r'hllor's red lobster

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government

409 posts in this topic

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't know anyone who is claiming all civil disobedience is wrong. But civil disobedience doesn't need to be or end up being uncivil disobedience. There are plenty of good arguments to support the approach of refusing to obey an unjust law. It is not necessary to refuse to obey an unjust law with violence.

That said, it often works. 

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The only way to prevent Nazism and Fascism from taking over is for the vast majority of people to speak out in opposition to it. Arguably, violence by anti-fascists creates inertia for the masses to get fully on board with the anti-fascist perspective.

There are a whole lot of examples of fascism being fought with actual violence, and not people merely speaking out against it. 

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The advocates for violence need to stop misrepresenting the perspectives of those who advocate non-violent opposition to fascism. You are isolating, alienating and threatening people who are ideologically aligned or sympathetic, but divergent on method. Which is counterproductive to the aim of keeping fascism, white supremacy and general hatred of "the other" on the social and political fringes.

Conversely, you need to stop criticizing those who are willing to put their necks out and fight against fascists with their physical bodies and protect those who need protecting and aren't getting protection from the police. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

ok, but what if (as polling seems to indicate) its actually quite popular, especially with the base? 

Polling for single payer has been trending up but that's without (to steal from Brandon Rottinghaus) any countervailing elements - and as a complete hypothetical, albeit this "plan" is quite hypothetical as well.  We'll see. 

As for the base, does the base need Dems to push for a plan everyone knows isn't going anywhere?  Especially if it hurts the chances to take back the House?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

ok, but what if (as polling seems to indicate) its actually quite popular, especially with the base? 

And I think that's part of what's driving it.  I'm sure it looks very solid if you poll only progressive Democrats.  But here are some more of the things I'm thinking about:

Say some Dem wins in 2020 even with a big majority...this seems like something that would need 60 votes in the Senate, so it would have to be a really big majority assuming Republicans won't provide any votes.  Then consider how the Obamacare push went where you had some red state Dems like Nelson and some douchebags like Lieberman holding it up over stuff.  No guarantee that would happen again, but even if the progressive wing of the party really wants it and the newly-elected Dem President would sign it imagine once the attacks start to really come in.  Something like 150 million people would be hearing that their plans were changing.  Dem Senators in red states and like a Manchin or a Heidtkamp would be under a ton of pressure to cave and they'd probably be in a situation where it can't happen if anyone caves.  And if anything goes wrong with the implementation it could be really chaotic and cost the new President dearly.  Not saying it's impossible, but it seems like much heavier lifting than Obamacare was even if there's the possibility of a good system waiting on the other side.  

The struggle to get to a single payer system in the US isn't just the interests of all of the players you guys mentioned upthread.  It's that you have to change the system of health insurance for like over half the country's population.  And while most people will tell a pollster that there are plenty of problems with the US healthcare system most people are also pretty satisfied with their own situation and with loss aversion and all that would be susceptible fear of change.  

But to the point that it's just an aspirational goal for now, I understand that up to a point.  Good to have some big, simple-message things to run on (Clinton's campaign really lacked this), but if you win and can't do it or win and do it badly I think there's real risk there.  

All of this said I'm not surprised at all that Bernie is pushing this.  I am surprised that so many high-profile Dems are also on board.  

ETA: Someone else makes a good point online which is that rrl's point about Dem voters is probably why many of these high-profile folks feel the need to take this position.  It might be hard to win Dem primaries without going really progressive this time around.  

Edited by Triskan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yup.  A good rule of thumb for politics is to do what's possible and exploit what isn't.  Not only is this not remotely possible, it may well be quite unpopular - which means you're gifting the other side the opportunity to exploit it.

A statement like this pretty much demands the question:

 

'Why is this impossible?'

Is it impossible because entrenched interests effectively control the relevant politicians?  If so, can that control be broken?

Relevant article:

  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-hillary-clinton’s-warning-to-democrats-don’t-be-like-bernie/ar-AArRQYd?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

To me, Clinton came across as downright bitter and vindictive, an attitude shared in the 'comments' - even by a majority or near majority of democratic commenters. 

This statement at the end clinches it:

(ignoring the abysmal quote system)

-0-0-0-0-0-

That has the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charles E. Schumer concerned about their party's drift toward what they view as impractical and divisive proposals like single-payer. But Clinton was really the first top Democrat to deal with the party's conflict between what leaders view as reality and the base's Sanders-ian ideals. And so now Clinton has been thrust into a replaying of the 2016 primary right alongside her party's titular leaders.

-0-0-0-0-0-

Without a base, there is no party.  Period.  This point seems completely lost on the Democratic Party leadership.  Either cater to what the base demands or get replaced.

