U.S. Politiks: The Manchin-ian Candidate

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

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. 

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!

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. 

 

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

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I'd point out, that I'm asking Ty this stuff because he doesn't seem to want anyone talking about anything that isn't a sure thing.  And he's been mixing up people talking about this on a nerd board with members of congress advocating for universal healthcare.

I don't mind people arguing against M4a or universal healthcare, but at least have the intestinal fortitude (as you've shown above) to argue that some people don't want to give up what they have, instead of saying "oh I totally support it but I just don't think it will ever be the time to support it, politically."   At least it's an argument.  

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

@DMC my favorite argument against statehood I heard today (forget who from) was the guy saying that they don't need representation in Congress because they already have it because congresspersons from all states [see] their political yard signs on the way to work.

[DMC]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

@DMC my favorite argument against statehood I heard today (forget who from) was the guy saying that they don't need representation in Congress because they already have it because congresspersons from all states are their yard signs on the way to work.

Yeah that was the runner up in the Mother Jones article.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Re: Universal healthcare - if we truly did manage to give everyone some kind of basic coverage, how much would we need to expand the labor force of healthcare workers?  I'd imagine that between people who are currently, uninsured, underinsured, or wary of using their expensive insurance we'd be looking at a pretty significant increase of people seeking medical treatment.

 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I'd point out, that I'm asking Ty this stuff because he doesn't seem to want anyone talking about anything that isn't a sure thing.  And he's been mixing up people talking about this on a nerd board with members of congress advocating for universal healthcare.

I think Ty has a point, in that it's kind of lame to lambast Biden for not trying to talk this stuff up because it will actually reduce the likelihood of anything passing. And that totally sucks, but it's also where we are and we need to recognize it. 

I think there's also a difference between talking about it and demanding it or not playing any kind of ball, which is what a lot of progressives seem to want to do. 

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I don't mind people arguing against M4a or universal healthcare, but at least have the intestinal fortitude (as you've shown above) to argue that some people don't want to give up what they have, instead of saying "oh I totally support it but I just don't think it will ever be the time to support it, politically."   At least it's an argument.  

I'm really unsure about M4A, honestly (mostly around catastrophic care), but I'm totally supportive of something like Americare or a number of other systems. My favorite is Singapore's, but there are a lot to choose from. Mostly, I want to get something done, and I'd rather figure out what those barriers are and how to deal with them. And if you're not willing to recognize that a whole lot of the US likes the healthcare the way it is - as shitty and blocking as it is for many others - then you're never going to get far. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Re: Universal healthcare - if we truly did manage to give everyone some kind of basic coverage, how much would we need to expand the labor force of healthcare workers?  I'd imagine that between people who are currently, uninsured, underinsured, or wary of using their expensive insurance we'd be looking at a pretty significant increase of people seeking medical treatment.

Honestly? not likely that much. The people that are currently uninsured rely heavily on super expensive and time-consuming things like emergency care visits. Plus preventative medical care is significantly less labor-intensive than reactive care. This is one of the reasons that universal care will likely be cheaper - because we'll be paying less for less actual treatments. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

I think Ty has a point, in that it's kind of lame to lambast Biden for not trying to talk this stuff up because it will actually reduce the likelihood of anything passing. And that totally sucks, but it's also where we are and we need to recognize it. 

I think there's also a difference between talking about it and demanding it or not playing any kind of ball, which is what a lot of progressives seem to want to do. 

I'm really unsure about M4A, honestly (mostly around catastrophic care), but I'm totally supportive of something like Americare or a number of other systems. My favorite is Singapore's, but there are a lot to choose from. Mostly, I want to get something done, and I'd rather figure out what those barriers are and how to deal with them. And if you're not willing to recognize that a whole lot of the US likes the healthcare the way it is - as shitty and blocking as it is for many others - then you're never going to get far. 

It's kind of difficult to talk about when the other argument is you can't talk about it.  Makes it tough to negotiate or compromise.

edit:

But yeah, there is a lot of intransigence and uberfocus on M4a from the left.  I think there is actually a lot of room for compromise there.

[Kalbear]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

It's kind of difficult to talk about when the other argument is you can't talk about it.  Makes it tough to negotiate or compromise 

Also depends a lot on the 'it'. Defund the police as a slogan and message is so unpopular that bringing it up in any kind of major way and expecting anything other than a firm denunciation is bad. Fight for 15 though? Probably a lot better. Same was true for a lot of Trumpian policies, and that did end up hurting the party (though probably not Trump directly). 

Mostly, I see a lot of people saying 'talk' when they mean' do what I say'. 

[DMC]

Obviously saying people shouldn't talk about policy changes that are not, at the moment, politically realistic is not a valid argument.  I only skimmed a lot of it, but I don't think that's what Ty meant to say.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Also depends a lot on the 'it'. Defund the police as a slogan and message is so unpopular that bringing it up in any kind of major way and expecting anything other than a firm denunciation is bad. Fight for 15 though? Probably a lot better. Same was true for a lot of Trumpian policies, and that did end up hurting the party (though probably not Trump directly). 

Mostly, I see a lot of people saying 'talk' when they mean' do what I say'. 

 

Connor Lamb cried about how "Defund the Police" made it tough for moderates to win in November.  Maybe that's true, but it probabaly didn't help that back in July he was getting his picture taken at rallies with people holding "Defund the Police" signs.  

At some point, if you're a politician, your job should be to translate activism into a palatable form.  If the slogan is bad fix it or fix the messaging.  It shouldn't be "well ya fucked up the title I think we're done here".  

2 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Also depends a lot on the 'it'. Defund the police as a slogan and message is so unpopular that bringing it up in any kind of major way and expecting anything other than a firm denunciation is bad. Fight for 15 though? Probably a lot better. Same was true for a lot of Trumpian policies, and that did end up hurting the party (though probably not Trump directly). 

