US Politics - It's a new dawn. It's a new day. It's a new life for US

[A Horse Named Stranger]

42 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

and if you've ever spoken with anarchists many will happily tell you they're in favour of free markets. Given they want to abolish the state some will argue they're more in favour of free markets than capitalists

Rand Paul is not an anarchist. He is a moron.

[GrimTuesday]

53 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

It's really not this. 

The problem as I've mentioned before is that a whole lot of people in this country like their insurance and do not want to lose it. You can say that they're stupid for that (they aren't) or that you need them to move on and get on board (that's more fair) but a whole lot of people out there did not want to lose their existing insurance through their employers because it was both what they were familiar with and in a lot of cases actually pretty fucking awesome. 

So getting rid of their insurance completely? Not really feasible as an immediate solution. 

The study that they cite when they bring that up is about their satisfaction with their employer provided insurance plan, not their insurance provider itself, which is a purposeful conflation of satisfaction with believing it is the best way to provide healthcare used by the insurance industry to justify their continue existence. Of course, whenever people like you accept this framing, that killing private insurance somehow represents losing a beloved and cherished institution, allows Republicans and the insurance industry to perpetuate the falsehood that a government take over of healthcare is bad. This framing of course completely ignores the fact that those numbers do not represent the totality of what that study said, including that large proportions indicate that the private coverage they have still leaves meaningful gaps, requiring them to skip or delay health care because they cannot afford it.

[Kalbear]

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

The study that they cite when they bring that up is about their satisfaction with their employer provided insurance plan, not their insurance provider itself, which is a purposeful conflation of satisfaction with believing it is the best way to provide healthcare used by the insurance industry to justify their continue existence.

It doesn't actually matter. They don't want their insurance taken away. You arguing this sort of thing is like saying 'well, they don't care about guns but they do care about bullets riddling their body'. It's willfully ignoring the information that you should care about. 

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

Of course, whenever people like you accept this framing, that killing private insurance somehow represents losing a beloved and cherished institution, allows Republicans and the insurance industry to perpetuate the falsehood that a government take over of healthcare is bad. This framing of course completely ignores the fact that those numbers do not represent the totality of what that study said, including that large proportions indicate that the private coverage they have still leaves meaningful gaps, requiring them to skip or delay health care because they cannot afford it.

It isn't a framing. It is something to actually care about when enacting policy. As someone else famously said, the problem that the US currently faces to actually get things done in health insurance is that too many people have too much insurance. You can logically point out the flaws in their arguments all you want and none of that matters because they are afraid of losing what they have. And for a lot of people, losing what they have will actually be a loss under medicare. Hell, I lost about $3k/year due to the ACA being enacted, right out of my pocket, because my insurance previous to this was absolutely insanely good. I'm willing to pay that, but a whole lot of other people I work with were pretty ticked off. 

If you can't answer this problem meaningfully and aren't even willing to engage this as a problem you will constantly lose again and again. It means that you need to demonstrate why whatever your solution is is not going to harm these people - or the harm is worth the benefit, like they're going to get more money or have better coverage or something. It means that you need to campaign on THAT first and foremost - not the fairness, not the cheapness, not any of it - but instead campaign on what this is going to do for the millions of people who already have health coverage.

So it's up to you - whether or not you want to keep fighting ineffective battles that will not get completed or even get anything done to help people, or fight battles that will actually move the needle. 

Put it another way: the ACA has done more to make more people want single payer or some other form of system than anything that had been done previously. It is now an actually popular program AND people want more of it. And it still cost 10 years of political capital to do so. Figure out how to build on that.

Or don't! And just keep ineffectively flailing. Totally fucking up to you. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

a whole lot of people in this country like their insurance and do not want to lose i

I'm hearing stories every day from people who have changed their minds about this, particularly those with cancer who need treatment right now.  Some of these are on their second round, when their remission from the first was ended. The bills they are getting that their insurance this round says it's not paying for are astronomical.  They didn't mind the firs astronomical bills, and the others they've had constantly for other medical conditions, because their insurance paid.  Now it's quitting on them.

