US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Typical politicians stuff has gotten us to the point where people were willing to seriously consider any alternative. Be grateful that we wound up with one who is not remaking the overall system -- this might not be the case next time around and it usually ends badly.

You were all for Trump. Hard to see you say this now.

[Kalbear]

As to systems that are better, the obvious answer is parliamentary systems with built in multiparty support structures and no elected executive. They have significantly more checks and balances, require a majority coalition to function at all, allow more fluid parties and less direct democratic decisions while maintaining democratic accountability. 

[Lollygag]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well except promised to do a lot more than just build wall. He talked about healthcare reform, talked about making America Great Again, whatever, that meant,  and seemingly got some people to vote for him because of his awesome business man experience. You know the whole "run the country like business" shtick that some people always fall for. 

I'm not really buying what your selling here. Trump pretty much proved you can get elected by having a program that has no basis in reality or where you have no idea what you are doing.

Given this, I'm not sure why Democrats would feel the need to write about 50 white papers concerning their plans, to allay the fears of "centrist", who seemingly didn't ask a lot of penetrating questions when Trump ran for president. 

I said nothing about "50 white papers concerning their plans". Not at all. I asked them to come up with an actual plan and flesh them out leaving us with more than blind faith. Don't mischaracterize what I said. 

What he promised was tearing it all down and putting it back the way it was. He was selling this lost golden image of what was. Comparing completely rearranging healthcare, possibly eliminating privatized health care, and then moving to a free college education involves so much detail and entails so many moving parts (hence why it's not been done yet and no one can come up a real plan), that they're not comparable at all. 

https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

If you want to actually win, you touch on as many different demographics as you can, not just the single lowest common denominator. It's leaving too much to chance. Which is why Ds need to up their game and not take lazy risks based on poorly thought out assumptions especially when the stakes are so high. 

I can't believe this is the case you're actually making as a strategy.

[Lollygag]

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, voters looked at Trump and thought he would handle things seriously and with deliberation. 

Yeah, my point is that if Ds actually want to win and also go left, they need to step it up. If beating Trump is so important, it's strategically idiotic to just go for the lowest common denominator. 

And if your main target is the Trump voter, then by all means try the Trump strategy with them.

It makes no sense to give up on the Trump voter and hope the Trump voter strategy will work on those who not only didn't vote for him, but hate him. Good idea. 

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Yeah, my point is that if Ds actually want to win and also go left, they need to step it up. If beating Trump is so important, it's strategically idiotic to just go for the lowest common denominator. 

Who says they are?

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

And if your main target is the Trump voter, then by all means try the Trump strategy with them.

Dems aren't any more inoculated. Sanders policy were horrible and still are. Obama ran on hope and change. 

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

It makes no sense to give up on the Trump voter and hope the Trump voter strategy will work on those who not only didn't vote for him, but hate him. Good idea. 

 

Can you point out the trump voters who will also be swayed with REALLY GOOD policy? Because otherwise your argument is more random bullshit. 

[Lollygag]

47 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Across state lines. It will be something wonderful. Yeah, a lot details in those. 

I'll make American Great Again. I'm sure lot of deep though went into that too.

You're intentionally bypassing my point that the Ds need to demonstrate some knowledge of what they're doing if you want to be sure to win against Trump.

Show me how you can be sure to win against Trump by appealing only to the lowest common denominator Trump voter which happens to the be voters Ds aren't even going for.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

You're intentionally bypassing my point that the Ds need to demonstrate some knowledge of what they're doing if you want to be sure to win against Trump.

There is no "be sure" against an incumbent. And the potus who have won against incumbent did not particularly appeal to policy wonkiness. Clinton certainly didn't. 

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Show me how you can be sure to win against Trump by appealing only to the lowest common denominator Trump voter which happens to the be voters Ds aren't even going for.

 

Since no one is arguing that, why should we? Show me how having great policy makes you sure to win. 

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You're intentionally bypassing my point that the Ds need to demonstrate some knowledge of what they're doing if you want to be sure to win against Trump.

Show me how you can be sure to win against Trump by appealing only to the lowest common denominator Trump voter which happens to the be voters Ds aren't even going for.

 

And your intentionally avoiding my question, which is to wit:

Why do all these centrist demand this display of technocratic competence from Democrats, but could care less where Trump is concerned, or even the Republican Party?

[Altherion]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You were all for Trump. Hard to see you say this now.

I was not "all for Trump", I simply thought that there's a small chance of something good with him which is better than the non-existent one with the alternative. I've grown more pessimistic over the past couple of years -- not only did the small chance fail to pan out, but both the Democrats and the Republicans have become even worse than they were before (albeit in different ways).

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You're intentionally bypassing my point that the Ds need to demonstrate some knowledge of what they're doing if you want to be sure to win against Trump.

The Democratic Party last time it had power got things like Dodd Frank, the ACA, and other things done.

What in the hell has Trump and the Republican Party got done, except for its sorry ass tax cut?

Is there even a question of which party is more competent? Seriously?

How does one listen to Trump ramble on for 5 minutes and thinks this even close? Really?

This comes off more like some sorry ass conservative concern trolling, than it does from a serious person who might be a centrist.

