U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away

[argonak]

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Speaking of incentives:

Not sure why Riker's Island only. But I think as a deterrence for criminal behaviour perhaps prisons should go 100% vegan. If the thought of being locked up for several years isn't enough to stop you from committing crime, perhaps the thought of being forced to be vegan have an effect. And if not, apparently one of the magical properties of being vegan is that you become a nicer person, so vegan prisons may help with rehabilitation.

Unintended consequence could be an increase in vegan crime.

Historically, bad food is one of the most common things to spark riots and violence in prisons.  Not that all vegan food is bad, but its a bit cruel, don't you think?  

Also, deterrence has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective in studies.  Prisons with lowest recidivism generally have the best conditions and work the hardest to prepare the inmates for re-integration into society. 

Punishment might make victims feel better, but it doesn't prevent further victimization.

[Fragile Bird]

10 hours ago, parody account said:

i think part of the issue here is it’s unclear where you are making your own moral judgement here vs what might be called ‘commonly held attitude’ towards persons with substance use disorders. because reading it the way i assume kalbear is, it seems you are claiming a substantive distinction between two groups of predatory cartels driven completely by desire for maximum profits solely by dint of some minor technicalities 

I’m not making a moral judgement, I’m reporting what has been said in American media since the opioid crisis hit. Everything in the US is racial, let’s face it. That does not change the fact that the roads to addiction were different, and it sure seems like Americans are willing to be more sympathetic to the victims of opioids because of the fact they were legal drugs, whether or not they were used improperly, as opposed to illegal drugs demonized by the law and the public. In particular, there are many stories where people became addicted and even lost their lives arising from a doctor’s prescription, just as was reported by aceluby above. 
 

And really, don’t pull this ‘you know black people weren’t prescribed opioids’ stuff on me. No I don’t know that. Now that it’s been mentioned, I’m not surprised, because everything in the US is racial. But actually, I am surprised. Like, wtf?

 

[argonak]

41 minutes ago, mormont said:

On Harris dropping out, whatever you think of her merits as a candidate, I do find it a sad indictment of where the US Presidential race stands today. Harris wasn't perfect - I wish she'd been a better candidate, quite frankly - but she was a long way better than some of the people that remain. There's no doubt that part of the reason that she's gone is that a black woman finds it harder to get big donors to fork out, and for that matter to get favourable media coverage, than a white man does. And it should really worry people that an experienced senator from arguably the most important single state in the country is gone but the field still has two billionaire vanity candidates. 

I find the whole primary system frustrating.  I'd much prefer the two parties to just have a big pow wow and present their candidate, rather than let a bunch of fanatics in a few random states pick the candidate.  I want someone effective and professional, who has been checked out by the party to see if they have any skeletons in the closet.  Instead we have pointless debates, wasted fundraising, and endless "no true Scotsman" debates. 

And it seems now we're finding out the potential for ideologues to win with our current system is increasingly high.  I just want to go back to when we had effective leaders who understood the framework of government and could work to find effective compromises.   But unfortunately you can't put humpty dumpty back together again.

[Jace, Extat]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

On Harris dropping out, whatever you think of her merits as a candidate, I do find it a sad indictment of where the US Presidential race stands today. Harris wasn't perfect - I wish she'd been a better candidate, quite frankly - but she was a long way better than some of the people that remain. There's no doubt that part of the reason that she's gone is that a black woman finds it harder to get big donors to fork out, and for that matter to get favourable media coverage, than a white man does. And it should really worry people that an experienced senator from arguably the most important single state in the country is gone but the field still has two billionaire vanity candidates. 

I don't even particularly like Harris, but my enthusiasm for the Democratic nomination process has cooled with her numbers. For a lot of the reasons you mention. I still can't wrap my mind around how she was a fascist Trump supporting Goebbels acolyte for being an AG.

1 minute ago, argonak said:

I find the whole primary system frustrating.  I'd much prefer the two parties to just have a big pow wow and present their candidate, rather than let a bunch of fanatics in a few random states pick the candidate.  I want someone effective and professional, who has been checked out by the party to see if they have any skeletons in the closet.  Instead we have pointless debates, wasted fundraising, and endless "no true Scotsman" debates. 

And it seems now we're finding out the potential for ideologues to win with our current system is increasingly high.  I just want to go back to when we had effective leaders who understood the framework of government and could work to find effective compromises.   But unfortunately you can't put humpty dumpty back together again.

