Jump to content

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


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Ryan Fournier (chairman of Trump Students) is following me on twitter. I have no clue why. Maybe it's my profile picture of Reagan, though he must have miss the big black bar across his eyes with the word Destroy written in it. Must have also missed the 1984 right in the corner of the picture too.

Or he is just stalking me because he saw some of my tweets and how anti Trump they were and I am.

Seriously though, these college republicans are a disgusting bunch of maggots. Bunch of boat shoe wearing country club klansmen and yacht club nazis.

he follows 153,000 accounts. it's just way to gain followers, hoping for a follow back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Seriously though, these college republicans are a disgusting bunch of maggots. Bunch of boat shoe wearing country club klansmen and yacht club nazis.

You really need to take all the chill pills bruh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

full disclosure, i am not anywhere close enough come up with this stuff on my own; you should check out tim faust (@crugle on twitter) for good ass ideas like that

Yeah the idea to use Americorps as a modernized type of GI Bill regarding student loans is something that's been around for awhile.  I've just never heard it in the context of doctors/healthcare/diminishing the influence of the AMA, which is interesting.

18 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

glad to hear it, though (to explain a little of myself on this board) i worry folks folks get caught up in opposing trump because he is a an in experienced vulgarian saying all the quiet parts loud, and not addressing the systemic injustices built in to the way this country operates

Yeah I don't really care about Trump's vulgarity.  I'm quite vulgar myself.  This is what pisses me off sometimes on this board(meaning when I'm very drunk) - the notion I'm not adequately fighting the systemic injustices perpetuated by the GOP since the CRM ideologically aligned both parties.  I didn't get into politics - and especially studying politics via academia - for shits and giggles, and certainly not for the money.  If I wanted the latter I'd do what many other colleagues have done and make a hell of a lot more paper with the data analysis skills I've accumulated.  I've stayed in academia primarily because I've devoted my adult life to fighting such systemic iniquities.  That's why posters suggesting or outright saying I don't care as much because I disagree on tactics or even simply because I'm white is a major pet peeve.

18 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

i won't pretend this makes any real headway against the (admittedly pretty valid) critiques of sanders proposed bill; but this article does articulate what i feel i failed to-- why the centrist heel digging is so counterproductive. we on the left should be more open to thoughtful criticism to help bolster the single payer position, but those in the center-left must decide where their true aims lie; namely if they truly want to help the middle, working, and lower classes they must come out and work towards a fair and egalitarian single payer health care model, with the ethical goal of actually helping those the purport to champion (pro tip in this endeavor: stop listening to fucking jonathan chait )

In terms of single payer being aspirational, obviously I agree - that's what I said from the get-go.  I disagree with the "genius" of instituting the plan incrementally.  The interests and MCs that will oppose such a measure don't really care if it's gradual or not, they're still going to oppose it.  That's like saying the gradual increase in Medicaid spending that's still going on under the ACA was genius.

18 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

It comes back to Sanders.  Democratic Party leadership apparently regards him as a pest of no real consequence.  What gets ignored is how much support he managed to get behind him despite have next to nothing in the way of resources. 

Or, to put this another way:

Usually, when somebody runs for office, one of the very first questions that gets asked is

'How big is the war chest?' 

[...] 

This came through loud and clear in the comments sections to the political articles I started reading a couple years ago.  Lots of comments.  Thousands.  Almost from the start, it became clear that Trump had a hard-core fan base.  Likewise, so did Sanders.  The people writing those comments displayed great positive enthusiasm for their candidates.  Clinton almost NEVER received ANY positive commentary, even from Democrats.  (Of the Republicans, well, some supported Walker or Huckabee early on, and Rubio later.  But, at least in the comments, they never had big followings.)

This just seems to be a roundabout way of saying the Dem leadership should acquiesce to Bernie and his supporters because he relied on small donations.  As I've said in the past, there was always going to be a large contingent of the Democratic primary electorate that was going to gravitate towards any anti-Hillary standard bearer.  I know this because I was one of them in 2008.  

But what I think is glaringly missing in your assessment is what are the major policy differences between the Bernie supports and/or progressive wing as opposed to the Dem leadership/"left-centrists"?  The disagreement as I understand it is much more on tactics than any substantive differences.  As I said, the push for single payer as aspirational sounds fine by me - but it should first be pushed by officeholders in safe Dem seats to explore whether it is a successful tactic for the entire party, or if it's not (and this appears to be exactly what's happening, btw).  This is simply realistic caution based on MCs that are concerned for their jobs.  I don't begrudge them such a prerogative.

18 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

You seem to have missed the key point about right wing types and 'earned entitlements.'  First, they see SS, Medicaid, Medicare, a couple other things as something that rightfully goes to them - they paid into it.  Their respective congress critters are EXPECTED to honor that belief.  Period.  No revoking it, ever. No excuses for not protecting it. 