 

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I'm hearing stories every day from people who have changed their minds about this, particularly those with cancer who need treatment right now.  Some of these are on their second round, when their remission from the first was ended. The bills they are getting that their insurance this round says it's not paying for are astronomical.  They didn't mind the firs astronomical bills, and the others they've had constantly for other medical conditions, because their insurance paid.  Now it's quitting on them.

Yes! These are the sorts of things that need to be emphasized - that most people's health coverage will NOT cover them for things like catastrophic issues like this but medicare (or whatever the fuck you're proposing) will. That surprise billing will still get you because of all the different coverage areas and whatnot, but magic bullet care works!

Show people how they will benefit from this new coverage. Show how people covered have less wait, more options, cheaper care and can deal with catastrophic care better. Make that the overwhelming focus of you wanting to do this - a coverage that is cheaper but more importantly covers you - yes you! - with better coverage than you have right now. 

And if your system DOESN'T  do that - then figure out a system for some people so they can get something that will. Supplemental gold coverage or something along those lines. 

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This post is less directed at you specifically, and more at the mainstream Dems in general:

Get over it, neo-liberal isn't a fucking slur.  Slur is another word that means a few different things.  In a political context, I think we might be more careful about using it to label something, especially when it's used to defend the establishment over people representing oppressed groups.

I don't think it's fair to label West's critiques of Obama as sectarianism and purity politics.  Especially when he's seen the Dems wave black americans around like mascots and then fuck them over when it's convenient.  Just because they do it less than the GOP doesn't mean West owes them shit.  The Dem party leadership, including Obama, has come up short on issues like police brutality.  And income inequality.  Sure, Obama got the DOJ to investigate things like systemic police violence but he was terrible on things like Standing Rock and amping up drone warfare.  I don't think you get to point the finger at West who is asking the Left to do better. 

His use of the term neo-liberal was, from what I recall, specifically used to describe backing of the MIC, systemic racism, and warlike behavior abroad.  He was really clear about why he supported Stein over Clinton in 2016, and it was all about foreign policy.  

The mainstream Dems have a really long history of shitty anti-social behavior.  I understand the appeal of utilitarianism but you don't get to tell Cornell West he has to always back a guy like Joe Biden or give him the benefit of the doubt after voting for the Iraq War, the credit bill (black people with student debt have on average $25k more in outstanding loans), lying about getting arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela, or trying to find common ground with segregationists when possible.  

Neo-liberal isn't a slur, it might be an insult or a label but don't come after West with that argument.  Just because the Dems put up a better alternative than the GOP for shit doesn't mean Cornell West owes them obedience and default agreement. 

Especially when he voted for and supported Joe Biden.  That's being an ally.  Don't claim that West is labelling Biden an enemy (i realize you didn't but that's the implication).  It doesn't mean he has to shut his mouth and reflexively defend every thing Biden does.  West has every right to be suspicious of Clinton or Biden.  

edit: you can quibble I the right definition of the word, but don't make the implied argument that Cornell West is 'slurring' mainstream Dems by saying neo-liberal.  We know what his critiques are. No need to dismiss that as a 'slur' or tone police a guy trying to make the world better.  

I'm glad this wasn't directed at me specifically because I said next to none of the things you point out here. For instance, I did disagree with West's use of the term "neo-liberal" to describe Obama's politics. I think it is an insult, but more importantly I think it is completely inaccurate. He was, and is, a notable example of this type of political analysis. One that I think is quite sectarian. He is not beyond criticism nor is any other example of this viewpoint.

How this translates to meaning West "has to shut his mouth and reflexively defend everything Biden does" is beyond my ability to see in the argument I made. Nor do I think West "owes them shit" when it comes to any political figure I know - Democratic, Republican, Independent, Green, or of any other political stripe. I certainly never said that "Cornell West owes them obedience and default agreement."He "owes" what we all owe. To put forward an analysis that makes sense, and advances the interests of people the world over. I disagree with his analysis of Democratic politicians in the specific example of Obama as "neo-liberal" because it is simply wrong on its face. If one thinks Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are ideological twins, then it is time to ask in what reality one lives?

