Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Iuz the Evil]

Yeah, the last several posts literally make me sick to my stomach. 

 

Ugh. What happened to my Country? (That's not a sincere question, I've got a pretty solid idea)

[Pariah]

During the Second World War, we (Americans) had the Nazis (and the Axis in general) to unite against.

 

After that, we had the Soviet Union and Communism in general as the reliable common enemy to unite against.

 

With the fall of the Communist Bloc, we haven't had a reliable Big Bad to unite against, although the nebulous specter of "Islamic terrorists" filled the role for a few years after 9/11. And in that interim, our country has become more fractured, more polarized, and more divided than perhaps any time since the Civil War.

 

We don't seem to be able to get along with each other unless there's a Bigger Bad for us to focus on. In the absence of an iconic evil to oppose, American unity goes to seed.

 

And so this President has taken things to the logical conclusion, that everyone is The Enemy--immigrants, Moslems, "Socialists", foreigners, people who believe in climate change, Liberal "elitists", the list goes on. That Americans fall into many of these categories is inconsequential; if they do (or if they support anyone who does), well, they must be The Enemy as well. And The Enemy must be defeated at all costs--even in America is weakened in the process.

 

And his base eats it up. In defiance of logic, reason, and evidence, they're convinced that he's the only one who can save America.

 

Honestly, I don't know how the Democratic Party is going to beat this in 2020.

[Lord Liaden]

Trump uses fear and hatred to motivate his supporters. To counter that the Democrats will have to offer a counter message, of hope and compassion. "Anybody but Trump" is not going to do it -- Americans are hungry for a positive vision. But the Dems will need someone who can inspire voters to hope again, as Barack Obama did. No more party apparatchiks like Hillary Clinton.

[megaplayboy]

59 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Trump uses fear and hatred to motivate his supporters. To counter that the Democrats will have to offer a counter message, of hope and compassion. "Anybody but Trump" is not going to do it -- Americans are hungry for a positive vision. But the Dems will need someone who can inspire voters to hope again, as Barack Obama did. No more party apparatchiks like Hillary Clinton.

Well, an Obama who can counterpunch effectively.  A positive vision is great, but we also need a real fighter in there.  

[ScottishFox]

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Trump uses fear and hatred to motivate his supporters. To counter that the Democrats will have to offer a counter message, of hope and compassion. "Anybody but Trump" is not going to do it -- Americans are hungry for a positive vision. But the Dems will need someone who can inspire voters to hope again, as Barack Obama did. No more party apparatchiks like Hillary Clinton.

 

Had the DNC not screwed Bernie over in primaries I think he could have won.  I think most reasonably charismatic candidates could have beaten Trump.

 

Hillary's disdain for mere mortals was not helpful.

[Lord Liaden]

Personally I agree with you, but Sanders's "leftist radicalism" scared Democratic campaign planners, and no few Democrat supporters from what I hear. But at least Americans would have been given a clear choice. Sanders is Trump's opposite in almost every way.

[Lord Liaden]

This is a message I think we all could use.

 

 

[DShomshak]

14 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

Honestly, I don't know how the Democratic Party is going to beat this in 2020.

 

They probably can't.

 

Yesterday on The Daily (with Michael Barbaro), Nate the polling expert (I assume this was Nate Silvers, though I missed the first minute where they gave the guy's last name) pointed out that because of the electoral college, Dems must win in closely divided states. That mostly means the Midwest. And to win the Midwest, one needs white working class voters, who have been drifting away from the Democratic Party for years, and whose drift became a stampede to Trump in 2016. Well... IIRC he said 20% of white working class Obama voters switched to Trump. If Dems can't persuade a significant portion to flip back, forget it. There aren't enough minority voters or young voters not yet mobilized to overcome them.

 

(As Nate points out, a flipped voter is twice as valuable as a new voter, because it denies a vote to the opposition.)

 

Hopes of an alternate path by flipping Sun Belt states such as Arizona are... not mathematically impossible, but extraordinarily difficult.

 

Dems are also not doing themselves a favor with 20+ candidates, a condition where the most extreme voices become the loudest.

 

A month or so back, my local paper ran an editorial by a PoliSci professor who suggested Dems should keep the superdelegate system (and Republicans should adopt it), with one change: Apply it before primaries, not at the nominating convention. You don't get to appear on the debate stage or receive any sort of party help until you can show support from a certain number of elected party members and other people of influence. This might have blocked Trump in 2016, and it would cut down the present mob to a manageable number. When there are so many candidates the debate moderator has to ascertain views on issues with a show of hands, that's just ridiculous.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

14 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

Honestly, I don't know how the Democratic Party is going to beat this in 2020.

 

They probably can't.

 

Yesterday on The Daily (with Michael Barbaro), Nate the polling expert (I assume this was Nate Silvers, though I missed the first minute where they gave the guy's last name) pointed out that because of the electoral college, Dems must win in closely divided states. That mostly means the Midwest. And to win the Midwest, one needs white working class voters, who have been drifting away from the Democratic Party for years, and whose drift became a stampede to Trump in 2016. Well... IIRC he said 20% of white working class Obama voters switched to Trump. If Dems can't persuade a significant portion to flip back, forget it. There aren't enough minority voters or young voters not yet mobilized to overcome them.

