seen how the Republican Party has bungled healthcare. And they'll bungle financial reform too.

And now, we see how the leader of the Party O' Bidness bungles "priming the pump".

And now, we see the Orange completely bungle on "priming he pump" as he says. My question is where in the how was he on this issue say five or six years ago, when it was clear, the FED would given support and likely wouldn't have raised interest rates in face of fiscal expansion. When people like Ben Beranke, a former Republican, were asking for fiscal support.
And the Republican Party line is what exactly here? To back Trump on this?

I think Trump is very confused here. I don't know if he thinks "priming the pump" as he says works because of 1) demand side effects, or 2) because of supply side effects. On 1) the case is now much weaker. Five or six years ago, the case was much stronger. And Trump was where on this back then? On 2) there is very little evidence that tax cuts, that will mainly go to the 1%, will cause the 1% to expand their labor supply ie, go into Galtain over drive, and create growth.

And I sit here and wonder how many Republicans will be as confused as Trump will be on this. And how many of them will play team Republican and buy Trump's "priming the pump" arguments. And to the extent they do, then ask, "where in the hell where they five or six years ago?" on this issue.

[OldGimletEye]

13 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Rival Senate healthcare group seeks to make waves

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/333210-rival-senate-healthcare-group-seeks-to-make-waves

Quote

“The only way you can fulfill Trump’s contract with the voters — cover all, care for people with pre-existing conditions, get rid of mandates and lower premiums — the only way to get there and have decent coverage is through the Cassidy/Collins plan,” he added.

I really wonder how they will manage to pull this off without some kind of "mandate". Maybe throw around a little libertarian fairy dust and hope for the best.

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I really wonder how they will manage to pull this off without some kind of "mandate". Maybe throw around a little libertarian fairy dust and hope for the best.

As far Republican plans go, Cassidy/Collins working idea isn't bad. States keep Obamacare unless they can come up with something that at minimum doesn't cost more or harm patients. Its not really a repeal at all; but does allow states the flexibility to do better, if they can.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

As far Republican plans go, Cassidy/Collins working idea isn't bad. States keep Obamacare unless they can come up with something that at minimum doesn't cost more or harm patients. Its not really a repeal at all; but does allow states the flexibility to do better, if they can.

Yeah, it sounds really reasonable. Which is why it has no chance of coming to fruition. 

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

As far Republican plans go, Cassidy/Collins working idea isn't bad. States keep Obamacare unless they can come up with something that at minimum doesn't cost more or harm patients. Its not really a repeal at all; but does allow states the flexibility to do better, if they can.

Well, to be honest, I haven't seen all the details of the Cassidy/Collins plan, so I have little idea if it is that bad as far as Republican Plans go.

But, still, I wonder how they intend to solve the adverse selection problem without some kind of "mandate".

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, still, I wonder how they intend to solve the adverse selection problem without some kind of "mandate".

They don't specifically; their plan allows states to do it, and that's basically it. States are responsible for running their systems as they see fit, and that includes adverse condition selection etc. It assumes things like the mandate still exist, and assumes things like the EHB still exist, but beyond that they're pretty flexible. 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They don't specifically; their plan allows states to do it, and that's basically it. States are responsible for running their systems as they see fit, and that includes adverse condition selection etc. It assumes things like the mandate still exist, and assumes things like the EHB still exist, but beyond that they're pretty flexible. 

So in other words they are peddling bullshit, to wit, "We've spent seven years railing against 'mandates', but now that it's our turn to come up with a plan, we'll have to use mandates, or at least somebody will, but we'll just never call it a 'mandate' and will pretend we don't have any".

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

So in other words they are peddling bullshit, to wit, "We've spent seven years railing against 'mandates', but now that it's our turn to come up with a plan, we'll have to use mandates, or at least somebody will, but we'll just never call it a 'mandate' and pretend we don't have any".

Well, it's a bit more interesting than that. Their second option is to auto-enroll everyone in catastrophic federal coverage. And that would be a state-by-state option. But the third option is basically 'nope, do nothing'. 

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, it's a bit more interesting than that. Their second option is to auto-enroll everyone in catastrophic federal coverage. And that would be a state-by-state option. But the third option is basically 'nope, do nothing'. 

Actually, I don't think it's more interesting than that. Fine, they are giving states some flexibility in deciding whether they want to keep the ACA or do something else. If those states decide to do something else and then they cover pre-existing conditions and want to achieve universal coverage, how do they do that exactly? Probably by using a mandate. So they are just passing the buck, it would seem. They don't get a gold star for that.