Democrats sure in the hell have more knowledge about what they are doing, than Trump does. They aren't completely clueless about this stuff. The sorry state of American healthcare isn't exactly a secret, except among centrist. Nor is the threat of climate change.

[Martell Spy]

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I was not "all for Trump", I simply thought that there's a small chance of something good with him which is better than the non-existent one with the alternative. I've grown more pessimistic over the past couple of years -- not only did the small chance fail to pan out, but both the Democrats and the Republicans have become even worse than they were before (albeit in different ways).

Dude, you've been pimping for Trump for years, we've all seen that and you own it. You really need to change your screen name if you want us to forget it. And the "good" that came from it was children in cages. And you own that as well. 

If you just voted for Trump, that would be fairly bad. But many of us have watched you spend many hundreds of hours supporting Trump on this board. I personally assume you wanted those children in cages, much like Miller. And hopefully you are an atheist, because if there is a Hell you are totally going there. 

[OldGimletEye]

Here is what a lot so called centrist come off as:

Trump:

I'm going to make America Great Again (nobody has any clue what this means)

We have a huge immigration problem (we really don't)

I'm going to fix healthcare (evidently with a combination of across state lines and fairy dust).

My corporate tax cut is going produce all this awesome growth (and here go again with supply side horseshit. And it produced deficits)

So called Centrist: Nada, nothing zilch. Complete silence. Can ya hear the crickets?

Democrats:

We need single payer healthcare. That is simplest and cheapest way to get universal coverage.( which has basis in reality)

We need a green deal, to combat climate change (because really its a problem)

So called Centrist: Whoa, Whoa slow down. That sounds really radical. We have lots questions!

[OldGimletEye]

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I said nothing about "50 white papers concerning their plans". Not at all. I asked them to come up with an actual plan and flesh them out leaving us with more than blind faith. Don't mischaracterize what I said. 

And if they don't, what are going to do, vote Republican because of their realistic plans?

Let me ask you, between the two parties, which one you think is really more capable of getting shit done? Seriously?

[OldGimletEye]

51 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 Don't mischaracterize what I said. 

I don't think I mischaracterized what you said.

I think the upshot here is if the Democrats don't have fleshed plans, centrist will just have no choice to vote Republican,  even if the Republicans aren't real good at fleshing out their plans. They only had about 8 years to come up with an alternative to the ACA, which everyone hated.

[OldGimletEye]

Would it be nice if both parties had well detailed plans during the elections cycle? Yes it would. It certainly would make our politics better, I should think.

But, neither party does that. And suddenly demanding the Democrats do that, while evidently giving the Republican Party a free pass, is absurd.

Take corporate tax cuts. That is something the Republican truly cared about and wanted for decades. But yet before the legislation went through, they didn't have any detailed plans about it. There was quite a bit of haggling and discussion about it before it got passed. That's how things work.

[KingintheNorth4]

24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Here is what a lot so called centrist come off as:

Trump:

I'm going to make America Great Again (nobody has any clue what this means)

We have a huge immigration problem (we really don't)

I'm going to fix healthcare (evidently with a combination of across state lines and fairy dust).

My corporate tax cut is going produce all this awesome growth (and here go again with supply side horseshit. And it produced deficits)

So called Centrist: Nada, nothing zilch. Complete silence. Can ya hear the crickets?

Democrats:

We need single payer healthcare. That is simplest and cheapest way to get universal coverage.( which has basis in reality)

We need a green deal, to combat climate change (because really its a problem)

So called Centrist: Whoa, Whoa slow down. That sounds really radical. We have lots questions!

The Dems need more progressives like Ro Khanna and AOC.

[Relic]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

I was not "all for Trump",

Uh, yeah you were.

[S John]

This is a little bit meta and absolutely not aimed at anyone at all, but I hate the word ‘wonk’.  

Seems exclusively used in the context of a ‘policy wonk’ and if anyone ever described themselves to me as that, I would have to suppress an urge to punch that person in the face, even though they would have already figuratively punched themselves in the face by thinking that was a cool thing to say.  I would be successful against that urge, but it would be there.

[Larry of the Lawn]

34 minutes ago, S John said:

This is a little bit meta and absolutely not aimed at anyone at all, but I hate the word ‘wonk’.  

Seems exclusively used in the context of a ‘policy wonk’ and if anyone ever described themselves to me as that, I would have to suppress an urge to punch that person in the face, even though they would have already figuratively punched themselves in the face by thinking that was a cool thing to say.  I would be successful against that urge, but it would be there.

On that tangent, the word in that context has always seemed wrong to me; I'm used to hearing "wonky" and have it mean "out of alignment" "off-center" "unbalanced" or "poorly constructed." So the connotation is almost opposite what I'd expect.  

Should probably just start calling them policy wooks instead.

[The Marquis de Leech]

56 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

On that tangent, the word in that context has always seemed wrong to me; I'm used to hearing "wonky" and have it mean "out of alignment" "off-center" "unbalanced" or "poorly constructed." So the connotation is almost opposite what I'd expect.  

Should probably just start calling them policy wooks instead.

It's only a short step from there to policy wookiees.