The thing that impressed me the most about Sanders was the way his campaign echoed Trumps in terms of money spent.  Clinton had far and away the lions share of campaign loot, the vast bulk of it coming from 'nebulas sources,' shall we say.  Sander's on the other hand, appeared to come mostly in the form of small donations from the base.  Yet despite this disparity, FOR A TIME, Sanders represented a major challenge to Clinton DESPITE vastly inferior resources across the board.  This is another point that seems utterly lost to the Democratic Party leadership.   

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Well that's all well and good, but when it realistically doesn't pass, the left in the US will whine. Then more shit flinging at the Dems. 

At least that is how I see it. 

well, considering any actual push to make a medicare-for-all viable in the future (no one actually thinks this is going to happen now, thats not the point) requires strong and effective messaging from the democrats, you probably aren't wrong.

but like, what is actually up with all this resistance to medicare/single payer for all from all these people that trip over their own dicks and other sundry bodyparts to defend the aca -- which, in retrospect, is even more fucked up than previously realized? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

well, considering any actual push to make a medicare-for-all viable in the future (no one actually thinks this is going to happen now, thats not the point) requires strong and effective messaging from the democrats, you probably aren't wrong.

but like, what is actually up with all this resistance to medicare/single payer for all from all these people that trip over their own dicks and other sundry bodyparts to defend the aca -- which, in retrospect, is even more fucked up than previously realized? 

This really puzzles me too. I haven't really seen this kind of push back with my IRL social circles, though; seems mostly confined to users here in my experience. Not sure which is more reflective of the actual progressive perception of single payer right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

This really puzzles me too. I haven't really seen this kind of push back with my IRL social circles, though; seems mostly confined to users here in my experience. Not sure which is more reflective of the actual progressive perception of single payer right now. 

See the article I linked to a few posts above yours.  The democratic party leadership is becoming more and more at odds with its base.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the investigation continues:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rice-told-investigators-why-she-unmasked-trump-aides/ar-AArTtgt?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Her testimony apparently satisfied even key republicans.  Conservatives expressed utter rage in the comments section.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-flynns-son-is-subject-of-federal-russia-probe/ar-AArSyR9?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

General Flynn's son was involved in this mess up to his eyeballs.

Collectively, it looks to me like Trumps woes are getting significantly worse. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

but like, what is actually up with all this resistance to medicare/single payer for all from all these people that trip over their own dicks and other sundry bodyparts to defend the aca -- which, in retrospect, is even more fucked up than previously realized? 

Assuming I'm one of these people I would still maintain that there's a lot to like about the ACA.  It did quite a lot to expand coverage.  Tens of millions of people that didn't have coverage before do now, and if universal coverage is the real goal that doesn't seem like it should be anything to scoff at.  

No doubt there are unaddressed issues in the healthcare system, but the ACA model could still be worked on to address these in a way that might be more politically feasible than single payer.  Let more people into Medicare or Medicaid, increase subsidies or add public option to exchanges, etc...and you don't have to mess with the 150 million or so people with employer coverage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Polling for single payer has been trending up but that's without (to steal from Brandon Rottinghaus) any countervailing elements - and as a complete hypothetical, albeit this "plan" is quite hypothetical as well.  We'll see. 

As for the base, does the base need Dems to push for a plan everyone knows isn't going anywhere?  Especially if it hurts the chances to take back the House?

but again, why do you assume this hurt chances of taking back the house? ffs, the republicans have handed the dems a fucking golden egg in the aca repeal fuck up -- namely "look at how bad they want it to be if they have their way"; couple that with (haha, i know i know, hear me out) strong, unified messaging playing up the myraid strengths of a single payer plan

8 minutes ago, Triskan said:

And I think that's part of what's driving it.  I'm sure it looks very solid if you poll only progressive Democrats.  But here are some more of the things I'm thinking about:

Say some Dem wins in 2020 even with a big majority...this seems like something that would need 60 votes in the Senate, so it would have to be a really big majority assuming Republicans won't provide any votes.  Then consider how the Obamacare push went where you had some red state Dems like Nelson and some douchebags like Lieberman holding it up over stuff.  No guarantee that would happen again, but even if the progressive wing of the party really wants it and the newly-elected Dem President would sign it imagine once the attacks start to really come in.  Something like 150 million people would be hearing that their plans were changing.  Dem Senators in red states and like a Manchin or a Heidtkamp would be under a ton of pressure to cave and they'd probably be in a situation where it can't happen if anyone caves.  And if anything goes wrong with the implementation it could be really chaotic and cost the new President dearly.  Not saying it's impossible, but it seems like much heavier lifting than Obamacare was even if there's the possibility of a good system waiting on the other side.  

The struggle to get to a single payer system in the US isn't just the interests of all of the players you guys mentioned upthread.  It's that you have to change the system of health insurance for like over half the country's population.  And while most people will tell a pollster that there are plenty of problems with the US healthcare system most people are also pretty satisfied with their own situation and with loss aversion and all that would be susceptible fear of change.  