Moreover, it leads to horribly mistaken strategies such as supporting the Green Party candidate for President in 2016. Again, the Green Party "owes" the Democratic Party nothing. Who it owes is the people of this country to come up with a strategy that doesn't help elect a fascist. Which is why I strongly support efforts to run stronger, more progressive candidates within the Democratic Party. Clone a hundred AOC's and I'd be for it. But give me a break from Jill Stein or Ralph Nader and their disastrous idea that there is no difference between Gore and Bush, or between Clinton and Trump.

You see, @larrytheimp, the "tone" of calling Obama a neo-liberal isn't really what concerns me. It is indeed discourteous to call people names they don't call themselves. It not a good tactic in working with people one needs to work with. But the main thing is how it leads to weakening the strategies for building necessary coalitions to make needed changes. The false analysis of equivalence destroys those coalitions instead of bringing them together.

I'm absolutely in favor of criticism of Democratic politicians who need to be criticized for their actions, or inactions. I include Obama AND Biden in that. Indeed, I think Obama was rightly criticized for his policy concerning immigration when it came to sending unaccompanied minors back to their countries of origin. On other issues as well. Biden has a much longer record to be criticized and rightly so. Have at it. Be my guest, and I'll join in when I think it valid.

@Centrist Simon Steele I'm not ignoring you. I'll try to respond when I have the time, but life leaves us all with other commitments. I will say, your use of the term "neo-liberal" set off my thinking on the subject, and I tried to start by saying my thoughts were not directed at you, but by the idea I think is often expressed in the current usage of the term. I try to respond more later today. Thank you for your patience.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Dominion sues Giuliani, too. For 1.3 billion. Dear Dominion, please don't settle!

And shouldn't they sue T and Don jr., too?

Sometimes the universe gives me gifts. 

If Dominion serves papers on the orange enormity and his increase, my neighbors will hear the loudest orgasm in human history. 

[GrimTuesday]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

It doesn't actually matter. They don't want their insurance taken away. You arguing this sort of thing is like saying 'well, they don't care about guns but they do care about bullets riddling their body'. It's willfully ignoring the information that you should care about. 

It isn't a framing. It is something to actually care about when enacting policy. As someone else famously said, the problem that the US currently faces to actually get things done in health insurance is that too many people have too much insurance. You can logically point out the flaws in their arguments all you want and none of that matters because they are afraid of losing what they have. And for a lot of people, losing what they have will actually be a loss under medicare. Hell, I lost about $3k/year due to the ACA being enacted, right out of my pocket, because my insurance previous to this was absolutely insanely good. I'm willing to pay that, but a whole lot of other people I work with were pretty ticked off. 

If you can't answer this problem meaningfully and aren't even willing to engage this as a problem you will constantly lose again and again. It means that you need to demonstrate why whatever your solution is is not going to harm these people - or the harm is worth the benefit, like they're going to get more money or have better coverage or something. It means that you need to campaign on THAT first and foremost - not the fairness, not the cheapness, not any of it - but instead campaign on what this is going to do for the millions of people who already have health coverage.

So it's up to you - whether or not you want to keep fighting ineffective battles that will not get completed or even get anything done to help people, or fight battles that will actually move the needle. 

Put it another way: the ACA has done more to make more people want single payer or some other form of system than anything that had been done previously. It is now an actually popular program AND people want more of it. And it still cost 10 years of political capital to do so. Figure out how to build on that.

Or don't! And just keep ineffectively flailing. Totally fucking up to you. 

You are accepting that the numbers that are being reported are both correct and tell the whole story, and are uncritically repeating corporate propaganda. This is accepting right wing framing, and your inability to understand that is one of the biggest failures on the Democratic side of the aisle. I 100% understand that people are afraid of losing what they have, and this is where the framing comes in, because you have to move the conversation away from people are going to lose their insurance, and towards this is how your insurance is going to be better.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

Yes! These are the sorts of things that need to be emphasized - that most people's health coverage will NOT cover them for things like catastrophic issues like this but medicare (or whatever the fuck you're proposing) will. That surprise billing will still get you because of all the different coverage areas and whatnot, but magic bullet care works!

