US PoliEra 2019 |OT6| Have You Hurd About These GOP Retirements?

enempi

Member
Mar 9, 2018
307
This whole Bernie vs The Media nonsense is exactly why I would be worried about him being President. He has good ideas and I would obviously vote for him if that’s what it came to, but it’s just bad leadership. There is clearly a sizable strain of Bernie supporters who see themselves as separate and above the rest of the Democratic coalition and see Bernie as the only viable option. They also think people who don’t support Bernie are actively trying to sabotage him. Everyone on the left thinks the media sucks, and Bernie stoking the Us vs Them mentality where it’s Bernie vs The Democrats again is just really irresponsible and not what is needed at this time. You can stoke the flames and maybe ride that sentiment to the White House but then what happens when it doesn’t play out exactly like his supporters expect?

It’s really easy for me to imagine a scenario where Bernie is elected, the plan of “we will march in the street until Mitch McConnell passes M4A” predictably doesn’t work, and then nothing gets done while Bernie and his supporters blame those shill centrist fake progressive DC Democrats for not supporting Our Revolution hard enough.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,545
Don't hate the players, hate the game. The game, of course, sprung fully formed into existence on its own and sustains itself without the players participating. But also, don't hate the game too much because it's the only one we have.
 

Mulligan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
471
Her boss is a rascist and homophobic ... and her boss is the president of the United States.

Who is going to hold her accountable for saying shit on TV/twitter?
It’s not that she is all of those things, but that she can’t hide it well enough.

Like we know Steve Brannon is a racist, but he at least doesn’t come out as blatant as her.
 

Exellus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,063
This whole Bernie vs The Media nonsense is exactly why I would be worried about him being President. He has good ideas and I would obviously vote for him if that’s what it came to, but it’s just bad leadership. There is clearly a sizable strain of Bernie supporters who see themselves as separate and above the rest of the Democratic coalition and see Bernie as the only viable option. They also think people who don’t support Bernie are actively trying to sabotage him. Everyone on the left thinks the media sucks, and Bernie stoking the Us vs Them mentality where it’s Bernie vs The Democrats again is just really irresponsible and not what is needed at this time. You can stoke the flames and maybe ride that sentiment to the White House but then what happens when it doesn’t play out exactly like his supporters expect?

It’s really easy for me to imagine a scenario where Bernie is elected, the plan of “we will march in the street until Mitch McConnell passes M4A” predictably doesn’t work, and then nothing gets done while Bernie and his supporters blame those shill centrist fake progressive DC Democrats for not supporting Our Revolution hard enough.
This is SUCH a fucking strawman. Nothing would get done no matter WHO the president is if the GOP retain Congress.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
620
This is SUCH a fucking strawman. Nothing would get done no matter WHO the president is if the GOP retain Congress.
Even if by some miracle Bernie won the presidency and we got the Senate....a lot of his agenda wouldn't get passed because there aren't the votes for it. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to destroy private insurance. No amount of "We're gonna have a revolution" is going to change that.
 

Cryoteck

Member
Nov 2, 2017
497
To add onto this- every state that has looked into doing single payer has abandoned it because of the massive tax increase on the middle class it'd require.

Because they'd be voted out of office nearly immediately if they went for it.
Yep, IMO the successful road to single payer is a long slow "boil the frog" strategy of offering optional government backed insurance plans that aggressively compete with private insurance that lets the business ideology of "increase profits at all costs" render them economically unviable. That way we have a stable transition with minimal disruption in medical care.
 

Exellus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,063
Even if by some miracle Bernie won the presidency and we got the Senate....a lot of his agenda wouldn't get passed because there aren't the votes for it. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to destroy private insurance. No amount of "We're gonna have a revolution" is going to change that.
Then GET the 50 votes. That sounds like it's a problem with the Democratic party, not a problem with Sanders.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
620
Okay, and what would Warren "get through" that Bernie wouldn't? Not a damn thing.

So why is this worth discussing?
With 50 Democrats? Hopefully a lot because she understands the need to compromise. She's already signaled that a single payer system is the end goal. Bernie has never showcased in his entire career a willingness or ability to moderate and compromise. Not once. Bernie's entire brand is based on how right he is about every damn thing, and never admitting to being wrong. (see his entire history on guns, for example.)

Edit: You edited your post.

Bernie has no political capital to spend because of his decades as an outsider. Again, though, the idea that BERNIE is right and everyone else is wrong is one of the many reasons he will not become president. The Democratic party does not exist to bow down to whatever Bernie Sanders wants. Sorry about it.
 

