|
Sephyr posted:And then it'll be relevant again when, if they actually win, they discover the 'the votes just are not there', or "it would ruin the insurance market and put hundreds of thousands out of work" and certainly that "we need to work together with the industry because american health care has the best people in the world" and go for another lovely compromise that will -still- get hung about their necks as if it was Stalin's own brainchild. that's a convenient out, seeing as how it's what torpedoed the public option eight years ago specifically, exactly one vote in the senate wasn't there
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I know, right? Who cares about the economy or our future. death to america
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Regarding the possibility of Democrats supporting/passing single payer, I think it makes sense to remain skeptical until they actually make an earnest effort when Democrats control the government again. I'm very cautiously optimistic that at least rhetoric has shifted more in favor of the idea, but it's far too early to be convinced that there's a genuine desire to achieve that goal (and, to be frank, it's really bizarre to default to optimism and assuming good will when it comes to the Democratic Party).GreyjoyBastard posted:that's a convenient out, seeing as how it's what torpedoed the public option eight years ago My feeling about this is while it's certainly possible for there to be a legitimate (in the sense of not having the votes or whatever) reason for such a thing to fail to pass, the public is still best off not cutting them slack for it. The main reason for this is that, hypothetically, if I were a politician who genuinely didn't want single payer or a public option or whatever but didn't want the backlash from voting against it, it would make sense to speak with my fellow politicians and organize a situation where the minimum number of people have to take the fall for voting against the bill. I don't think this is a particularly unrealistic possibility. So you have to weigh the harm of potentially letting politicians get away with such a thing (by saying "well, they couldn't help it so you shouldn't criticize them") against the harm of wrongfully blaming them in a situation where it really wasn't their fault (or at least wasn't the fault of anyone aside from the ones who voted against it). There is very little, if any, harm from the latter, but the former allows the Democratic Party an easy way to minimize backlash for failing to pass certain legislation. Bear in mind that when I refer to backlash, I'm not talking about withholding votes. It's my opinion that you should always vote for the Democratic candidate in a contested election, just as a strategic/pragmatic choice to avoid Republicans winning. I'm referring more to public backlash in the form of criticizing/attacking politicians and the party for failing to pass the bill in question, regardless of their excuse (assuming the reason it wasn't passed was insufficient Democratic votes). Basically, there's no logical reason to assume good will on the part of politicians. These are people who should be held to a high standard, and there is little harm from criticizing them for failing to achieve your policy goals. I feel like a lot of the "you shouldn't criticize the Democrats since it maybe wasn't their fault!" stuff is motivated primarily by a sense of decorum/politeness that is only harmful in the long run. This stuff matters, and people die and have their lives ruined every single year that these goals aren't achieved. It's okay to be rude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that's a convenient out, seeing as how it's what torpedoed the public option eight years ago It's almost like it's a pattern, or something. It's not like they'll use reconciliation first and skip the wrangling and GOP interference and such, though. That would be rude! Also, I don't even know what to tell you if you think a single payer bill was ever passed around in 2008. They started with a lovely bill, and the only decent thing in it, closing loopholes that kept health insurance companies from price-fixing and other dodgy crap, was scrapped very early on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:It's almost like it's a pattern, or something. It's not like they'll use reconciliation first and skip the wrangling and GOP interference and such, though. That would be rude! They did use reconciliation in the passing of PPACA, though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This is a weird drat thing to say. I was probably not harsh enough on them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:They were also evil. what is evil other than someone who is ideologically opposed to you and who acts against what you think is right? what do you think people have been saying to you for pages while you dig in and whine that they're all buying in to republican/libertarian propaganda?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:death to america Sickos.jpg but literally everyone
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's okay to be rude. This seems like the biggest sticking point with D&D's resident centrist crew. Apparently they agree with 90+% of our goals, but think we're being much too rude about it. Which is why you see so many questions of "Why are you acting like the Dems are the bad guys?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:It's almost like it's a pattern, or something. It's not like they'll use reconciliation first and skip the wrangling and GOP interference and such, though. That would be rude! public option, admittedly not single payer as such, passed the house and Lieberman killed it or at least was the guy who most publicly threatened to kill the bill by way of filibuster I more or less agree with the goon with the longer post, we need as much pressure and persuasion as we can get in the next hopefully three years so that it becomes unpalatable for centrist-er Democrats to kill single payer. Also as many, you know, surplus Senators as possible. I'm not sure if it would be feasible to create a reconciliation-capable single payer bill, I don't remember the exact requirements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:public option, admittedly not single payer as such, passed the house and Lieberman killed it and lieberman was supported by the democratic party over an actual democrat. said democrat they sunk in favor of lieberman probably would've passed a public option, but no, they had to help their old buddy lieberman after he lost the dem primary
