U.S. politics. thread

[Week]

Question @Altherion -

https://gizmodo.com/texas-lawmaker-completely-unconcerned-about-measles-epi-1832919951?

Quote

Texas state Representative Bill Zedler doesn’t understand the fuss over the resurgence of infectious diseases. “When I grew up, I had a lot of these illnesses,” he said, listing measles, mumps and chickenpox. “They wanted me to stay at home. But as far as being sick in bed, it wasn’t anything like that”...

... “They want to say people are dying of measles. Yeah, in third-world countries they’re dying of measles,” Zedler said, shaking his head. “Today, with antibiotics and that kind of stuff, they’re not dying in America.”

Word to Zedler: Measles is a virus. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections. There is no prescription medication to treat measles, which Healthline notes can weaken the immune system and invite everything from ear infections to potentially lethal pneumonia. It can also spread to the brain, causing encephalitis. But one can prevent contracting said virus by getting the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which the CDC says is 97 percent effective with the recommended two doses.

Should we be listening to the (so-called) Experts that on the importance of measles vaccinations to prevent the spread of a deadly childhood virus or the right-wing lawmaker that rejects the ivory tower analysis, advice, and programs to curb the virus due to the efficacy of antibiotics against viruses (there is none)?

This is what happens when you overstate and abet the anti-intellectualism and general public's mistrust of experts. It's extremely dangerous.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps what we need is just the threat of expanding the court, so Robert and the conservatives on it, won't attempt to make Lochner Great Again or doing something like overturning Roe.

I think Roberts is horrified at what’s happening, and that, combined with his desire to protect the court’s legacy, will lead him to vote quite differently than he otherwise would. I also think Gorsuch will surprise us in a positive way from time to time. I actually don’t have a huge issue with him personally, it was just the process that was a disgrace. Kavanaugh, OTOH, is a political hatchet man and does not belong on the bench. That said, based on what Fez said above, I wonder if he’s ashamed/embarrassed about what’s happened since he was nominated? If so, it could lead him to also behave in unpredictable ways. I know most people here don’t like these three actors, and strongly disagree with their worldviews, but I do believe they do care about this country, and anyone who cares about this country has to realize that Trump and Trumpism is a threat to it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Wow. He essentially told the Republicans they're all liars, and to not be like him protecting Trump at all costs.

I doubt they're bright enough to heed the warning.

While both sides have already decided how they were going to feel about today, I have to say, Cohen is doing quite well.  

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

While both sides have already decided how they were going to feel about today, I have to say, Cohen is doing quite well.  

I won't be able to stomach listening to all of it, of course. Or have the time -- it's going to be at least 8 hours.

But while doing daily tasks I can listen, while I work out I can listen.  Hearing these horrible excuses for human beings is unbearable -- their vomitus hypocritical LYING outraged virtue -- but I am an historian so I cannot stay away from this.  This could be a turning point -- though I'll be damned if I could say turning point of what.

Really can anyone stomach this crap the rethugs drumbeat in terms of Cohen's behavior when the cancerous orange wart has done all the same? AND SO HAVE THEY.

The voices and their appearance -- I will have to check this out on CNN or one of the other many video sources broadcasting this too -- provide huge amounts of information as to who this cancerous super-glued tumor really is to any intelligent observer.

Standing up to that kind of shrieking, shrill relentless bullying for hours and hours does provide a sort of admiration for the victim too -- and what is that saying?

Moreover, he's been testifying in one way or another for months -- plus yesterday's closed testifying.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

Question @Altherion -

https://gizmodo.com/texas-lawmaker-completely-unconcerned-about-measles-epi-1832919951?

Should we be listening to the (so-called) Experts that on the importance of measles vaccinations to prevent the spread of a deadly childhood virus or the right-wing lawmaker that rejects the ivory tower analysis, advice, and programs to curb the virus due to the efficacy of antibiotics against viruses (there is none)?

This is what happens when you overstate and abet the anti-intellectualism and general public's mistrust of experts. It's extremely dangerous.

This stuff doesn't happen from people like altherion pointing out that these ignorant idiots exist.   I agree it's terrible and this guy looks like the fool he is.  But pretending he's going to be swayed to change his mind by anything other than a pile of dead kids is probably not going to happen.  

[Zorral]

It's of deep interest, the matters in the questioning on which Cohen says he cannot speak -- all of which deal with the cancerous orange wart and his family and their actions --  because they are ongoing investigations in the federal offices of the state of New York. Others on which he can't speak include some aspects of the Russian investigation with Mueller., and are still under sealed testimony, or were dealt with behind closed doors yesterday.

[OldGimletEye]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think Roberts is horrified at what’s happening, and that, combined with his desire to protect the court’s legacy, will lead him to vote quite differently than he otherwise would.

