Us Politics: my creepy grandpa can beat up your creepy grandpa

[Larry of the Lawn]

As you were, you bunch of masochists

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

As you were, you bunch of masochists

Well now then, friend, we do like following politics after all. 

[DMC]

Only because my creepy grandpa is dead.  Jerk.

[mcbigski]

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

Only because my creepy grandpa is dead.  Jerk.

At least that means Hunter isnt your daddy.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

At least that means Hunter isnt your daddy.

Huh?  Maybe it's just cuz I'm high but I have no idea what Hunter you're referring to.

[mcbigski]

Hunter Biden.  Joe Biden having had creepy hands meme wise since before Trump was POTUS. C'mon.  That one was worth a chuckle.

[DMC]

Ah.  Yeah fair enough, shoulda got that.

[Guest]

The small business loan program (not the PPP, the other one - too high too look it up), isn't working at all.

Quote

There is a growing agreement among many economists that the government’s efforts were too small and came too late in the fast-moving pandemic to prevent businesses from abandoning their workers. Federal agencies, working in a prescribed partnership with Wall Street, have proved ill equipped to move money quickly to the places it is needed most.

An analysis by University of Chicago economists of data from Homebase, which supplies scheduling software for tens of thousands of small businesses that employ hourly workers in dining, retail and other sectors, suggests more than 40 percent of those firms have closed since the crisis began.

Realistically speaking, is there any way to come back from this economically without a planned-type economy at least at the level of New Deal style programs? It's looking like the direct-payment to individuals programs are going to be the ones that work more efficiently, meaning that more Americans will become used to receiving direct payments from their government.

This crisis is also laying bare that the vulnerabilities of the just-in-time inventory and long, fragile supply chains with zero redundancies, all in pursuit of maximum efficiency, are just not realistic, especially when considering the upcoming disruptions that will occur due to climate change.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Trump has bungled the response so badly that he will be unable to control the narrative enough to keep his base on his side, and that he will certainly lose the election in November. That means I'm becoming increasingly concerned that we are on the brink of an inflection point; there are enough grifters and frauds in the Republican party who have hitched their wagon so tightly to Trump that they'll go down with him. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling feels increasingly like a trial balloon. If it starts looking like Democrats will win in a landslide, Republicans may try to use the pandemic to "postpone" the election "just until the pandemic is over".

I'm probably just being paranoid because I'm high, but it's definitely something I'm concerned about.

ETA: Of course, the flip side is that Republicans come to their senses and work with Democrats to override Trump. But I'm not about to start betting on Republicans growing a spine now.

[karaddin]

10 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

As someone involved with this kind of thing, I can tell you with certainty that Sanders’ support and signal boosting has been helpful on pipeline issues and MMIW issues. Native people and the issues we face have a HUGE visibility problem to overcome before we can overcome any other problem.

Democrats don’t currently care, but if they wanna keep saying they are the party for racial justice, they should. The whole Elizabeth Warren issue really laid bare how little of a fuck Democrats-even in the progressive wing, even in my personal acquaintance- give about indigenous people and racism against us.

I'm well and truly familiar with being told that the electorate just doesn't care/won't vote for my particular flavour of minority and that I need to accept that, be quiet and accept that reality while voting for someone that won't improve these things.

There are very few things that make me more pissed off. If the electorate doesn't care about these forms of justice then it's the job of our representatives to convince them they should care, not sell us out in a futile attempt to appeal to voters that are comfortable with/desire explicit bigotry. My feelings on this seem pretty comparable to what I'd feel in your boots. Warren's handling of this was appalling and said pretty clearly that she just wanted it to go away rather than demonstrate an understanding that it was wrong and making an attempt to atone.

[ants]

Going to do a monster response post...

12 hours ago, Pecan said:

I think most of the leftist contingent of the Dem voting block was squarely in support of Sanders. It was the moderates that were the problem. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

No, there are definitely people who see Sanders as a socialist and not a progressive.  A good example of the issue with approaches like Sanders is the way Obama went about the recovery.  He was so concerned with not being seen as favouring AA, that there weren't any specific measures to treat this demographic and get them back.  The result?  It wasn't until under Trump, 9 years after the GFC, that AA unemployment started really falling (nad to be clear, this wasn't due to Trump, but the overall recovery).  Now Corona will have screwed that.  So without any special focus, African Americans effectively got about a 2 year window with somewhat decent employment.  

12 hours ago, Pecan said:

.......On top of that, there's zero reason for the growing left-wing contingent of the Dem voting block to get excited about him since he's come out squarely against every single progressive policy priority. And so I just don't see how he can possibly win against Trump. 

They shouldn't need to get excited.  If opposing Trump isn't sufficient reason to vote Biden then (where their vote matters) and they don't vote that way, they're effectively showing they support misogyny, racism, corruption, conservative judges, etc. etc.  

