U.S. Politiks: The Manchin-ian Candidate

[Gorn]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it should be significantly more difficult.

Me as well, I'm just mentioning it as an example of the type of knowledge that would be tested for.

I also thought it would be fun to trip up right-wingers on the Civil War questions, but then I saw that "War between the States" is officially considered one of the accurate names for it, and "states rights" is one of officially accurate reasons for it  

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, DMC said:

Seriously, Question 2 doesn't make any sense.  I also don't see any reason to test MCs on the periodic table and definitely don't give a shit what they think about god.

It was just a joke, I came up with that test in five minutes. But I'm more interested in their ability to reason and think than actually getting an answer to the question asked.

If, for example, prospective Senator From Brazil DMC were to write as a response to question two the following:

"What an absurd question, and utterly irrelevant to the prosecution of this nation's present course. If a Democrat were elected in Wyoming and a Republican in California I would first introduce to the Congress a declaration of war against the latent Soviet Russian Union and the Sino Communist Conglomerate that maintains illegal control of the continental lands rightfully de jure to the Republic of China. To this effect the cyber terror attacks on democratic nations' most protected practices, the casting of votes, will culminate and cease with the unleashing of sufficient unmanned aerial assault vehicles over both illegal governments to obscure the heavens and disintegrate the subjective regimes that have made the world unsafe for democracy!"

I'd call that a full credit response. They may be John Bolton, but at least they're not a Trump.

[Fez]

In a bit of good news, the Supreme Court appears unlikely to end the administrative state in almost its entirety; which is what the plaintiffs in Cedar Points Nursery vs. Hassid were trying to do: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/justices-try-to-draw-lines-in-california-property-rights-dispute/

On its face it's a relatively minor union-busting case, and with a 6-3 court that part will probably happen. And actually, it sounded like the 3 liberals might be on board with striking down this particular California regulation as well.

But the plaintiffs were trying to redefine property rights to be near absolute, to the point that business owners could prohibit health and safety inspectors from coming on to their properties. Which Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all seemed pretty strongly opposed to.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

But I'm more interested in their ability to reason and think than actually getting an answer to the question asked.

I know you were joking, but I think the test should be primarily questions that can be answered with objective knowledge.  It's virtually impossible to apply a general standard to evaluate these hippy open-ended questions attempting to gauge their ability to reason.  And a test to qualify someone for elected office should not be so reliant on the grader's subjective opinion of the answers.

13 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

If, for example, prospective Senator From Brazil DMC

Senator from Brazil sounds like a pretty awesome job.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Biden won and Harris had to adjust her healthcare policies. Has her advocacy changed Biden's positions much at all? Maybe there are some examples in the margins. That's really not much of a point, and Biden already wanted to moved the issue to the left and expand the ACA. Fighting for M4A probably didn't have much impact there. But you are right that Bernie did move the goal posts, a point I've made for years and why I said he ultimately won, but he also hasn't turned that into nearly as much as he's promised. And that's been my point. Politicians who over promise and under deliver need to be called out. It's very unlikely he would have accomplished his stated goals if he won, and where would that have left us?

Shocking that liberal cities are reforming their policies. How are those same talking points helping in swing districts? It's largely a dead fish talking point that doesn't help people who want reform. It was always a bad idea.

Biden won by not being Trump, having moderate appeal and frankly, by acting like a normal human being. But Democrats underperformed in November in Congress. People on the far left taking positions they never really had to defend did no favors to Dems in knife fights. 

And for like the thousandth time, I'm no centrist, but I am a pragmatist and I know how hard it can be to just rename a street.

A reminder that where this started from was your claim that "musings" were a "major" political problem. Harris had to adjust her stance to fit Biden but given that her past stated support for MFA was not devastating to her prospects as a Vice Presidential candidate I think that's pretty clear proof that your initial claim is flat out unsupportable. And if you're conceding that Bernie moved the ball on this issue, which he certainly did, maybe that demonstrates a benefit to musing about difficult to reach goals? I have no idea what you are suggesting the alternative is. Say nothing about anything that's not a lock until a sign from the heavens tells us it's now possible and it's sprung upon the American people and passed into law in short order? 

