Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Dr. MID-Nite]

My takeaway is that we lowered the bar so much that when we do get a new president in...we're not going to expect much....and that folks is complacency we can't afford to have. Call me idealistic, but I don't just want things back to "normal"(which wasn't all that great to begin with). I want real substantial change for the better in this country. I just don't think I'm going to get much from Biden. Does he even have a vision for the country? Can anyone tell me what he plans to do in office besides give us useless State of the Union addresses? Does anyone have any expectation for him besides "don't be as bad as Trump"? Doesn't sound like it.  So it apparently doesn't matter who is in office as long as it's not Trump. That doesn't work for me. I guess it's asking to much for the leader of the country to actually be capable of leading...or at the very least inspiring. 

[Lord Liaden]

Just a superficial survey of Joe Biden's career shows him to be a recognized expert on foreign affairs with many international supporters, a long-time advocate for social justice, and frequently successful at brokering bipartisan legislation. He commands a great deal of respect in Congress and the capitals of the world. He's also persevered through great personal tragedy. Biden is not my first choice as candidate for President, and I don't think he's the best potential leader for what America is facing now. But to characterize him as likely to do nothing "besides give us useless State of the Union addresses" is IMO a gross underselling of the man.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Just a superficial survey of Joe Biden's career shows him to be a recognized expert on foreign affairs with many international supporters, a long-time advocate for social justice, and frequently successful at brokering bipartisan legislation. He commands a great deal of respect in Congress and the capitals of the world. He's also persevered through great personal tragedy. Biden is not my first choice as candidate for President, and I don't think he's the best potential leader for what America is facing now. But to characterize him as likely to do nothing "besides give us useless State of the Union addresses" is IMO a gross underselling of the man.

 

And I truly hope to be wrong....really I do. Nothing would please me more than to see success. I have the feeling though that the best we're going to get is a partial return to the pre-Trump status quo...which frankly just isn't good enough anymore.

[Old Man]

Quoted without comment:

 

Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it. Supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? It would be interesting to check that. That you’re gonna have to use medical doctors with.

[Joe Walsh]

16 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

FYI the rest of the Heritage Foundation plan involved "phasing out" Medicare and Medicaid, so the ACA is actually a vast improvement over the plan. it's also why I can get health insurance now, for the record.  Millions are still not covered, but millions more have gotten coverage (affordable coverage) as a result of that compromise legislation.  Incremental change isn't worthless.  

 

I have family members with pre-existing conditions and totally understand! I'm glad you were able to get coverage. But I'd love it if everyone could have health care like in other industrialized nations.

[Joe Walsh]

11 hours ago, Badger said:

 

MY biggest worry is that the Dems main only grip with that is the fact they aren't the ones in charge to do it.  The one common demonimator I seem to find with the 2 parties is that they both like authoritarianism (or at least with the seesaw of authoritarianism vs libertarianism-the much fatter kid is on the former side).  And seem to differ mostly on the issues they want to inflict with it.  One side may or may not have more benevolent intentions or at least their issues might be more benevolent for such a take.  But, past a certain line, I don't feel comfortable with such.

 

It does sometimes seem like our options are a quick slide or a slow walk.

[Ragitsu]

41 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Quoted without comment:

 

 

 

 

I saw that video. He must be a budding mad scientist.

[Ragitsu]

 

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

I saw that video. He must be a budding mad scientist.

 

Even when Trump is making a statement about something, he tries to cover his ass by adding a disclaimer, like he's trying to avoid being sued. "This is what we should do, but I could be wrong, but I really think we should do it." "This looks like it could be a good treatment, like a cure, but I'm no scientist, but I think we should try it, but maybe it's not a cure, but I'm going to try it." He thinks that technique allows him to say whatever bullpup comes into his head.

[Ragitsu]

2 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

"This is what we should do, but I could be wrong, but I really think we should do it."

 

"This looks like it could be a good treatment, like a cure, but I'm no scientist, but I think we should try it, but maybe it's not a cure, but I'm going to try it."

