|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There isn't a second bear. The bears followers don't want any brown mammal they want this bear specifically. If the bear is removed from the kitchen, the anger of the bear supporters will be too disorganized to matter. This is ridiculous. The anger will be directed against migrants, trans people, etc
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
the notion that trump is irreplacable is questionable. anyone remember the cult of personality around george dubya, of all people? the fact is that the republican party is currently filled with people who will debase themselves to any means necessary to get the Trump vote. they may not be original flavor but Trumpism is here to stay until it gets electorally discredited. Consider how poorly real life Trump matches fevered MAGA imagination Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:You are extremely misremembering 2016. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win. The only people who called Trump winning were MAGA Twitter guys who at the time had no purchase in mainstream media, and Michael Moore. Even the brocialist Bernie bros of The Chapo Trap House had a whole election night stream predicated on the idea that Clinton was going to win and win handily. I agree, there was definitely not an air of defeatism, and the consensus was that Hillary was going to win just based on 'well, it's Trump'. It wasn't completely universal - notably 538.com (which does a lot of analysis of polls) only predicted about a 2/3 chance of Hillary winning, but the majority of people just ignored that kind of information. Her campaign started with the premise that she didn't really need to do anything, far from from not just failing to come up with a vision of what she stood for, they actually thought about using the slogan "it's her turn". Non-Fox media definitely didn't present the idea that she could lose, and the right-wing stuff seemed more 'we have to try' than 'we have a good chance of winning'. That probably contributed significantly to her loss - if people thought the race was neck-and-neck, then a lot of people who chose to stay home probably would have held their noses and voted for her, even though they didn't like her and she didn't really sell anything to them. TheDisreputableDog posted:Good post. Thinking it through, the main difference here is that Biden’s critique is based on a specific event (Jan 6), he paints the main offenders as a smaller faction within the larger party, and extends an open hand to the rest. Clinton wrote off half of the other side as irredeemable based on broad-stroke philosophical differences - racism, homophobia, sexism. As a conservative who ended up not voting for Trump, I still found it particularly repellant to hear that kind of bomb-throwing from someone who supported and provided air-cover for a sex pest (honestly, probably a rapist). As you mentioned, there’s a raft of hypocrisy behind that as well. Yeah, that's a good example of the conservative persecution complex that I mentioned and she failed to dance around. Conservative politicians enthusiastically embrace racism, homophobia, and sexism in both policy and rhetoric, but someone talking frankly about the racism, homophobia, and sexism that a lot of conservatives giddily embrace and the rest are fine with counts as 'bomb throwing' because she didn't go far enough to coddle the sensitivities of sort of people that call other people 'easily offended snowflakes' regularly. Biden is a seasoned enough politician to do that, and he'll probably do it well, while I certainly couldn't stomach coddling the sensitivities of those people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well of course they'll be mad. But you can't just ignore the law and let an insurrectionist become the president again because stopping him would make fascists upset. Isn't this a bit difficult to do in practice because you can't just decide that someone is an insurrectionist until they have been found guilty in a court of law? If Trump was found guilty he'd be in jail anyway so this wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
The unfortunate fact is also that the basket of deplorable comments are the sort of thing turn off the specific but not necessarily small demographic of "democratic voting women who do not want to think of their republican husbands as monsters."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, it does. Literally everyone knows this, it's why Medicaid and Medicare still cover all the expensive things that private insurers won't. Data and studies generally suggest that more government involvement in healthcare would increase efficiency and satisfaction while decreasing prices, yes. But you are vastly overestimating what "literally everyone knows". Even when people do think that Medicare is better than private care, that doesn't mean they'll turn out to support universal healthcare, let alone government-administered universal healthcare. As Obama himself put it when trying to push for universal healthcare: quote:President Obama poked fun today at people who want the government to stay out of Medicare. How soon we forget 2009:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
I only remember the highest form of patriotic, descent