Show people how they will benefit from this new coverage. Show how people covered have less wait, more options, cheaper care and can deal with catastrophic care better. Make that the overwhelming focus of you wanting to do this - a coverage that is cheaper but more importantly covers you - yes you! - with better coverage than you have right now. 

And if your system DOESN'T  do that - then figure out a system for some people so they can get something that will. Supplemental gold coverage or something along those lines. 

Dude, you literally just said that we have to reframe the issue after telling me that reframing the issue doesn't matter. Moving the conversation away from people like their healthcare and onto the abuses and predatory practices, and how a government plan does it better is reframing.

Also unrelated to the conversation with Kal, here is the biggest name in neo-liberalism, truly a intellectual titan.

 

[Mindwalker]

4 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Sometimes the universe gives me gifts. 

If Dominion serves papers on the orange enormity and his increase, my neighbors will hear the loudest orgasm in human history. 

Yes, but that SCOTUS shit is a real downer.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Also unrelated to the conversation with Kal, here is the biggest name in neo-liberalism, truly a intellectual titan.

No fair!  If you're gonna use neoliberalism to make fun Tom Friedman you're gonna make it harder for me to disagree with you because I really enjoy making fun of Tom Friedman.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh. So the President is free to break laws all through his presidency and never face prosecution because the DoJ has declared he can't be prosecuted, and then afterwards it's moot. Kinda like the argument the Republicans are making about impeachment, it's moot now.

Lovely, very lovely! 

Get used to it. Thanks to Trump there is a 6-3 durable conservative majority on the court and 3 of the 6 were put here by Trump himself. Just wait till they start shooting down environmental protections, health care reform, etc, etc. Trump's legacy will be with us for the next 20 years at least. Anyone who voted for Jill Stein in 2016 is a: Fucking. Idiot.

How does the Supreme court dismiss a case? is it a simple up-down vote? is there a statement that goes with it? the AP article didn't say.

[Week]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

No fair!  If you're gonna use neoliberalism to make fun Tom Friedman you're gonna make it harder for me to disagree with you because I really enjoy making fun of Tom Friedman.

An opportunity for unity thwarted again by a desire to own the (neo)libs.  ... 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Looks like the Lincoln project have set their sights on new targets.

 

 

It's basically the same message aimed at two people. Can't wait to see how they'll be going after Teddy boy. It's probably something along those lines, along with the sound bites of Trump insulting his entire family, and him asking for more. Basically the stuff, that Beto felt was beneath him.

[Fragile Bird]

I thought Yale and Harvard taught their students using the Socratic method, meaning their students learn to analyze and think through problems.

Are we seeing the greatest failure of all in their teaching methods, producing such idiots? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

59 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I'm glad this wasn't directed at me specifically because I said next to none of the things you point out here. For instance, I did disagree with West's use of the term "neo-liberal" to describe Obama's politics. I think it is an insult, but more importantly I think it is completely inaccurate. He was, and is, a notable example of this type of political analysis. One that I think is quite sectarian. He is not beyond criticism nor is any other example of this viewpoint.

How this translates to meaning West "has to shut his mouth and reflexively defend everything Biden does" is beyond my ability to see in the argument I made. Nor do I think West "owes them shit" when it comes to any political figure I know - Democratic, Republican, Independent, Green, or of any other political stripe. I certainly never said that "Cornell West owes them obedience and default agreement."He "owes" what we all owe. To put forward an analysis that makes sense, and advances the interests of people the world over. I disagree with his analysis of Democratic politicians in the specific example of Obama as "neo-liberal" because it is simply wrong on its face. If one thinks Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are ideological twins, then it is time to ask in what reality one lives?

Moreover, it leads to horribly mistaken strategies such as supporting the Green Party candidate for President in 2016. Again, the Green Party "owes" the Democratic Party nothing. Who it owes is the people of this country to come up with a strategy that doesn't help elect a fascist. Which is why I strongly support efforts to run stronger, more progressive candidates within the Democratic Party. Clone a hundred AOC's and I'd be for it. But give me a break from Jill Stein or Ralph Nader and their disastrous idea that there is no difference between Gore and Bush, or between Clinton and Trump.