That maybe true. But, I think he needs a both a warning and a message, which is: "We'll be watching you." And also, "fuck us over, and we will fuck you over right back. Don't think so? Then try us."

Let's just hope he is the type of person that can take a hint.

 

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think Roberts is horrified at what’s happening, and that, combined with his desire to protect the court’s legacy, will lead him to vote quite differently than he otherwise would. I also think Gorsuch will surprise us in a positive way from time to time. I actually don’t have a huge issue with him personally, it was just the process that was a disgrace. Kavanaugh, OTOH, is a political hatchet man and does not belong on the bench. That said, based on what Fez said above, I wonder if he’s ashamed/embarrassed about what’s happened since he was nominated? If so, it could lead him to also behave in unpredictable ways. I know most people here don’t like these three actors, and strongly disagree with their worldviews, but I do believe they do care about this country, and anyone who cares about this country has to realize that Trump and Trumpism is a threat to it.

I think:

Roberts is/was quite conservative, but was never quite as much as the others (see, ACA in 2012). He wants to protect the court's legacy and not have it be a totally partisan institution. Related to that, he also sees the importance of there being a true swing justice to keep the lawyers arguing cases honest. And he may also be actually moving leftward on some issues, which happens to most SCOTUS judges over time (even Scalia did, but he started so rightward that the change was barely noticeable).

Gorsuch is extremely conservative, but at least seems honest about it. And on the rare times when his legal views lead to non-Republican outcomes, like the immigration case last year, he seems to stick with his principles. That at least makes him better than Alito, who (just like Scalia used to do) clearly starts with his preferred outcome and works backwards from there to figure out how to justify it; and better than Thomas who has outrageous views about the law.

Kavanaugh is just hard to read. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories about Roberts having dirt on Kavanaugh, because there's no dirt to have. Everyone knows about the allegations and the laws around judicial misconduct literally do not apply to SCOTUS judges. He could be trying to repair his reputation, but that seems strange; just by being on the court he's a hero to the right and it doesn't matter if the left doesn't like him. It could also be that he really was just a political hatchet man and never cared about ideology, and now that there's no incentive to be a hatchet man anymore he's going to be rather unpredictable. Or it could be that he just isn't that conservative on the death penalty or abortion (which are the only areas he's broken with so far) and there simply wasn't the judicial record for the Federalist Society to know that (and it's important not to overstate things, he has also sided with the conservatives on some abortion and death penalty cases since being confirmed).

[DMC]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I think you guys are mostly just not hearing what @Altherion is saying here because of who is saying it:

it doesn't matter what the science or data says if people distrust it.  Global warming is a great example, and so are sexual assault and hate crimes.  The right, despite whatever statistics you show them, believes that global warming either doesn't exist or has nothing to do with human behavior, that sexual assault is less common than you think and false accusations are widespread, and that hate crimes are similarly rare and often faked.

Like I said to Altherion, the problem isn't him saying this - generally obviously that's true.  It's that he thinks it's a good thing, or as he clarified not "unequivocally" a good thing because there is some "good" science.  It's just "good" science seems to only be the evidence Altherion disagrees with while any he disagrees with is "bad" science.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

@DMC

Because I don’t want to keep dumping gasoline on a dumpster fire? I want to undo Trumpism, not entrench it. If you pack the bench, you’ll make things worse. My fear is a repacking after the initial packing with the goal of making elections less competitive.

You want to undo Trumpism?  Good luck.  Trump didn't cause "Trumpism," it's a consistent trend that's been pretty damn linear in terms of getting worse.  Thinking not packing the court if you have the opportunity is going to somehow help stop it is just naive.  And, logically, it'd be like saying Obama shouldn't have passed the ACA because of the way the GOP was going to react.  And you fear packing the court will lead to making elections less competitive?  Like the court aiding the GOP's efforts in voter suppression?  Like gutting the VRA in Shelby v Holder, which they did 6 years ago?  Where've you been?

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And what happens after that? The logical conclusion is that Republicans, once they regain power, continue the expansion with the goal of making elections less fair. We have to win at the ballot box, not rely on gimmicks that will lead to the degradation of the Republic.   

There is no "logical" conclusion to anything.  You seem to be under the impression that the Dems pack the courts, the GOP responds by packing the courts more (it's very difficult to decrease the number of justices, especially with an aimed political effect), and then it's done and the GOP miraculously has the advantage for ever and ever.  There is no absolutely no logical reason to think this will be the "conclusion," nor that there will be a conclusion at all.

