|
Lib and let die posted:But doesn't M4A mean Medicare for Nazis? Why would someone run on a platform of "I love Nazis and want to kiss away all their owwies for free?" There's too many layers of resentment/irony or whatever for me here. I don't get what you're saying. Lots of people protest for M4A all the time, it's a pretty popular platform. Just one that gets killed by bribed politicians whenever it comes close to being voted on.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
i will confess to a few very bitter lols that roberts is speedrunning the scorpion and the frog in the briefings from the court "But if we ban abortion we will surely face a backlash to our authority and legitimacy." "Lol," said Kavanaugh. "Lmao."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:But jesus christ, some of these responses are sobering: Wrong poll - you linked the spring one. The newer one is just as horrifying when it comes to young adult mental health. https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/fall-2021-harvard-youth-poll The two are otherwise a pretty interesting contrast. The percentages for hopeful/fearful for the future of America have flipped. spring poll posted:1.Despite the state of our politics, hope for America is rising (especially among people of color), and so is youth’s faith in their fellow Americans fall poll posted:1. A majority (52%) of young Americans believe that our democracy is either “in trouble,” or “failing”
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's too many layers of resentment/irony or whatever for me here. No, there's absolutely a dichotomy that I think is worth exploring there. The Peoples' Party organized rallies across a bunch of states a few months back but the entire thing was written off as a grift because people that want Medicare for all and would benefit from Medicare for all, but say rude things about democrats, and even some avowed right wingers wanted to show up and support Medicare for all so you know, it must have been a grift because people were organizing across party lines, on policy lines. When Jimmy Dore supports something that something is rotten because Jimmy loves Glenn Greenwald and Glenn loves Tucker Carlson, but when Republican John Kasich goes to bat for Biden during the election, it's pragmatically aligning with our friends across the aisle to come together and eject The Great Scourge from our country. Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's too many layers of resentment/irony or whatever for me here. There are plenty of democratic voters opposed to m4a because they think like republicans: either “it’ll cost too much” or “the wrong people will get it”. Democratic politicians are actively worse; they will say m4a will take health care coverage away from Americans, like Biden’s mealy mouthed excuses when asked if he’d sign an m4a bill. Or when Hillary asked if breaking up the banks would fix racism. 1. It would certainly enable the creation of institutions that are more restricted in their ability to be the instrument of racial animus that banks are to this very day. In my liberal enclave local banks were exposed giving shittier mortgage loan terms to minority buyers of equivalent applications to white buyers, and had utterly no explanation. 2. She didn’t have a goddamn plan in the world to “fix racism” lol she was way way more loving scared for the banks Never trust a dem or Republican when they start talking about protecting minority groups, tbh. Neither party gives a poo poo until the polls say they have to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Wrong poll - you linked the spring one. The newer one is just as horrifying when it comes to young adult mental health. Thanks (for always catching my bad links)! I'll correct the earlier link but this explains the chasm between the politico story and the results. eta: This is interesting: 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:No, there's absolutely a dichotomy that I think is worth exploring there. The Peoples' Party organized rallies across a bunch of states a few months back but the entire thing was written off as a grift because people that want Medicare for all and would benefit from Medicare for all, but say rude things about democrats, and even some avowed right wingers wanted to show up and support Medicare for all so you know, it must have been a grift because people were organizing across party lines, on policy lines. Is it really so hard to understand why people would distrust political support from pundits and political leaders who lend their support, money and power to the party that condemns even the idea of Medicare for All as "government takeover of healthcare?" Scaremongering the people who need it most into seeing M4A an existential threat to the very existence of our country is the Republican party line, who wouldn't think anyone who calls themselves a Republican is actually in favor of the idea? Even the most Pharma-Owned Democrats in the entire party rarely come close to being as extreme on M4A as literally any given average boilerplate Republican. I have a right-wing co-worker who I've gotten to agree many times that the profit motive being part of the economy's healthcare sector is bad and leads to bad outcomes, but he'd never actually put his vote toward making Medicare For All happen. That would mean either voting for a Democrat, which he'd rather die than do, or voting for a third-party candidate that almost certainly holds some other belief he finds abhorrent and therefore he would willingly sacrifice progress on M4A to ensure that person doesn't gain political power. This is why I'm so skeptical of any kind of talk about material conditions being the key to finding common ground across ideological lines. Americans have spent generations (if not the nation's entire existence) being programmed to think that suffering material harm is worth it to keep certain ideologies impotent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Thanks (for always catching my bad links)! I'll correct the earlier link but this explains the chasm between the politico story and the results. Post enough interesting stuff and somebody's gotta click the link eventually  But I'm glad to have seen them both, because they really do read differently. I've only had time to skip around in the actual PDFs, but there are significant shifts in a lot of attitudes in there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Amy Coney Barrett just made the argument that: Yep, she wasn't there to overturn the election, rig anything for Trump, etc., but for this particular reason. This is her calling from The Lord.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