On the contrary, I think you're missing my key point that right wing types will only get on board with viewing such measures as "earned entitlements" after the policy has been implemented.  Beforehand they're much more likely to take their cues from the party line, especially in this day and age.

18 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Your arguments are made from what I have to think of as an 'inside the Beltway' perspective.  I am telling you a rapidly increasing fraction of the base disagrees pretty vehemently with that perspective. 

Haven't lived inside the beltway for a decade now (and only lived there for four years in the first place, albeit 18-22 are pretty damn formative years), I honestly wouldn't know.  My arguments emanate from an empirical perspective.  It is empirically true that both major pushes to reform the health care system over the last quarter century were countered by a momentous campaign to kill such efforts, which in turn significantly hurt public approval for "Hillarycare" and "Obamacare."  It is empirically true that upon passing the ACA, the GOP used it as a way to defeat a host of Democrats at the congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential level up to and including 2016.  

Most importantly, it is empirically true that the vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary - and those that didn't were primarily divided between those that voted for Trump, and those that voted third party.  Seldom few did not vote at all in the general, which brings me to...

18 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

That is a guaranteed losing formula.  It failed in Wisconsin against Walker, and in Kansas against Brownback. It failed Clinton in the presidential election.  Either the leadership starts changing its ways to align with the base IMMEDIATELY or they suffer catastrophic defeat in the near future.  

First of all, I don't get why you're singling out two gubernatorial races.  How are these especially different than any other gubernatorial races - or even statewide elections?  Anyway, I have a big problem with the bolded.  If the "base" is going to dictate terms to Democratic candidates, then by definition they cease being the Democratic base, because they then cannot be relied upon for support.  Actually, before we started thinking of things in terms of a party or candidate's political base, there was what Fenno referred to as the "primary constituency."  

What that link demonstrates is yes, legislators are more receptive to the characteristics of their constituency.  This means when you're in a safe seat, you tend to cater to your party's base, which helps to explain the connection between elite and mass-level polarization.  Conversely, this also means those in swing districts are not going to cater to the base but rather the general electorate.  

What you're suggesting is exactly why the GOP is so dysfunctional right now that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have become the most powerful people in Washington in spite of the GOP enjoying unified government.  In a two party system, if a party's flank is able to dictate terms, it's very likely those terms are going to be opposed by the majority of the general electorate - rendering single party governance untenable.  

One of the Democratic Party's key advantages is it's mostly populated by reasonable people that can agree to compromise rather than holding intractable positions.  In doing so, it's able to sustain as a big tent party while the GOP becomes populated more and more by old white males that will soon die off.  The bolded suggests you want to tear that all down, which I think would be a terrible mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Erik Prince is speaking at Milo's circle jerk hate rally. That school / college / university is so fucking foolish for letting these white supremacist scumbags come to that school and speak. There is no debate that is going to be had, it's just gonna be more indoctrination and recruitment.

Liberals, centrists, moderates are truly spineless, naive and just flat out foolish. 

So Sword, I am curious- what's your political end game here?

In the past few weeks you've cast aspersions at, liberals, centrist, moderates, conservatives, classical liberals, Sanders and Sanders supporters, "Law and Order white people,"  "Free speech absolutists," cops and cop supporters, the military, Caucasians of various flavors and probably a fair number of other groups.  Even assuming overlap, that doesn't leave much of the population left to put your hopes into or to build a political coalition...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Here's a list of potential 2020 candidates for you all to consider.  Did I leave out anyone important?

While you've since edited since @Triskan's suggestion, I want to emphasize I consider Gillibrand in the "first tier" along with Booker, Castro, Cuomo, Harris, Patrick, Sanders, and Warren.  As for celebrity candidates, I think Cuban and The Rock have a shot in the age of Trump, but I don't see Zuckerberg as viable in a national contest.  His relationship with the bully pulpit would be like a Yakov Smirnoff routine:  "In Soviet Russia, pulpit bullies you."  Anyway, Mike Allen posted a pretty damn comprehensive list of every Democratic possibility a couple weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Recall that it went down in flames in Vermont too. 

Yup:

Quote

Advocates of a “Medicare for all” approach were largely sidelined during the national Obamacare debate. The health law left a private insurance system in place and didn’t even include a weaker “public option” government plan to run alongside more traditional commercial ones.

So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor.

Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.

Also, this - Why Sanders' Single Payer Plan Failed in Vermont

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

 

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Programmer, Internet entrepreneur, co-founded Facebook.  Once an atheist, he has recently mentioned a sort of religious re-discovery, which some take as a hint of political intentions.  Will be 36 in 2020.

