US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[Mudguard]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Senator McCain was diagnosed with brain cancer. No specific word yet on if this will delay his return to congress or if he will retire, though apparently the tissue was removed without issue (though they'll still be apparently doing chemo/radiation as well). 

Apparently he was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a very aggressive form of brain cancer.  With standard treatment, median survival is about 14 to 15 months, with only about 30% surviving for at least 2 years.  If he's going to pursue aggressive therapy, I think he's going to have to step down soon.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Apparently he was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a very aggressive form of brain cancer.  With standard treatment, median survival is about 14 to 15 months, with only about 30% surviving for at least 2 years.  If he's going to pursue aggressive therapy, I think he's going to have to step down soon.

Honestly, if he's doing radiation or chemo at all he should step down; it's absolutely brutal, and if you're going to survive you need to focus on that. 

Sorry, McCain. Cancer absolutely sucks, and while you beat one before this one is especially bad. 

[lokisnow]

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Senator McCain was diagnosed with brain cancer. No specific word yet on if this will delay his return to congress or if he will retire, though apparently the tissue was removed without issue (though they'll still be apparently doing chemo/radiation as well). 

my Grandpa died of the same brain cancer. I hope it doesn't get Senator McCain as well.  

I wonder if it is medically responsible to recommend him chemo, solely based on my grandmother-in-law who opted not to do chemo because she was ninety and she and all the doctors agreed the treatment was worse than the disease, at her age. But then, that's ten years older than McCain.

[Mudguard]

24 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Trump expressed anger that Sessions recused himself in interview with Times.

 

Trump's worst enemy is himself.  He just continues to say and do things that make him look guilty.  It's clear from the interview that he views the role of the Attorney General as being his personal lawyer that will look after his interests before the interests of the American people.  He essentially admitted indirectly that he demands loyalty from the Attorney General.  His focus on Session's recusal as being "unfair" to himself is ridiculous.

[Mudguard]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly, if he's doing radiation or chemo at all he should step down; it's absolutely brutal, and if you're going to survive you need to focus on that. 

Sorry, McCain. Cancer absolutely sucks, and while you beat one before this one is especially bad. 

Yeah, glioblastoma is one of the worst cancers to get.  The survival rates I listed above is for patients that did both chemo and radiation therapy. Assuming that he elects for both chemo and radiation therapy, he's got a brutal road ahead. Hopefully he beats the odds.  

[all swedes are racist]

terrible news about mccain; sure glad there isn't anyone else currently suffering such terrible afflictions, and if there are it's good they have the same access to top quality healthcare he does, and if they don't at least he did absolutely everything in his power to try and see that they did.... god speed little buddy ill be praying for you

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Trump expressed anger that Sessions recused himself in interview with Times.

Hmmm. Maybe you shouldn't have had the guy you were planning to give the AG job to meeting with Russians in the run up to the election? Fucking moron. 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I may, just let me throw my two cents in here.

If the Republican Party were to seriously consider passing single payer, it’s something the Democratic Party would have to seriously consider working with Republicans on.  I’m very sympathetic to your argument.

And I agree the GOP would likely get the support to pass such a bill.

The downside would of course would be that it might very well cement Republican Power, in the short term, at least, and help to get Trump reelected.

The upside is that it would be a huge policy win for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party may not get another chance at such an opportunity for a very long time.

The reality is though, I don’t think the Republican Party would ever go for it. Sure, many “clothe coat Republicans” might have little problem with it. But, the intellectual infrastructure that makes up the Conservative movement would fight it tooth and nail along with their wealthy donors. You’d see, I’d imagine, the Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Manhattan Institute, etc. etc. go into overdrive trying to defeat such a bill. The implementation of single payer, I can only think, would be a decisive defeat for the conservative movement, at least from their point of view. It just seems to me that it would be something that conservatives have been preaching against, since the 1930s.

It's entirely antagonistic to the ideology of the Kochs and Dark Money anti-government / taxes / regulations / and public good.

Single payer is the antithesis of everything for which the rethugs stand, of whatever ilk.

Single payer, worst of all, would include black people.

Not even in your dreams.

In the meantime McCain falls right into the category of those who consume the most of health care, by age, infirmity etc.  It has been calculated that just the surgery alone that he received on the open market was $78,000.  That doesn't include all the ancillaries -- did he go the hospital by ambulance? His time in the hospital? the meds, etc.  Your average person in the rural midwest couldn't afford this, particularly, it seems these days, his average fellow vets of the Vietnam War. As far as others of that economic bracket -- in her 80's, she likely wouldn't be treated at all, except, maybe, if she's lucky, with opioids for the pain, as she rolls toward death.