 

Are you of the mind that this behavior may be indicative of a mental illness? Could this simply be a (used car) salesman's reflex so ingrained that he can't rid himself of it anymore?

[Ternaugh]

18 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Are you of the mind that this behavior may be indicative of a mental illness? Could this simply be a (used car) salesman's reflex so ingrained that he can't rid himself of it anymore?

 

Duplicity or dementia? The eternal question.

[Cygnia]

4 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Duplicity or dementia? The eternal question.

Why not both?

[L. Marcus]

With a hint of desperation.

[DShomshak]

20 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Oh, socially speaking? Yes, we've moved the needle left in a number of ways. I'm not ungrateful that people have put their reputations and lives on the line to ensure that the everyman isn't going to be discriminated against if they are gay or possess a skin tone darker than Morticia's Addam's...er...you know what.

 

The economic factor troubles me most. It is a trifling matter for a modern day politician or business to chant about diversity and "We're all in this together" and all that fuzzy-wuzzy kumbaya type pablum. No, what happens is that the social inequality which is invariably tied to dire economic straits gets focused on...but it's just the one angle: one facet. Minority populations (ethnic minorities, to be clear) that have been chronically disadvantaged for decades aren't necessarily going to get ahead if all you do is you tell people they're equal to everyone else. You can eradicate a good portion of this malignance if you address the underlying rot instead of dousing it with gallon upon gallon of perfume before declaring "Mission accomplished". "Socially liberal but economically conservative" (or any close enough description) quickly becomes a self-evident contradiction once you recognize that the latter attitude hinders or even outright reverses reconstructive attempts based around the former.

 

Oh, I don't say you're wrong. The economic economic front is bad and in many ways getting worse. But I think the corporate embrace of LGB rights (in some sectors, at least) shows that the corporate world can be shifted. It once seemed (to me at least) that religious conservatives and pro-business conservatives had a rock-solid alliance. Use religion as the opiate of the masses, keep people distracted with abortion and "The Gay" so they wouldn't notice their exploitation. Some Evangelical billionaires still fund efforts in this direction. But many companies' directors seem to have decided they don't need the Evangelical alliance anymore.

 

To me this suggests the possibility of other wedge issues that might be used to split off sections of American business in support of progressive goals. For instance, health care: A direct legislative assault on the gigantic and very rich health industry is probably doomed before it starts. But many companies, large and small, can't be happy at having to supply employee health insurance when costs keep going up, up, up. I am frankly surprised there hasn't been a revolt already from companies demanding that government take this unfunded mandate off their hands. Perhaps there is some angle on this I don't understand; it wouldn't be the first time. Still, surely someone has asked CEOs: Would you accept higher taxes (with no cunning ways to evade them, thank you very much) if it meant lower costs overall?

 

Income inequality is a tougher nut to crack. I have difficulty imagining a compelling argument or self-interest for why companies, across the board, should pay more if they can get away with suppressing wages. Best I can come up with is, "Poor people can't buy your goods and services." And some businesses' whole model is based on large quantities of cheap, disposable labor. But other people are smarter than me. Maybe someone can think of a wedge to split off sections of the business world and use them against the rest.

 

Trying to cut deals is not as emotionally satisfying a narrative as a revolution against the corporate elites and the billionaires. But that sort of Manichean struggle of good against evil pushes business interests into a monolith that will fight back with all its strength. Deal-cutting and coalition-building is the price of living in a pluralistic democracy. A large part of what makes our current politics so toxic, paralyzed and destructive is that so many people no longer feel pulled in different directions by multiple interests. If you want to change that, look for the wedges that split interests from identities. You'll never feel like you won a clear and clean victory. But those who disagree with you are less likely to feel they are fighting for their lives and must win at all costs.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

Or for the tl;dr: I think (or at least hope) the answer to "Socially liberal, economically conservative" is "Moderate methods for progressive goals." But it takes enormous patience and persistence in playing a long game.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

Why not both?

