Jump to content

U.S. Politics: One NothingBurger with 100% Mos-Cow, Side of Orange Slices and a Banana Daiquiri, Please


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Anyway, so we have Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren (btw, I know Gillibrand has specifically denied running in 2020, and I think Warren has too, but c'mon).  I'm wondering, lovers of both Martin and politics, whom out of those five would you prefer?  I could see any as the nominee and be happy with  it.  Well, maybe not Warner.

Of those I'm digging Harris the most at the moment. I really enjoy her speaking style and her fire. Not sure she has the fundraising skills and backing necessary for a sustained run though. I hope her star continues to rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, old people tend to vote for their own interests and turnout in larger numbers than anyone else.  That's been the case far before the baby boomers.  My problem with the boomers running the country is I'm so over all the sixties battles that permeates almost every political debate while they're in charge.  This is particularly the case with foreign policy, but is relevant in arguments among economic and social issues as well.

In this case I don't see the old people having voted for their own interests.  Quite the opposite actually.   Healthcare and social security should be a huge priority for them and they've bungled that so bad.  This election cycle seemed unique.  They won't live long enough to see the environmental impact of their poor decisions, I guess they no longer care about education or infrastructure because the don't need either of them, or at least won't for much longer.  I would think the economy sort of matters to them, but they've given it the finger alongside health care and other social safety nets they'll need to support them through old age.  And it's not like the US has a super strong tradition of children caring for their ailing parents and grandparents.  So not only have these people voted aggressively against us, they've also voted against their own interests.  

But again, I don't know if this is typical because I'm not all that well versed in political history.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I think it's passed time baby boomers stopped running this country.

As a baby boomer I can get behind that, and would include some new blood in the House and Senate as there are many BB's there that could move on as well.  Would like to keep John Lewis tho, as a link to the Civil Rights fights of the '60's still important in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Apparently you are unwilling to respond to my comments.  Perhaps I was too mean.  I'll try to be nicer this time.

I'm replying to at least four different people people on this topic and my time is not unlimited. My apologies if I miss a post.

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

What agencies, laws, or projects are you referring to?  Please cite.

The ones that Manhole Eunuchsbane listed (the Interstate Highway System, the G.I. Bill, the CDC, etc.).

19 hours ago, dmc515 said:

You mentioned Eisenhower building the IHS.  Ok, so how about roads.  I lived in Orlando, Florida for seven years.  The state road (Colonial) was perpetually in disrepair.  This was because the state would not put up the money to fix it, ever - I'm sure it's still under construction.  Instead, Florida has NO state income tax.  Great way to attract rich people!  For everyone else, it means your roads are shit and the interstate and even basic highways are gouched to the point that any city denizen has to pay more daily to get around the city than most people spend in a week.  This is the definition of a regressive tax.

This is exactly what I was talking about with respect to infrastructure. In fact, despite living in a state which does have an income tax, I can repeat your complaint almost verbatim: the roads are lousy, there is constant construction and the tolls range from high to absurd (seriously, I've never seen a bridge with a $16 toll anywhere else).

20 hours ago, dmc515 said:

How can the situation be worse?  Where's the choice between coverage and not?  How is the private sector going to fix that?  Because last I checked, the health and drug industry will have no qualms providing nothing to high risk patients that really need it.  Show me the evidence otherwise.  Show me this isn't the absolute reality beyond your ridiculous "theories" that have no business in any adult conversation.

It is worse because if the government is doing something terrible, there will at least be direct pressure on it to change whereas a corporation tends to be immune as long as it stays out of the spotlight and can get away with a great deal more.

20 hours ago, dmc515 said:

K, what's your point here.  There are governments that employ bribery (and worse) as their raison d'etat?  Congrats, you've just justified your ideology over tyrants and worse.  Try harder.

My point was that despite my complaints about the US government, it is not actually that bad compared to most others (which is why I live here rather than elsewhere).