Now with the diagnosis of cancer -- think of what the treatment is going to cost.

Good thing he got re-elected and has the health care that pays for all of it. 

 

[all swedes are racist]

lol, imagine going back in time 50 years and replacing this boards discussion of single player with CRA, and consider how these arguments for incrementalism would look

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

All the GOP has ever done on Medicaid is try to dismantle or undermine it in one way or another.  I believe you may be talking about Bush's Medicare Part D program, which subsidized the cost of prescription drugs?  In that case, sure.

Yes.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

20 minutes ago, commiedore said:

lol, imagine going back in time 50 years and replacing this boards discussion of single player with CRA, and consider how these arguments for incrementalism would look

That would be boss, Daddy-0.

 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, commiedore said:

lol, imagine going back in time 50 years and replacing this boards discussion of single player with CRA, and consider how these arguments for incrementalism would look

Mentioning the CRA proves the converse of your point.  You think that wasn't achieved through incrementalism?  Brown v. Board was decided ten years before the CRA.  Granted, LBJ capitalized off JFK's assassination politically, but JFK himself didn't push any version resembling the 64 CRA while he was alive, did he?  Why do you think that was?  I could throw Weber quotes or the fact this is what the framers intended or a multitude of historical examples that demonstrate incrementalism has always been how things get done unless in times of crisis.  But I'll just say this:  If the GOP passed single payer to secure an electoral majority - as the proponents of this hypothetical concede - what stops them from then taking it away?

[all swedes are racist]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Mentioning the CRA proves the converse of your point.  You think that wasn't achieved through incrementalism?  Brown v. Board was decided ten years before the CRA.  Granted, LBJ capitalized off JFK's assassination politically, but JFK himself didn't push any version resembling the 64 CRA while he was alive, did he?  Why do you think that was?  I could throw Weber quotes or the fact this is what the framers intended or a multitude of historical examples that demonstrate incrementalism has always been how things get done unless in times of crisis.  But I'll just say this:  If the GOP passed single payer to secure an electoral majority - as the proponents of this hypothetical concede - what stops them from then taking it away?

well, i'm not playing that 'what it the gop did it' game. and fuck if i concede that that the cra proves the converse of my point. are you trying to say there weren't fucking radical agitators pushing the politicians toward that point? that lbj or jfk (lol) were pushing that because it was politically expedient? that civil rights in the 1950/60's had greater real public approval than single payer does today? fuck, the incrementalism is just one more black mark  on this nations history in the fact it took so fucking long

[DMC]

Just now, commiedore said:

well, i'm not playing that 'what it the gop did it' game.

Fair enough, I don't like playing it myself.

1 minute ago, commiedore said:

are you trying to say there weren't fucking radical agitators pushing the politicians toward that point?

Of course not.  I'm saying the progress towards the CRA that those radical agitators were pushing towards was incremental.

2 minutes ago, commiedore said:

that lbj or jfk (lol) were pushing that because it was politically expedient?

First, a request.  Please capitalize, this is literally killing my eyes.  This is doubly annoying because it reminds me that I'm getting old.  Second...that's a more complicated question than I care to go into unless you really want to.  LBJ famously said "we have lost the South for a generation" after signing the CRA, but he neglected to mention what he gained.  Anyway, on the whole, no - I don't think they were being politically expedient.  But the timing of the CRA was undoubtedly politically calculated.

5 minutes ago, commiedore said:

that civil rights in the 1950/60's had greater real public approval than single payer does today?

I don't know about this.  Can't recall ever seeing polling on the CRA around the time it was passed.  Have you?

[all swedes are racist]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Fair enough, I don't like playing it myself.

Of course not.  I'm saying the progress towards the CRA that those radical agitators were pushing towards was incremental.

fairly certain the progress those radicals were pushing for was not incremental; the shitheel white liberals (et al) forced incrementalism, to all of our shame

 

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

First, a request.  Please capitalize, this is literally killing my eyes.  

no. we are strictly anti capitalist, the state of your petty booj eyes are not my concern

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Second...that's a more complicated question than I care to go into unless you really want to.  LBJ famously said "we have lost the South for a generation" after signing the CRA, but he neglected to mention what he gained.  Anyway, on the whole, no - I don't think they were being politically expedient.  But the timing of the CRA was undoubtedly politically calculated.

I don't know about this.  Can't recall ever seeing polling on the CRA around the time it was passed.  Have you?

so you are saying it wasnt better to achieve more equitable and egalitarian rights for african americans, women, and other disenfranchised and oppressed persons because the timing wasn't right, politically? cool, cool... sounds like something we should really strive for

edit: was my last post deleted? or did the board eat it?