It's hard to watch the circus once the peddlers know what they're doing. When I was calling for the primaries to become the WWE I was joking, but it might actually be an improvement. There are intelligent and viable candidates for president in the Democratic field, but the party is once again falling dick first into a tar pit.

[sologdin]

While that's how many got hooked it isn't how they stay hooked or get their fix. They're doing illegal drugs now, long after their prescriptions are gone. 

kal--

i don't dispute your point--but there is a salient difference here. opioids have been developed and generally distributed lawfully, whereas the other items in your list have generally not.  more significantly, the current declaration of an opioid crisis by the CDC comes simultaneously with the trump regime deregulating production, as noted by notorious radical leftist david frum, wherein trump appointed as 'drug czar' the waste of space legislator who sponsored a statute that weakened the DEA's criminal enforcement power over pharmaceutical firms.

just to make this perfectly clear: trump appointed as top narcotics enforcer a guy who helped create the crisis that he is tasked to resolve.  this sort of managed chaos is nothing new--it is, as detailed in frank's what's the matter with kansas?, the standard operating procedure of the right, which makes the world a worse place intentionally and then complains about it incessantly as though the right's calculated policy preferences were the inexorable result of the progressive unfolding of liberal policy in the modern world--offering instead some sort of fascistic solution rooted in fictive nostalgia. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

On Harris dropping out, whatever you think of her merits as a candidate, I do find it a sad indictment of where the US Presidential race stands today. Harris wasn't perfect - I wish she'd been a better candidate, quite frankly - but she was a long way better than some of the people that remain. There's no doubt that part of the reason that she's gone is that a black woman finds it harder to get big donors to fork out, and for that matter to get favourable media coverage, than a white man does. And it should really worry people that an experienced senator from arguably the most important single state in the country is gone but the field still has two billionaire vanity candidates. 

I agree with you, but I wouldn’t lean on Harris’ Senate experience. She’s halfway through her first term. What’s bizarre though is she’s the only candidate whose had a legit moment, but she fail to sustain her initial surge. I’ve still been left dumbfounded as to why, but IMO she was hands down the best candidate to take on Trump and I’d still bet that she’s a top 3 VP choice for whoever the eventual nominee is.

[Guest]

On 12/3/2019 at 5:42 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Speaking of incentives:

Not sure why Riker's Island only. But I think as a deterrence for criminal behaviour perhaps prisons should go 100% vegan. If the thought of being locked up for several years isn't enough to stop you from committing crime, perhaps the thought of being forced to be vegan have an effect. And if not, apparently one of the magical properties of being vegan is that you become a nicer person, so vegan prisons may help with rehabilitation.

Unintended consequence could be an increase in vegan crime.

Unfortunately, I think this is a terrible idea. Don't you know that being vegan gives you psychic powers? 

We'd have to create a Vegan Police Force to deal with all the newly psychic vegan criminals causing havoc all across NYC. Does anyone know if Thomas Jane and Clifton Collins, Jr. are looking for a side hustle?

[argonak]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I don't even particularly like Harris, but my enthusiasm for the Democratic nomination process has cooled with her numbers. For a lot of the reasons you mention. I still can't wrap my mind around how she was a fascist Trump supporting Goebbels acolyte for being an AG.

It's hard to watch the circus once the peddlers know what they're doing. When I was calling for the primaries to become the WWE I was joking, but it might actually be an improvement. There are intelligent and viable candidates for president in the Democratic field, but the party is once again falling dick first into a tar pit.

The whole thing speaks volumes on the extent of the average american's knowledge on topics outside of every day celebrity news.  Its just so depressing.  I check google news and my newspaper once a day while I drink my coffee, and listen to radio news on the way home.  Compared to some of my coworkers, I'm extremely educated on current events. . .but even I know only the barest drops and only the things that hit major news outlets.  

I get that people are busy with their lives and problems, but politics sets the framework of our entire lives, and so many people just don't pay any attention at all.  Or worse they just believe things that are fundamentally untrue and vote religiously on those beliefs.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just wanted to say that the primaries/caucuses being held on different days in different states is 100% bullshit and needs to be changed.    

 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

When I was calling for the primaries to become the WWE I was joking, but it might actually be an improvement.

What the hell does this even mean?  There should be predetermined outcomes?  Vince should introduce creepily nonsensical storylines like Buttigieg being the love child of Biden and Sanders?  The hand-wringing about the primary process is a little much.  I guarantee if either party went back to party machines and smoke-filled back rooms to choose a nominee there'd be a whole hell of a lot more complaining.  Is the current system perfect?  No, the first two contests being in overwhelmingly white and small states remains absurd and should be jettisoned simply for the appearance of impropriety.  But complaining about primary rules is a lot like complaining about your favorite team's seeding after they get eliminated from March Madness:  If they were truly the best team, they should have won it all regardless.

