Jump to content
DanteGabriel

US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Triskele said:

And to use Zorral's "even people in this thread" stuff is it not a bit weird, not to make it about me, that just talking politics has me pretty hateable now?

This time it is addressed to you.  As you can see from the name in the quote.

Compromise is the name of the game you want to play because some how this will win elections that ultimately will create a better good.

OK, compromise in politics generally means, as I understand it, 'You give me something, and I give you something in return.'  What can we give the rethugs?  More restrictions on women's reproductive rights?  What do we get back?  Shall we make health care ever more expensive and restricted?  What do we get in return?  Do we keep expanding the mass carcel private industry? What do we get back in return?  We leave asylum seekers to rot at the border?  What do we get in return?

Damned if I know.  So, what we've got is not compromise, but appeasement.  We know where where appeasement ends.

The North continuously compromised with the south.  What they finally get in return? Secession and a declaration of war.

When it came to the Secessionists vs the Unionists, what would the Union have gotten in return for letting the Secessionists go?  More slavery, an expansion of slavery and ever more people who qualified as slaves.  That's what we'd have gotten.

Yup.  South started shooting.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So yes, his tactic of showing that he can work with the other side is a tactic. It's also precisely the wrong thing to be trying to do right now, and the specific example of what he did was a horrible example of what to do then, as well. 

I think the reason that I think that it seems wrong that it warrants an apology is because it has too much of a purity test feel to it which makes me uncomfortable, and I am not happy about Biden as the nominee right now.  That's my real objection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Triskele said:

It may have been a tactical blunder, but there was a tactic to it.  

The tactic was idiotic.  Which, well, is Joe.  So yeah, at first I'd be willing to shrug it off.  And if he just said it was a fuck up from the get-go, fine.  But he told Booker to apologize, and acted like a dick about it.

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I am definitely taking it a bit personally which I suspect is visible from space.

Just wanna add to the sentiment that you shouldn't take it personally at all.  These arguments need to be played out.  I know maybe I was too aggressive in the last one, but heated debates are a part of the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, DMC said:

Aye.  I think the public option is the next step, which basically is the least offensive version of "Medicare for All."

Yeah, I'm surprised that the public option hasn't had more play by the front runners in the primary ( but I think that might be a product of it being a primary as opposed to being a general election). I think Klobuchar is the only one pushing for it? *IF* democrats take the 2020 election, I wonder if  we see whoever becomes president to switch from 'Medicare for all' to Medicare at 50/ public option after elected given the realities of passing legislation like the former. 

The choice between keeping private insurance versus not is an interesting debate, especially as there are ways to get to universal coverage whilst keeping private insurance intact ( See the German system, but that is *very* far from the private system in the US)

There are also plenty of other ways to try and reduce cost within the healthcare system, which could be implemented in the meantime; allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices & carry out cost effectiveness analysis on treatments would be an excellent start. It's astounding to me that the latter is explicitly prohibited by law ( Both of which the NHS explicitly does)

If anyone is interested in this stuff, I'd recommend reading through the CBO analysis on single-payer systems & proposals such as medicare at 50. They're quite informative and essential reading, imo!

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about minority rights started with immigration. Taking a more hard line on immigration, which I believe is what Triskele was talking about, is not inherently racist it's not reducing minority's to admit less people to America. Our current quotas were not handed down by God they can change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Damned if I know.  So, what we've got is not compromise, but appeasement.  We know where where appeasement ends.

The North continuously compromised with the south.  What they finally get in return? Secession and a declaration of war.

When it came to the Secessionists vs the Unionists, what would the Union have gotten in return for letting the Secessionists go?  More slavery, an expansion of slavery and ever more people who qualified as slaves.  That's what we'd have gotten.

Yup.  South started shooting.

For the record, I don't think this an apt comparison.  This is not the the Civil War or the 36th parallel and all that preceded it.  It is a rural v urban divide now.  Then, it was still that too kinda, but it was a distinct North v South divide that could, well, easily materialize into war as it did.  That's not really plausible this time.  There's people in every state virulently on either side (k, maybe not Wyoming or Vermont).  So, I don't think evoking when the confederates started some shit at Fort Sumter is particularly useful.

12 minutes ago, Raja said:

Yeah, I'm surprised that the public option hasn't had more play by the front runners in the primary

We'll see.  It's still early, plenty of time for it to become a thing.  I expect if you woke up 6 months from now, you wouldn't be so surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I think the reason that I think that it seems wrong that it warrants an apology is because it has too much of a purity test feel to it which makes me uncomfortable, and I am not happy about Biden as the nominee right now.  That's my real objection.  

Biden's main problem, in this particular instance, is seemingly two-fold:

1) He seems to be saying that compromise, in an of itself, is a laudable goal no matter what it is you are compromising over. I don't think it's a purity test to explain why this might be a bad hill to die on; some things are worthy of compromise, other things are not. I'll leave you to judge whether you think Biden's example of compromise (which, it has to be said, was not with a Republican but another Democrat) is a worthwhile one. I don't.

