US PoliEra 2020 |OT 1| THE ANTI BENGHAZI (Read Staff Post)

Status
Not open for further replies.

JesseEwiak

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,705
I'll take my chances with a Sanders' lead executive branch and the changes he could make with all of the agencies and executive orders until he could secure a majority in 2022.

Certainly better than having a racist old senile republican in office. Biden that is, not Trump.
Joe Biden, with his stated policies, is to the left of 60% of the current American population, including most of the Joe Rogan voters you think are reasonable to chase after.

BTW. how are any of Sander's EO's going to do anything when the Supreme Court declares them all unconstitutional and then, that same Supreme Court basically tears away the ability of actual administrative agencies to do any administrating, like the Court has openly stated they want to do, when they have a good test case - (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/kavanaugh-nondelegation-gundy-supreme-court.html).
 

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,328
I'll take my chances with a Sanders' lead executive branch and the changes he could make with all of the agencies and executive orders until he could secure a majority in 2022.

Certainly better than having a racist old senile republican in office. Biden that is, not Trump.
tbh biden being senile would probably be a plus since that means the day to day running of the country would go to his staff and appointees who are likely to be on average noticeably less old, racist, and republican (except for mayor secretary pete who is just less old)
 

fragamemnon

Member
Nov 30, 2017
550
The advantage here is that Bernie's campaign is building a large scale grassroots movement across the country that can be repurposed into a structure for activism.
This line of reasoning is just madness to me-let's build a activist protest movement against the members the party that stand in the way...of the leader of the party!

There's only two outcomes-one where the executive is enfeebled by their own party and maybe we claw our way back to the legislative branch being co-equal, but shatters the party in the process. Or the negative one, where we dissent is squashed and party members operate out of fear of a being punished by a personality cult. We are living the latter TODAY with the GOP.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
630
People here have an extremely distorted view of this country. I wonder if they grew up in Democratic strongholds or just spend a majority of their time on the internet. The truth is that the country is currently FAR more conservative than people give it credit for. That's why incremental change is more realistic than attempting to upend the whole system. If the issue is described as trying to force a tax on people (and that's exactly how it will be described) than people will enthusiastically reject it.
 
OP
OP
TheHunter

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,522
People here have an extremely distorted view of this country. I wonder if they grew up in Democratic strongholds or just spend a majority of their time on the internet. The truth is that the country is currently FAR more conservative than people give it credit for. That's why incremental change is more realistic than attempting to upend the whole system. If the issue is described as trying to force a tax on people (and that's exactly how it will be described) than people will enthusiastically reject it.
It's actually majority left leaning.

There are more conservatives than most people realize though.
 

BADMAN

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,546
User banned (2 weeks): trolling and hostility
Surely you're in this thread enough to know that Sanders sitting in the Oval with a GOP Senate would literally just amount to that and nothing else.

And you'd take that over a Biden Presidency with full legislative control to pass a public option? O.o Not to mention judicial appointments.
It'd be better to have no secretaries than the wall street and fossil fuel industry execs that Biden would appoint

Joe Biden, with his stated policies, is to the left of 60% of the current American population, including most of the Joe Rogan voters you think are reasonable to chase after.

BTW. how are any of Sander's EO's going to do anything when the Supreme Court declares them all unconstitutional and then, that same Supreme Court basically tears away the ability of actual administrative agencies to do any administrating, like the Court has openly stated they want to do, when they have a good test case - (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/kavanaugh-nondelegation-gundy-supreme-court.html).
Let them, I'd love to see the voter's reactions when the Supreme Court tries to block all of his measures.

tbh biden being senile would probably be a plus since that means the day to day running of the country would go to his staff and appointees who are likely to be on average noticeably less old, racist, and republican (except for mayor secretary pete who is just less old)
Lets hope that'd be the case, I'm still pretty certain his cabinet would end up being industry ghouls.

So you want a revolution and change in policy...with no way to enact or keep lasting policy.

Is anyone else kinda put off by a white guy with a black avi posting black reaction gifs or is that just me?

And with that, I'm off. I'm tired and going to sleep. Sorry I couldn't get to all of your questions. I'll be back tomorrow!
 

