u.s. politics: molotov cocktail through the overton window

[Red Tiger]

I was in tears

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

As to your first statement... I worked there for a few years and from what I've seen, I have to disagree. There are some similarities, but, for example, France is probably more similar to the US than Switzerland is similar to the US. The Swiss do some really weird things (e.g. their nearly unbounded direct democracy or their implementation of jus sanguinis) and, unlike with most places that do weird things, these aren't just idle curiosities -- they're at the heart of the Swiss system and much more important than the structure of the legislature or whatever.

Well, I was referring to basic features.  I've never been there so yeah I can't provide context.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Bill Cassidy Claims to Have a Handgrenade

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/15/bill-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-bill-242770?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Bill Cassidy Claims to Have a Handgrenade

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/15/bill-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-bill-242770?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

He's such a weird looking dude.  If Paul is a nay they'd need to get Murkowski.  That seems unlikely, as does this passing in two weeks without the leadership pushing it, but hey stranger things have happened.

[Morpheus]

This is the one McCain is already on board for, yes?

Have to be utterly arbitrary in deciding which harmful bill you support, lest anyone mistake you for a person of integrity and principle.

[Bonnot OG]

Yes, Anti-Freeze is the moral equivalent of Freeze. 
http://www.somethingawful.com/news/antifa-equals-nazis/

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

53 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

He's such a weird looking dude.  If Paul is a nay they'd need to get Murkowski.  That seems unlikely, as does this passing in two weeks without the leadership pushing it, but hey stranger things have happened.

He reminds me of photos of John Brown.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)#/media/File%3AJohn_Brown_by_Levin_Handy%2C_1890-1910.jpg

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He reminds me of photos of John Brown.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)#/media/File%3AJohn_Brown_by_Levin_Handy%2C_1890-1910.jpg

Agreed, he's got the same kind of weirdly angular face.

[drawkcabi]

4 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Okay.  Sure.  But that seems a perfect analogy to the example of Voltaire and his servants, when he told his mistress "Don't tell the servants there's no God -- they might steal the silverware!"

Yes, the servants are still bound to Voltaire.

But Voltaire isn't worried about what the servants will do while he is watching.  He is worried about what they will do while he is not watching.  He is not worried about what they do when they think they can get away with it, not about what they do when they think they can't get away with it.

That is the context in which Voltaire is worried that the servants will not feel "bound".

 

I'd be more concerned about people who think all that's keeping them from committing crimes is God watching them over people who don't commit crimes because the believe it is wrong.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Triskan said:

RRL - To your question I would echo what Kal said but also say that it's not that I'm so in favor of a non-single-payer form of UHC as I'm not sure that single-payer can be implemented in the US. I worry that Bernie is conflating single-payer with UHC (i.e., nothing but "single-payer" is acceptable and anyone who doesn't support "single-payer," even if they support UHC, is a heretic), and that he's going to lead the Dems into a bad place like some pied piper.  

Again, the inquiry, if not universal health care etc. what are the Dems sponsoring?  What are they running on? what do they stand for? That voters can understand and get behind?  Beyond, not Them?  I'd really like to know, because so far I'm not hearing it.  A Better Deal ain't it, yanno?

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

On September 15, 2017 at 0:52 PM, IheartIheartTesla said:

I'm curious why we have a Constitution, why don't these religious Presidents just govern by opening random pages of the new Testament?

Its ridiculous to attest atheists are not bound by anything. Just look at the distribution of criminals in the US and you'll find not many of them being atheists. Why is that, when these atheists are apparently some sort of Constitution ignoring mobsters.

My thoughts exactly, thank you for posting this. The U.S. jails are full of religious believers, not only in greater numbers, but also in greater percentages compared to the overall population.

[Martell Spy]

Trump Administration Reportedly Will Not Withdraw U.S. From Paris Agreement After All

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/16/trump_administration_reportedly_will_not_withdraw_from_paris_agreement_after.html

Wages are stagnating, robots are taking our jobs. This Democrat has a $1.4 trillion solution.
The key involves boosting the Earned Income Tax Credit, a quietly potent program.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/13/16301644/ro-khanna-eitc-wages-democratic-agenda-working-class

Mueller Investigation Into Russian Facebook Ads May Be a Very Big Deal

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/mueller-investigation-into-facebook-ads-may-be-a-big-deal.html

How Democrats Can Wage War on Monopolies—and Win
Elizabeth Warren and her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, provide a roadmap for the left to make antitrust reform a reality.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144675/democrats-elizabeth-warren-can-wage-war-monopolies-and-win

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Anyone else notice how Trump went after Jemele Hill for calling him a white supremacist (which he is) but stays quiet when  David Duke or Richard Spencer calls him one? Weird eh? 