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There isn't a second bear. The bears followers don't want any brown mammal they want this bear specifically. If the bear is removed from the kitchen, the anger of the bear supporters will be too disorganized to matter. Sometimes there isn’t a second bear a “movement” like this collapses. Sometimes there is and a whole system collapses. We shouldn’t put all our chips on the lack of a second bear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Isn't this a bit difficult to do in practice because you can't just decide that someone is an insurrectionist until they have been found guilty in a court of law? If Trump was found guilty he'd be in jail anyway so this wouldn't be a problem. Also I believe if Trump was in jail, that wouldn't actually stop him from running and being elected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:The unfortunate fact is also that the basket of deplorable comments are the sort of thing turn off the specific but not necessarily small demographic of "democratic voting women who do not want to think of their republican husbands as monsters." I'm not sure I believe this; I think her mistake was immediately backpedaling rather than doubling down. She was exactly right in describing those kinds of people that way, and it's ridiculous to give in to conservative backlash when they're the folks supporting white supremacy and homophobia, plus every other type of bigotry you can think of. Democrats have been way too frightened of conservative backlash; it gives them power over of the framing of current events that they don't deserve. It just makes Democrats seem mealy mouthed in comparison, especially when you've got Republicans ranting about radical leftists and foreigners infesting the country. Democrats of 2024 are less concerned about decorum than in 2016 but I still think they far too often fail to call a spade a spade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
Another wrinkle when it comes to UHC is that many Americans, are very happy with their insurance, until they actually have to make a claim that is; but for most Americans they're worried they'll lose their plans. That was one problem with the PPACA, it banned a lot of garbage plans which people thought were actually good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks socialized medicine in this country would be more expensive than the status quo must not be familiar with the absolutely insane amounts of grift and rent-seeking that currently exists in the healthcare industry. Healthcare should not have for-profit elements, period, outside of maybe elective cosmetic procedures. e: like how does anyone in this country not have a personal experience of being completely hosed over by a hospital or an insurer at this point? Are there really that many people who still have "good" insurance or are healthy enough to not deal with it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Another wrinkle when it comes to UHC is that many Americans, are very happy with their insurance, until they actually have to make a claim that is; but for most Americans they're worried they'll lose their plans. That was one problem with the PPACA, it banned a lot of garbage plans which people thought were actually good. And if you have millions of dollars and can choose any healthcare that you want, you get this: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Another wrinkle when it comes to UHC is that many Americans, are very happy with their insurance, until they actually have to make a claim that is; but for most Americans they're worried they'll lose their plans. That was one problem with the PPACA, it banned a lot of garbage plans which people thought were actually good. That's kinda an interesting thought, I would love to see statistics on how many people were on garbage you get what you pay for plans and loved how it helped their bottom line as long as they don't get sick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
drat somehow ive just noticed the coffee mug that looks like a pill bottle, thats awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
My personal experience as a person with diabetes, was that the exchange plan I had when I was working a lovely retail job was very good and covered most things well. What sucked was that even with subsidies I was paying out the rear end, like 1/4 to a 1/3 of my wages including copays and poo poo. e: it honestly felt easier for us when we were one income for a bit and I had Medicaid that paid for literally everything. We should just take rich people's money and give that to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Isn't this a bit difficult to do in practice because you can't just decide that someone is an insurrectionist until they have been found guilty in a court of law? If Trump was found guilty he'd be in jail anyway so this wouldn't be a problem. You don’t have to be found “guilty” of being under 35 or of not being a natural born citizen for a court to decide whether or not you are eligible to be President. Why is this different?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:You don’t have to be found “guilty” of being under 35 or of not being a natural born citizen for a court to decide whether or not you are eligible to be President. Why is this different? Because the legal system has a process for defining if you're 35 or a natural born citizen without needing a court trial but the process for being defined as an insurrectionist has historically required trial. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Because the legal system has a process for defining if you're 35 or a natural born citizen without needing a court trial but the process for being defined as an insurrectionist has historically required trial. In the aftermath of the Civil War I think it actually didn’t. But I also think it’s been inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Because the legal system has a process for defining if you're 35 or a natural born citizen without needing a court trial but the process for being defined as an insurrectionist has historically required trial. I thought the confederates who were denied eligibility were specifically not brought to trial at all, and historical usage of the 14th amendment has not needed a trial either. I am neither a lawyer or historian so I might be mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I thought the confederates who were denied eligibility were specifically not brought to trial at all, and historical usage of the 14th amendment has not needed a trial either. You are correct, and arguing with Republican flak that was already addressed several times in the thread actually discussing this subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
