US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP

[Zorral]

22 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

If honesty in political figures is unattainable, than why would any disenfranchised voters come out for the next Dem?

That's what I said.  But since the TVillain & Criminal, Sadistic, Depraved rethugs lie every time they open their mouths or put their fingers on a keyboard, it seems that there are people, even on this forum, who thinks we should too.

Anyway, the virtues are worthwhile and worthy traits to attempt living up to.  The thing is, whereas many of us know this, and will try, while knowing we are certainly failing or going to fail, at least half the time -- those others openly sneer at the very idea of virtue -- though, of course, like the Brit ruling classes, they still heartily are convinced that the have-nots are to be virtuous, and be so all time. Virtue for the poor, murder and pillage with impunity as the privilege and right of the rich.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That's what I said.  But since the TVillain & Criminal, Sadistic, Depraved rethugs lie every time they open their mouths or put their fingers on a keyboard, it seems that there are people, even on this forum, who thinks we should too.

Anyway, the virtues are worthwhile and worthy traits to attempt living up to.  The thing is, whereas many of us know this, and will try, while knowing we are certainly failing or going to fail, at least half the time -- those others openly sneer at the very idea of virtue -- though, of course, like the Brit ruling classes, they still heartily are convinced that the have-nots are to be virtuous, and be so all time. Virtue for the poor, murder and pillage with impunity as the privilege and right of the rich.

I know, I was agreeing with you! Politics is one of the few areas where we seek virtue is sneered at. If I said I wanted virtue in educators, no one would sneer. But this is perfectly aligned with your point (about the have nots) as educators are often have nots in this country. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Look, I'm not saying sing this shit from the rooftops.   But if a reporter asks a candidate if undocumented immigrants would be covered be honest but tactful "anyone that seeks medical treatment here will be covered".  Don't have to put it up on the marquee.  But this week it's this.  In a month it'll be "how much do we softstep on birth control" or who knows what else 

I think you have to say it the other way.

"Undocumented immigrants already do get healthcare from our system - usually via emergency room at massive costs to you, the taxpayer. This already happens by our laws. This is the system Republicans want - to underinsure or uninsure millions, forcing them to go to Emergency rooms just to get a shot of insulin or treat their child's asthma. Under my system, this will no longer be the case - you will no longer be spending incredibly high amounts on emergency care that people don't need, and you will all get quality care". 

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Look at immigration right now.  If you have any opinion on it at all, your vote was decided a long time ago.  I can't believe there are more than a handful of people in the whole country who were going to flip on this issue from R to D, but then wouldn't when they found out immigrants can get free healthcare and decide to remain Trump.

   I mean shit, this is what they already say "they pay no taxes and use all our healthcare and get welfare".  There's no needle to thread.  The difference in the abolish private insurance issue is that all of a sudden you're attacking the middle class, risking pissing off millions of reliable voters instead of some statistical flukes.

This WI-PA-MI forgotten blue collar vote shit is way overplayed and gets way more attention than it deserves 

 

I live in one of the districts the Dems flipped in 2018, in south King County. It's an urbanized suburb. I don't think immigration plays well here. I'd guess jobs, healthcare, and fuel taxes are the big things. And we're not a heavily white area like Wisconsin. We used to be, but that was decades ago. There is a lot of new faces in the region, but no is freaking out about it, they are just doing their jobs and stuff.

[Martell Spy]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you have to say it the other way.

"Undocumented immigrants already do get healthcare from our system - usually via emergency room at massive costs to you, the taxpayer. This already happens by our laws. This is the system Republicans want - to underinsure or uninsure millions, forcing them to go to Emergency rooms just to get a shot of insulin or treat their child's asthma. Under my system, this will no longer be the case - you will no longer be spending incredibly high amounts on emergency care that people don't need, and you will all get quality care". 

Yes, preventative medicine pays huge dividends.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

So Biden felt compelled to apologize for his comment about working with segregationists?  The comment that acknowledged that they sucked?  Is the only acceptable answer that our political enemies should be shot or erased?  

Depends on the enemy. As AOC pointed out, the reason that people are treating all Republicans like dumbasses is that for the last 15 or so years all Republicans have been nothing short of dumbasses. Biden had a point back in the 70s, where you could work with some people on some things because things were more centrist. Those days are long gone.