As for Harris specifically, there's a lot to unpack there.  First, as I've voiced on here numerous times rather..intensely, I certainly agree it's quite concerning that there are such strong elements in the Democratic electorate that had Pavlovian opposition to her candidacy based on her DA/AG history.  The fact that was a weakness rather than a strength for a black female candidate is simply disgusting.

Second, it is certainly true that part of Harris' failure is because she's a black woman, but I think it's important to understand why that was (and for Warren remains) such a deficiency.  It's not as if the Democratic electorate is too sexist or racist to nominate a woman or minority (see, um, the last three primaries).  It's because the Democratic electorate is so intent on defeating Trump they're way too worried the general electorate is too sexist or racist to elect a woman or minority.  Booker and Harris were pretty damn good candidates, but neither could significantly eat into Biden's dominance with black voters.  That's because the latter are pragmatic and prefer voting for candidates they trust.  Hell, Obama had to win Iowa to convince black voters to support him. 

And with Trump so hated and the remaining aftershock of Hillary's loss, that emphasis on electability and strategic cynicism of the American electorate has pervaded across the Democratic party.  It's both quite frustrating and depressing.  Frustrating because Democratic voters should stop thinking of themselves as political analysts.  The idea that the "safest" course is to put up a septuagenerian white guy to contrast with Trump is incredibly stupid.  Depressing because one of the few heated arguments I've had with my sister..well, ever, was in May a couple days before her wedding when she insisted Biden was the Dems' only chance to win by recouping the Obama-Trump voters.  Here's a successful, educated 31 year old liberal woman that was adamant a female nominee wouldn't have a shot against Trump. 

Third, let's not discount the clear failures of Harris' campaign.  I think it's ridiculous to try to blame the media here.  She got great coverage both after her very successful rollout/announcement and after her Biden moment - until her campaign flubbed the aftermath on that.  Same goes for fundraising.  Other than the top 4 candidates, she raised much more money than any other candidate.  As of October 15 (the last filing deadline), she had more cash on hand than Biden.  Her ability to raise money has dried up since, but that's because she's tanked in the polls.  That's not sexism or racism, it's politics.

Moreover, the idea she didn't have the money to compete is solely an excuse she made rather than admitting her campaign's own failure.  To be clear, I don't blame her for doing so, but that's no reason to believe it.  She initially squandered a lot of her money by focusing on a South Carolina/California strategy when she should have been figuring out if she had a better chance in Iowa or NH and focus on building an infrastructure in one of them.  Beyond money, her campaign did jack shit once her numbers started falling.  Remember the debate where her big attack on Warren (who was emergent at the time) was that she wouldn't join her call to ban Trump from twitter?  WTF?  Based on the public sniping between campaign aids and the scattershot public messaging on her strategy over the past couple months, it's very clear her campaign was horribly mismanaged.  A cautionary tale of having your sister run your campaign.

Fourth, the other huge reason for her campaign's failure is trying to thread the needle on MFA.  I'm not his biggest fan, but Ezra Klein has the correct and insightful main takeaway from this in that it's not really about "lanes" or ideology:

Quote

I’d argue that Warren and Harris made the same mistake: they treated a question of symbolic politics like a problem of policy design. In Democratic Party politics, Medicare has become a which-side-are-you-on test. Are you with Sanders and the left, and against insurance companies, squishy moderates, commodified health care, and a politics of preemptive compromise? Or are you afraid that Sanders and the left are going to scare the country into reelecting Donald Trump and set health care reform back for a generation?

This is a fundamentally political question, and splitting the difference through complex acts of technocracy ends up alienating both sides. And I say that as a technocrat who thinks Warren’s transition plan makes sense on its own terms and thought Harris ended up with a more interesting plan than she got credit for — essentially inverting the debate by proposing a public health insurance system with a private option. But the reaction to both plans makes clear they missed the point.

This, obviously, remains a concern for the primaries.  Right now only three candidates look like they have a viable path to the nomination, and Warren is the only one of the three I'd put at a 50/50 or better chance of defeating Trump.  Biden I'd put it more at 40/60, Sanders I'd put it close to zero, and even if Buttigieg does finally pick up minority voters and wins the nomination, I still think his chances would be distinctly less than 50 in the general.  Harris dropping out is pretty tangential to this - she was clearly done once her campaign took their strife public a few weeks ago - but the most depressing part about all this is that the MFA schism and over-worry about the electability of female/minority candidates looks like it will likely cause the Democratic party to fuck up the nomination process against an incumbent that's been mired in the low 40s approval his entire term and is about to get impeached.