(The following is/are edit(s), added after my original post)

 

That's a shame, about 7 years ago I asked the question about whether a Muslim or an (out) atheist would be first to be elected POTUS. Several people speculated that some past presidents were actually closeted atheists (and some hoped that Obama is/was too). Would have been interesting for Zucks to  run as a declared, loud and proud atheist. I suspect he'd probably talk more about being spiritual and not wanting to tie himself to any specific religion, so more just putting himself back in the closet, IMO.

I don't recall how things split, but I must say I was surprised that many people thought it would be harder for an atheist to become POTUS than a Muslim. Not sure that still holds true, if it ever was, post 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't recall how things split, but I must say I was surprised that many people thought it would be harder for an atheist to become POTUS than a Muslim. Not sure that still holds true, if it ever was, post 9/11.

It's pretty much a wash.  I think in the long run an atheist has a better shot than a Muslim.  Religiosity is how faith is actually measured by behavior scholars - many Americans are nominally Christian (or Jewish) but aren't actually practicing in any way.  If a pollster asked me, I'd identify as agnostic if it's an option, and there's a widespread suspicion that that's how a large chunk of respondents actually feel, if not express.  The difference with Islam is a significant portion of the electorate is led to believe the religion is an existential threat.  That's not really the case with atheists, or at least at such a level, especially among younger respondents (meaning under 50).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Who guards the guardians?  Nobody wants a president who does not believe that Somebody is watching the shit he gets up to.

Um, no.  Plenty of people would rather presidents make their own decisions rather than listening to what they think "Somebody" wants.  This was especially the case with Dubya.  I suppose that's one point for Trump - he's a god in his own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I think the word for that is "autocrat".  And yes, some people do want that.

A president making decisions based on her own judgement rather than what she thinks a higher power desires is an autocrat?  Yeah, that's one of the dumbest things you've said, and that's saying something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

It's pretty much a wash.  I think in the long run an atheist has a better shot than a Muslim.  Religiosity is how faith is actually measured by behavior scholars - many Americans are nominally Christian (or Jewish) but aren't actually practicing in any way.  If a pollster asked me, I'd identify as agnostic if it's an option, and there's a widespread suspicion that that's how a large chunk of respondents actually feel, if not express.  The difference with Islam is a significant portion of the electorate is led to believe the religion is an existential threat.  That's not really the case with atheists, or at least at such a level, especially among younger respondents (meaning under 50).

And of course to a non-negligible minority of US folks you've already had a Muslim, foreign-born president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And of course to a non-negligible minority of US folks you've already had a Muslim, foreign-born president.

Ah, those were the days, when he was a strapping young Muslim socialist:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to a news article I read in a swedish paper yesterday, the percent of people in the US self identifying as non-religious has increased from 6% in the nineties to about 25% today. So who knows, in another couple of decades? (The obsession with belief is really strange to me as an outsider though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Triskan said:

A reminder that single-payer was on the ballot in Colorado last year, and it was a big loser.  Recall that it went down in flames in Vermont too. 

Something I would be curious about if anyone knows:  in country's that have implemented single-payer what was their health care system before that implementation?  Did anyone do it when most of their populace already had comprehensive insurance coverage of some kind?  If not that might explain why, beyond also the entrenched special interests, why the US is uniquely unsuited for the move to single-payer.

Most of the European countries that set up universal health care systems did them in the aftermath of World War 2. Canada was similar in that regard, although it wasn't truly a national system of single-payer until decades later (it started with the provinces setting up systems, the federal government giving grants to even things out, etc until the Canada Health Act of 1984). 

At least theoretically, states could try it that way as well - state by state efforts with federal waivers and funding. But in practice, it has just been incredibly hard to sustain - there was a good article from about ten years ago talking about the many, many state-level efforts at universal coverage that failed. 

Under the circumstances, the states' best bets would be to create new state insurance plans funded from state-level taxation, and make them the default insurance for any residents who either don't opt-in to any other plan, or choose to opt-in to the state plan. Normally I'd say just use Medicaid for that, but the odds are very slim that such a state would get a Medicaid waiver from the Trump Administration, and modifying just about anything else - the rules on private insurance, Medicare, veterans spending, etc - requires acts of congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Programmer, Internet entrepreneur, co-founded Facebook.  Once an atheist, he has recently mentioned a sort of religious re-discovery, which some take as a hint of political intentions.  Will be 36 in 2020.

 

Yeah well that sort of disengenuous, gutless, intellectual dishonesty, loses my vote.

I'd love to support a agnostic (or atheist) with a passion for science, a Neal DeGrasse Tyson type. I'm sick to death of seeing U.S. Presidents that deny evolution, deny man made climate change and believe a magical spirit whispers in their ear.

 

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...