US Politics: Biden vs. Trump and Corona, Thunderdome Society at Its Very Best

[Pecan]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Heard of this thing, wait for it, called the Affordable Care Act? 

A centrist president, with the help of a centrist Speaker and a centrist Majority leader in the Senate, got that Republican healthcare bitch passed and turned into law. 

How is the country, a decade later? Would you prefer it didn't happen? 

I don't see how anyone can look at the ACA and really call it a win. Too many compromises, did nothing to help us move away from the employer-based system, and it did nothing to lower the actual cost of care. 

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, yes, my argument is blackfacing and redfacing should be treated the same way.  And while you may view Warren lying on applications as the same thing as the physical act, you're right, I find the latter more offensive as a concept.  A lot of people lie on their applications in the hope of advancement.  The intent is different than going out and dressing up as another race to laugh at them.

Putting it on applications actually steals real world not feelings opportunities from actual native people. On college applications especially- there is a monetary value to checking that box. Like I hate it when people dress like my culture for Halloween or sporting events (which is the most widespread version of racefacing so I see it A LOT), but I care more about the fact that people take up opportunities reserved for native peoples as a small gesture to make up for the you know, whole genocide thing.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have spent some time trying to think how the trend could be reversed,, without coming up with any solid answers.

Me too.

[Pecan]

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Unfortunately compromise is the essence of our political system and it's how the framers set it up. Bernie would have never gotten a single thing passed, even if his ideas were perfect (which they weren't). I'm all for him pushing the discussion and making a change on legislation, but there was absolutely zero chance, in today's political environment, that he could design, push and sell a piece of legislation that would tear down and rebuild a massive part of society. Personally, as a realist, I'll take some change over no change, losing elections and losing the court system for generations (which we're very very close to doing).

Okay, so does the notion of compromise apply to the right as well as the left? What are some examples of the right compromising?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Unfortunately compromise is the essence of our political system and it's how the framers set it up. Bernie would have never gotten a single thing passed, even if his ideas were perfect (which they weren't). I'm all for him pushing the discussion and making a change on legislation, but there was absolutely zero chance, in today's political environment, that he could design, push and sell a piece of legislation that would tear down and rebuild a massive part of society. Personally, as a realist, I'll take some change over no change, losing elections and losing the court system for generations (which we're very very close to doing).

Given the circumstances, I actually think that Bernie has a better chance now than ever to get M4A passed, and he won't even need to be President to do it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I don't see how anyone can look at the ACA and really call it a win. Too many compromises, did nothing to help us move away from the employer-based system, and it did nothing to lower the actual cost of care. 

I quite enjoyed being on my mom's health insurance until I was 26, and I'm sure my friends with pre-existing conditions were much better off.

For starters.

[Pecan]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, I'm glad I'm not imagining things. Anyway, it seems to me that many of the problems facing the US left aren't just domestic problems, but ones that are shared by left wing parties all over the globe, leading to the rise of ultra right nationalist parties. A situation that if it continues seems to be pretty scary. I have spent some time trying to think how the trend could be reversed,, without coming up with any solid answers. But, its quite possible that appealing to centrist might be quite necessary if the bleeding is going to be stopped.

Are you talking mainly about immigration policies?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Narcissism of small differences. It really is why the left can't have nice things, when the far left complain that the more practical left aren't really willing to ride or die for some cause. 

Because one of the four issues that got me into politics, LGBQ rights, same sex marriage and civil rights over all, hasn't advanced since I was a 16 year old in 2004 cursing Bush for his reelection techniques. 

I've often thought the greatest pride in my life was that the dean of my department said I was among the best students he'd ever taught, that he personally oversaw my honors thesis defense, and said that he may trust no undergraduate more to ever teach a class of his than me.

Nothing gave me more pride than being one of the junior staffers that helped get a hand of power to strike down an evil insult of a Constitutional Amendment at the state level. If I accomplish nothing else in life, I still did good work. 

 

No. Things are better. Do not let the good be the enemy of the perfect. 