Fiye

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,833
Texas
tbh biden being senile would probably be a plus since that means the day to day running of the country would go to his staff and appointees who are likely to be on average noticeably less old, racist, and republican (except for mayor secretary pete who is just less old)
I mean you just described the trump presidency minus the whole racism and republican (Though I have personal doubts about that last bit) but sure ok I honestly have no other words for this post.
 
OP
OP
TheHunter

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,522
I'm not really fond of it being insinuated I'm being racist using the same avatar I've had for over a year+ now and posting gifs of the same person who I like.

But ok then.
 

shinra-bansho

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,902
It'd be better to have no secretaries than the wall street and fossil fuel industry execs that Biden would appoint


Let them, I'd love to see the voter's reactions when the Supreme Court tries to block all of his measures.


Lets hope that'd be the case, I'm still pretty certain his cabinet would end up being industry ghouls.


Is anyone else kinda put off by a white guy with a black avi posting black reaction gifs or is that just me?

And with that, I'm off. I'm tired and going to sleep. Sorry I couldn't get to all of your questions. I'll be back tomorrow!
Lol, so to be clear..

You'd rather have a President Sanders who cannot appoint a Cabinet, cannot appoint any judges including SCOTUS vacancies if they arise, cannot pass any legislation, and writing Executive Orders that will be struck down and have no agency heads to operationalize.

Than a President Biden with full Democratic control of Congress.

........
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
630
It's actually majority left leaning.

There are more conservatives than most people realize though.
In terms of what people will vote on, conservative views often over perform relative to polling. I'm sure messaging contributes, but I also think that people dont really know what they want when things are explained in different ways. Just as an example, I think everyone can agree that having better roads is a net positive and benefits like everyone. But try to raise taxes by one tenth of a percent and see how much complaining you'll get. I would never bet on that getting passed near me.
 
Nov 20, 2017
3,551
I mean you just described the trump presidency minus the whole racism and republican (Though I have personal doubts about that last bit) but sure ok I honestly have no other words for this post.
If Bernie appoints Tulsi it would have the same effect

Let them, I'd love to see the voter's reactions when the Supreme Court tries to block all of his measures.
You know they would blame Bernie and the Democrats, right?

Anyway you apparently think that a country can run without a functioning cabinet and Bernie can be a god king. Pretty sure Love Island contestants have more political acumen than this.
 

Psamtik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,954
Biden is further to the left than Obama, but yeah - basically a Republican.

God, we're amazing at letting perfect be the enemy of the good.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,705
Biden is further to the left than Obama, but yeah - basically a Republican.

God, we're amazing at letting perfect be the enemy of the good.
By their stated policies, every single quasi-serious candidate in the race, aside from Bloomberg, and I'd have to double check that, is to the left of Obama's '08 and '12 campaign, and most of ithem are to the left of Hillary '16 campaign. There was a valid argument that Democratic politicians were to the right of the center of their party - that simply isn't true today, which is partly why Bernie has lost half his support base from 2016 - there are lots of Bernie supporters, who now have left-leaning politicians they feel closer too.
 
OP
OP
TheHunter

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,522
In terms of what people will vote on, conservative views often over perform relative to polling. I'm sure messaging contributes, but I also think that people dont really know what they want when things are explained in different ways. Just as an example, I think everyone can agree that having better roads is a net positive and benefits like everyone. But try to raise taxes by one tenth of a percent and see how much complaining you'll get. I would never bet on that getting passed near me.
Well, raising taxes and actual progressive thought are two different things.

55 percent of Americans lean left.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I am genuinely baffled that people are in this thread arguing that it is impossible for us to switch to a healthcare system other countries already have, which costs much less.

Be realistic!
 

JesseEwiak

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,705
I am genuinely baffled that people are in this thread arguing that it is impossible for us to switch to a healthcare system other countries already have, which costs much less.

Be realistic!
It's also a system that raises taxes on the people who actually vote, removes their privilege, and completely overturns a system that has been entrenched for 50 years. Most of the single-payer systems that were passed, were done so before all the structures the current private insurance system was created. That's not even getting into things like payments to providers, that the NHS got around at creation by literally paying the doctors off, which is the exact opposite thing we need to do in America to save money.