Put it another way, Trisk - what is the gain in working with them? When their goal is white supremacy, minority rule and removal of women's rights, what is the value in working with them? How many rights of minorities are you willing to sacrifice to get healthcare done, or infrastructure? 

How many voters will you suppress in order to get some crappy climate change bill passed which will be ignored by the next Republican administration? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you have to say it the other way.

"Undocumented immigrants already do get healthcare from our system - usually via emergency room at massive costs to you, the taxpayer. This already happens by our laws. This is the system Republicans want - to underinsure or uninsure millions, forcing them to go to Emergency rooms just to get a shot of insulin or treat their child's asthma. Under my system, this will no longer be the case - you will no longer be spending incredibly high amounts on emergency care that people don't need, and you will all get quality care". 

Thank you, that's exactly what I was going for earlier where I said it's a messaging issue, and you worded it much better than I would have. 

@Simon Steele I'd like to apologize for the shit cheap shot I took before, asking if you taught professionally.  That was out of line and not cool.

Also was concerning is that if I had known it was you and not some random person, I likely would not have said that, which I feel is even worse.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Triskele said:

Not killing each other in a civil war is a thing to be gained. 

So what rights are you willing to sacrifice for other people in order to avoid civil war? Please, do enumerate them, because I think it'll be an interesting process to determine how many rights other people have that you're willing to give away in order to avert pain for yourself. 

Just now, Triskele said:

But more pointedly I think it's clear what Biden's point was, and if that requires an apology then a lot does.  It's about time to have Barack Obama paraded around as a real problem for seeking GOP votes on the healthcare bill and for not being for gay marriage when he was first a candidate.  Why doesn't he apologize? 

Because Obama's not running for anything? 

And Obama is repeatedly getting paraded around as making a mistake on his healthcare and trying to get consensus. This was something that he himself regrets. As I've said before, if Republicans want to come to the table and start being sane, cool on them. They can see what Pelosi and Schumer and the like are offering and maybe ask to be part of it. Otherwise, there is zero value in coordinating with them, working with them. 

[DMC]

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Depends on the enemy. As AOC pointed out, the reason that people are treating all Republicans like dumbasses is that for the last 15 or so years all Republicans have been nothing short of dumbasses. Biden had a point back in the 70s, where you could work with some people on some things because things were more centrist. Those days are long gone.

It should be noted, of course, that Eastland and the other one he mentioned were both Democrats.  This is a good depiction of the days of the good ole' boys:

Quote

Biden is heir—perhaps the last heir—to a once-strict Senate tradition: that the bitterest foes should maintain at least the veneer of civility, and that such a veneer could sometimes lead to actual cross-aisle friendships. After Senator Willis Robertson of Virginia (the father of the televangelist Pat) made a speech excoriating the 1964 act, he walked over to the bill’s Democratic floor manager, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, and pinned a small Confederate battle-flag pin to his lapel. Humphrey praised Robertson for his “wonderful … gentlemanly qualities and his consideration to us at all times,” which Robertson requited by allowing, “If it had not been for the men from Wisconsin and Minnesota, when Grant finally came down to Virginia, we would have won.” The two strolled off the Senate floor arm in arm, to Humphrey’s office for a drink.

Fourteen years later, when Humphrey, by then back in the Senate after serving as Johnson’s vice president, was dying of cancer, Biden witnessed Barry Goldwater, the most prominent GOP foe of the 1964 bill, envelop Humphrey in a bear hug on the Senate floor, as the two old friends dissolved in unabashed tears. Such a display may seem as far removed from contemporary Washington as the horse and buggy—it may, in fact, be all but irrelevant. But it exemplifies the Senate that defines Biden’s view—not just of politics, but of life itself.

I understand being nostalgic for the Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neill days, but that's simply not the political context we live in anymore.  Joe is wanting for a world that no longer exists, for good and bad.  Anyway, the only reason he finally apologized is because he's losing money.

43 minutes ago, Triskele said:

It's about time to have Barack Obama paraded around as a real problem for seeking GOP votes on the healthcare bill and for not being for gay marriage when he was first a candidate.  Why doesn't he apologize? 