[Paladin of Ice]

20 hours ago, S John said:

Anyway re: the statues.  I have never personally felt like any statue outside of a religious setting is necessarily an object of veneration

Yeah... no. This is where any kind of point in favor of the Confederate statues falls apart. A statue may not be an object of veneration in the strict dictionary sense, but they are obviously supposed to be respected and approved/inspiring figures. Statues don't get made of specific people unless they possessed outstanding characteristic or made great achievements that the population wants to honor. Nobody gets a statue specifically for them because they were Joe Schmoe, an above average bureaucrat, or a perfectly passable plumber. If statues were built by people and put on prime public lands for no more reason than that the person was a good parent or hard worker, then I'd say "Sure, whatever" but that's obviously not the case.

Lee was a capable military commander who was more decent than most of his compatriots. So was Erwin Rommel, and I don't see statues of him dotting the landscape either in the US or Germany. If a statue is just about remembering history and is strictly value neutral, then why don't we erect some? Throw in some for Admiral Yamamoto and General Cornwallis too. After all Cornwallis was an MP who frequently sided with the colonies and against Parliament when it came to a number of their actions that increased tensions between them and England such as the Stamp Act, performed with skill and valor in war against America on behalf of a hostile power, which isn't much different (and is arguably better) than Lee's actions.

If statues are value neutral, where are the statues of Benedict Arnold, who served his country with distinction before separating from it before fighting against it? Where is his likeness captured in stone and marble, looking inspiring and like an example to the youth?

Sorry, I don't buy your argument. At all. If it was a plaque, that's one thing, but statues are built for very different reasons. If you want to remember history, teach it better, don't try to claim that a statue is doing so, especially when in the same paragraph you say that it's just part of the landscape, because people don't tend to learn history.

And yeah, tearing them down causes a brief uptick for white supremacist assholes and such, but in the long run I think it's the better course of action, and we have to tear the band-aid off eventually. Might as well get it over with. And considering that these people can manufacture causes and propaganda out of thin air and bullshit, (see their claims that the government wants to import masses of immigrants in order to replace them and outbreed them, or their whining about genocide against white people around the world) I don't see any reason to give them this, especially now when appearing to give in to them will let them claim a win and embolden them further too.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

Really, that was the nauseating bit, not the "blood and soil" bit, the direct Nazi reference?

I called it "trainwrecked minds spreading twisted shit" did I not? I have no idea what your expecting me to express beyond saying the entire gathering appeared disgusting, a group of disturbing idiots. Not sure how one could get any other take from what I posted previously, especially not sure how one could extrapolate that post to mean Nazi references were okay. Also I would add that I'm not even familiar with the phrase "blood and soil" before this thread but its enough clues for me to see a hate group w/ torches protesting against removing racist monuments to draw the conclusion the group is whack jobs.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Didn't mean to cause any offense on your part, I was simply a bit surprised by placing the Russia bit higher on the disgust ladder than the Nazi part.

[Kalbear]

In this thread, we'll argue about which autocratic racist dictator is less acceptable to emulate 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In this thread, we'll argue about which autocratic racist dictator is less acceptable to emulate 

Eh, I think I'll pass. I'm about to binge watch Season 2 of my favorite Russian vocal talent program, Putin on the Hits.  

[Fez]

Pelosi's filing a discharge petition on Wednesday to establish an independent commission to investigate Trump/Russia.

I'd be beyond shocked if it passed, but at least it'll mean Republicans will start having a voting record on the issue that Democrats can run against.

[Martell Spy]

The Pathetic Story Behind Donald Trump’s One-Page Tax Plan

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/05/15/the_pathetic_story_behind_donald_trump_s_one_page_tax_plan.html

The People’s Princess
Ivanka Trump is hard at work in Washington — but for whom?

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/05/ivanka-trump-is-hard-at-work-in-washington-but-for-whom.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Kushner's Pushing 500k Investment to Chinese to Secure "Investment Visas"

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-kushner-family-flogs-500000-investor-visa-to-wealthy-chinese/2017/05/06/cf711e53-eb49-4f9a-8dea-3cd836fcf287_story.html?utm_term=.0852cd8d1186

 

/Awesome Pay-to-Play citizenship plan

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Actually, I don't think it's more interesting than that. Fine, they are giving states some flexibility in deciding whether they want to keep the ACA or do something else. If those states decide to do something else and then they cover pre-existing conditions and want to achieve universal coverage, how do they do that exactly? Probably by using a mandate. So they are just passing the buck, it would seem. They don't get a gold star for that.

On the plus side, it would undo a lot of the stranglehold Republicans have at the state level.