Those liberal cities have tens of millions of residents who might benefit from any amount of police reform. Some lives might be saved, even. I don't know why you think this can be dismissed because it's not "shocking," but the idea that whatever amount of reform did take place does not owe at least in part to massive protests and radical demands over the summer is absurd. People with a chance to effect real change where they live shouldn't be asked to quiet down because centrists in swing districts claim, essentially, to be too inept to campaign on their own positions. 

I understand that you don't like to consider yourself a centrist, but that is a very common term for comparing relative ideology. Your constant insistence that you be deemed a pragmatist as opposed to a centrist is basically just a form of question begging. The debate is over what political routes are practical and pragmatic. It's understood that you want to consider yourself a pragmatist. I consider myself a pragmatist. Everyone thinks their strategy is pragmatic- if they do not they are deeply confused. What you consider pragmatic is centrist, relative to what leftists like Bernie, AOC, or yours truly consider pragmatic. That is the crux of the debate and we require terms to draw the distinction, regardless of whether you dislike being called a centrist in this relative sense. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I would, seriously, be open to competency tests for elected officials.  I'm just not sure how to design a fair and appropriate test.  Definitely would not use IQ tests.

I don't think you want competency tests per se. I think you want integrity tests. "Competency" is too suggestive of pieces of paper that says you've been educated to a certain level. It's more important that politicians are honest, trustworthy, have a commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democracy (not the rules of democracy, because those can change, eg FPTP vs PR). That is competency, but not so much in the manner that I think most people see it.

[Ser Reptitious]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

...How in the fuck did talking about age maximums for MCs turn into this?

Because Tywin has a chicken that he likes to fuck as often as possible... 

It's almost like he was chomping at the bit to start yet another pointless debate about super-duper pragmatism, even though the conversation was about something else entirely. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I was talking about government involvement in healthcare. Making a live attempt to strip 40 million people of healthcare makes you an anti-healthcare party. "Get a job you lazy fucker and buy your own healthcare " is not a valid response to that.

To them, it is. Again, you're arguing with someone who is on your side here. 

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Republicans suddenly being pro-environment and government regulation around such does not suddenly lead to the Democratic party's environmentalists flipping and becoming against environmental regulations. I grant that I could definitely see Republicans doing this. And the whole mask fiasco is a great example of this.

If Trump came out in favor of the environment with specific policies, I guarantee you there would have been a lot of dems opposing it on the grounds that Trump was in favor. Again, there are studies on this - simply making something that Dems support known as supported by Dems turns people off that might have otherwise been in favor. 

And you're right that some things aren't going to be like this because they're pretty cut and dried, but that's not the majority of policies. A great example of this is the debt, where the debt is always - on both sides - something to hammer the other side on when they're spending, and something to ignore when it suits. The debt is something that isn't a big deal overall for most people, but it becomes a bigger deal as the other side deals with it. 

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Polarization exists, and is more pronounced, but it is also very one sided. Democrats usually have an issue or 2 that is important to them, then they get more involved in the party and learn about other issues. I have healthcare. I have a friend that finds abortion politics to be of the highest of interest. I used to be somewhat against gun control, although not a full on gun nut or gun owner. What changed my mind was partly a huge list of mass shootings, and secondly being already part of the party I was exposed to various arguments from people I trusted. At no point did Republicans stance on guns enter into the picture. 

Then you can look at someone like Raidne, who ended up marrying someone who was into guns - so she became more into guns. All depends on your ingroup.

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

There being a lot of centrists in the party doesn't really mean much. I'm mostly talking about the middle of the party, the people in between leftist and centrist.. But that there are a lot of centrists in the party is another sign of one party being more rational than the other.

That doesn't change anything about what I said. People are like this - all people. 

 

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

So wait, is there now less support for M4a or police reform?  This is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense.  Is M4a any less likely to happen in the next 10 years because it was an issue in the Dem primaries?  This line of thinking devolves  into total nihilism pretty quickly.