Mostly, I see a lot of people saying 'talk' when they mean' do what I say'. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously saying people shouldn't talk about policy changes that are not, at the moment, politically realistic is not a valid argument.  I only skimmed a lot of it, but I don't think that's what Ty meant to say.

Well he's had plenty of opportunity to clarify that.  He did pivot from that to how AOC has hurt the chances of M4a by "browbeating" other Dems about it.  Has not provided any support for that.  

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously saying people shouldn't talk about policy changes that are not, at the moment, politically realistic is not a valid argument.  I only skimmed a lot of it, but I don't think that's what Ty meant to say.

Depends a lot on the person and the hope down the road for that policy, but for instance if Hillary Clinton wanted to kill any hope of M4A, she could come out right now and say that she's in favor of it. 

 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Connor Lamb cried about how "Defund the Police" made it tough for moderates to win in November.  Maybe that's true, but it probabaly didn't help that back in July he was getting his picture taken at rallies with people holding "Defund the Police" signs.  

It's less about specific cases and more about general cases. It is the case that defund the police got associated with dems across the board, and that was a drag on their election. And that does actually matter. Similarly, it was a drag on republicans to be associated with things that Trump did, like Charlottesville. 

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

At some point, if you're a politician, your job should be to translate activism into a palatable form.  If the slogan is bad fix it or fix the messaging.  It shouldn't be "well ya fucked up the title I think we're done here".  

It's not just the slogan though - most people are not in favor of giving the police less money, much less 'no money' like the slogan implies. They're also not in favor of abolishing ICE. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well he's had plenty of opportunity to clarify that.

Fair enough. 

On the "defund the police," I think most here can agree that objectively it's a very bad political slogan right now and Democrats should avoid being associated with it.  Whereas the policies behind it are actually quite popular - which is why the House passed the George Floyd bill three weeks ago.  Assigning blame - on both sides - isn't helpful or productive, think we should just move on on that one.

3 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Depends a lot on the person and the hope down the road for that policy, but for instance if Hillary Clinton wanted to kill any hope of M4A, she could come out right now and say that she's in favor of it.

Right, I'm with you on your point about party leaders avoiding taking up unpopular/uncertain issues until the time is ripe, I was referring to the argument that we shouldn't talk about things.  As for Hildog, I'm not sure she has the juice to polarize an issue to that extent anymore.

[A True Kaniggit]

7 hours ago, Karlbear said:

Honestly? not likely that much. The people that are currently uninsured rely heavily on super expensive and time-consuming things like emergency care visits. Plus preventative medical care is significantly less labor-intensive than reactive care. This is one of the reasons that universal care will likely be cheaper - because we'll be paying less for less actual treatments. 

I’ve complained about it on here before. 
 

The cost/labor input of a society providing free birth control vs. the society having unplanned babies and paying to raise them to adulthood. 
 

Not to mention the probable decline of STI’s from increased condom use. 
 

Edit: Clarity

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I'd point out, that I'm asking Ty this stuff because he doesn't seem to want anyone talking about anything that isn't a sure thing. 

When have I ever said that? I've consistently said just don't invest a lot of time on things that are dead on arrival if you can accomplish other things in the meantime. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 3/21/2021 at 9:37 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Isn't that a major problem with today's politics though? Musing about obvious solutions that will otherwise never happen. Except when those musings are incredibly dangerous. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

And? Proposing things that literally have next to no chance of happening is not a great idea when it probably only ends up hurting vulnerable members of your political party. Also worth noting I used "musing" specifically as it indicates someone thinking about something without necessarily applying the real world to their thoughts.

[ThinkerX]

bypass the parties at the local/state level altogether with ballot initiatives - in states where such exists.  A number of nationally impossible things happened this way at the state level - notably minimum wage hikes, some or them is red states.

Also, get out in the trenches and talk to people in person, find points in common.  Politics aside, there are multiple issues the different sides can agree to.  Key term being 'politics aside.'

Also...today's heresy is tomorrows orthodoxy.  Civil rights movement rattled the orthodox politicians big time, creating temporary splits in the parties.  Was resisted with literal force more than once.  Yet, ultimately, in a muddled way, those long ago demonstrators won the day.  Would those changes have come to pass without those demonstrators and politicians giving support to an obviously completely doomed cause?  

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And? Proposing things that literally have next to no chance of happening is not a great idea when it probably only ends up hurting vulnerable members of your political party. Also worth noting I used "musing" specifically as it indicates someone thinking about something without necessarily applying the real world to their thoughts.

Ok, fair enough.  Again, it seems like you're making a jump from people talking about things on a message board (the post from Ser Repetitous)  to actual elected representatives doing the same thing, and even in that case, the example you gave of AOC wasting her time (or political capital?) on talking about M4a seems unfounded.

edit:again, if that's your argument, show that these musings have hurt vulnerable members of the party. 

 

[Mindwalker]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

To be clear, Michael Sherwin did resign his post as DC US Attorney on March 3 (and was presumably asked to resign).  Further, it obviously appears he's no longer involved in the investigation, when there was talk Biden might make him a special prosecutor or something to stay on the case.  Maybe he's pissed that didn't happen.  According to CBS, he plans on returning to the US Attorney's office in Miami. 

I highly doubt anyone at the DOJ "authorized" his interview, although if he is still working at a US Attorney's office, he should indeed be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct, including firing.  Other than firing him though, there's not much the DOJ can do to stop him from speaking to 60 minutes.  Or at least, the government definitely shouldn't be trying to stop him.

Did y'all know that Sherwin himself was present at the rally on jan 6? I assume privately, so how was he even allowed to lead the investigation?