Sometimes I think the best way to convince people to support major healthcare reform is to just insult anyone opposing it as anti-American. "You think we can't do a Single Payer system? What are you, a dipshit? You think Canada is better than us? Germany? Get the gently caress outta here with that poo poo ya pussy, we're going to make the best goddamn healthcare system anyone's ever seen and remind everyone that America can kick their asses!" Does it have to make sense, no, you just go even harder on HOORAH AMERICA gently caress YEAH, GUILE KILLED BIN LADEN, GOD SAVE THE 4TH OF JULY, BASEBALL, AND APPLE PIE! so loudly that nobody else can get heard. (I think the actual best way is a big emotional propaganda campaign that runs a different story of random regular folks getting cruelly hosed over every single day) E; You gonna let those limey bastards keep going around acting like they're better than us?! We can build an NHS so good they apologize for the Revolution and ask to fuckin' join us!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:12
|
|
|
Iran just bombed the poo poo out of American and Israeli bases on Iraq https://twitter.com/AryJeay/status/1747003904645091439 Seems they think mossad was responsible for the terror attack earlier e: yeah the American consulate was straight up bombed 
A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I thought the confederates who were denied eligibility were specifically not brought to trial at all, and historical usage of the 14th amendment has not needed a trial either. Congress refused to swear them in and seat them in 1865 but that's obviously different from not including them on a ballot and the US had started a process of charging Confederates. It was also before the 14th amendment was passed, few confederates were actually barred from office in practice by the 14th and those who were likely could take office again after the Amnesty Act. So you're right in that they were not brought to trial. That still doesn't have a lot of impact on the legal right to remove Trump from ballots for something he has not been legally proven to have done even if it is very obvious he has done it. Really I think there just isn't much there in general since the 14th isn't concerned with the election process in general and there is no constitutional requirement for states to even hold primary elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Iran just bombed the poo poo out of American and Israeli bases on Iraq Are there any confirmations of this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Are there any confirmations of this? Irans revolutionary guards confirmed it https://twitter.com/ME_Observer_/status/1747005279223337390 There's also a number of videos on Twitter showing some pretty gnarly explosions but I'm not eager to delve into them for obvious reasons
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:50
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:That still doesn't have a lot of impact on the legal right to remove Trump from ballots for something he has not been legally proven to have done even if it is very obvious he has done it. There is no requirement for a conviction in the text of 14th Amendment: quote:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. When given the opportunity to opportunity to turf a case due to lack of conviction, courts have refused: selfplagarisim posted:the laws of many relevant states, laws that have already been used to challenge a candidate's qualifications under the 14th amendment in the aftermath of Jan6. Many were used to challenge Obama's qualification to be president, as a part of the broader GOP initiative to disqualify every Democratic ticket over the past 16 years. More recently, Colorado made a finding of fact (one supported on appeal) that Trump engaged in insurrection. So that's the status quo in front of the Supreme Court. They very well may decide that a conviction is a prerequisite... but just like a hypothetical ruling that Trump is godking of the United States, they'd be making that ruling absent textual support and in opposition to the clear statutory processes of the states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Iran just bombed the poo poo out of American and Israeli bases on Iraq Israel has bases in Iraq???
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
Mia Wasikowska posted:This is ridiculous. The anger will be directed against migrants, trans people, etc Mister Ron of Florida and Hate tried this gambit and flamed out spectacularly. Obviously he has  issues with public speaking and the like, but astoundingly Trump seems to have a market cornered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Irans revolutionary guards confirmed it ABC News is better... https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...al_twitter_abcn
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I thought the confederates who were denied eligibility were specifically not brought to trial at all, and historical usage of the 14th amendment has not needed a trial either. There's basically no documented cases of the Insurrection Clause actually being enforced, outside of the Senate refusing to seat ex-Confederates for a few years. Many of the southern states openly defied it, and federal lawsuits to remove the ineligible people from the positions they were illegally holding were largely unsuccessful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Israel has bases in Iraq??? If you listen to Iran, they're probably absolutely everywhere 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