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Apparently they agree with 90+% of our goals, but think we're being much too rude about it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and lieberman was supported by the democratic party over an actual democrat. said democrat they sunk in favor of lieberman probably would've passed a public option, but no, they had to help their old buddy lieberman after he lost the dem primary I mean you can imagine if e.g. Warren got primaried from the right and somehow lost, and ran anyway as an independent, how that would shake out. It would not mirror what happened with Lieberman by a long shot. I only mention this because while the spirit of what you're saying is absolutely correct, there are some factual inaccuracies which don't mean much in context but which some dickhead liberal is inevitably going to call you out on and muddy the waters over. And I'm not trying to head them off with this post, either. I just want to be able to quote it later and gloat 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and lieberman was supported by the democratic party over an actual democrat. said democrat they sunk in favor of lieberman probably would've passed a public option, but no, they had to help their old buddy lieberman after he lost the dem primary No. Lieberman was not supported by the Democratic party, in fact he was primaried and ran as an independent and 'gasp' was supported by the voters in his state. Kilroy's dipshit post about welcoming someone back into the fold is exactly that, as of course the Dems will play ball after spurring him to placate him. Kilroy's entire post can be boiled down to conspiracy and speculation which he will then use to gloat apparently. If you're going to be arrogant posting, at least get the facts right. Boon fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:They did use reconciliation in the passing of PPACA, though? Yes. AFTER letting everybody and their mother who was NEVER going to vote for it make changes to the bill, play footsie for local resources and exemptions in their states, and more, in order to get to 60. I leave it to you if it was just kabuki meant to water it down and slurp Pharma's dong, or if they really were that naively dumb. But I dare say it would have been less of clusterfuck if they had just gathered their sure votes, leaned on the rest, and gone for reconciliation as a first option. "They rejected our bipartisan overture and looked partisan and radical" is not a political deterrent and never was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
If Lieberman had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Boon posted:No. Lieberman was not supported by the Democratic party, in fact he was primaried and ran as an independent and 'gasp' was supported by the voters in his state. Kilroy's dipshit post about welcoming someone back into the fold is exactly that, as of course the Dems will play ball after spurring him to placate him. Kilroy's entire post can be boiled down to conspiracy and speculation which he will then use to gloat apparently. sorry, but they welcomed him back before he was elected, and promised to let him keep his status in the legislature during his election. quote:If you're going to be arrogant posting, at least get the facts right. applies to you quite well. i already did a post showing that the dems were promising all the perks he should've lost when he lost the primary well before he won the GE, giving him a leg up over his actual democratic opponent. thus, he was supported over the democrat in the race, and quite naturally won.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:here's a slate article backing this up further: just  that you called kilroy's post "conspiracy and speculation" and then had the nerve to post thisquote:If you're going to be arrogant posting, at least get the facts right. please, take your own advice next time
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:sorry, but they welcomed him back before he was elected, and promised to let him keep his status in the legislature during his election. LIES! He was run out of DC on a rail by a vengeful party, his figure burned in effigy, and his every last committee position taken and granted to a bolchevik tribune! All the way back in Westeros, those extinguished by the Lannisters console themselves that though their halls were ruined and their families butchered for their disloyalty, at the very least they did not suffer as much as Lieberman. Rains of Castamere my rear end! And it is thanks to such strict party discipline that the Democrats are the well-oiled, bill-passing machine they have been for the last 6+ years. They all know the price to be paid, thanks to Liberman's ruination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. HOw can this not be returned through pressure on lawmakers and electing a president who supports Its restoration? The problem with right wing legislation is that it’s harder to back track. Let’s say for example net neutrality is removed. The providers will make so much money off this that they’ll be able to lobby and shut down any attempts to bring it back. It’s a bit like privatizing a public asset and then trying to nationalize it again. It never works. You’d need another severe depression that somehow bankrupts telecom providers along with other industries so there’d be no choice but to have government step in and nationalize it and then reintroduce that legislation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Its worked plenty of times, and it is usually popular when it happens. It just requires a party that wants it to work and that has not been the dems for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The problem with right wing legislation is that it’s harder to back track. Let’s say for example net neutrality is removed. The providers will make so much money off this that they’ll be able to lobby and shut down any attempts to bring it back. or you need democrats that aren't in the pocket of big business if you have those, things will inevitably drift rightward year after year until we have dems arguing for less regulation of payday loans and that they should be able to sexually assault women and still hold office