I'm all for M4A in theory, (even though I don't think anything less than single-payer is sending people to die as Twitter seems to think), but I also can realistically look at the political options we'll have in the near future. Mark Kelly, for example, if he likely runs ahead of Bernie in Arizona, will have no reason to vote for a plan that he'll see is poling underwater, when there's a perfectly acceptable public option plan he'll see is polling above water.

Also, even if M4A can pass, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Democrat's will pay a price politically for doing so.
 

shinra-bansho

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,902
You're not really switching to a healthcare system other countries have anyway, you're switching to something more comprehensive than pretty much any peer country in terms of coverage, without the equivalent infrastructure or cost structure.

I can speak to my far superior than your current system, Australian Medicare, which I think would not go far enough for Sanders base.
 

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,328
Biden is further to the left than Obama, but yeah - basically a Republican.

God, we're amazing at letting perfect be the enemy of the good.
imagine the world where republicans supported a $15/hr min wage, abolishing the death penalty and cash bail, expanding healthcare with a public option, and raising taxes on the rich, among other things

(i think there is reason to be concerned that biden may be too willing to cut deals with republicans to get things passed but he's clearly not running on a republican or republican-lite platform)
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
It's also a system that raises taxes on the people who actually vote, removes their privilege, and completely overturns a system that has been entrenched for 50 years.
Given comparative levels of healthcare spending between the US and other countries, I’m not even sure it would raise taxes. That is the point of this chart



I'm all for M4A in theory, (even though I don't think anything less than single-payer is sending people to die as Twitter seems to think), but I also can realistically look at the political options we'll have in the near future. Mark Kelly, for example, if he likely runs ahead of Bernie in Arizona, will have no reason to vote for a plan that he'll see is poling underwater, when there's a perfectly acceptable public option plan he'll see is polling above water.

Also, even if M4A can pass, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Democrat's will pay a price politically for doing so.
You might well believe that the Democrats will compromise down from Medicare for All for political reasons. That doesn’t mean we should start out by compromising ourselves by coming up with a never-ending fusillade of arguments about how, although everybody supports it IN THEORY, it would mysteriously be practically unworkable for reasons that are unique to America. If you support it in theory you should support it in theory! Let the Democrats do the practice.

And yes, we might lose some seats for passing M4A. We lost a lot of seats for passing the ACA, and I think most would agree that it was important but insufficient given the fact that we’re back here already trying to pass healthcare reform again. The lesson is that if you’re going to pay a political price anyway you should pass the biggest and most revolutionary bill you can, to make it harder to unwind piece by piece.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Ok, but that would add more stuff and not be quick or painless still.
Yes, I like adding stuff. My preferred policy regime has no wage slavery, cars, or alcohol, so I am undeterred by suggestions that we might need more drastic policies. If a policy might leave people in need, my solution is to pass more policies to help those people, not give up.
 
OP
OP
TheHunter

TheHunter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,522
Yes, I like adding stuff. My preferred policy regime has no wage slavery, cars, or alcohol, so I am undeterred by suggestions that we might need more drastic policies. If a policy might leave people in need, my solution is to pass more policies to help those people, not give up.
I mean yeah that's nice.

You and I both know actually getting to that point won't be easy. A public option that then moves to single payer is the ideal. Not crash head first into government healthcare.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I mean yeah that's nice.

You and I both know actually getting to that point won't be easy. A public option that then moves to single payer is the ideal. Not crash head first into government healthcare.
That seems very politically unrealistic. In the current American system, the most important thing to do is make huge drastic changes as quickly as possible to make them harder for Republicans to unwind. That’s actually one of the big bright spots of Bernie’s plan: once we outlaw private insurance, it will be gone. The Republicans can’t bring it back by passing another bill.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,705
We should pass a VAT and give all those people a UBI. Then they’ll have plenty of time to look for new jobs.
I think that's the part we disagree on.