19 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Actually, there is no theoretical choice about it. You will deal with the private sector. Most of us will be employed by the private sector. And most of will have to find services on the private sector to live.

If you're lucky, you'll find a decent job (and not be discriminated against because you don't happen to be a white male) and not have to deal with a boss who is a jerk or work for a company that treats you unfairly. And when you look for services hopefully you will always have lots of choices(which doesn't always happen) and will be able to deal with people that are honest and aren't looking to screw you over, which doesn't always happen either.

I have had bad experiences with government before. But, I also have had bad experiences with the private sector too. There are lots of benefits to private markets. But lets not pretend that private markets and private actors don't have their warts either.

You will undoubtedly deal with the private sector, but the private sector is not monolithic. If you dislike your boss, you can try to find another job. If you dislike the services you are receiving, you can usually (though not always) switch to a different provider. This is not possible with government: the only way to opt out is to move which is rather drastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

As a baby boomer I can get behind that, and would include some new blood in the House and Senate as there are many BB's there that could move on as well.  Would like to keep John Lewis tho, as a link to the Civil Rights fights of the '60's still important in my view.

I'm not really sure why, but I thought you were maybe 22.  I guess you give off that youthful young at heart joie de vivre vibe. 

I definitely think there are a lot of boomers who have a lot to continue contributing to the progressive cause.  There are plenty of O.G. senators that continue to do good work in some form.  Warren, Franken, even Sanders to name just a couple.  I'm a fan of Tammy Baldwin.  Certainly John Lewis has tremendous symbolic value and I hope he's around for quite a while more.  The Dem party just needs to get in the habit of constantly cultivating new talent.  The people making decisions for the future of the country and the world should be the ones most invested in seeing that future come to fruition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Of those I'm digging Harris the most at the moment. I really enjoy her speaking style and her fire. Not sure she has the fundraising skills and backing necessary for a sustained run though. I hope her star continues to rise.

Obama had the benefit of that 2004 DNC speech.  I was on board shortly thereafter, and worked for him once he declared his candidacy.  Harris doesn't have the same opportunity, but she can create her own in the next couple years (and already has in some respects).  If she can sustain the current buzz, the backing will come.  Fundraising skills of any presidential campaign are less predictable, especially for a candidate with so few data points.

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

In this case I don't see the old people having voted for their own interests.  Quite the opposite actually.   Healthcare and social security should be a huge priority for them and they've bungled that so bad.  This election cycle seemed unique.  They won't live long enough to see the environmental impact of their poor decisions, I guess they no longer care about education or infrastructure because the don't need either of them, or at least won't for much longer.  I would think the economy sort of matters to them, but they've given it the finger alongside health care and other social safety nets they'll need to support them through old age.  And it's not like the US has a super strong tradition of children caring for their ailing parents and grandparents.  So not only have these people voted aggressively against us, they've also voted against their own interests.  

But again, I don't know if this is typical because I'm not all that well versed in political history.  

I disagree with the bolded.  Well, substantively I entirely agree with the bolded, but Trump repeatedly promised not to cut SS or Medicare during the campaign.  The reason he did that was exactly to keep and/or attract older voters.  Sure, many knew he was lying, and most thought he was lying, but people have the capacity to convince themselves of quite a bit when they're otherwise inclined.  Anyway, there's a reason no one touches social security, and it's because of old people.  It was Dubya's first agenda item upon being re-elected.  Went on a 50-day tour spending well over $50 million trying to sell social security reform in early 2005.  It failed - didn't even get out of committee - and it failed because of the elderly.

The rest of your post has partisan thinking underlying all of it.  Again, I agree with all of it, but it's not really useful when trying to explain the political behavior of older individuals.

11 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

As a baby boomer I can get behind that, and would include some new blood in the House and Senate as there are many BB's there that could move on as well.  Would like to keep John Lewis tho, as a link to the Civil Rights fights of the '60's still important in my view.