2) Biden's brain seems to be perpetually stuck in some pre-2008 land, one where compromise with sane Republicans was both a possible and worthwhile endeavor at times. Unfortunately for Biden, we can look back and see that the Republicans were not at all interested in compromise then and certainly aren't now. When they controlled all the levers of power 2017-2018, how many times did they reach across the aisle to compromise on legislation? How many times did they instead rely on legislative tricks (ie reconciliation) in order to pass their grotesque bills? Sure, they whined about "Democratic obstructionism" but that was all gaslighting in order to cover up the fact that not 100% of them were on board with being fucking monsters.

So, personally, I think Biden is 100% wrong on both of these counts, full stop. Compromise is a nice-sounding idea, but not when you're dealing with pro-Segragationists and today's GOP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Thank you.  I do appreciate this.  I am definitely taking it a bit personally which I suspect is visible from space.  

You've always been super measured and someone who never (at least in my experience) makes things personal. I can see why this kind of stuff bugs you.

Of everyone around here, I think you're someone who hasn't made up their mind, and you're weighing options. I think to many around here, you have a lot of our respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
1
3 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Of everyone around here, I think you're someone who hasn't made up their mind, and you're weighing options. I think to many around here, you have a lot of our respect.

I don't know about that... I'm just a coward that doesn't want to get on the bad side of a pro-2nd Amendment monkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Durckad said:

 I don't know about that... I'm just a coward that doesn't want to get on the bad side of a pro-2nd Amendment monkey.

Look, Trisk has been pointing his gun at us for a long time now. You'll get used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DMC said:

For the record, I don't think this an apt comparison.  This is not the the Civil War or the 36th parallel and all that preceded it.  It is a rural v urban divide now.

Of which I am thoroughly aware -- which will make it even worse. But it won't stop the guns going off.  Hell, like in Missouri from 1855 or so, they were already doing before Secession and declaration.

Nor does that change that there is no compromise for there is nothing They compromise on.  They demand and blame, expect roll over, and whine and play victim when roll over doesn't happen, and protest and push back occurs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Nor does that change that there is no compromise for there is nothing They compromise on.  They demand and blame, expect roll over, and whine and play victim when roll over doesn't happen, and protest and push back occurs.

I agree here.  I just don't see the need - and don't envision - violence being played out.  Posse Comitatus and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Edit: Nevermind

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find myself wondering...during the midterms, at least three senatorial contests - the ones that gave the republicans their current majority - came right down to the wire, as in recounts and lawsuit territory.  Even with a whole sackful of dirty tricks, they came close to losing those contests.  They did lose others at the national and state level.  Even with the current SC ruling, republicans are basically in a losing fight.  

 

So...get voters motivated enough, perhaps there is a realistic chance of the democratic party eeking out a razor thin senate majority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zorral said:

This time it is addressed to you.  As you can see from the name in the quote.

Compromise is the name of the game you want to play because some how this will win elections that ultimately will create a better good.

OK, compromise in politics generally means, as I understand it, 'You give me something, and I give you something in return.'  What can we give the rethugs?  More restrictions on women's reproductive rights?  What do we get back?  Shall we make health care ever more expensive and restricted?  What do we get in return?  Do we keep expanding the mass carcel private industry? What do we get back in return?  We all asylum seekers to rot at the border?  What do we get in return?

When it came to the Secessionists vs the Unionists, what would they have gotten in return for letting the Secessionists go?  More slavery, an expansion of slavery and ever more people who qualified as slaves.

Yup.  They started shooting.

 

Who are you arguing with?  In your cups a bit on this one (not that I haven't been there myself)?

You guys keep arguing with me as if I'm a Republican for the crime of wondering if we could crush Trump by angling slightly different on one issue even though I didn't even articulate how I'd angle.  Or something.   I have absolutely no idea what we're even talking about.  

 

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

The thing about minority rights started with immigration. Taking a more hard line on immigration, which I believe is what Triskele was talking about, is not inherently racist it's not reducing minority's to admit less people to America. Our current quotas were not handed down by God they can change. 

Thanks, man.  But what are you willing to sacrifice to not be a horrible person forever for the internet?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, can anyone explain why there’s is this belief that most people actually like their private insurance and not simply they like having insurance more than nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

sorry, can anyone explain why there’s is this belief that most people actually like their private insurance and not simply they like having insurance more than nothing?

Uh, sure.  A lot of people like their insurance.  A lot of that insurance is private, or at least not entirely funded by the government.  Therefore, a lot of people like the idea of private insurance and are subsequently reticent if you say you're gonna take that away.  What about that doesn't make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, sure.  A lot of people like their insurance.  A lot of that insurance is private, or at least not entirely funded by the government.  Therefore, a lot of people like the idea of private insurance and are subsequently reticent if you say you're gonna take that away.  What about that doesn't make sense?

 

9 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

sorry, can anyone explain why there’s is this belief that most people actually like their private insurance and not simply they like having insurance more than nothing

 

Share this post


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

×