Exellus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,063
With 50 Democrats? Hopefully a lot because she understands the need to compromise. She's already signaled that a single payer system is the end goal. Bernie has never showcased in his entire career a willingness or ability to moderate and compromise. Not once. Bernie's entire brand is based on how right he is about every damn thing, and never admitting to being wrong. (see his entire history on guns, for example.)
I think there are certain things that shouldn't be compromised on at all, especially with the godforsaken GOP. Any good initiative should be assumed will only pass with zero of their support. They'll vote against anything just to spite the Democrats. You can't rely on them.

The bigger obstacle is getting centrist Dems to actually put American citizens in front of corporate interests.
 

DiceHands

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,000
She's got a point in the sense that Beto at the top of the ticket would likely help whoever's running for Senate more than just say, Biden running at the top and Beto downballot, I think the problem is more that Beto's not gaining any traction in the primary. Like "But if Beto wins the primary he helps our chances" right but that's not happening.

All the same, if the Texas Democratic Party wants to truly build on last year's gains they can't just rely on Beto making a run for every competitive seat in the state. Same with Georgia and Abrams. Democrats need to support Hegar and Tomlinson with everything they've got.


lol? it's the logical extreme of the "being a billionaire is immoral" argument.
I am in the Beto should run for Senate camp, but id also be completely cool with him as a VP for one of the other candidates too. That might help retain those Texas votes for who ever candidate he is paired with.

I really hope the current candidates, who ever wins the primary, chooses someone from these primaries as their VP. Whether its Yang, Beto, Mayor Pete, etc.

If Biden, god forbid, does win the primary, I hope he pairs himself with someone far more progressive to help balance out his complete idiocy.
 

Tamanon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,467
Nobody's plans matter, because it's all driven by the Senate and House.

But that does mean the ability to moderate your plans and change them is pretty dang important.

Bully pulpit may as well be the bullshit pulpit for how much it's worth. Anyone who pretends they can just strongarm a branch into doing something hasn't paid much attention.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
620
I think there are certain things that shouldn't be compromised on at all, especially with the godforsaken GOP. Any good initiative should be assumed will only pass with zero of their support. They'll vote against anything just to spite the Democrats. You can't rely on them.

The bigger obstacle is getting centrist Dems to actually put American citizens in front of corporate interests.
I'm not talking about compromising with the Republicans. If a policy doesn't have the votes within the Democratic caucus, you have to be willing to moderate your position and bring it in line with what votes you have. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of private insurance. This has zero to do with "corporate interest" boogie mans. It's simply bad policy and bad politics.

Compromise is essential to good governance. (Again not with the GOP necessarily!) If the two options on the table are a public option and cost control measures vs doing absolutely nothing....then yes one is superior to the other by a magnitude of about a billion. You do not get brownie points for being rigid in adherence to some policy.
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
Even if by some miracle Bernie won the presidency and we got the Senate....a lot of his agenda wouldn't get passed because there aren't the votes for it. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to destroy private insurance. No amount of "We're gonna have a revolution" is going to change that.
Yeah, the actual legislation that would pass under a Democratic President probably doesn’t change much no matter who wins the nomination, just because you have the reality of dealing with senators like Manchin and Sinema who want to keep a moderate reputation.

It’s important to note that this is as much a point against Sanders as it is against literally anyone else, but then the question becomes “who is best equipped to leverage executive authority” and in that regard I find Warren vastly superior, even if I prefer some of Sanders’ plans on paper.

Clinton was the same way - anything in her plans that involved congressional approval was DOA, but her plans were structured around circumventing obstructionism. The public option? Not gonna pass Ryan’s House, so instead she made a point of working with blue state governments to implement it statewide, which is something they can do under the ACA. Contrast that to Sanders’ “we’re gonna get a million college students to march on Washington” plan and it’s easy to understand why some progressives preferred Clinton.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
620
Yeah, the actual legislation that would pass under a Democratic President probably doesn’t change much no matter who wins the nomination, just because you have the reality of dealing with senators like Manchin and Sinema who want to keep a moderate reputation.

It’s important to note that this is as much a point against Sanders as it is against literally anyone else, but then the question becomes “who is best equipped to leverage executive authority” and in that regard I find Warren vastly superior, even if I prefer some of Sanders’ plans on paper.