 

It's floor wax and a dessert topping cure!

[Badger]

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Just a superficial survey of Joe Biden's career shows him to be a recognized expert on foreign affairs with many international supporters, a long-time advocate for social justice, and frequently successful at brokering bipartisan legislation. He commands a great deal of respect in Congress and the capitals of the world. He's also persevered through great personal tragedy. Biden is not my first choice as candidate for President, and I don't think he's the best potential leader for what America is facing now. But to characterize him as likely to do nothing "besides give us useless State of the Union addresses" is IMO a gross underselling of the man.

 

assuming we are getting the Biden of old, instead of old Biden (an issue I've mentioned in more detail before, so wont again, and it is touchy for me)

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Are you of the mind that this behavior may be indicative of a mental illness? Could this simply be a (used car) salesman's reflex so ingrained that he can't rid himself of it anymore?

 

While I can't rule out mental deficiency as a possible cause for this phenomenon, he does it so consistently that I'd say reflex is more likely. But many people have pointed out that Trump looks like a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder, so he may very well be mentally ill, just not one directly prompting that habit.

 

OTOH there's a great deal about Trump that can be explained just by his background of never having to work for anything, never being denied what he wants, and never having to take responsibility for his actions.

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

 

assuming we are getting the Biden of old, instead of old Biden (an issue I've mentioned in more detail before, so wont again, and it is touchy for me)

 

And so I'll keep my opinion on that subject to myself.

[Doc Democracy]

14 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I have difficulty imagining a compelling argument or self-interest for why companies, across the board, should pay more if they can get away with suppressing wage

 

I think I posted it before but it bears repeating.  This guy is a hero...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51332811

 

Doc

[DShomshak]

On 4/24/2020 at 7:50 AM, Old Man said:

Quoted without comment:

 

Judging from the news programs I follow, within 24 hours just about every doctor in the world said, "DEAR GOD, NO! DON'T DO THIS!!" Or words to this effect.

 

See? Donald Trump does know how to bring people together! <ow, ow, ow my head>

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

[Zeropoint]

On 4/24/2020 at 11:38 AM, DShomshak said:

I have difficulty imagining a compelling argument or self-interest for why companies, across the board, should pay more if they can get away with suppressing wages.

 

That's why it's time to stop asking nicely and make them do it.

[Ragitsu]

Something something Martin Luther King Jr. something tranquilizing drug something gradualism.

[Lord Liaden]

37 minutes ago, Zeropoint said:

 

That's why it's time to stop asking nicely and make them do it.

 

Almost every socio-economic change for the betterment of people as a whole that I can think of in my lifetime, has been protested by entrenched financial interests as being so expensive it would beggar them, or unfairly targeting a specific industry, or too socially disruptive, or an infringement on their rights. Industrial pollution regulation. Emission standards for automobiles. Banning certain chemicals in manufacturing processes. Ending smoking in public places. Minimum wage. Collective bargaining. Unemployment insurance. Society adapted to every one of them, and went on just fine, and now almost everyone accepts them as a given. But it took plenty of government pressure to get there.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

16 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Almost every socio-economic change for the betterment of people as a whole that I can think of in my lifetime, has been protested by entrenched financial interests as being so expensive it would beggar them, or unfairly targeting a specific industry, or too socially disruptive, or an infringement on their rights. Industrial pollution regulation. Emission standards for automobiles. Banning certain chemicals in manufacturing processes. Ending smoking in public places. Minimum wage. Collective bargaining. Unemployment insurance. Society adapted to every one of them, and went on just fine, and now almost everyone accepts them as a given. But it took plenty of government pressure to get there.

 

That's way too much long term thinking form today's society. Moving to renewable energy would be immensely beneficial to our economy for example, but we're dragging our feet on it...because in the short term there will be some economic areas that struggle. With respect, we need to tune into the fact that we need to constantly adapt as a society.