The Republican agenda is what an absolute majority of Americans want, in its entirety, regardless of polling. Talk to people IRL, they're fascists. All of this is representative as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I just don't get this, though - not to overdramatize it, but isn't it like being angrier at a mother who won't leave a man who beats the poo poo out of his family than at the father for beating the poo poo out of his family? IK Hat Please stop with the lovely domestic abuse analogies. Just stop. Unless there is a current event about literal domestic abuse, stop trying to compare things to it, especially something like "being mad at politicians for being bad."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This is why I'm so skeptical of any kind of talk about material conditions being the key to finding common ground across ideological lines. Americans have spent generations (if not the nation's entire existence) being programmed to think that suffering material harm is worth it to keep certain ideologies impotent. Agree with the propaganda effort, not on the skepticism of making genuine material outreach a successful political tool. When has that outreach been tried by an actual candidate? Sanders went on Fox and had the crowd eating out of his hand, but he was abhorrent to the dem donor base. Again; tell them who their enemies are, and make sure you don’t skirt around anyone because they’re on Team Blue. loving hurl both the Clintons and Trump under the bus with a messaging campaign that skirts to within a hair’s breadth of legal actionability. You’d sweep the map if you did it right. There are way more people who hate the bosses in their lives than hate each other. But to do this you’d need to eject probably the top two or three tiers of leadership. The Dems cannot be a labor party anymore because too many of the bosses got in on the game, and they gave more money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Is it really so hard to understand why people would distrust political support from pundits and political leaders who lend their support, money and power to the party that condemns even the idea of Medicare for All as "government takeover of healthcare?" Scaremongering the people who need it most into seeing M4A an existential threat to the very existence of our country is the Republican party line, who wouldn't think anyone who calls themselves a Republican is actually in favor of the idea? Even the most Pharma-Owned Democrats in the entire party rarely come close to being as extreme on M4A as literally any given average boilerplate Republican. Your skepticism is based around a single data point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:The Republican agenda is what an absolute majority of Americans want, in its entirety, regardless of polling. Talk to people IRL, they're fascists. All of this is representative as gently caress. Nah, a lot of their agenda is noticeably not popular. The problem is that most people don't care about their major issues. Only ~30% of the country thinks we need looser gun laws, but you will never in a million years get 70% of the country to be single-issue pro-gun control voters. The 30% anti-gun control voters are. It's similar with the tax cuts. Corporate tax cuts aren't really popular, but most people don't care if it doesn't negatively impact them. That's why the corporate tax cuts are always paired with personal tax cuts and people don't care if corporations get a huge tax cut if they get a little one too. There's a similar opposite function with "popular" policies where nobody especially cares or votes based on them and you get results like: - "Should we place a priority on protecting the environment?" 77% Yes - "Should we implement policies to protect the environment?" 68% Yes - "Should we cap methane emissions?" 65% Yes - "Should we cap methane emissions if it means your electricity bill will increase 5%?" 21% Yes - "Is the environment your #1 issue that needs to be addressed?" 7% Yes. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
I wish America would just collapse already. The anticipation is killing me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
selec posted:Cannot overstate the contempt for normal standards of behavior the ruling class has: The thing I find most alarming about Chris Cuomo is how he always looks like you turned the color saturation on your TV all the way up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:I've heard about the democrats and the republican getting destroyed so badly they won't even exist as a national party for the majority of my life and it never seems to happen. They are installing GOP hardliners as secretaries of state and in other key election-related positions in purple states. They are setting things up so that any losses in a presidential election in purple states with GOP control can be turned into "stolen elections" with baseless accusations so that their state legislatures can just give their electors to the Republican nominee. The House is gerrymandered to hell, and the Senate is naturally biased towards low-population states. There are more red states than blue states now, and ticket-splitting is becoming rarer over time. As I've talked about before, Senate Class 1 has been punching well above its weight for Democrats over the past two decades because they had a very good year and netted four seats in 2000 (mostly luck - they won all five of the five races that had margins of victory less than 3%), and then they got a series of lucky breaks in election timing in 2006, 2012, and 2018. A bad 2024 election could see a loss of 10 Democratic Senate seats. There is simply no path for recovering those once they're gone. The judiciary is already filled with Trump appointees that were stolen