I've been dragging someone who for years has been promising you an empty glass. I am confused as to why you still desire to drink from it. There's nothing there, man. 

Things are better for some people.  Healthcare is still tied to employment.  Biden and liberals are fine resting on those laurels until the electorate demands more.  

What do you think the millions of uninsured are drinking right now, healthcare-wise?  There's never been a fucking glass for a lot of us.  

What do you think the 1960's "incrementalists" or whatever you're calling yourselves position was on the Civil Rights Act?  On women's suffrage 100 years ago?  On labor laws or on social security? 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I quite enjoyed being on my mom's health insurance until I was 26, and I'm sure my friends with pre-existing conditions were much better off.

For starters.

I'm sure.  Why stop there?  What do you see as a realistic timeline to the US joining the rest of the civilised world on this issue (universal healthcare)?    

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I don't see how anyone can look at the ACA and really call it a win. Too many compromises, did nothing to help us move away from the employer-based system, and it did nothing to lower the actual cost of care. 

Most of this was wrong.

Healthcare has decreased significantly compared to projections of cost. 

A whole lot of people get healthcare until 26 on their parent's plans - my son included, who got to have healthcare for his cancer treatment. 

A whole lot more have healthcare through medicaid expansion.

 

Is it enough? Nope! Not at all. But it is definitely better. 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Are you talking mainly about immigration policies?

That has been part of it. Particularly when combined with globalization, which from my reading of the literature has amplified anti immigrant sentiment. Not only in the United States but in Europe as well. The general pattern has been that areas that were exposed to greater import competition (mainly through the "China Shock") have become more anti-immigrant and right wing. It also has seemingly created a big divide between urban and rural areas and between the college educated and the non college educated.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

On college applications especially- there is a monetary value to checking that box. Like I hate it when people dress like my culture for Halloween or sporting events (which is the most widespread version of racefacing so I see it A LOT), but I care more about the fact that people take up opportunities reserved for native peoples as a small gesture to make up for the you know, whole genocide thing.

Well, quotas were ruled unconstitutional for public universities in 1978 (Bakke).  But that's really irrelevant from what I remember - the issue with Warren was her using it in her professional academic career to get jobs and specifically Harvard law school itself hyping her up as indicative of their racial diversity.  It's very difficult to argue that in these misrepresentations she was "taking up opportunities reserved" for any group.  It's not like she was only hired by Harvard because she said she had native heritage.

[Mexal]

6 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Okay, so does the notion of compromise apply to the right as well as the left? What are some examples of the right compromising?

I think it should. Clearly they don't see it that way in today's political moment, at least cross party wise anyway. They do compromise within their party which still doesn't actually help anyone who needs it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Putting it on applications actually steals real world not feelings opportunities from actual native people. On college applications especially- there is a monetary value to checking that box. Like I hate it when people dress like my culture for Halloween or sporting events (which is the most widespread version of racefacing so I see it A LOT), but I care more about the fact that people take up opportunities reserved for native peoples as a small gesture to make up for the you know, whole genocide thing.

Now here we can find a commonality. The former is disgraceful. The latter simply has no place, outside of the rare instances in which it is done with integrity, and rare they are. 

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, quotas were ruled unconstitutional for public universities in 1978 (Bakke).  But that's really irrelevant from what I remember - the issue with Warren was her using it in her professional academic career to get jobs and specifically Harvard law school itself hyping her up as indicative of their racial diversity.  It's very difficult to argue that in these misrepresentations she was "taking up opportunities reserved" for any group.  It's not like she was only hired by Harvard because she said she had native heritage.

There are LOTS of native specific college grants, which is what I was referring to. So while checking that box in financial aid forms, you are accessing real actual money and loans available to native students. My siblings got a small break on their University of Minnesota tuition bills this way.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Things are better for some people.  Healthcare is still tied to employment.

Other than the massive medicaid expansion? I mean, seriously, that was by far the real win. 

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

 Biden and liberals are fine resting on those laurels until the electorate demands more. 

Which is why Biden and other liberals have consistently championed improvements to it?