12 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

And on the shaking fists at clouds talk- you’re talking about a guy who got most of the party to support universal healthcare. .....

Really.  Clinton tried to get universal healthcare back in the nineties, most candidates did not have M4A.  On what basis has he got the Democrats to support universal healthcare more than was the previous position?  

11 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This is the perpetual excuse of people who depend on the status quo, it's what they say to people who need actual material gains now.   They say wait, and it will be better.  They say, you're right, but don't be so angry about it. 

No, they say you're approach will get squat.  Getting something is better than nothing, and moves you closer to the position where you get everything.  

10 hours ago, Pecan said:

How is nudging things along helpful for any issues that Democrats care about? If you believe in policies like universal health care, what does that even mean? Obamacare was one great big compromise that has now been almost entirely dismantled. Even employer-based health care is incredibly expensive. How has nudging things along helped with environment standards when Trump has essentially defanged the EPA? Nudging things along does nothing to help restore unions. 

All nudging things along means is to elect centrist Democrats that won't enact any sort of meaningful policies. 

Anyone who honestly says that the ACA getting around 20 million Americans health cover (and would have been more if not for the Republicans) and people with pre-existing conditions cover is an unhelpful nudge and unimportant is pretty much revealing themselves to be morally bankrupt. 

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

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.  

.....

Except this is BS.  The Dems have tried to pass improvements to the ACA, opposed changes to it, and every single presidential candidate was promising at least public option.  

10 hours 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?

Sure.  There are corporate Republicans who can't stand the evangelical side and vice versa.  But they work together to get what they want done.  One side gets tax cuts and the other gets social rights restricted and the advancement of religious rights. 

9 hours ago, Pecan said:

I guess where I'm coming from is the perspective that when Democrats are in power, there's always this notion that we have to compromise with the right and how important it is to build bi-partisanship, but you never hear that from the other side. Obama tried working with Republicans on the ACA, basically modeling Romney's plan in MA and still didn't get a single Republican vote. 

Democrats in Power = Compromise - Dems get some things, Republicans get some things

Republicans in Power = No Compromise - Republicans get everything

That's because generally the Dems want to change things for the better, the Republicans just want things as they are or to stop them. With the USA's stupid, undemocratic system involving two major cut-outs (the Senate Filibuster and the Presidential veto), the reality is that both sides only have limited ability to change anything major.  Unfortunately, this suits the Republicans far better, and the changes they do want are easier to make with reconciliation.

The other problem is that Democratic voters expect their party to act as rational actors.  The Republican voters don't give a crap, they just want their side to win.  That means that Dem politicians face issues the Republican ones don't have.  

9 hours ago, Pecan said:

Well, there hasn't been one. Clinton and Obama were both centrists, and of course Obama got together with Clyburn to kneecap Sanders. I hope Democrats enjoy another 4 years of Trump and losing the Supreme Court and the Judiciary for the next quarter century because Biden is going to lose hard. 

Well, given Sanders would have lost harder, and it's a redistricting election, if Biden loses I'll still be happy that less damage was done than running a socialist. 

 

9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Because you're telling everyone to wait and push for tiny reforms that eventually get to universal healthcare.  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask when or how.  

Q:When are we going to get there? 

A: When we get there*

 

The * indicates a bullshit yet true answer 

The first step is to get in a public option, and use it as a backbone to build public hospitals, restrict hugely expensive treatments, use government buying power to get costs down.  The next step is to do what @OldGimletEye suggested (copied below) which is to slowly feed the employer based system arsenic.  Move the tax benefits from employers to employees.  Restrict the level of government support to the same as other areas.  Charge back a share of emergency care to employers.  

This should do two things - convince the American electorate that the government can provide effective health care, and make them less desirable of staying with employer insurance.  As that happens, people will shift to the public option, making the private system less viable, and a universal system will become viable.  If the government doesn't screw up the public option, I think it will take about 15 years (really guestimate).   

9 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The best way to deal with employer sponsored care is to feed it a little bit of arsenic here and a little bit of arsenic there, until finally it keels over. In my view the the phasing in part should be rather lengthy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, ants said:

. 

Except this is BS.  The Dems have tried to pass improvements to the ACA, opposed changes to it, and every single presidential candidate was promising at least M4A.  

).   

The bolded is objectively false.  Only Warren and Sanders had this as part of their platforms.

[ants]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The bolded is objectively false.  Only Warren and Sanders had this as part of their platforms.

Sorry, wrote the wrong thing.  I meant to say the public option (and to be clear, I mean the major players.  I don't actually know what every one of the 16 odd candidates had).  

[Rippounet]

Love the title.

@mcbigski I've been assuming for a while now that your avatar was Andy Samberg... It's not?

[Fragile Bird]

I love the way the troll has made you all dance. I did point out that they used a nut as their name for a reason.

[Week]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I love the way the troll has made you all dance. I did point out that they used a but as their name for a reason.

Mcbigski is a butt?