I agree with literally every word, especially about keeping Lewis on even if there's a leadership change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not really sure why, but I thought you were maybe 22.  I guess you give off that youthful young at heart joie de vivre vibe. 

Well that's interesting, hee hee.  Thanks.  Let's just say after being hounded by AARP for 20 years I might just join them this year.  

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 The Dem party just needs to get in the habit of constantly cultivating new talent.  The people making decisions for the future of the country and the world should be the ones most invested in seeing that future come to fruition.  

Agreed, good solid young candidates and not just at the national level, but State and local too.  A few more Dem gov's would be a good thing. 

edt; I voted for Harris and so far have been impressed.  :box:   Let's hear it for the Nasty Women!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to see some younger blood mixing in with the over-70 crowd, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Boomers have run everything. Obama was born in 1961--there's no official definition that I know of, but that seems past the main Boomer years.

ETA: I'm another who is a fan of Harris. Although, funnily enough, I actually didn't vote for her. I liked both candidates (CA has runoff voting, so both candidates were Democrats), and I knew Harris was projected to win heavily, so I decided to vote for Sanchez. A pity vote, I guess? :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I'm replying to at least four different people people on this topic and my time is not unlimited. My apologies if I miss a post.

No worries.  Drunk me is impatient, among other things.

26 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The ones that Manhole Eunuchsbane listed (the Interstate Highway System, the G.I. Bill, the CDC, etc.).

Ok - in terms of the IHS, it has been ensured of upkeep and expanded upon by the FHWA since its existence.  I'm unaware of any complaints.  You are aware that Obama passed what is commonly known as the "second GI Bill" in 2010, building upon Dubya's own measure?  Some of the benefits were lessened in 2011, however, due to Republican opposition.  I don't know what to say about the CDC.

Anyway, my point was asking you to identify agencies, laws, or projects that you think are chronically inefficient in a different way than 50 years ago.  There's some easy targets - like the VA - but I can't argue against nothing.

37 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is exactly what I was talking about with respect to infrastructure. In fact, despite living in a state which does have an income tax, I can repeat your complaint almost verbatim: the roads are lousy, there is constant construction and the tolls range from high to absurd (seriously, I've never seen a bridge with a $16 toll anywhere else).

I'm not an expert on state politics.  Steered clear of it my entire career; national politics are ridiculous and craven enough, thanks.  What I will say from my own experience living up and down the east coast is states with higher (or any) taxes tend to have better roads - and less tolls in the aggregate.  Sure, it's anecdotal, but it'd be a pretty simple (albeit expensive) research design to demonstrate such an intuition.

44 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It is worse because if the government is doing something terrible, there will at least be direct pressure on it to change whereas a corporation tends to be immune as long as it stays out of the spotlight and can get away with a great deal more.

Um, right.  This seems to be something my side of the argument would emphasize.  Sounds like you're arguing for single payer, or at least public option.  I'm confused.

48 minutes ago, Altherion said:

My point was that despite my complaints about the US government, it is not actually that bad compared to most others (which is why I live here rather than elsewhere).

Cheers to that.

Anywho, you did not really address my main counter to your original post.  You claimed - as I remember it - that government is deservedly hated by citizens because they're incompetent.  I then demonstrated they're not hated at all on the most important programs, and am ready to argue against their overall "incompetence" whenever you're ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I have to ask the question. Not to absolve Putin of whatever his critics find so reprehensible, but to understand their motivations. Why is Xi Jinping not similarly reviled by these Western critics? China is authoritarian, does not have a free press, forcibly annexed territories like Tibet, supports rogue states like North Korea, exercises aggressive territorial ambitions in the South China Sea against the interests of Western allies, and is, like Russia, a nuclear armed permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Why is it not viewed in the same way as Putin's Russia is by these "crusaders for freedom?"