So last time Iran bombed US bases in Iraq it was over their General getting murked on a whim by Trump, and that Ukrainian passenger plane got shot down by Iranian AA, and full-on war was averted enroute cause someone somehow convinced Trump that going all the way would be bad. So this will be as the saying goes, "interesting times".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:So last time Iran bombed US bases in Iraq it was over their General getting murked on a whim by Trump, and that Ukrainian passenger plane got shot down by Iranian AA, and full-on war was averted enroute cause someone somehow convinced Trump that going all the way would be bad. This looks more like Iran bombing someone (not the Americans unless they missed badly) in response to the terrorist bombings that killed hundreds of civilians a few weeks ago. ISIS claimed responsibility for those attacks, presumably Iran could be targeting ISIS assets in Iraq (who they would refer to as an Israel/American front organization).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Sometimes I think the best way to convince people to support major healthcare reform is to just insult anyone opposing it as anti-American. "You think we can't do a Single Payer system? What are you, a dipshit? You think Canada is better than us? Germany? Get the gently caress outta here with that poo poo ya pussy, we're going to make the best goddamn healthcare system anyone's ever seen and remind everyone that America can kick their asses!" Anecdotally I've found you can get pretty much everyone to agree with universal health care, provided you start with a five minute primer on what insurance is (a bunch of people collectively spreading out the risk and cost of catastrophic health issues) and why it's good to have more people in your collective pool, yes even the fat smokers too. If you can get them to agree with "more people in my health insurance pool is good for me" then just point to Medicare as your practical example of it working. And it'd work even better if all Americans were thrown into it, yes even the smokers but especially the young people who don't need it anyway. We would all get better cheaper health care and no one would get hosed by cancer. The big obstacle to universal healthcare imo is that nobody knows anything about anything, so literally explaining insurance out loud already introduces a lot of the obvious problems that Medicare For All fixes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Mister Ron of Florida and Hate tried this gambit and flamed out spectacularly. Obviously he has The notion that Trump is the only person who can harness right wing anger into political action is wishful thinking and extremely dangerous
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Mister Ron of Florida and Hate tried this gambit and flamed out spectacularly. Obviously he has That's because Trump is currently running. This response was about if Trump was barred/prevented from running. For context, this was the post that started the "second bear" thing about trying to bar Trump from running: Hieronymous Alloy posted:There isn't a second bear. The bears followers don't want any brown mammal they want this bear specifically. If the bear is removed from the kitchen, the anger of the bear supporters will be too disorganized to matter. Kalit fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jan 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Sometimes I think the best way to convince people to support major healthcare reform is to just insult anyone opposing it as anti-American. "You think we can't do a Single Payer system? What are you, a dipshit? You think Canada is better than us? Germany? Get the gently caress outta here with that poo poo ya pussy, we're going to make the best goddamn healthcare system anyone's ever seen and remind everyone that America can kick their asses!" Yeah I dunno if countless news stories about diabetics dying from trying to ration insulin and people getting their claims denied by algorithms can't sway the needle I have no idea what the gently caress. I agree the Biden admin should be blasting that poo poo from a rooftop and signal boosting those stories non-stop, but seems unlikely when for profit insurers get big govt subsidies and dump truckloads of their unethical profits on the steps of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 00:07
|
|
|
Mia Wasikowska posted:The notion that Trump is the only person who can harness right wing anger into political action is wishful thinking and extremely dangerous MAGA not showing up in the same numbers if Trump isn't on the ballot has mostly been observed in the many non-presidential elections since 2016, contrasted with 2020 where they did. Trump turned out a lot of people who weren't regular voters in a way no other modern right-wing candidate has done. Not even the ones who imitate Trump crazy. Not even the ones who have Trump endorsements. So far he's got a unique magic and unique personal following. Could someone else do it, particularly once he's gone? Possibly. Who would it be? Remember that Trump didn't come out of nowhere: he was a household name for decades and had been building political presence for years when he announced. It seems unlikely someone could just come out of nowhere to take the reins. Sure, it's dangerous to assume that MAGA will be defeated electorally when Trump is gone, but I don't think anyone's really banking on things going back to normal then, and just pointing it out without any more details is meaningless hand-wringing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Killer robot posted:MAGA not showing up in the same numbers if Trump isn't on the ballot has mostly been observed in the many non-presidential elections since 2016, contrasted with 2020 where they did. Trump turned out a lot of people who weren't regular voters in a way no other modern right-wing candidate has done. Not even the ones who imitate Trump crazy. Not even the ones who have Trump endorsements. So far he's got a unique magic and unique personal following. Eh, Trump's voter turnout isn't even the highest in recent Republican history when you look at it as a share of the total population. Nixon and Reagan both had a bigger turnout than Trump did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter..._Population.png
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 00:42
|
|