[Jace, Extat]

I actually would love for debates to be scripted. Is there some kind of petition I can sign? And while we're at it can we get someone asking questions who isn't pretending to work for a news company? The efforts to appear non-partisan have no purpose at a primary debate.

Regarding the cynicism of women in my age bracket towards Harris' (and Warren's) chances, I mean what do you want us to say? Men hate powerful women. And so do most women. Am I supposed to pretend this isn't going to be a factor again? I mean you admit that sexism and 'electability concerns' are real factors while lamenting that voters take them into consideration.

Your attitude in this matter is a little patronizing. I recognize the casual resentment of voters not doing what you expect they should do from a lot of political analysts these days. Basically everyone at fivethirtyeight has written an article on "Why Primary Voters Won't Vote for Who They Really Want to Win" since the start of summer, and at the end of the day it's just bitching that people are more complicated than a spreadsheet and a few graphs can capture.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Regarding the cynicism of women in my age bracket towards Harris' (and Warren's) chances, I mean what do you want us to say? Men hate powerful women. And so do most women. Am I supposed to pretend this isn't going to be a factor again? I mean you admit that sexism and 'electability concerns' are real factors while lamenting that voters take them into consideration.

Your attitude in this matter is a little patronizing. I recognize the casual resentment of voters not doing what you expect they should do from a lot of political analysts these days. Basically everyone at fivethirtyeight has written an article on "Why Primary Voters Won't Vote for Who They Really Want to Win" since the start of summer, and at the end of the day it's just bitching that people are more complicated than a spreadsheet and a few graphs can capture.

I never said it's wrong to consider sexism a factor, I said the over-worry about it and racism that's led to a lot of the electorate leaning towards a white male candidate - and specifically white male candidates with such manifest weaknesses as Biden and Sanders - rather than their genuine preferences is frustrating because it's strategically stupid.  If that's patronizing, so be it.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, DMC said:

I never said it's wrong to consider sexism a factor, I said the over-worry about it and racism that's led to a lot of the electorate leaning towards a white male candidate - and specifically white male candidates with such manifest weaknesses as Biden and Sanders - rather than their genuine preferences is frustrating because it's strategically stupid.  If that's patronizing, so be it.

I won't defend going to Sanders, but I've grown to actively resent this insistence against a lot of Biden supporters. I think the senile old fool is a walking disaster artist, but people like him. That's just a fact, folks enjoy the man. Coming off the most pathetic blown lead in recent presidential history due, as everyone like you keeps reminding everyone, to an historically unpopular candidate who also happened to be a woman with a sketchy record... how is it a surprise that people swung conservative? In a tactical sense, if not also a literal one? Dude, we lost in '16. Like bad. Sure, it basically went to overtime but that was a 28-3 situation. The ghost of 2016 will haunt the Democratic party for as long as the ghost of 28-3 will haunt the Atlanta Falcons, which is fucking forever.

A lot of people really just want to like their candidate and they want their candidate to win. Joe Biden is likeable, everyone says he's going to win. Big goddamn mystery why people say they'd vote for him in a poll. Holy shit, I can't believe I just solved the great mystery of the Biden Popularity Paradox. There's nothing stupid about falling in line behind the most popular option if your primary considerations are not actively hating your candidate and winning. You might have noticed that such a strategy tends to keep paying off for one particular political party that isn't the Democrats.

[sologdin]

i don't think it's DMC's fault that the dems are kinda dummies.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Coming off the most pathetic blown lead in recent presidential history due, as everyone like you keeps reminding everyone, to an historically unpopular candidate who also happened to be a woman with a sketchy record... how is it a surprise that people swung conservative? In a tactical sense, if not also a literal one? Dude, we lost in '16. Like bad. Sure, it basically went to overtime but that was a 28-3 situation. The ghost of 2016 will haunt the Democratic party for as long as the ghost of 28-3 will haunt the Atlanta Falcons, which is fucking forever.

I'm not even sure how to parse this, particularly the bolded.  First, as I've said many times, "everyone like me" was wrong to overrate (and in many cases vastly overrate) Hillary's chances instead of simply looking at the economy and the incumbent's approval - the two key indicators in any presidential race - that suggested the race was basically a toss-up.  Second, the woman who lost to the the most historically unpopular candidate was the second most historically unpopular candidate that had entrenched animus towards her across the political spectrum for the past quarter-century.  That's obviously not going to happen again.  While it certainly is human nature to map that failure onto the next race, it's also clearly an empirically fallacious comparison.  Or in other words, strategically stupid.