If Barack Obama touted his political acumen in avoiding/obfuscating the SSM question in a presidential campaign in 2019 - then yeah, he should apologize.  As for seeking GOP votes on the ACA, I mean yeah he tried that but it didn't work.  I don't see why anyone would tout that.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Very disappointing low blow.  Doubtful that any response could satisfy your question.  I think that part of your quote that is most hurtful is the suggestion that I'm just thinking about myself.  I stopped feeling anything a very long time ago and just go with what I think is the calculus for what's broadly fair.  

Sorry you feel that way. I honestly don't see how your statements can be interpreted any other way. You appear to say that the only way to deal with these people is compromise and give into something they want - but what they want is fewer non-white people, less women's rights, less rights for everyone, and more wealth for the rich. What part are you wanting to compromise on? 

And yes, it's important to understand that the compromise you're suggesting is almost certainly not going to impact you negatively, but will almost certainly impact others. 

So again, I ask - what compromise are you okay with? As the software saying goes, only the pigs should have a say in what to eat for breakfast when the menu is bacon and eggs.

13 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I have to also admit that I'm just straight-up confused by your question.  Part of my sense of what would be broadly fair would be to get rid of Trump so that there's more reproductive rights justice, more climate justice, more economic justice, etc...So why am I so selfish in your eyes?  If Trump wins is this not the worst outcome for so much of this?   

That's a logical fallacy. Why is Trump winning the outcome of not compromising? I'm chiding you as being selfish because you appear to believe that the only way to actually win is to somehow court the voters who thought Trump was better, when all the evidence we have suggests the main reason Trump won is because voter turnout for Dems was low in key areas. As @DMCrightly points out, chances are very good that most of the voters who voted for Trump did so because of racial tension - and you're simply not going to win them back, nor should you particularly try. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Look at immigration right now.  If you have any opinion on it at all, your vote was decided a long time ago.  I can't believe there are more than a handful of people in the whole country who were going to flip on this issue from R to D, but then wouldn't when they found out immigrants can get free healthcare and decide to remain Trump.

   I mean shit, this is what they already say "they pay no taxes and use all our healthcare and get welfare".  There's no needle to thread.  The difference in the abolish private insurance issue is that all of a sudden you're attacking the middle class, risking pissing off millions of reliable voters instead of some statistical flukes.

This WI-PA-MI forgotten blue collar vote shit is way overplayed and gets way more attention than it deserves 

 

The real irony to this whole thing, for me, is that abolishing private health insurance is something my wife has advocated for years (she rarely votes).  

It’s out there but it would work to reduce health care costs.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The real irony to this whole thing, for me, is that abolishing private health insurance is something my wife has advocated for years (she rarely votes).  

It’s out there but it would work to reduce health care costs.

I mean that's the end goal but there obviously has to be some kind of transition to make things digestible.

 

9 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I doubt it.  

And your statement that I believe the only way to win is to give Trump people what they want is flat-out absurd.  I've stated many times that I think this all might be moot and Trump will go down regardless.  You're doing something similar to Raja where I'm putting every god damned last qualifier in there and still you have to respond to me like I've said GOP forever.  It's shave and a haircut territory.  

I don't think you have GOP fever at all, and am 100% confident you'll pull that D lever (not a euphemism) come next November.  But when you've got the same concerns as Bret Stephens it just feels like time to ask: why should the left be taking policy cues from never Trumpers that sound an awful lot like they're going to vote for Trump again?  

The votes you think we're picking up don't exist.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

I doubt it.  

I genuinely am, because it likely means that you're not going to listen to what I have to say and are instead going to just tune me out because you feel bad. I'm not sure what else to do, because this framing - who does this solution hurt? - has been super helpful in me figuring out less wrong positions to take. 

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

And your statement that I believe the only way to win is to give Trump people what they want is flat-out absurd.  I've stated many times that I think this all might be moot and Trump will go down regardless.  You're doing something similar to Raja where I'm putting every god damned last qualifier in there and still you have to respond to me like I've said GOP forever.  It's shave and a haircut territory.  