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The problem with right wing legislation is that it’s harder to back track. Let’s say for example net neutrality is removed. The providers will make so much money off this that they’ll be able to lobby and shut down any attempts to bring it back. Um, I'm pretty sure that "not having enough money to lobby with" isn't a limiting factor here. The amount of money large business sectors like the telecom industry spend on lobbying is trivial compared with the overall amount of money they make, so it's not like making more money after privatization is going to result in them somehow spending more on lobbying and gaining more favor with politicians (that's another funny thing; you do realize that politicians have the choice of whether to respond to lobbying, right? like, if Democrats decided not to bring back net neutrality due to lobbying, that's still their fault, it's not some natural result of the lobbying).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Well I hope you’re right. It’s easier to ban or regulate something before the cat is out of the bag. The next time you try to bring back net neutrality regs you’re taking away something. Having something and then losing it again is worse than not having it at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
I'm sure the Democrats will bring back net neutrality if we get them back in power. After all, their last FCC chairmen *looks down at card* tried to kill net neutrality and they managed to appoint such diverse hires as *flips to next card* Ajit Pai.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:I'm sure the Democrats will bring back net neutrality if we get them back in power. After all, their last FCC chairmen *looks down at card* tried to kill net neutrality nope, literally the opposite, the whole reason this business right now is happening is that they're trying to roll back Wheeler's policy, what the hell quote:and they managed to appoint such diverse hires as *flips to next card* Ajit Pai. pretty sure this has been litigated in the thread but you can't have more than three members of a single political party guess Obama could have seen whether he could get his still-Dem-majority to confirm a socialist
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Boon posted:No. Lieberman was not supported by the Democratic party, in fact he was primaried and ran as an independent and 'gasp' was supported by the voters in his state. Kilroy's dipshit post about welcoming someone back into the fold is exactly that, as of course the Dems will play ball after spurring him to placate him. Kilroy's entire post can be boiled down to conspiracy and speculation which he will then use to gloat apparently. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:It’s a bit like privatizing a public asset and then trying to nationalize it again. It never works. You’d need another severe depression that somehow bankrupts telecom providers along with other industries so there’d be no choice but to have government step in and nationalize it and then reintroduce that legislation. Arizona public buildings, lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The problem with right wing legislation is that it’s harder to back track. Let’s say for example net neutrality is removed. The providers will make so much money off this that they’ll be able to lobby and shut down any attempts to bring it back. 1. Yes, as hard to backtrack as Social Security? Or Medicare? 2/ Lobbying only works when you elect poo poo stains who will listen to them and not thier constituents. Also it works if people ar enot involved to change a law. 3. Yeah you don't need that, you just need enough normals to be pissed off to nationalize a large company. Really Kraftwerk I would say you are providing a great example of how the neoliberals frame things so that those who may be more inclined towards a actual just world are silenced. THey get into your head, pretending that when their sociopathic policies are just the natural state of things, while also suggesting that because their allies, the corporate parasites are now making more money,you just can't prevent them from continuing to make money. Do not listen to that argument, because it's only meant to make you not want to change the world. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
This sort of harkens back to the technocracy discussion, where one of the significant advantages lobbyists and industry-friendly experts have in a lot of cases is that there just straight up are not a lot of people with comparable expertise or experience who don't, you know, have significant industry ties. You don't just need the torches and pitchforks (although they help), you need some capacity to wade into the weeds on counterproposals and wonky reasons why you're right and the big corporations are wrong. Conveniently, in the case of net neutrality we had/have an awful lot of sufficiently educated / experienced / knowledgeable computer nerds in favor of it, and some big companies that happen to see some value in opposing the other big companies. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This sort of harkens back to the technocracy discussion, where one of the significant advantages lobbyists and industry-friendly experts have in a lot of cases is that there just straight up are not a lot of people with comparable expertise or experience who don't, you know, have significant industry ties. You don't just need the torches and pitchforks (although they help), you need some capacity to wade into the weeds on counterproposals and wonky reasons why you're right and the big corporations are wrong. Really all you need is to convince people that they're going to pay more for YouTube and instagram.