But to the point that it's just an aspirational goal for now, I understand that up to a point.  Good to have some big, simple-message things to run on (Clinton's campaign really lacked this), but if you win and can't do it or win and do it badly I think there's real risk there.  

All of this said I'm not surprised at all that Bernie is pushing this.  I am surprised that so many high-profile Dems are also on board.  

re: the bolded-- well, maybe thats a big part of this show bill, as well as all these high profile dems getting on board (lol, as an aside, i love how even among clintonites its too much to assume these people are showing a shred of conscience or morals), to set this up as a major plank for congressional dems and forcing the recalcitrant fuckers onto the defensive early on (where is leiberman now?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

'Why is this impossible?'

Is it impossible because entrenched interests effectively control the relevant politicians?  If so, can that control be broken?

It's impossible for myriad reasons, but the most pressing are obviously who controls the presidency and Congress.  I'm open-minded to this if it can be an effective electoral tool.  Who knows, maybe it will have widespread support among the (general) electorate, in which case it'd serve as the same thing repealing Obamacare did for the GOP - exploiting the impossible for the Dems gain.  I'm just skeptical of that being the case - and I'm not the only one.   

24 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Yet despite this disparity, FOR A TIME, Sanders represented a major challenge to Clinton DESPITE vastly inferior resources across the board.  This is another point that seems utterly lost to the Democratic Party leadership.

I don't think the push from the left - and Bernie as the standard-bearer - is lost on the Democratic leadership.  They're just being cautious on this as a tactic because the fact is that's the only value it has at this point.  As mentioned above, even Bernie appears to be cautious on this by not coming out with a specific plan.  As I said, if it's a trial balloon I think it's fine - although I agree with @Triskan that it was hasty for basically all the 2020 hopefuls to get on board before we know much of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

but again, why do you assume this hurt chances of taking back the house? ffs, the republicans have handed the dems a fucking golden egg in the aca repeal fuck up -- namely "look at how bad they want it to be if they have their way"; couple that with (haha, i know i know, hear me out) strong, unified messaging playing up the myraid strengths of a single payer plan

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong and the Dems are able to use single payer as an issue in 2018 and beyond.  I think my skepticism on this is well-founded, and there's lots of unknowns.  Will this be a concerted public appeals campaign or just a glorified rally today that lasts a news cycle?  If that's the case, we won't know much of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Assuming I'm one of these people I would still maintain that there's a lot to like about the ACA.  It did quite a lot to expand coverage.  Tens of millions of people that didn't have coverage before do now, and if universal coverage is the real goal that doesn't seem like it should be anything to scoff at.  

sure, maybe... and hell, i'll admit 12 months ago i was right there with you. (eta: this is not meant as a dig, despite my colorful language) certainly not gonna argue its better than the fucking ghoulish shit put out by the right. but lets not let that little bit of good blind us to the seriously fucked up shit (much of which, like the toothless mandate etc, has been discussed ad nauseum)... but the point of "in retrospect [...]" is referring to the shitty compromises that where built in seemingly, (like, say, daca) witht he assumption the dems would maintain some control of government... instead it leaves the aca open to such predation as trump (even ineffectually) being able to block federal subsidies, worsening the negative feedback the insurance companies enacted as retribution (thats one of the points in favor of medicare for all, once you get past the admittedly significat hurdle of nsurance lobby money fighting it, you essentially defang them in their ability to take putative action under the guise of actuarial pressures)

40 minutes ago, Triskan said:

 

No doubt there are unaddressed issues in the healthcare system, but the ACA model could still be worked on to address these in a way that might be more politically feasible than single payer.  Let more people into Medicare or Medicaid, increase subsidies or add public option to exchanges, etc...and you don't have to mess with the 150 million or so people with employer coverage.

 

yeah, i'm not opposed to this kind of stuff, again as a incremental step towards the real goal. but my issues are with 1) universal coverage shouldn't be the goal, but just another stepping stone towards universal health justice. simply having universal insurance coverage doesn't really help if there are still significant financial hurdles (in the forms of cost sharing) to people actually getting the healthcare they need and deserve.

and, as one of those 150 million people with employer coverage, but as one on the lower end of the economic scale, i would happily give up my employer offered coverage ( and i work for a pretty decent company who offers decent-to-good health insurance) i suspect those vast majority of people who truly enjoy their employer sponsored coverage comes from the fact that this a)ignores the great number of people who do not have employer sponsored plans and b ) that opinion is in the contexts of, y'know, not having insurance or shitty catostrophic overage. freeing employees from employer sponsered coverage SHOULD be as much a goal for the democrats as it is for the actual left: it increases employee's bargaining power with employers, can increase real wages, frees workers from the anxiety of having their plans go up in price/down in coverage or both due to economic factors beyond their control, and is generally more favorable to the lower socioeconomic tiers of our society. 

tl;dr i am sympathetic to, and understand (if not as clearly as others here) to the arguments of the realities of political calculus. but, single payer is extremely important for addressing issues beyond simple healthcare, and i believe any left aligned folk should be working towards these goals, and not settling for fighting to maintain a shitty status quo simply because it is marginally better than the horrific alternatives. shoot for the stars and hit the moon motherfuckers, so we can hit the stars next time!