This is an interesting question with a variety of answers most of which probably contribute to some extent.

First, Russia is hardwired as a primary antagonist in the minds of a significant fraction of both the electorate and the leadership due to Cold War propaganda. I'm thoroughly convinced that, for example, Senator John McCain will believe that Russia is the main adversary of the US until the day he dies and no amount of explaining how it is a shadow of the Soviet Union (see below) will convince him otherwise.

Second, China is an economic powerhouse which has the means to retaliate if Western countries get too critical. It is both a market for Western goods and the place where a large fraction of them are manufactured. Make it angry enough and major corporations will suffer which tends to bring the politicians in line pretty quickly. Russia has one real means of retaliation, but that one is the The Last Trump for the planet as a whole and they won't use it for obvious reasons. There's not much they can do beyond that: they supply fossil fuels to Europe, but cutting off that supply would ultimately do far more damage to Russia than to anyone else and everybody knows it.

Third, Putin is both more entertaining and more important than any Chinese leader and provides an effective focus for American media. Chinese Presidents are limited to 10 years (2 terms of 5 years each) and this is as hard a limit as the 8 year one in the US (i.e. they don't get to rule from the shadows afterwards). Can you name the two predecessors of Xi who served concurrently with Putin without looking them up? I could only think of one. On the other hand, Putin had his fun with "tandemocracy", but it was clear who was in charge all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Anyway, so we have Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren (btw, I know Gillibrand has specifically denied running in 2020, and I think Warren has too, but c'mon).  I'm wondering, lovers of both Martin and politics, whom out of those five would you prefer?  I could see any as the nominee and be happy with  it.  Well, maybe not Warner.

Just listened to a Pod Save America podcast that featured an interview with Cory Booker. I like his message, but he came across as really bleeding heart/touchy-feely, etc. I'm not sure how well this sort of personality type is going to fare in a general election.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Starkess said:

I would also like to see some younger blood mixing in with the over-70 crowd, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Boomers have run everything. Obama was born in 1961--there's no official definition that I know of, but that seems past the main Boomer years.

ETA: I'm another who is a fan of Harris. Although, funnily enough, I actually didn't vote for her. I liked both candidates (CA has runoff voting, so both candidates were Democrats), and I knew Harris was projected to win heavily, so I decided to vote for Sanchez. A pity vote, I guess? :lol: 

Obama is most certainly at the tail end of boomers, if it all.  Generations are such a nebulous thing.  I was born in 85, so I'm technically a millennial, but I also teach them.  And...let's just say I do not feel as if we're from the same generation.  My brother was born in 82, which is really no man's land.  Which is what Obama was born in.  I didn't add him as a caveat because I don't think he's a Gen Xer.  Or rather, I don't think he's a Gen Xer more so than I don't think he's a boomer.

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I voted for Harris and so far have been impressed.  :box:   Let's hear it for the Nasty Women!  

:D  Interesting to see so many Harris fans.  Are there fans of any others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Just listened to a Pod Save America podcast that featured an interview with Cory Booker. I like his message, but he came across as really bleeding heart/touchy-feely, etc. I'm not sure how well this sort of personality type is going to fare in a general election.

 

I'm much more familiar with Booker than pretty much all of the other candidates mentioned.  He's a political animal that is entirely capable of changing his tone and message accordingly.  My biggest concern with him is how much of his record is vulnerable to attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Ryan Won’t Hold Public Town Halls Due to Fear of Protesters

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/08/paul_ryan_won_t_hold_public_town_halls_due_to_fear_of_protesters.html

 

Some Republicans Dislike Health Insurance So Much They Don’t Mind If You Lose It

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/some-republicans-dont-like-health-insurance-as-we-know-it.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Altherion said:

First, Russia is hardwired as a primary antagonist in the minds of a significant fraction of both the electorate and the leadership due to Cold War propaganda. I'm thoroughly convinced that, for example, Senator John McCain will believe that Russia is the main adversary of the US until the day he dies and no amount of explaining how it is a shadow of the Soviet Union (see below) will convince him otherwise.