Then I don't really understand what your objection is. You want to give Biden a chance and said that compromise is a better alternative than civil war - but why would you say that if you think that it isn't the only way to win? I didn't bring up the idea that criticizing Biden for wanting to compromise with segregationists was bad - that was all on you. This isn't about qualifications and anything - this is specifically interrogating the statement you made to start with - " Is the only acceptable answer that our political enemies should be shot or erased?  " along with the bits on Obama and courting Republican votes and his views on the ACA. You're deliberately making a poor comparison between Biden's comment of working with people whose desire was specifically to segregate the population (and doing so by promoting segregation) and a generic 'we should work with some people some of the time'. Biden isn't being criticized for working with 'the enemy' - he's being criticized for promoting segregationist policies with segregationists. As to Obama, history has already shown that Obama's way was incredibly stupid, wasted way too much time and cost him too much, and gained nothing - Republicans refused to work with him and then slammed him later for not working with them at all. The Republicans as they stand will never work with Democrats on a single thing. They will at best go after conservative democrats to work with them, but the notion that there are any moderate republicans in the House or that McConnell will cave at all on anything should be obviously wrong.

Until it costs Republicans votes and elections, they are never going to work with Democrats again, because there is no value in them doing it. It's past time for Democrats to realize that they should be in the same boat. 

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

but there obviously has to be some kind of transition to make things digestible.

Aye.  I think the public option is the next step, which basically is the least offensive version of "Medicare for All."  The ACA grossly expanded Medicaid, so that would be the logical next step that's politically palatable.  And just like the ACA, I bet after a decade it will be very popular.  Then you can start to phase out private insurance.  But it needs to be a process.  It's understandable that people get worried if you tell them you're gonna take away their health insurance, so it needs to be done delicately.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The Republicans as they stand will never work with Democrats on a single thing. They will at best go after conservative democrats to work with them, but the notion that there are any moderate republicans in the House or that McConnell will cave at all on anything should be obviously wrong.

Until it costs Republicans votes and elections, they are never going to work with Democrats again, because there is no value in them doing it. It's past time for Democrats to realize that they should be in the same boat. 

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Is this directed at me?  Not asking in a "no one had better criticize me" kind of way but in a "genuinely curious if this is how it's coming across" kind of way.  

It was Simon Steele, as you should have been able to see from the quote, and who was agreeing with me.  Not that this matters, particularly, but just so everybody knows, everybody is good. Whatever that means!   It's all context, man, all context.

[DMC]

Just now, Triskele said:

But why does Biden owe an apology for the 1970's over this current state of affairs?

Because he made an offensive comparison to try and show off.  It's not really that complicated.  When you're competing against two black Senators and you say, "well, I used to work with segregationists, and we found a way to get along," I don't think it's out line for the response to be "hey, fuck you," and an apology is reasonable.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Look, when the Dems win it's a big tent victory.  It's a lot of different kinds of people with a lot of different goals, looking in the same direction.  @Triskele, and everyone else, don't take any of this stuff personally: gonna be intra party squabbling for the next year

Pretty sure that at a 1971 meeting to hammer out the Dems 72 platform Hunter Thompson dropped acid and left the meeting when it devolved into insults and accusations, returned with two dozen clubs that truckers use to test tire pressure, and suggested everyone beat each other over the head.  They lost, but the tension was gone.  That's what we're working through here.  I believe Dante Gabriel is the resident HST scholar and can clarify or explain this better 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Triskele said:

I think that's largely right,  But it's a bit more complicated and can be spun another way, and the left internet isn't the only place this stuff exists.  It's also the case that he was just trying to address the polarization of today's politics and that it wasn't just "showing off."

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

Sure! And my point is more valid then, which is that Biden did work with segregationists and largely took their positions, partially because he wanted to get something in return (I'm not sure what, honestly) and in exchange he promoted more segregation. 

Biden's position was that it was okay to compromise with them - knowing that their position was pretty horrible - because he'd get something back that was better, at the cost of fucking over black kids. I'm not even sure he put that much thought into it, because to him that segregation was perfectly fine and wasn't a big deal and no one got hurt.

And that was Harris' point - his 'compromise' and buddy-buddy with segregationists had the potential to cause real harm to people exactly like Harris. Biden's palling around with those people has consequences.

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. 

[Zorral]

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.

 

[DMC]

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.