Clinton was the same way - anything in her plans that involved congressional approval was DOA, but her plans were structured around circumventing obstructionism. The public option? Not gonna pass Ryan’s House, so instead she made a point of working with blue state governments to implement it statewide, which is something they can do under the ACA. Contrast that to Sanders’ “we’re gonna get a million college students to march on Washington” plan and it’s easy to understand why some progressives preferred Clinton.
This has always been one of the things I've had against Bernie Sanders for years and years .I do not trust him to build consensus. I do not trust him to moderate his positions...because he's literally never had to. He's never been responsible to any party because, as he likes to say, he's been an Independent forever. Part of good governance is being flexible in the way in which you want to achieve your policy aims. With healthcare, the goal should be universal coverage, not one specific version and everything else is neo-liberal pro corporate :insert whatever else here :.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,810
limp wristed I've heard of but I didn't make the explicit connection to wrist-flickers which sounds like a method for playing paper football.

Edit: *tired sigh*

 

IggyChooChoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,363
The idea, though, that all billionaires are bad people
I would put it differently. Billionaires are vastly more implicated and complicit in the system and are therefore more responsible for its worst aspects.

I have never heard the term “wrist-flicking” before, although I have heard “limp-wristed” be used to disparage gay men (and less frequently, women). If given no context, I think I would have assumed it meant something like this:

But from Kellyanne I would assume it’s a clumsy attempt to sneak “limp-wristed” into her statement.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,846
Then GET the 50 votes. That sounds like it's a problem with the Democratic party, not a problem with Sanders.
It's not a problem with the party, it's a problem with an immediate transition to single-payer being less popular than repealing the ACA.

Dems being unwilling to vote for an idea that's both bad AND politically unpopular even in the House isn't a bug, it's a feature.
 

Exellus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,063
I'm not talking about compromising with the Republicans. If a policy doesn't have the votes within the Democratic caucus, you have to be willing to moderate your position and bring it in line with what votes you have. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of private insurance. This has zero to do with "corporate interest" boogie mans. It's simply bad policy and bad politics.

Compromise is essential to good governance. (Again not with the GOP necessarily!) If the two options on the table are a public option and cost control measures vs doing absolutely nothing....then yes one is superior to the other by a magnitude of about a billion. You do not get brownie points for being rigid in adherence to some policy.
How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,224
How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
Many countries have a system with both private and public options.
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,271
This is absurd and sounds petty as all hell. Can billionaires be bad? Sure. The idea that ones bank account balance, be it high or low makes one intrinsically good or bad is absurd.
If you're a millionaire that has employees making minmum wage than you're evil. And it goes double if you're Vince McMahon or Jeff Bezos. Triple if you're Comcast or Disney spending 50 to 70 billion to buy Fox. Quadruple if you're Apple.


I don't care your doing charity to lower your taxes
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
620
How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
It's not the sole reason as many other countries have perfectly good multipayer models. But this has been discussed a million times before.
 

Exellus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,063
If you're a millionaire that has employees making minmum wage than you're evil. And it goes double if you're Vince McMahon or Jeff Bezos. Triple if you're Comcast or Disney spending 50 to 70 billion to buy Fox. Quadruple if you're Apple.


I don't care your doing charity to lower your taxes
The "religious-right" are hypocrites.

A young rich man asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
 

Fork

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,767
Lima, Peru
I didn't mean to make this a "eat the rich or else" thing; I'm just saying it's messed up if you become a billionaire via exploitation (see the McMahons or the Walmart family), and if you have starving people but also millionaires and billionaires, your country's got a whole bunch of policy problems.

That's all.
I dont know if its even worth it honestly.

Theres people here that honestly respond to complaints about billionaires by:

-saying "you are jealous",
-using the "Oh so MILLIONAIRES shouldnt exist either???" slippery slope
-unironically using some weird whataboutism argument about game consoles
-or just going for the easy one and bringing up Bernie.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,846
How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
Many EU countries have universal health care that incorporates private insurance into a multipayer system. They aren't clamoring to get rid of private insurance, because their current setup works well for them. They are a far better transition model than the UK style systems which are radically different than our own and which would require a much more difficult transition.