Also Jemele only did the exact same thing Trump did when he was on the "Apprentice" show. Why Trump thinks Jemele should be fired from her Network for criticizing the President, while he did the exact same thing to Obama while he( Trump) was at NBC? Its clearly a case of hypocracy from our Narcicist-in-Chief.

MSNBC reported that ESPN was considering suspending Jemele for one show, however that plan had to be dropped when virtually every substitute anchor flatly turned ESPN down at taking Jemeles chair. I just love that sort of righteous unity.

[Bonnot OG]

Aaron Bernstine, GOP politician from PA, was threatening to run over protesters. 

https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-aaron-bernstine-the-gop-politician-threatened-to-run-over-protestors-with-his-car-2367160

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Again, the inquiry, if not universal health care etc. what are the Dems sponsoring?  What are they running on? what do they stand for? That voters can understand and get behind?  Beyond, not Them?  I'd really like to know, because so far I'm not hearing it.  A Better Deal ain't it, yanno?

 

Do you realise your question here is exactly what Triskan is calling the whole problem? You are conflating single-payer and UHC. The Democrats are running on UHC. They have been for a long time. Obama and Clinton ran on it in 2008. They just didn't run on a single-payer implementation of it. That's what they've stood for for decades and decades now but haven't been able to get through congress.

The worry being expressed is the issue inherent to your question here, which is supporters of single payer acting like if you are for or ok with alternative UHC implementations, you are somehow the enemy. Just cause people are leary of the policy and/or politics of Sanders proposal doesn't mean they aren't for UHC. And those people include the Democratic Party as an institution.

[Shryke]

Just in general I think when it comes to this healthcare proposal by Sanders, while it does a lot of good moving the conversation, it's got at least 2 issues/dangers/pitfalls/etc in my mind:

1) The use of it as a purity test within the party for no goddamn reason, which can further exacerbate tensions within the party and within the base and make it more difficult political for current and future Democrats to win elections.

2) Sticker shock from the price of the proposal causing a backlash in public opinion against the entire idea.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Do you realise your question here is exactly what Triskan is calling the whole problem? You are conflating single-payer and UHC. The Democrats are running on UHC. They have been for a long time. Obama and Clinton ran on it in 2008. They just didn't run on a single-payer implementation of it. That's what they've stood for for decades and decades now but haven't been able to get through congress.

The worry being expressed is the issue inherent to your question here, which is supporters of single payer acting like if you are for or ok with alternative UHC implementations, you are somehow the enemy. Just cause people are leary of the policy and/or politics of Sanders proposal doesn't mean they aren't for UHC. And those people include the Democratic Party as an institution.

I am not.  I am asking what the Dems are standing for, running for and want to do.

It's on the table, you say, they don't want single payer, or universal health care.

But what DO they want -- and I am talking across the board, not only health care.

 

[Shryke]

25 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I am not.  I am asking what the Dems are standing for, running for and want to do.

It's on the table, you say, they don't want single payer, or universal health care.

But what DO they want -- and I am talking across the board, not only health care.

 

...

I said they DO want UHC. Pretty obviously. Have for decades.

[ThinkerX]

31 minutes ago, Shryke said:

...

I said they DO want UHC. Pretty obviously. Have for decades.

Yet, until Obama came along, it kept getting shut down, often within the democratic party itself.  And as universal health care schemes go, the ACA is both weak and badly flawed.

And now, we have Clinton making statements that CAN be interpreted as saying that 'any serious Universal Health Care scheme is unrealistic.' 

For myself (can't track the links at the moment) the proposal that interests me is the 'Medicare Buy-In.'  Ordinary people, regardless of income level being allowed to simply buy into Medicare.  The Employer health plans remain untouched.  Medicare/Medicaid taxes go up some. Give Medicare/Medicaid full authority to aggressively negotiate with medical providers on top of that, and we have something that might work without everybody going broke and has a shot of getting through Congress.  I forget which congress critter was pushing that proposal.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I know we've basically moved past this, but I watched the Maddow interview with Hillary tonight and I'm just left to wonder where this person was during the campaign. I don't know if it's just that she's just so much better at communicating one on one than she is to a crowd or what, but she comes off so much better in this format than she does making a speech.

 

 

/Solid interview.