You see, @larrytheimp, the "tone" of calling Obama a neo-liberal isn't really what concerns me. It is indeed discourteous to call people names they don't call themselves. It not a good tactic in working with people one needs to work with. But the main thing is how it leads to weakening the strategies for building necessary coalitions to make needed changes. The false analysis of equivalence destroys those coalitions instead of bringing them together.

I'm absolutely in favor of criticism of Democratic politicians who need to be criticized for their actions, or inactions. I include Obama AND Biden in that. Indeed, I think Obama was rightly criticized for his policy concerning immigration when it came to sending unaccompanied minors back to their countries of origin. On other issues as well. Biden has a much longer record to be criticized and rightly so. Have at it. Be my guest, and I'll join in when I think it valid.

Here's West himself on what he means re: neoliberalism and Obama.

Quote

It’s neoliberalism, which is this obsession with smartness and richness and bombs dropped on other parts of the world and sometimes bombs dropped here. It tends to put the stress much more on access to middle-class status and making that access more diverse––rather than attacking poverty, ensuring jobs with a living wage, quality education, single-payer healthcare. So the shift from attacking poverty––let’s say Martin King in 1968––to this obsession with diversity that you’re getting in the Supreme Court in relation to affirmative action, was a dilution and a domesticating of the issue.

One of the ways of making sure you sanitize any talk about racism is to talk about diversity.

We lost sight of attacking issues of poverty, class––with the death of Martin—and moved into an obsession with having black faces in high places. As long as we had those black faces in high places, the poor could live symbolically through them, vicariously through them. Or those black faces themselves, middle class and upper middle class, could claim that somehow they were the index of progress. Whereas the real index of progress is ensuring that when you’re living in poverty, you have a quality education for everybody––not ensuring you have more kids at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

He's mentioned the US's aggressive militaristic foreign policy and the Wall Street bailout many times when this comes up.  

I've never heard him call Obama and Reagan or Bush ideological twins.  When he refers to any of them as neo-liberals it's pretty clear he's talking foreign policy and corporations over people.  I'm just not seeing this "false analysis of equivalence" that you're saying is bad strategy.  Neither West, Simon Steele, or anyone else seems to be claiming the Biden is equivalent to Trump, or Reagan to Obama.

You might think that's a lousy definition, or just an insult, but he laid what he means by it.  If it's discourteous and bad strategy to call politicians by names they wouldn't use to describe themselves I guess I'll just keep being discourteous.  I think it's fair to call GWB a warmonger and Biden a corporatist.  I doubt they'd use those words themselves.

edit: that quote is from this interview

and yeah, West seems to have some actual personal animosity when it comes to Obama.  You want to call that bad strategy, ok.  I don't think calling centrists "neo-liberals" is preventing leftist policy goals from happening, but who knows.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I thought Yale and Harvard taught their students using the Socratic method, meaning their students learn to analyze and think through problems.

Are we seeing the greatest failure of all in their teaching methods, producing such idiots? 

Quote

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

He's mentioned the US's aggressive militaristic foreign policy and the Wall Street bailout many times when this comes up.  

It's pretty stupid to blame Obama for TARP considering he wasn't president when it was set up and all he did was manage it to make sure we got paid back - which we did.  Oh, I guess he also reduced the authorized expenditures from $700 billion to $475 billion with Dodd-Frank.

[Fragile Bird]

18 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

 

Oh, please. These are Harvard and Yale grads! The best of the best!

[DanteGabriel]

27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I thought Yale and Harvard taught their students using the Socratic method, meaning their students learn to analyze and think through problems.

Are we seeing the greatest failure of all in their teaching methods, producing such idiots? 

Ted Cruz analyzed and thought through the problem that his party's most devoted followers, after decades of right wing brainwashing and assaults on public education, are moronic bigots. His approach is logical. Cynical, nihilistic and vile, but he's just trying to take the shortest road to power.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Intelligence =/= competence or character, and getting into those schools is in part a reflection of your test taking skills, not your overall intelligence. I know a guy who went to Harvard law who could barely string five words together.