from Obama, including SCOTUS. So no further work required here. So that's the executive, both houses of Congress, and the judiciary, all tilted strongly in favor of permanent Republican rule in ways we have never seen before and using means that explicitly cannot be countered through normal democratic processes. This is not just another normal swing of the pendulum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Or you look at states that have elected working democratic majorities and the changes that they're able to make. Folks keep ignoring this. Sorry for not making the argument that you want me to make  I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Thanks (for always catching my bad links)! I'll correct the earlier link but this explains the chasm between the politico story and the results. You can have a President who does all these things and in America he or she will be the most unpopular President and be railed against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This is why I'm so skeptical of any kind of talk about material conditions being the key to finding common ground across ideological lines. Americans have spent generations (if not the nation's entire existence) being programmed to think that suffering material harm is worth it to keep certain ideologies impotent. Isn't this how unions basically work though? I mean of course there are limits to certain types of people you can or should build solidarity with but unions are a pretty big indicator that you can get chuds to stand with you if they get something out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Carew posted:Isn't this how unions basically work though? I mean of course there are limits to certain types of people you can or should build solidarity with but unions are a pretty big indicator that you can get chuds to stand with you if they get something out of it. They don't stand with you on anything but getting a better contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:i will confess to a few very bitter lols that roberts is speedrunning the scorpion and the frog in the briefings from the court It's not like the court is gonna get packed or anything so heck, what do they have to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
Carew posted:Isn't this how unions basically work though? I mean of course there are limits to certain types of people you can or should build solidarity with but unions are a pretty big indicator that you can get chuds to stand with you if they get something out of it. Thus the systematic rigging and dismantling of unions from the 80s till today. Basically bankrupt old unions by making them carry the non paying ride along who also scab against them on every non pay issue, force every shop to be open, require workers to have a majority to group up, remove basically all worker protections from firing, and make the NLRB impotent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:The last time there was an attempt at a mass march for M4A, the entire thing got torpedoed because a chud showed up and said he wanted Medicare for all, too. Wait, what? This is a thing? People are opposing medicate for all because chuds will get it? Chuds opposing it because brown people will get it makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Wait, what? This is a thing? People are opposing medicate for all because chuds will get it? Look into Joe Biden’s stated reasons for opposing it if you want to get really cynical. The voters who think like that at least have a sense of bb politics being a competition between interest groups, even if they’ve been fools into thinking that social class isn’t the true divider.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Wait, what? This is a thing? People are opposing medicate for all because chuds will get it? Not exactly the same but the logic reminds me of how there are prominent dems that oppose free college with the reasoning (public reasoning, not their actual reason ofc) that it would result in tax payers paying the tuition costs for the children of millionaires. Which is profoundly stupid if you think about it for even half a second but it's the kind of rhetoric that works on many, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
selec posted:Look into Joe Biden’s stated reasons for opposing it if you want to get really cynical. If you've got something where Joe Biden opposes Medicare for all because chuds would get it, I'm all ears.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Wait, what? This is a thing? People are opposing medicate for all because chuds will get it? I'm probably guilty of over simplifying it a considerable amount - I've been phoneposting for the last few hours and it's something deserving of a little more effort than phoneposting lends itself to so I'm happy to share more tomorrow when I'm back in front of a keyboard but very roughly, there was a "March for Medicare for All" movement that had scheduled events across the country (I want to say it maybe ended up by chance being no more than a handful of weeks after Cori Bush's sleep-in on the capitol steps) that various controversial figures ranging from angry youtube-left personalities like Jimmy Dore and populist culture streamer shoe0nhead to an in-the-wool Q Beleiver expressed support and plans to show up in person. This invited all sorts of organization-breaking rhetoric from larger, let's politely sat "more robustly funded" independent media outlets for motives I've yet to really be able to understand other than...that it has something to do with the aforementioned state of being better funded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:When Jimmy Dore supports something that something is rotten because Jimmy loves Glenn Greenwald and Glenn loves Tucker Carlson, but when Republican John Kasich goes to bat for Biden during the election, it's pragmatically aligning with our friends across the aisle to come together and eject The Great Scourge from our country. Side question/possible derail, are you still a Dore fan?  I thought it was well established by now that he's a misogynist piece of poo poo. Which would be my first thought about what he supports, nothing to do with what other political commentators he loves....