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, commiedore said:

fairly certain the progress those radicals were pushing for was not incremental; the shitheel white liberals (et al) forced incrementalism, to all of our shame

Right, again that's my point - you need those "shitheel white liberals," or whatever is the equivalent with single payer, to eventually come around.  Thurgood Marshall and the other originators of the CRM were acutely aware of this, and that's precisely why they chose the cases they litigated carefully.

33 minutes ago, commiedore said:

no. we are strictly anti capitalist, the state of your petty booj eyes are not my concern

You young little bastard.  I'm totally gonna fail the next student I get that doesn't capitalize, and I blame this flagrant and arbitrary unprofessionalism on you.

33 minutes ago, commiedore said:

so you are saying it wasnt better to achieve more equitable and egalitarian rights for african americans, women, and other disenfranchised and oppressed persons because the timing wasn't right, politically?

I don't understand how that's what you gleaned from the content quoted.  I'm saying politicians are self-interested, namely the electoral incentive.  In other words, they will only be compelled to do the right thing when it's in their political interest.  Now, the good thing is presidents want to make history, make a legacy.  LBJ certainly did.  

Moreover, he had what Neustadt called "public prestige" to spare.  I'm not going to go over Neustadt's power of persuasion in detail because you're not my student and haven't paid to be subject to my ramblings.  In short, public prestige means both having public approval which we're all familiar with, and retaining credibility as someone that has the skill to exact her legislative agenda.  

In terms of public approval, LBJ dominated early - he didn't drop below 70 percent until February 1965.  In terms of credibility in pushing things through Congress?  Yeah, LBJ is number 1 in that for post FDR presidents.  That's why he was so successful.  

Anyway, this is a very long way of saying LBJ seized upon the popularity he gained from Kennedy's assassination to truly do good - and even get (some) conservative Democrats from Southern states to vote for it as well.  But would this have happened if, say, LBJ narrowly beat Nixon in the 1960 election?  No, I doubt he has the political capital to guilt Congress into doing the right thing at such a point.  Which is why while JFK privately expressed empathy for MLK's plight during his presidency, he never made a concerted push for a CRA while living.

[all swedes are racist]

49 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Right, again that's my point - you need those "shitheel white liberals," or whatever is the equivalent with single payer, to eventually come around.  Thurgood Marshall and the other originators of the CRM were acutely aware of this, and that's precisely why they chose the cases they litigated carefully.

You young little bastard.  I'm totally gonna fail the next student I get that doesn't capitalize, and I blame this flagrant and arbitrary unprofessionalism on you.

I don't understaand how that's what you gleaned from the content quoted.  I'm saying politicians are self-interested, namely the electoral incentive.  In other words, they will only be compelled to do the right thing when it's in their political interest.  Now, the good thing is presidents want to make history, make a legacy.  LBJ certainly did.  

Moreover, he had what Neustadt called "public prestige" in spades.  I'm not going to go over Neustadt's power of persuasion in detail because you're not my student and haven't paid to be subject to my ramblings.  In short, public prestige means both having public approval which we're all familiar with, and retaining credibility as someone that has the skill to exact her legislative agenda.  

In terms of public approval, LBJ had that in spades - he didn't drop below 70 percent until February 1965.  In terms of credibility in pushing things through Congress?  Yeah, LBJ is number 1 in that for post FDR presidents.  That's why he was so successful.  

Anyway, this is a very long way of saying LBJ seized upon the popularity he gained from Kennedy's assassination to truly do good - and even get (some) conservative Democrats from Southern states to vote for it as well.  But would this have happened if, say, LBJ narrowly beat Nixon in the 1960 election?  No, I doubt he has the political capital to guilt Congress into doing the right thing at such a point.  Which is why while JFK privately expressed empathy for MLK's plight during his presidency, he never made a concerted push for a CRA while living.

not gonna break this quote up, but:

first of all, i think we determined  previously that i am older than you; so show some damn respect you little punk, get off my lawn and cut your hair.

the political class has a duty and obligation to press the moral high ground, and present effective messaging to bring the (maybe not recalcitrant, but perhaps... prevaricating?) section of the base around: single payer/uhc/m4a is the morally right plank to stump on, as well as having a fairly good chunk of electorate behind the idea. you asked a few posts back what's to keep the right from taking it away? the fact that has been brought up many times: its hard as hell to take away good entitlements once they are granted. too many of the white shit heel liberals i talk about today are straight up saying "single payer is never going to happen", and don't just caution against it "now", but actively fight it. those anthony rendon's of the party who fight against it without aknowledging and working to overcome its obstacles should be jettisoned from the party as anchors that only serve to drag the platform to the right.