There is less support for both right now, yes. There was less support for some kind of universal health care after the ACA. There is less support for broad police reform after it became a hot-button issue than there was immediately after Floyd, and even less after it became less of an issue two months later. Like - this is something you can go out and look for if you want to go find it. 

Something y'all might be interested in is the theory of Green Lantern Presidents, where if someone is able to be a great orator and can bully legislators to their cause they'll get things done. LBJ and Reagan are both seen as these kinds of POTUS. But it really isn't accurate, and is especially inaccurate now. You can make all the stump speeches you want; you're not going to get a dem who won a 70% Trump state to go your way. 

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't think you want competency tests per se. I think you want integrity tests. "Competency" is too suggestive of pieces of paper that says you've been educated to a certain level. It's more important that politicians are honest, trustworthy, have a commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democracy (not the rules of democracy, because those can change, eg FPTP vs PR). That is competency, but not so much in the manner that I think most people see it.

I want my politicians to possess pieces of competency paper. 

Meanwhile, I don't know how one would test for 'integrity'.

You know folks can cheat on personality/behavior tests right? I mean I have letters from 4 different shrinks stating that I definitely am not a psychopath even though I totally am.

[Martell Spy]

Bernie Sanders making plans to push prescription drug reforms through reconciliation

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/bernie-sanders-prescription-drugs-reconciliation/index.html

Quote

 

(CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is set to unveil a trio of bills designed to lower the cost of prescription drugs and give American consumers access to the competitive global drug market.

On Tuesday, Sanders will introduce the three bills ahead of a hearing of his Budget Committee on the topic. One bill is designed to index the price of popular drugs according the global market. A second will give Medicare the opportunity to pay for drugs through a competitive bidding process, and the third would allow Americans to buy drugs at cheaper prices from foreign sellers. The policy proposals are very similar to ones Sanders has previously championed as a senator and as a Democratic Presidential candidate.

"In my view, the pharmaceutical industry is out of control," Sanders said in an interview with CNN. "They can charge any price they want at any time and that has to change."

From his perch as Budget Committee chairman, Sanders wields a powerful weapon. He is able to push through legislation through the reconciliation process, which allows bills, which directly impact the federal budget, to pass the Senate with a simple majority, as opposed to standard pieces of legislation that must overcome a 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster to move forward.

 

 

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't think you want competency tests per se. I think you want integrity tests. "Competency" is too suggestive of pieces of paper that says you've been educated to a certain level. It's more important that politicians are honest, trustworthy, have a commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democracy (not the rules of democracy, because those can change, eg FPTP vs PR).

Well, I actually do want competency tests (or at least would be open to trying to construct one).  As Jace said, it's pretty much impossible to credibly administer a "integrity test."

29 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

I mean I have letters from 4 different shrinks stating that I definitely am not a psychopath

Pics or it didn't happen.

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Something y'all might be interested in is the theory of Green Lantern Presidents, where if someone is able to be a great orator and can bully legislators to their cause they'll get things done. LBJ and Reagan are both seen as these kinds of POTUS. But it really isn't accurate, and is especially inaccurate now.

It's important to note that Nyhan differentiated between these two versions - the Reagan version of communication OR the LBJ version of the president wrangling congress to pass his legislative agenda.  Reagan didn't deal with Congress much at all, his administration is pretty much the archetype of the imperial presidency where his CoS was considered the prime minister.  And LBJ was not an especially great orator/communicator.  But anyway, yeah, those days are dead with negative partisanship/affective polarization.  Even Neustadt's Power(s) to Persuade don't really apply to contemporary politics.  This has been clear for awhile - it's why Howell titled his book Power without Persuasion.  In 2003. 

That doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time though.  The 'Johnson treatment' may be a bit of hyperbole and myth-making, but it certainly was a thing that made him uniquely skilled at shepherding his agenda through Congress.  And Reagan definitely was very successful at the plebiscitary presidency.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

A reminder that where this started from was your claim that "musings" were a "major" political problem. Harris had to adjust her stance to fit Biden but given that her past stated support for MFA was not devastating to her prospects as a Vice Presidential candidate I think that's pretty clear proof that your initial claim is flat out unsupportable. And if you're conceding that Bernie moved the ball on this issue, which he certainly did, maybe that demonstrates a benefit to musing about difficult to reach goals? I have no idea what you are suggesting the alternative is. Say nothing about anything that's not a lock until a sign from the heavens tells us it's now possible and it's sprung upon the American people and passed into law in short order? 

We need to break this up.

There's a political problem when you, say as a hypothetical politician, spend a lot of time advocating for policies, with no consequence to yourself that have no chance of passing, all while hurting your own party members, which achieves nothing. 

Regarding Sanders, as he moved the discussion? Yes. Are any of his great claims even remotely closer to happening? Not really. It's still a better example of how to influence a party from within rather than as a third party, but I mean, M4A still isn't happening nor will it happen anytime soon, if it does at all in some form.

Quote

Those liberal cities have tens of millions of residents who might benefit from any amount of police reform. Some lives might be saved, even. I don't know why you think this can be dismissed because it's not "shocking," but the idea that whatever amount of reform did take place does not owe at least in part to massive protests and radical demands over the summer is absurd. People with a chance to effect real change where they live shouldn't be asked to quiet down because centrists in swing districts claim, essentially, to be too inept to campaign on their own positions. 

And yet have the reforms been enough? Back to my original point:

Quote

Only 18% of respondents supported the movement known as "defund the police," and 58% said they opposed it. Though white Americans (67%) and Republicans (84%) were much more likely to oppose the movement, only 28% of Black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/07/usa-today-ipsos-poll-just-18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/

Sounds like bad politics, no?

Quote

I understand that you don't like to consider yourself a centrist, but that is a very common term for comparing relative ideology. Your constant insistence that you be deemed a pragmatist as opposed to a centrist is basically just a form of question begging. The debate is over what political routes are practical and pragmatic. It's understood that you want to consider yourself a pragmatist. I consider myself a pragmatist. Everyone thinks their strategy is pragmatic- if they do not they are deeply confused. What you consider pragmatic is centrist, relative to what leftists like Bernie, AOC, or yours truly consider pragmatic. That is the crux of the debate and we require terms to draw the distinction, regardless of whether you dislike being called a centrist in this relative sense. 

Like AOC shaming people for not supporting M4A only to admit Biden's far more modest plan is what Democrats will have to do? It's that bullshit that bothers me. I want a form of universal healthcare, but I'm not wedded to any one solution. However, I won't be the one to sell you something I know can't happen. Is that the leadership you want? To lie to your face, then make you feel bad if you point out the obvious flaws? That was always the failure of Bernie. You can't sell people on the most expensive thing possibly in the history of our country by telling them a magic revolution will pay for it all. That's not leadership, that's winning a popularity contest. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

52 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We need to break this up.

There's a political problem when you, say as a hypothetical politician, spend a lot of time advocating for policies, with no consequence to yourself that have no chance of passing, all while hurting your own party members, which achieves nothing. 

Regarding Sanders, as he moved the discussion? Yes. Are any of his great claims even remotely closer to happening? Not really. It's still a better example of how to influence a party from within rather than as a third party, but I mean, M4A still isn't happening nor will it happen anytime soon, if it does at all in some form.

And yet have the reforms been enough? Back to my original point:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/07/usa-today-ipsos-poll-just-18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/

Sounds like bad politics, no?

Like AOC shaming people for not supporting M4A only to admit Biden's far more modest plan is what Democrats will have to do? It's that bullshit that bothers me. I want a form of universal healthcare, but I'm not wedded to any one solution. However, I won't be the one to sell you something I know can't happen. Is that the leadership you want? To lie to your face, then make you feel bad if you point out the obvious flaws? That was always the failure of Bernie. You can't sell people on the most expensive thing possibly in the history of our country by telling them a magic revolution will pay for it all. That's not leadership, that's winning a popularity contest. 