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Side question/possible derail, are you still a Dore fan? I have largely curtailed my consumption of Dore content. I'm almost guaranteed to scroll by something with a thumbnail of Fauci with IVERMECTIN in capital letters in the title and look for something with a Pelosi or Biden thumbnail with a title about them being old and pudding-brained. It's part of the larger point in that I'm not necessarily invested in Jimmy Dore as as platform and more interested in [CONTENT CREATOR] condemning liberal democrats from positions lefter than The Guardian or Current Affairs. If Jimmy or Glenn or whoever wants to post a clip condemning democrats' sinophobic tendencies, I'm going to give it some mental real estate, but if they're complaining that lockdowns are authoritarian, I'll pass. Media personalities aren't allies or comrades - they're tools to be used to achieve specific goals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Speaking of, what was gorsuch's jurisprudence regarding abortion before his appointment anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The difference this time is that Republicans have become overt and shameless about consolidating power, and they have trained their base to not only accept this, but demand it. Yep. There was an episode of an NPR podcast a few weeks back where the hosts were talking about this, and they arrived at the same conclusion… followed by palpable silence that lasted for a few seconds, as all of those present realized how hosed democracy in the US is. Eventually, one of the hosts basically went “well poo poo”, and moved onto closing out the episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Dems can't pass anything beyond a reconciliation bill without 60 votes, which they don't have. drat shame. It's going to cost them everything. Possibly your whole democracy. But like you say, there it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:drat shame. It's going to cost them everything. Possibly your whole democracy. But like you say, there it is. The US isn't a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
It is very odd to be shamed for not being nice enough to the Democrats when the logical conclusion from the arguments here are that Dems are doomed and Republicans are an immovable fascist force which pretty much means elections are a dead end. The message from loyalists seems to be that they're terminally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
Like, I'm repeating an earlier post from today, but the problem is that in order to start solving the problem of "Dems appear to have 50 seats but they actually don't because SineManchin and probably 10 other senators if it ever actually came to that" you have to start actually discriminating between nominal Democrats, which you are categorically not allowed to do under liberal doctrine. It wouldn't matter if they "had" 60 seats, they still wouldn't actually have the seats. We know this because it happened so recently that all the contemporary posts about it are still on these here forums in the archives. It can't ever be solved because it's intrinsic to how American liberalism works
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Like, I'm repeating an earlier post from today, but the problem is that in order to start solving the problem of "Dems appear to have 50 seats but they actually don't because SineManchin and probably 10 other senators if it ever actually came to that" you have to start actually discriminating between nominal Democrats, which you are categorically not allowed to do under liberal doctrine. It wouldn't matter if they "had" 60 seats, they still wouldn't actually have the seats. We know this because it happened so recently that all the contemporary posts about it are still on these here forums in the archives. It can't ever be solved because it's intrinsic to how American liberalism works Yeah so unreasonable the dems didn't pass 80 bills during the what 60ish working days they had a slim majority?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:you have to start actually discriminating between nominal Democrats, which you are categorically not allowed to do under liberal doctrine. I'm not sure seeing all Democrats as a monolith is a particularly liberal affliction Fister Roboto posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yeah so unreasonable the dems didn't pass 80 bills during the what 60ish working days they had a slim majority? Yes. If you want to claim to be a competent party of government you have to actually govern, and if your meta-political commitments to bipartisanship, pragmatism and THE NORMS and whatever prevent you from doing that you have an existential problem DeadlyMuffin posted:I'm not sure seeing all Democrats as a monolith is a particularly liberal affliction You could even argue if you were inclined that there's a cyclical dynamic between liberals who will not tolerate division within their ranks and conservatives who see all Democrats as a homogenous block of satanic baby-eaters icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yes. If you want to claim to be a competent party of government you have to actually govern, and if your meta-political commitments to bipartisanship, pragmatism and THE NORMS and whatever prevent you from doing that you have an existential problem How many bills per day of senate do you consider competent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 05:38
|
|