 

(As Nate points out, a flipped voter is twice as valuable as a new voter, because it denies a vote to the opposition.)

 

Hopes of an alternate path by flipping Sun Belt states such as Arizona are... not mathematically impossible, but extraordinarily difficult.

 

Dems are also not doing themselves a favor with 20+ candidates, a condition where the most extreme voices become the loudest.

 

A month or so back, my local paper ran an editorial by a PoliSci professor who suggested Dems should keep the superdelegate system (and Republicans should adopt it), with one change: Apply it before primaries, not at the nominating convention. You don't get to appear on the debate stage or receive any sort of party help until you can show support from a certain number of elected party members and other people of influence. This might have blocked Trump in 2016, and it would cut down the present mob to a manageable number. When there are so many candidates the debate moderator has to ascertain views on issues with a show of hands, that's just ridiculous.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Pariah]

You can't make this stuff up.

 

Trump appears in front of altered presidential seal saying '45 is a puppet'

 

The seal also features a double-headed (Russian-style) eagle holding golf clubs instead of arrows.

 

 

[Old Man]

Golf clubs in one foot and cash in the other.  Hammer and sickles replace the white stars on the blue field of the shield.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

And the double-headed Russian eagle.

[Cygnia]

Looks like it's wielding rifles too. (I admit, I'm gun-illiterate, so the wings could have shotguns instead).

[CrosshairCollie]

I was gonna post about that.  I laughed my fool ass off at that.  It's just so... PERFECT.

[megaplayboy]

Dems gunning for Sen. Susan "Deeply Concerned and Disappointed" Collins next year.  This is a pretty good opening salvo:

 

[Lord Liaden]

This is an opinion peace that is obviously biased against the American Republican Party; but nonetheless, the tally of historical parallels is sobering: The American version of fascism is alive and prospering.

[Pariah]

Imagine my surprise. 

 

Supreme Court: Trump can use Pentagon funds for border wall

 

Who needs Congress when you have the Supreme Court in your back pocket?

[Lord Liaden]

Public doubt and cynicism about the fundamental integrity of some of America's most important institutions will be one of the most insidious legacies of the Trump administration.

[Pattern Ghost]

On 7/26/2019 at 9:38 AM, Lord Liaden said:

This is an opinion peace that is obviously biased against the American Republican Party; but nonetheless, the tally of historical parallels is sobering: The American version of fascism is alive and prospering.

 

This line did make me do a double take: "Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court . . ." The author's not much of a history professor if he thinks this is something new, or something that the modern Republican party came up with. He also makes several vague, unsupported statements. Not that I don't agree them, but if you make an assertion, you should support it with some facts before rolling on to the next one.

[Pariah]

5 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

...but if you make an assertion, you should support it with some facts before rolling on to the next one.

 

I'm sorry, but where have you been for the last three and a half years? Facts are soooo 2015.

[Lord Liaden]

A notably balanced, thoughtful exploration: Why aren’t [American] voters more willing to abandon a health system that’s failing?

[Pattern Ghost]

17 hours ago, Pariah said:

I'm sorry, but where have you been for the last three and a half years? Facts are soooo 2015.

 

My bad, I forgot we're in the Post-Fact Age.

[dmjalund]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

My bad, I forgot we're in the Post-Fact Age.

and that's a Fact

[ScottishFox]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

A notably balanced, thoughtful exploration: Why aren’t [American] voters more willing to abandon a health system that’s failing?

 

I think for a LOT of people it's not failing is the main issue.  I've been insured for 40+ years and minus the too-low-coverage of Dental care it's been great.  I've had multiple surgeries and ailments treated for very little out of pocket money.

 

Meanwhile I have family members who have to doctor shop because a decent (and growing) chunk of doctors will no longer accept Medicare. 

 

I tried to take one of them to PrimaCare recently and they said they wouldn't take them because they have Medicare. 

Then I offered to pay cash for the whole thing because we really didn't want to wait until Monday.  They declined.  They won't touch Medicare patients - period.

 

I had an older relative wait 3+ years for their hip surgery through the VA.  They nearly committed suicide before they got the procedure.

 

None of us are in a hurry to get more government insurance. 

[Simon]

Part of it is that it's those that are most in need that are not being taken care of (often).  As you say, if you're insured and in generally good health, there's little issue (though out of pocket can still be pretty high...and insurance costs, even when half is footed by the employer, are VERY high compared to other countries).  It's when you're in need that things change (for the worse).  A friend of mine had been fighting cancer for years...very expensive treatments.  His insurer decided to cut him off/decline coverage.  The insurer's gamble was sound -- it would cost a large chunk of money for my friend to go after them in court and make them pay...and the insurer's legal fees were already covered by the lawyers they kept on retainer.  So they could cut him off and worst-case (for them) be forced to pay out after a lengthy court battle.

The flip side to this (and part of the reason for doctors' reluctance to take Medicare patients) is that we're a VERY litigious society. This drives up rates across the board, doctors paying higher malpractice insurance, insurers having higher rates due to payouts and legal, etc.  This is why it's not an easy solution -- any change in coverage (single payer, etc.) needs to be matched with protections for doctors (and, in turn, the insurers) from litigation. Not immunity, but protection.