I think you're right on McCain, but very wrong on using him as an example for everyone else.  Conflating concerns about Russian infringement with "Cold War propaganda" is an easy excuse to explain the problem away.  Surprised Trump hasn't tried it himself at this point, frankly.  But it also is utter BS.  Russia is a heightened concern because of Putin's actions and behavior, and because everyone that does it for a living has told the American public they fucked with our election.  This is so far removed from John Foster Dulles telling us we need to eradicate the godless heathen Soviets that such false equivalencies aren't going to fly for anyone with a brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I think you're right on McCain, but very wrong on using him as an example for everyone else.  Conflating concerns about Russian infringement with "Cold War propaganda" is an easy excuse to explain the problem away.  Surprised Trump hasn't tried it himself at this point, frankly.  But it also is utter BS.  Russia is a heightened concern because of Putin's actions and behavior, and because everyone that does it for a living has told the American public they fucked with our election.  This is so far removed from John Foster Dulles telling us we need to eradicate the godless heathen Soviets that such false equivalencies aren't going to fly for anyone with a brain.

I didn't say "everyone else", I said a significant fraction of the electorate and of the leadership. McCain is an extreme example, but the phenomenon is not unique to him. Anyone born circa 1950 (and there are a lot of these people, especially in government) would have had the idea that Russia is the main enemy drilled into them for the first 40 years of their lives. Some people will be able to shrug this kind of conditioning off, some will not.

Regarding the election: first, there has been no proof whatsoever released to the public that Russia had anything to do with it -- all we have are reports from intelligence agencies which are overtly opposing the current administration. Furthermore, even supposing Russia did in fact do everything it was accused of, what does this really amount to? They didn't hack any voting machines or otherwise tamper with the results; they merely inserted some information into the maelstrom that typically surrounds the election -- and it wasn't even false information! Is this really worthy of the fuss that has grown around it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Obama is most certainly at the tail end of boomers, if it all.  Generations are such a nebulous thing.  I was born in 85, so I'm technically a millennial, but I also teach them.  And...let's just say I do not feel as if we're from the same generation.  My brother was born in 82, which is really no man's land.  Which is what Obama was born in.  I didn't add him as a caveat because I don't think he's a Gen Xer.  Or rather, I don't think he's a Gen Xer more so than I don't think he's a boomer.

:D  Interesting to see so many Harris fans.  Are there fans of any others?

damn dude, definitely did not expect you to be younger than me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

I didn't say "everyone else", I said a significant fraction of the electorate and of the leadership. McCain is an extreme example, but the phenomenon is not unique to him. Anyone born circa 1950 (and there are a lot of these people, especially in government) would have had the idea that Russia is the main enemy drilled into them for the first 40 years of their lives. Some people will be able to shrug this kind of conditioning off, some will not.

This first paragraph involves logic I can actually engage with.  Political psychology (as a field) suggests decision makers commonly make the mistake of fighting the last war.  For McCain, this is obvious, and also incredibly understandable considering his history which should be admired rather than denigrated, BTW.  Also, you're right that anyone born circa 1950 is susceptible to the same type of world view.  

But there's, ya know, tens of millions of people that came of age after the wall fell.  And another tens of millions that came of age during perestroika and glasnost of the eighties.  And another tens of million that came of age during detente during the seventies.  Quite a bit of all these people still have a problem Putin's actions - many of which produce the media or serve on the Hill - and it has nothing to do with Cold War hangups.

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Regarding the election: first, there has been no proof whatsoever released to the public that Russia had anything to do with it -- all we have are reports from intelligence agencies which are overtly opposing the current administration. Furthermore, even supposing Russia did in fact do everything it was accused of, what does this really amount to? They didn't hack any voting machines or otherwise tamper with the results; they merely inserted some information into the maelstrom that typically surrounds the election -- and it wasn't even false information! Is this really worthy of the fuss that has grown around it?