Also, packing the court isn't a "gimmick," and it's actually a very good idea in theory - even if the expansion was, like, legally required to be bipartisan (e.g. two new justices each every two years, one appointed by one party and the other by the other).  I linked to this article before, but it doesn't seem like you read it.  You really should.  There are a wide variety of benefits to grossly expanding the court that have nothing to do with which party gets to appoint the first new ones.  When you're able to change the status quo, and that change would be beneficial theoretically, normatively, practically, and politically, there's literally no reason not to do so.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

However, likely Democratic voters are less likely to vote and more likely to punish their party than Republicans.

This sentence is inherently nonsensical.  Likely voters are less likely to vote?  Um, what?  Do you mean the Dems have more potential voters and those potential voters are less likely to vote?  Ok, sure.  But they're not "punishing" their party when they don't show up.  They just disengage.  And again, this idea that packing the court would somehow trigger a wave of voter suppression seems like you just had a bunch of harmful GOP issues on a dart board and that's the one you hit.  Sure, a court that rubber stamps everything the GOP does is very worrisome.  That's the fucking basis for why people want to pack the court!!!

[Martell Spy]

52 minutes ago, Week said:

Question @Altherion -

https://gizmodo.com/texas-lawmaker-completely-unconcerned-about-measles-epi-1832919951?

Should we be listening to the (so-called) Experts that on the importance of measles vaccinations to prevent the spread of a deadly childhood virus or the right-wing lawmaker that rejects the ivory tower analysis, advice, and programs to curb the virus due to the efficacy of antibiotics against viruses (there is none)?

This is what happens when you overstate and abet the anti-intellectualism and general public's mistrust of experts. It's extremely dangerous.

Yeah, there is a measles outbreak in Washington state right now. Some dude with measles went to a basketball game at a school where a friend of mine teaches. So this really hits close to home.

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

 It's that he thinks it's a good thing, or as he clarified not "unequivocally" a good thing because there is some "good" science.  It's just "good" science seems to only be the evidence Altherion disagrees with while any he disagrees with is "bad" science.

Yeah it basically comes down to him making the very *broad* assertion that all theories and empirical evidence in support thereof are useless junk, unless you know he has a theory he'd like to advance along with empirical evidence in thereof to support it, in which case, then evidently that's good to go.

[Week]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This stuff doesn't happen from people like altherion pointing out that these ignorant idiots exist.   I agree it's terrible and this guy looks like the fool he is.  But pretending he's going to be swayed to change his mind by anything other than a pile of dead kids is probably not going to happen.  

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Like I said to Altherion, the problem isn't him saying this - generally obviously that's true.  It's that he thinks it's a good thing, or as he clarified not "unequivocally" a good thing because there is some "good" science.  It's just "good" science seems to only be the evidence Altherion disagrees with while any he disagrees with is "bad" science.

To Larry, I think we agree -- the issue is what DMC says above and then leads to stories like the one I linked in Texas and the outbreaks of measles in Washington, California, Minnesota, etc. [I realize not all these situations are identical however the point stands -- while there are those on both sides that reject science and experts it is the norm on the Right.]

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This stuff doesn't happen from people like altherion pointing out that these ignorant idiots exist.   I agree it's terrible and this guy looks like the fool he is.  But pretending he's going to be swayed to change his mind by anything other than a pile of dead kids is probably not going to happen.  

Honestly I dont think even dead kids will sway the typical ant-vaxxer at this point. I mean in this day in age its not especially hard to find stories of kids who weren't vaccinated dying or causing others to die. The anti-vaxxer movement is still noticeble.

[Lollygag]

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also Sanders commits a massive and easily avoidable blunder in his Towbhall meeting yesterday.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-no-to-americans-who-want-to-keep-private-insurance-under-medicare-for-all.amp

Seriously, he could have easily learned from Harris’ little slip and said he’s for Medicare for all along with a secondary private Healthcare system.

This is actually a small part of a larger problem emerging with Sanders.

In the case with socialism as with a lot of economic systems, there are a lot of examples of when they work quite well along with examples of when they're disastrous. So the devil is in the details and broad categorizations of systems being always good or always bad aren't accurate to the observable results. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636\

The pattern starting to emerge is that Bernie is looking like he's holding up socialism as always good regardless of the actual results. In other words, it's starting to look like he's not qualifying the effectiveness of specific plans and policies, but leading with "x proposal is socialism, socialism is always good, thus x must necessarily be good." Saying no to private insurance despite the popularity of keeping it points to this view. If this view of socialism as always best despite the results or public opinion is actually his belief, he has a huge problem. If it's not, he needs to clarify ASAP.

[OldGimletEye]

20 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

This is actually a small part of a larger problem emerging with Sanders.