Edited by r'hllor's red lobster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong and the Dems are able to use single payer as an issue in 2018 and beyond.  I think my skepticism on this is well-founded, and there's lots of unknowns.  Will this be a concerted public appeals campaign or just a glorified rally today that lasts a news cycle?  If that's the case, we won't know much of anything.

me too, and i think that entirely depends on these co-sponsers (i am not optimistic, for entirely different reasons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

(i am not optimistic, for entirely different reasons)

I suspect I share those reasons for cynicism as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's impossible for myriad reasons, but the most pressing are obviously who controls the presidency and Congress.  I'm open-minded to this if it can be an effective electoral tool.  Who knows, maybe it will have widespread support among the (general) electorate, in which case it'd serve as the same thing repealing Obamacare did for the GOP - exploiting the impossible for the Dems gain.  I'm just skeptical of that being the case - and I'm not the only one.   

I don't think the push from the left - and Bernie as the standard-bearer - is lost on the Democratic leadership.  They're just being cautious on this as a tactic because the fact is that's the only value it has at this point.  As mentioned above, even Bernie appears to be cautious on this by not coming out with a specific plan.  As I said, if it's a trial balloon I think it's fine - although I agree with @Triskan that it was hasty for basically all the 2020 hopefuls to get on board before we know much of anything.

I might not have been clear enough in my prior post. 

Major grassroots changes have been underway in the US for...call it a decade now.  One result of those grass roots changes put Donald Trump in the Oval Office.  I was telling posters here well over a year ago - closer to 18 months - that there was a very real chance Trump would win the presidential election.  I was alternately mocked and ignored.

Back in 2006-2007 I kept posting links here to articles claiming a monumental fiscal disaster loomed in the near future - and some of those articles correctly identified the most imperiled institutions.  I was mocked for this to - almost right up until everything fell apart.

Now, I am saying flat out that the assumptions being made by the power brokers within the Democratic Party have a significant possibility of being flawed at the same level.  Because of a grass roots shift (aka - the base.)

And something to keep in mind with universal health care.  Aside from what I regard as the 'corporate shill' faction, much of the 'right' is NOT completely dead set against the likes of Medicaid/Medicare.  Quite the opposite, in fact. They collectively see it as an 'earned entitlement,' I suppose you could call it. Presented correctly, the right(wing) BASE would go with a major expansion of these programs in the hopes of lowering their medical bills.  (This is partly from talking to 100+ older conservatives along my route, and partly from reading comments to various articles on the net.)

This brings up the next point, which major portions of the leadership in BOTH parties refuses to admit even exists - because, I suspect they personally and directly profit from it: ACTUAL MEDICAL COSTS.

Back when the ACA was first being formulated, my attitude was - and to an extent remains - that it targeted the wrong thing: Insurance.  If the goal was really affordable health care, then to hell with the insurance.  TARGET THE MEDICAL COSTS DIRECTLY.  Forced reductions in costs, imposed from above.  Otherwise, costs WOULD bloom out of control - AGAIN.  I got a bunch of nonsense back from posters here saying effectively the medical/political establishments would never tolerate that.  Which was true then - and now - but is something that WILL have to be grappled with.  (Closest thing I have to a viable idea here is to give Medicaid/Medicare full authority to aggressively negotiate medical bills submitted to them - and (unlikely) force ALL medical providers to accept Medicaid/Medicare and the associated cost reductions).  (At which point DNC515 orders me put in a straightjacket and dropped into a deep pit for heresy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news. holy shit, Schumer and Pelosi released a statement that they'd made an agreement with Trump to exclude the wall from a border security deal and to enshrine DACA.  Obviously more to come...hard to believe, but sounds like they believe it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats, again, guardedly pretty decent. but i can't help feeling that the wall was never really gonna happen in any serious way, and i will never feel ok about daca until serious immigration reform is put into place and all those records are fucking destroyed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

thats, again, guardedly pretty decent. but i can't help feeling that the wall was never really gonna happen in any serious way, and i will never feel ok about daca until serious immigration reform is put into place and all those records are fucking destroyed

I agree, but I'll take what few wins I can get right now, so long as they don't require compromise in other places. More border security is largely fine in principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.