If door A is passing the public option, a universal child allowance, severely expanding the EITC, decent parental leave, etc., all fairly easily because those are all incredibly good things that even moderates like Bennett are for, and door B is passing M4A barely after a fight that makes the ACA looks pleasant and easy, I'm going to pick option A.

Also, sometimes when you go for a revolutionary plan that turns out to be unpopular, politicians don't respond by going, "let's do something a little smaller instead," they go, "let's not touch that at all." See how George W. Bush didn't pass anything related to Social Security at all after his privatization plan died at launch.

That seems very politically unrealistic. In the current American system, the most important thing to do is make huge drastic changes as quickly as possible to make them harder for Republicans to unwind. That’s actually one of the big bright spots of Bernie’s plan: once we outlaw private insurance, it will be gone. The Republicans can’t bring it back by passing another bill.
I mean, I'm pretty sure you don't think we shouldn't have passed the ACA, even though the GOP rolled some of it back.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
630
Well, raising taxes and actual progressive thought are two different things.

55 percent of Americans lean left.
Oh I see what you're saying. No, I didn't mean a majority of the country is necessarily conservative. I meant that overall the country is more conservative than people on here assume. That may change if everyone voted, but the reality is that everyone doesn't vote. In addition, one person in California does not have the same voting power as one person in Wyoming.
 

OfficerRob

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,844
You couldn't get M4A passed with 70 Democrat Senators, and trying to primary Senators in much more conservative states with far left candidates is nothing more than a waste of time and money
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,012
I hate how some of these journalist are framing it. They're saying, "Looks like McConnell is going to successfully avoid witnesses...".

For starters, I dislike how some of them are just so indifferent as if its just the usual DEM/GOP horse race contest. There should be outrage coming from the 4th estate instead of stroking McConnell's ego for destroying our democracy.

Second, they should be saying, "McConnell looks to be successful at BLOCKING witnesses for the first time in impeachment history". If this becomes a precedent, then the media will be partly to blame.
 

Archmage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
113
People here have an extremely distorted view of this country. I wonder if they grew up in Democratic strongholds or just spend a majority of their time on the internet. The truth is that the country is currently FAR more conservative than people give it credit for. That's why incremental change is more realistic than attempting to upend the whole system. If the issue is described as trying to force a tax on people (and that's exactly how it will be described) than people will enthusiastically reject it.
I would say that the country is more progressive.

It's just that conservatives have more power thanks to the Senate and the Electoral College.
 

xenocide

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,432
Vermont
People here have an extremely distorted view of this country. I wonder if they grew up in Democratic strongholds or just spend a majority of their time on the internet. The truth is that the country is currently FAR more conservative than people give it credit for. That's why incremental change is more realistic than attempting to upend the whole system. If the issue is described as trying to force a tax on people (and that's exactly how it will be described) than people will enthusiastically reject it.
I suspect it’s a lot of people having grown up in more urban or suburban settings and having grown up primarily online. The reality is America is a lot less progressive than people think. Regardless of what people claim they’re for or how they identify in polls, progressive policy always takes a nose dive in popularity whenever it seems to have a realistic chance of passing.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
7,858
I suspect it’s a lot of people having grown up in more urban or suburban settings and having grown up primarily online. The reality is America is a lot less progressive than people think. Regardless of what people claim they’re for or how they identify in polls, progressive policy always takes a nose dive in popularity whenever it seems to have a realistic chance of passing.
Progressive policy does much better at the ballot when decoupled from progressives. Conservatives are much better at mudslinging against politicians than at sound policy.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,119
Yes, I see that, but it’s a very old document and labor orgs have a mixed history in the US. Which is why I’m trying to grasp context from such a vague post. Maybe then, I’ll understand the joke.
You already got the point. 'Solidarity' is very often not extended to minorities. See the exclusion of PoC from Social Security
 

Televator

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,204
You already got the point. 'Solidarity' is very often not extended to minorities. See the exclusion of PoC from Social Security
Right, but these things aren’t static or wholly representative. The CIO contemporaneously to AFL, held a more inclusive position on immigrants and today the AFL-CIO supports reforms to stop the exploitation of immigrant labor. The exclusion act can’t be taken to characterize “solidarity“ as a monolithic racist dog whistle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.