There was a Yale study showing that M4A reduces overall healthcare spending.  What's stopping M4a or universal healthcare in this country isn't Sanders or AOC, it's the health insurance industry.  

You can say you support this stuff, but you won't actually support until it's a guaranteed thing.  Someone has to make that happen.   That's not going to happen if people stop talking about it.  

Countries with way less wealth have been able to do this.  It's not some pie in the sky idea.  You want people like Biden to keep getting elected you're going to have to deal with the fact that a bunch of those people who support him want things that you just don't think are worth trying for in the next couple hundred years.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

Man, all that chatter about M4a during the primaries tanked public support for it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/%3famp=1

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Pics or it didn't happen.

That’s not fair.

Yeah I posted the pictures of my neighbor’s Pro Trump/Anti Biden flags when called out this way. 
 

But who keeps a record of papers saying they are not a psychopath? Probably a psychopath. 

[A True Kaniggit]

58 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Active shooter in Boulder.

Must be Monday in America. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Ok gatekeepers, I'm hearing some chatter on DC statehood today, including from Elizabeth Warren.  What's the verdict, can we discuss it or will that prevent it from ever happening?

 

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

There was a Yale study showing that M4A reduces overall healthcare spending.  What's stopping M4a or universal healthcare in this country isn't Sanders or AOC, it's the health insurance industry.  

And people. 

Y'all have to remember that a whole lot of people do not want to lose their existing healthcare. That might be irrational and wrong! But it's also accurate. And it has nothing to do with the healthcare industry; it has to do with people both fearing change and probably getting more health insurance then they should as a benefit. 

40 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You can say you support this stuff, but you won't actually support until it's a guaranteed thing.  Someone has to make that happen.   That's not going to happen if people stop talking about it. 

Depends on the person. Someone like Sanders who is going to get re-elected anyway? Probably fine! Someone like Biden who has to deal with broad public support? Probably not!

40 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Countries with way less wealth have been able to do this.  It's not some pie in the sky idea.  You want people like Biden to keep getting elected you're going to have to deal with the fact that a bunch of those people who support him want things that you just don't think are worth trying for in the next couple hundred years.  

Conversely, those people are going to have to deal with the fact that the US is far more rightwing than most of those other places, has a long history of wanting to be the gatekeepers on poor people having any kind of benefit due to racism and sexism, AND you're fighting against something that is worth 1/6th of all the GDP in the US, with the added bonus that you have a political system that rewards one party with blocking everything and the rules to allow them to do it. 

 

8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok gatekeepers, I'm hearing some chatter on DC statehood today, including from Elizabeth Warren.  What's the verdict, can we discuss it or will that prevent it from ever happening?

 

Unless you're POTUS or a majority speaker you're probably okay. I dunno, I've not stalked you on insta recently

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok gatekeepers, I'm hearing some chatter on DC statehood today, including from Elizabeth Warren.

Here's a good article running down the GOP's ludicrous arguments against it at today's hearing.  The winner:

Been thinking about how to sell Manchin and Sinema on bending their filibuster stance on this and voting rights.  I think the argument - which I've mentioned before - that abolishing the filibuster solely for statehood is akin to abolishing it for executive/judicial nominations, could work.  It's a essentially a binary question, just like confirmation.  On voting rights, after Manchin's statements a couple weeks ago, convince him (and Sinema) that it belongs in reconciliation.  Obviously, reconciliation itself is bypassing the filibuster because the budget is of such great importance.  It's hard to argue voting rights are not at least equally important. 

So, that'd be my strategy for trying to get those two things through.  I don't think there's much hope for much else that can't get through reconciliation (immigration, minimum wage, reforming the courts, etc.).

12 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Unless you're POTUS or a majority speaker you're probably okay. I dunno, I've not stalked you on insta recently

The majority speaker has spoken (not to mention passed) about DC statehood often over the past few years.  Biden supports it too, and Psaki just expressed his support.