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

What do you think the millions of uninsured are drinking right now, healthcare-wise?  There's never been a fucking glass for a lot of us.  

About half of them have insurance now that didn't. That again, is not enough. But it is something. Is it so hard to acknowledge that it actually did some good?

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

What do you think the 1960's "incrementalists" or whatever you're calling yourselves position was on the Civil Rights Act?  On women's suffrage 100 years ago?  On labor laws or on social security? 

The civil rights act was the incrementalist approach. The converse to that was Malcolm X's approach. 

Women's suffrage is interesting, but I suspect wouldn't have happened unless WW1 happened. Or the spanish flu.

Labor laws and social security? Great depression results. 

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm sure.  Why stop there?  What do you see as a realistic timeline to the US joining the rest of the civilised world on this issue (universal healthcare)?    

Honestly? Maybe 2050. Maybe never. The forces aligned against it are pretty strong, and the US is almost certainly illiberal and undemocratic and is going to get worse. It would take a massive disaster - far worse than the novel coronavirus - to make people change significantly. 

By 2050 we'll probably have such a changed world that one of two things will occur - the US will either be entirely neo-feudalistic, or will have enough agitation to be able to bring about strong social reform. I don't know which happens, but probably not before then. 

[Fury Resurrected]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Other than the massive medicaid expansion? I mean, seriously, that was by far the real win. 

Which is why Biden and other liberals have consistently championed improvements to it?

About half of them have insurance now that didn't. That again, is not enough. But it is something. Is it so hard to acknowledge that it actually did some good?

The civil rights act was the incrementalist approach. The converse to that was Malcolm X's approach. 

Women's suffrage is interesting, but I suspect wouldn't have happened unless WW1 happened. Or the spanish flu.

Labor laws and social security? Great depression results. 

Honestly? Maybe 2050. Maybe never. The forces aligned against it are pretty strong, and the US is almost certainly illiberal and undemocratic and is going to get worse. It would take a massive disaster - far worse than the novel coronavirus - to make people change significantly. 

By 2050 we'll probably have such a changed world that one of two things will occur - the US will either be entirely neo-feudalistic, or will have enough agitation to be able to bring about strong social reform. I don't know which happens, but probably not before then. 

It has long been my opinion that with our greatest advances in civil rights, you need your more radical example for the nonviolent MLK examples to succeed. Nonviolence doesn’t work until it is known that violence is among possible options. The suffragettes blew shit up and set fires and threw bricks. I think it’s a larger scale game of good cop bad cop.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

It has long been my opinion that with our greatest advances in civil rights, you need your more radical example for the nonviolent MLK examples to succeed. Nonviolence doesn’t work until it is known that violence is among possible options. The suffragettes blew shit up and set fires and threw bricks. I think it’s a larger scale game of good cop bad cop.

Yes! Absolutely! One of the main reasons that MLK was so effective was that there were two options on the table, and we were seeing the effects of both of them. LBJ was a racist bastard and he saw that if he didn't go with MLK, he'd go with X. 

That's why I say that I don't see M4A or something like it happening for a while. There is simply not enough agitation that would produce a movement that will get off their ass and actually fight for it. The US for the last 40 years has largely been against protest and riot as a tool for change, and we've seen that in the last 4 years. Think about all the outrageous, horrifying things that Trump has done or enabled - the children dying in cages and washing up on our shores, the rampant corruption, the greed, the actual nazis parading - and think about how many major protests we've had. 

If Trump now doesn't get people pissed off seriously, what will? 

When you have that answer, you'll know when M4A is going to happen realistically all at once. Otherwise, it's gonna be incremental changes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Okay, so does the notion of compromise apply to the right as well as the left? What are some examples of the right compromising?

No.

And that's the unfair part of the game. 

[Mexal]

Also for the record, M4A is terrible branding. Should have stuck with Universal Healthcare.

[DanteGabriel]

48 minutes ago, Pecan said:

But tell me how centrist Dem politics have made a difference in anything? 

Name a "progressive" Democrat that got elected President. What a stupid fucking question.