as to "how gleaned from the content quoted": its simple. was fighting, actively and vociferously, for the franchise and equal rights of those disenfranchised and oppressed by the u.s. government the morally correct position to take? if yes, then anything less is simply a craven concession to the reactionaries of the right. i say fuck that, i'd rather be on the right side of history. thats how you get shit like "separate but equal" or "dadt". fuck that. its not the coward politicians that are slowly dragging this shit into cceptance; its the radicals and activists that keep fighting, agitating, and working against the ossified politicos that get this shit to be widely accepted by the public and slowly the fuckers come around. 

i want, for once, some somewhat forward thinking politicians to actually try and be halfway ahead of a critical issue and drag the 'big tent' along with them, and this, along with climate change, is the fucking issue of our time, and it needs to be goddamn treated as such

ps if you want me to capitalize, get a damn avi. i cant tell you from damn borbasil or whatever the fuck he is now

 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, commiedore said:

first of all, i think we determined  previously that i am older than you; so show some damn respect you little punk, get off my lawn and cut your hair.

Older in time, but not in spirit.  I'm fat, tired, and way too old for this shit.

1 hour ago, commiedore said:

the political class has a duty and obligation to press the moral high ground, and present effective messaging to bring the (maybe not recalcitrant, but perhaps... prevaricating?) section of the base around: single payer/uhc/m4a is the morally right plank to stump on, as well as having a fairly good chunk of electorate behind the idea.

I think you're underestimating how quickly the electorate can be turned on the idea of single payer.  Let's actually dig into the numbers.  Here's the quickest YouGov poll (which was what was originally cited) on it I can find on google, scroll to the bottom.  Overall, approval for single payer is 44-31.  Among Republicans, it says 27-53.  However, we also have Dems at 63-17, and Independents at 39-29.  I agree, based on those numbers these seem like a moral imperative...Except we've already been through this with Hillarycare and Obamacare.  

Again, the GOP and the insurance industry will demonize single payer until they're blue in the face, because it's in their interest.  And once they do, those numbers look drastically different.  Is this a hypothetical?  Sure.  But it's a hypothetical that's founded directly on how this shit has already gone down, twice.  I do not understand the logic of doing it a third time just to die on the moral high hill.

1 hour ago, commiedore said:

too many of the white shit heel liberals i talk about today are straight up saying "single payer is never going to happen", and don't just caution against it "now", but actively fight it. those anthony rendon's of the party who fight against it without aknowledging and working to overcome its obstacles should be jettisoned from the party as anchors that only serve to drag the platform to the right.

Ok, I think I can find agreement with you here.  I think the best path for national single payer is a demonstration it works among states.  So in that regard, I'm totally on board with finding a way to institute single payer in very blue states.  However, the effort must be revenue neutral - not only because of the balanced budget requirements of most states, but also because that is the only way you can provide a blueprint for a national policy that's palatable.

1 hour ago, commiedore said:

its not the coward politicians that are slowly dragging this shit into cceptance; its the radicals and activists that keep fighting, agitating, and working against the ossified politicos that get this shit to be widely accepted by the public and slowly the fuckers come around. 

Agreed.  Entirely.  That is exactly what I was trying to say.  You need the activists to convince those bitch-ass politicos that it's in their interest to support their initiative, or there'll be hell to pay.  That's how change happens.

1 hour ago, commiedore said:

i want, for once, some somewhat forward thinking politicians to actually try and be halfway ahead of a critical issue and drag the 'big tent' along with them, and this, along with climate change, is the fucking issue of our time, and it needs to be goddamn treated as such

I would actually say the Dems are pretty good on health care.  They have demonstrated consistent effort in getting as many people covered as possible, have been successful with this in the ACA, and even paid the price politically.  If you want to blame the Dems for dragging their heels, let's talk about Wall Street reform, prison reform, mandatory minimums, gun rights, education still based on property taxes, or tons of other issues I'm too drunk to think of.

1 hour ago, commiedore said:

if you want me to capitalize, get a damn avi. i cant tell you from damn borbasil or whatever the fuck he is now

I will NEVER get an avi.  No Avatar, No Mercy!!!  (Really it's just cuz I'm lazy.)

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I will NEVER get an avi.

Ok, I'll get an avi.

[all swedes are racist]

@dmc515thanks for the thoughtful response, will reply tomorrow 

but in the meantime for anyone hanging their hopes on gillibrand as the great lib hope....

http://gothamist.com/2017/07/19/schumer_gillibrand_co-sponsor_senat.php