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really all you need is to convince people that they're going to pay more for YouTube and instagram. well, I mean, yeah, policywise it's not the best example because all we really need to do right now is get the pitchforks and torches rallied around a preexisting good policy I was partly talking in slightly more general terms about developing new policies with attention to detail and to consequences, whereupon you need some level of expertise, in this case provided by Wheeler's minions at the FCC in the halcyon days of the Obama administration. There are more reasons that industry hacks get called upon to advise on bills and executive programs than "the industry gives lots of money to politicians". Heck, Wheeler himself was an industry hack with an industry-friendly background, just one who was (eventually) willing to listen to good policy ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. Yes, as hard to backtrack as Social Security? Or Medicare? So how do you propose we can weather the inevitable corporate media assault against any left wing president or party? The minute you try and harm business interests the entire media will destroy you. Trump looks unstoppable regardless of his personal conduct and I think it has everything to do with him looking after private business interests. Look how Clinton was nearly impeached for sexual misconduct and now all you hear is crickets. People talk about it but his position seems unassailable. If anything discussing his tweets and bad behaviour keeps the media from talking about how hosed up the country is getting from all the covert legislation going on behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So how do you propose we can weather the inevitable corporate media assault against any left wing president or party? The minute you try and harm business interests the entire media will destroy you. Trump looks unstoppable regardless of his personal conduct and I think it has everything to do with him looking after private business interests. 1. You think they havn't been attacking already like sience the 90s? 2. Create our own alternate media, use internet to fund. TYT sucks but it has been successful this way. This can be repeated. 3. Trump is not unstoppable. Its just that the dems are controlled by corportewhores and people infested with brainworms. 4. He should have been impeached, and the way you bring up the women Trump assaulted is by actually trying to bring them forward. 5. If politics make you this anxious, I suggest you black all newsites from your browser, and just watch Netflix. @Greyjoy, you mean like say trying to get legislation passed in the states to allow municipalities to crate their own broadband? Or say legislation that would encourage more then one or two internet providers in an area?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. You think they havn't been attacking already like sience the 90s? What makes the TYT so bad? I find their stuff rather cathartic same with Jimmy Dore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This sort of harkens back to the technocracy discussion, where one of the significant advantages lobbyists and industry-friendly experts have in a lot of cases is that there just straight up are not a lot of people with comparable expertise or experience who don't, you know, have significant industry ties. You don't just need the torches and pitchforks (although they help), you need some capacity to wade into the weeds on counterproposals and wonky reasons why you're right and the big corporations are wrong. Ironically, the ravages of late-stage capitalism and corporatism mean there are a lot of unemployed young experts. I'd even go so far as say the left is more expertly informed than the politicians repeating "the government is like a household budget..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:What makes the TYT so bad? I find their stuff rather cathartic same with Jimmy Dore. Yeah, if you find them good, great. I just am not a fan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:What makes the TYT so bad? I find their stuff rather cathartic same with Jimmy Dore. I watched a few of their videos months ago but after a while I stopped watching. Cenk is one of those people who has their head up their rear end, way farther up there than Bill Maher ever could get his. Also the show's name has this problem: wikipedia entry on the webshow Young Turks posted:The Young Turks have been criticized for their name, as it originates from a Turkish political movement that has been associated with involvement in the Armenian Genocide. The company's founders have denied any linkage to the name's historical significance as it relates to the Armenian Genocide.[60] Cenk Uygur has retracted his college article where he questioned the authenticity of the Armenian genocide, stating that "My mistake at the time was confusing myself for a scholar of history, which I most certainly am not. I don't want to make the same mistake again, so I am going to refrain from commenting on the topic of the Armenian Genocide, which I do not know nearly enough about."[61] Critics have still questioned the name of the news company even after Uygur's response,[62] because it was created during a time when Uygur questioned the authenticity of the Armenian Genocide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:nope, literally the opposite, the whole reason this business right now is happening is that they're trying to roll back Wheeler's policy, what the hell He wanted to divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes until there was massive public outcry and, more importantly, tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook raised a stink about it. Democrats absolutely do not give a gently caress about protecting net neutrality. I wish that wasn't true but that doesn't change reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:What makes the TYT so bad? I find their stuff rather cathartic same with Jimmy Dore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:15
|
|