I kid ... I kid ...

[IheartIheartTesla]

Democrats have opened up an impressive 7.8 point lead in the generic ballot, so I question whether the slight improvement in Trump approval ratings translate to votes. Will there really be that much vote splitting going on?

Its a bit of a complex thing to untangle, but (for now) it would appear the House is safe.

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

Mcbigski is a butt?

I kid ... I kid ...

‘Sighs’

Lol, corrected!

[Mexal]

37 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Democrats have opened up an impressive 7.8 point lead in the generic ballot, so I question whether the slight improvement in Trump approval ratings translate to votes. Will there really be that much vote splitting going on?

Its a bit of a complex thing to untangle, but (for now) it would appear the House is safe.

We'll see how long that bump lasts. From everything I keep seeing, Trump's ratings are going down, first in the way he's handling Covid and then overall approval rating. I highly doubt any of this will translate into votes.

[Ser Reptitious]

@Tywin et al., regarding your exchange with @larrytheimp in the previous thread, as someone who considers himself neither an incrementalist nor a revolutionary (or rather, someone who is open to moving along that spectrum as seems appropriate based on the situation at hand), I think your response to larry weakens your argument, rather than strengthening it. Your definition of incrementalism seems to be to basically support the status quo until shit threatens to hit the fan on a particular issue, at which point the so-called incrementalists would spring into action to secure some changes (but likely significantly less than is needed to truly address the problem on a fundamental level). 

 

You make no secret about the fact that you were born into wealth and privilege. As such, you can afford to take such an extremely patient approach to change. After all, even if no change whatsoever happens, you will be just fine, economically speaking. If you were a more selfish person, you could probably easily be one of those country club Republicans who only care about enriching themselves and couldn't care less about anyone else, especially the poor. But, kudos to you, you are not like that. You are aware of the enormous privileges you were born into, and you yearn for a better, more equal world. You are even willing to make some economic sacrifices in order to achieve increased fairness. Seems to me you could be considered part of the "noblesse obligé". 

 

But many other people are not so lucky. They need changes on critical issues to happen much faster. If you want to win them over to a more incremental approach, it would be useful to sell a more proactive version, rather than the reactive one you've been peddling to larry. 

 

Let's take the ACA, for example, the obvious go-to example in favour of incrementalism. Yes, it made big steps in the right direction, and people definitely should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Take what you can get at a given moment and move on. I tend to agree with that. BUT, the fly in the ointment is what exactly does the "move on" part mean in practical terms? This is the question that larry posed to you, and for too many so-called centrists or 'moderates' (including yourself, as you admitted) the answer seems to be "take a victory lap, then rest on our laurels until circumstances push us to take further action". 

 

To me, that is not incrementalism (except perhaps in its most minimalistic form). That is supporting the status quo until such time as it becomes untenable and then trying to find a partial solution to the problem. No wonder that people who require a quicker pace are dismissive of such 'incrementalism' and therefore are drawn to more radical proposals. 

 

In terms of the ACA, a true incremental approach would be to now actively push for a public option as the next step. And by that I don't just mean the Democratic presidential candidates, but every self-styled incrementalist/moderate Democrat politician should be strenuously and visibly pushing for this, in a coordinated effort. If moderates were widely seen as genuinely actively pushing for the next rung on the incrementalist ladder, I think a lot more progressives could be mollified. I get the sense that a lot of the bad blood between the 'progressive' and 'moderate' wings of the Democratic party is based on the suspicion by progressives that the 'incrementalism' pushed by moderates is in fact simply an excuse for doing little or nothing for as long as possible. It would also help if rather than aggressively attacking proposals such as M4A as unrealistic pie-in-the-sky (and using Republican talking points such as 'taking away people's health care'), they would instead argue that while the idea is good in principle, the time may not be right yet, or that a substantial, carefully managed transition period would be needed. Such an approach of constructive criticism would underpin the notion that both progressives and moderates are indeed aiming for the same end point, they genuinely simply have different speeds of getting there.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Ser Reptitious,

I'm not sure it's fair to call a child of privilege who dreams of a world without money someone who is defending the status quo. Because I want a very different world. Funny how you cite a country club. It always offended me hearing people say at the clubs I was born into that nobody else should be able to join, unless they have a lot to offer to the members financially. I would see the vastness of what we had and wonder why more could not enjoy it. Why everyone should not be able to enjoy it, in fact. 

But to address what seems to be the heart of your thesis, I think you're mistaken. Moderate should be replaced with pragmatic, because many who are labeled moderates want, generally speaking, the same thing as the most strident progressives. We just see different means to the end, and I don't think banging your fist on the table and demanding it all now is the right way to go about things. I'll take a quarter on the dollar if I think I can get it in full in time. And that is exactly what Biden is doing. He is saying we need to push for a public option, which is the obvious next step from the ACA. That's not defending the status quo, that's building on past achievements.