This is the paragraph in which I laugh at for its utter stupidity and wonder if you're actually an ostrich.  First, there have been many recent reports that they did indeed at least try to hack our voting machines, where have you been?  Second, there's literally mountains of proof the Russians had everything to do with it, hell Trump not only agreed with this but encouraged it - I'll remember til the day that I die last July when I was sitting at an airport bar and saw a major party presidential candidate encourage a foreign entity to illegally acquire information on his opponent.

Third, intelligence agencies don't "overtly oppose" any administration unless there's a very good reason to.  Last time I can think of that the president was so adversarial to such agencies was Kennedy.  Obviously that turned out very bad, but that was because JFK fundamentally disagreed with the "domino effect" ideology at the time.  The intelligence agencies have no ideological conflict with Trump, largely because he has no discernible ideology.  Their public confrontation is because he's dangerously incompetent, and those around him can use that to their benefit in such a way that constitutes treason.  

Fourth, it most certainly was false information the Russians were propagating.  A student of mine documented many of the fake stories that were posted on Facebook last fall.  Be happy to share her paper, and how a 19 year old has a better understanding of the world than you do.  

Finally, yes, this is worth all the fuss.  Because a foreign entity blatantly tried to influence the outcome of the election to our highest office.  If you do not think that's worth fussing about, you don't understand why this country is so great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, commiedore said:

damn dude, definitely did not expect you to be younger than me

I'll take that as a compliment.  Also, been a fan of South Park since its inception.  Think I was in....sixth grade when it started?  Anyway, I do distinctly remember I was in my school's version of shop class when a friend told me about it.  And we all know how that works out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

I didn't say "everyone else", I said a significant fraction of the electorate and of the leadership. McCain is an extreme example, but the phenomenon is not unique to him. Anyone born circa 1950 (and there are a lot of these people, especially in government) would have had the idea that Russia is the main enemy drilled into them for the first 40 years of their lives. Some people will be able to shrug this kind of conditioning off, some will not.

Regarding the election: first, there has been no proof whatsoever released to the public that Russia had anything to do with it -- all we have are reports from intelligence agencies which are overtly opposing the current administration. Furthermore, even supposing Russia did in fact do everything it was accused of, what does this really amount to? They didn't hack any voting machines or otherwise tamper with the results; they merely inserted some information into the maelstrom that typically surrounds the election -- and it wasn't even false information! Is this really worthy of the fuss that has grown around it?

What the hell? The phrase "fake news" experienced a major resurgence in use precisely because the Russians hand tailored a huge amount of factually wrong "news articles" into American citizens' social media feeds to influence the outcome of the election. I'm confused. Do you think that the only thing that the Russians are accused of doing is releasing DNC emails? I can't possibly imagine that you're that... not-well read. I don't know how else to phrase it. You seem to be demonstrating willful ignorance.

 

 It's also funny that you're using the IC's "opposi[tion] [to] the current administration" as a factor to delegitimize their reports. That's patently ridiculous, since the IC as a whole demonstrated clear bias against Hillary Clinton, and converse preference for Donald Trump, during the actual 2016 election campaign. I think the simplest explanation is that the information they're working on is simply true, or compelling, or some combination of the two. Also, the IC's investigation into Russia's involvement in the election predated Hillary's loss, when the IC was still firmly in Donald Trump's camp. So basically your reasoning here doesn't hold water at all. 

 

Also, not only did they attempt to hack voting machines, but this has been widely accessible information for at least a month. Except you don't believe anything that comes out of our intelligence community so I guess you can just hand wave that away. 

 

I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed. Although I have a strong negative reaction to the views that you usually posit, I almost always respect your posts, because they are usually well thought out and measured. But.. you're just wrong about EVERYTHING here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...