In the case with socialism as with a lot of economic systems, there are a lot of examples of when they work quite well along with examples of when they're disastrous. So the devil is in the details and broad categorizations of systems being always good or always bad aren't accurate to the observable results. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636\

The pattern starting to emerge is that Bernie is looking like he's holding up socialism as always good regardless of the actual results. In other words, it's starting to look like he's not qualifying the effectiveness of specific plans and policies, but leading with "x proposal is socialism, socialism is always good, thus x must necessarily be good." Saying no too private insurance despite the popularity of keeping it points to this view. If this view of socialism as always best despite the results or public opinion is actually his belief, he has a huge problem. If it's not, he needs to clarify ASAP.

I think the real issue is that the employer sponsored system of healthcare sucks. Neither left leaning or right leaning healthcare policy wonks really like it, for good reasons. Of course, how they would go about replacing it differs obviously.It pretty much got put into place because of a historical accident.

There are good policy reasons to ditch employer sponsored healthcare. I really dislike it. Sanders isn't exactly wrong that single payer could lower cost, which is the biggest issue the US faces with regard to it's healthcare system, without getting much in return for it. And I wouldn't shed many tears to see employer sponsored healthcare go the way of the dinosaur.

That said, it is politically dicey to just get rid of the employer sponsored system overnight. And if Democrats get rid of employer sponsored care overnight, they are likely to get a big backlash over it. They need to go slowly on this. Concentrate first on getting universal coverage and then finding ways to make the system more cost efficient. Work on killing the employer sponsored system overtime.

[OldGimletEye]

Also, I'll just go ahead and note that Sander's plan,  while leaving out some details, is sure in the hell a lot more specific than Trump's healthcare plan ever was. And it is certainly a hell of lot more viable than "across state lines" nonsense.

[Lollygag]

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think the real issue is that the employer sponsored system of healthcare sucks. Neither left leaning or right leaning healthcare policy wonks really like it, for good reasons. Of course, how they would go about replacing it differs obviously.It pretty much got put into place because of a historical accident.

There are good policy reasons to ditch employer sponsored healthcare. I really dislike it. Sanders isn't exactly wrong that single payer could lower cost, which is the biggest issue the US faces with regard to it's healthcare system, without getting much in return for it. And I wouldn't shed many tears to see employer sponsored healthcare go the way of the dinosaur.

That said, it is politically dicey to just get rid of the employer sponsored system overnight. And if Democrats get rid of employer sponsored care overnight, they are likely to get a big backlash over it. They need to go slowly on this. Concentrate first on getting universal coverage and then finding ways to make the system more cost efficient. Work on killing the employer sponsored system overtime.

Stupid forum ate my reply yet again. 

Short version:

Agree on the private health care industry, given it looks structured to keep folks on just this side of bankruptcy especially in the case with more enduring illnesses and injuries.

But it's his positions on private insurance despite the popularity and Maduro which raise major red flags as to just what he's about. These aren't positions I would expect from someone who calls himself a Democratic socialist. 

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Maduro which raise major red flags as to just what he's about. These aren't positions I would expect from someone who calls himself a Democratic socialist. 

Sorry, I'm lost here. What does Maduro have to do with this?

I get the argument that replacing everyone's employer sponsored care overnight, carries some big political risk for Democrats. But, I don't get what Maduro has to do with it.

[Lollygag]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Sorry, I'm lost here. What does Maduro have to do with this?

I get the argument that replacing everyone's employer sponsored care overnight, carries some big political risk for Democrats. But, I don't get what Maduro has to do with it.

The connection is in my original post, last paragraph. 

[OldGimletEye]

18 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The connection is in my original post, last paragraph. 

Well it is still not clear to me, what Maduro has to do with this.

The article you cited talked about single payer healthcare. It didn't say anything about socialism in general.

Of course, a lot of this depends on how you want to define "socialism". Pick a definition. Think hard. Because once you pick one, I won't let you change it.

Sanders certainly believes in more government involvement in the economy. But, he really isn't a socialist in the Marxist tradition, if we are talking about getting rid of the private ownership of capital. He really is more of Cambridge Keynesian in his thought. That certainly is where he typically gets his policy advisers from.

Anyway, throwing up the socialism charge against single payer or universal healthcare, in general, is pretty lame and it's usually an attempt by conservatives to avoid having a debate on the technocratic merits of such proposals. It's kind of like  when several years back George Will tried to make the argument that what the FED was doing with interest rates was "Central Planning". Well, you know, that's fine and all if Will has that take, but I think most people really don't give a rat's ass whether it is "central planning" or not. What they were interested in was ending the Great Recession. And as technocratic matter, Will was just wrong, whether or not what the FED was doing was doing "central planning", which most people likely just don't give a fuck about.

Finally, Sanders might be wrong on the politics regarding single payer. But, he isn't out in left field on the policy.