The existence of private insurance is NOT the sole reason our country spends more than any other on healthcare and if you truly believe that, you need to actually learn more about both the US system and other foreign healthcare systems not named the NHS. The reason we have such problems in the sector isn't because of private insurance in and of itself, it's because the de facto employer based system that popped up in the wake of WWII's wage caps as a way to work around the caps since the caps didn't cap benefits ended up being a monstrosity that no sane economist would have deliberately designed. And when we actually had a political opportunity to start taming it back in the 70s, Kennedy and Dem congressional leadership vetoed the deal with Nixon, gambling on a Dem Trifecta under the next President, which utterly backfired when Jimmy Carter, a conservative Democrat, ended up in office and singlehandedly trainwrecked pretty much the entire Dem policy agenda despite the supermajorities they had at the time. After Carter, we've had GOP dominance for the next 40 years, under which basically nothing was done outside of the ACA under Obama's first 2 years.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,601
If you're a millionaire that has employees making minmum wage than you're evil. And it goes double if you're Vince McMahon or Jeff Bezos. Triple if you're Comcast or Disney spending 50 to 70 billion to buy Fox. Quadruple if you're Apple.


I don't carw your doing charity to lower your taxes
You should be inelligable for any tax breaks past a certain income level as well as closing any and all tax loopholes

Up to and including those offered at the state and local levels

Im tired of seeing our country go to shit while the wealthy continue to rob us and give nothing back

If anything their excess funds are used to buy off politicians, build gated communities as well as gate the rest of us off from other public benefits by manipulating market prices, privatizing education, and all other manner of shitty practices.

Its never enough to just make money and live off it is it? If thats all the wealthy engaged in I wouldnt bat an eye but they use their wealth for control, power, gatekeeping and isolation, and tipping the scales of justice and well being out of order

Im of the mind that the accumulation of such wealth is absolutely immoral as it always leads to this level of negative impact and corruption no matter how pious you think you are

Even doubly so if you are allowed to pass that wealth on to your children even if they are shit bags who did nothing to earn it.

That said to curtail the power of those whom we have no power over seems like an impossibility these days.
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
9,531
I agree the "millionaires and billionaires" targeted rhetoric is tired, (and will cause a few choice moments at the Sept debate) but they do benefit in an outsized fashion from market participation and the tax code. When these benefits, and societal benefits, also aren't available to others, that is unfair.

But as far as taxes themselves, there is no such thing as "fair" or "share" or "fair share", and I wish politicians would stop using the phrase, or at least make it mean something tangible and not the usual "I'm not going to do anything impactful about it."

Equivocating the tax code to flat percentages won't bring in enough from the very successful, and will penalize the struggling. State competition for tax breaks for certain sectors has stagnated minimum wage growth and the passage of progressive policies. There are enough tax regulations for people with outsized wealth to put their money to "use" without having to net owe taxes (real estate, capital gains, charitable contributions, etc.) - in other words, activities that most households or small businesses can't engage with or benefit strongly from.

IMO in town halls and such, people should be following up the "your net costs will go down" answers from the pols with "Why should my federal taxes go up at all when the very wealthy still have all these breaks available to them?"
 
Last edited:

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
620
Warren at least has been attacking it a bit smarter with the wealth tax.
Ironically, one of the reasons I support Warren is because she can talk about policy positions I disagree with in a way that I do agree with. (if that makes any sense.) That is, I don't necessarily agree 100% with her solutions to the problems, but I agree with how she talks about them.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,251
Every time Trump makes an appearance it is a campaign rally or ego stroking event for him.

He is always on stage looking for adoration and to see people fawn over him, whether it's seeing all of the cameras and microphones pointed at him as he walks to a helicopter or when he is suppose to have a fairly boring and benign speech that president's are obligated to give at locations.

Trump is living in his own Truman Show in his own mind except he is always self-aware people are watching him.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,846
Ironically, one of the reasons I support Warren is because she can talk about policy positions I disagree with in a way that I do agree with. (if that makes any sense.) That is, I don't necessarily agree 100% with her solutions to the problems, but I agree with how she talks about them.
Same, my only gigantic difference with her is on trade.

The Wealth Tax may not actually be a good idea to implement as-is based on how it's turned out in France (it does a lot of not-very-good economic warping w/ incentives for rich people dumping money into "investments" that are untaxed in order to shelter them) but overall higher rates effectively doing a similar thing would be good.
 

VectorPrime

Member
Apr 4, 2018
9,020


Daniel Dale @ddale8

Trump is proudly recounting how he asked African-Americans during the campaign what the hell they had to lose, since they had "the worst crime rates, the worst education, the worst everything."

2:42 PM - Aug 13, 2019


Josh Dawsey @jdawsey1

The president's speech about energy policy does not seem to be much about energy policy.

2:50 PM - Aug 13, 2019
This is why Biden’s potential mental issues really won’t be a problem if it comes down to him being the nominee.