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Big goddamn mystery why people say they'd vote for him in a poll. Holy shit, I can't believe I just solved the great mystery of the Biden Popularity Paradox. There's nothing stupid about falling in line behind the most popular option if your primary considerations are not actively hating your candidate and winning. You might have noticed that such a strategy tends to keep paying off for one particular political party that isn't the Democrats.

Never said it was a mystery, at all.  As for it not being stupid to fall in line behind the most popular candidate if you don't have a problem with him, sure, that certainly qualifies as a rational choice.  But where's the evidence Biden is the most popular candidate?  Certainly not in terms of favorability ratings - among either the primary or general electorate.  Because he's performing the best in head-to-heads with Trump?  Fair, can't blame voters for thinking that means he has the best chance, but it still is frustratingly stupid because those polls mean jack shit.

Also, uh, no, that's not the strategy the GOP uses in regards to presidential primaries, at least not consistently.  If it was Bush would have beat Reagan in 1980 and Trump would have lost to, well, anybody, in 2016.  McCain being that guy in 2008 is arguable.  Although I agree that Romney in 2012, Dole in 1996, and Dubya in 2000 - which wasn't really legitimately competitive anyway - are examples of such.  Note they only won one of those contests.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Man, today's committee hearing was plodding. I don't think either side gained much of anything outside of some soundbites Democrats can take advantage of, not that it will matter much.

[DMC]

Today's hearings weren't designed to move public opinion, they were designed to provide legal "legitimacy" to the articles the Dems will soon draw up.  Politically I don't think that matters either, but whatever at least they can say they did it.  Plus Jonathan Turley embarrassed himself.

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Plus Jonathan Turley embarrassed himself.

Did he ever!  I don't get it.  I've used Turley's work frequently for various legal opinions, and this -- well.  Of course - yah! more text and content in footnotes and cites than in the body of the work -- so Turley!

[Aemon Stark]

On 12/3/2019 at 7:14 PM, Zorral said:

How many people then are on BP medications right this minute who not only do not need to be, but shouldn't be?

As a sidebar, we're well aware that office BP measurements aren't always accurate. There's still a lot of people with poorly controlled hypertension out there. 

On 12/3/2019 at 7:51 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

My 99% rule of thumb is, unless you feel sick, or some specific thing is annoying you, don't go to the doctor. The 1% is for known risk factors like history of prostate cancer in the family: get checks every 5 years or so, FOR THAT THING ONLY.

The whole medical profession has perverse incentives: Doctors only get paid when people are sick. Doctors are only needed because there are sick people. To support the medical industry people need to keep getting sick. Doctors, individually, almost all are motivated to help people have good health. But they can't afford for people to be so healthy that they don't need a doctor.

There's no "perverse" incentive. Everyone without exception will get sick at some point and everyone without exception has a 100% lifetime mortality rate. 

Also:

Trudeau-Trump spat cast a shadow over a summit that got things done, say leaders

Quote

It was an unguarded misery-loves-company moment that went viral. It ended with U.S. President Donald Trump taking another personal shot at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, calling him "two-faced."

Normally, royal receptions for visiting dignitaries at Buckingham Palace offer media outlets the video equivalent of wallpaper: boring, harmless. But Tuesday's reception turned into an international incident when video emerged of Trudeau at the reception apparently venting to French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson about Trump's unexpected marathon news media availability on Tuesday.

The fuss threatened to overshadow the military alliance's 70th anniversary celebrations in London and appears to have driven another personal wedge between Trudeau and the mercurial Trump.

Trudeau attempted to calm the political storm today, saying that he simply expressed surprise to Macron and Johnson at having to conduct a 30-minute press conference with Trump ahead of their bilateral meeting.

On the video, Johnson can be heard asking Macron, "Is that why you were late?"

"He was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference at the top," Trudeau is heard saying.

Trump is not mentioned by name in the exchange, but the video provided fodder for more behind-the-scenes and in-front-of-the-camera drama.

 

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

And really, don’t pull this ‘you know black people weren’t prescribed opioids’ stuff on me. No I don’t know that. Now that it’s been mentioned, I’m not surprised, because everything in the US is racial. But actually, I am surprised. Like, wtf?

Guess I was wrong, and you are that ignorant. Oops!