|
Also say what you will about Manchin but at least he didn't deliberately topple his own chamber's leadership, make his party out to be an incompetent laughingstock, and completely torpedo any chance of accomplishing anything useful, all because he had a personal grudge against leadership and wanted to feel like a big special boy! thanks for the memories, Matt.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
dadrips, please tell me how insulin prices get capped for all Americans without Dem control.
Ither fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
Ither posted:dadrips, please tell me how insulin prices get capped for all Americans without Dem control? Executive order, with immediate, harsh and uncompromising penalties for any companies found to be profiting from the sale of insulin. Do you think that would be unpopular among the people who matter, ie diabetics? Or would you support continuing to make people financially liable for being diabetic? "Oh but you're being unrealistic, that's unachievable, you're a dictator etc" everybody itt has been making it clear that it's either this or Christian fascism, and if you find a tepid measure to make healthcare accessible more distasteful than the alternative then I've got bad news about your personal political inclinations dadrips fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
Yes, biden should be doing more, better things edit: he should also stop doing bad things Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Executive order, with immediate, harsh and uncompromising penalties for any companies found to be profiting from the sale of insulin. why do people love fantasizing about the president doing things that would immediately be slapped down by the courts and/or reversed by the next president
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Manchin’s a convenient fig leaf, there are like 5 Senators behind him who wouldn’t actually vote super progressive. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Look we all know Goku doesn't give a hot gay gently caress about what Congress says but that's not an actual argument
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:why do people love fantasizing about the president doing things that would immediately be slapped down by the courts and/or reversed by the next president Maybe because being able to point to a) an actual decisive piece of concrete action being taken to improve people's lives in a way that is real and immediate and b) a subsequent reaction by your opponent to take that away might be the type of thing to help convince people of your good intentions, with the hopes of gaining their vote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Manchin’s a convenient fig leaf, there are like 5 Senators behind him who wouldn’t actually vote super progressive. There is always going to be a window of what you might be able to get the Senate to conceivably agree to. That window is obviously much more in the progressive direction with 60 or 65 Democratic Senators than with 51 or 52. 51 or 52 is still better than 50, though, and is a step on the way to 60 or 65.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:18
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:There is always going to be a window of what you might be able to get the Senate to conceivably agree to. That window is obviously much more in the progressive direction with 60 or 65 Democratic Senators than with 51 or 52. 51 or 52 is still better than 50, though, and is a step on the way to 60 or 65. -edit- This is not the electioneering thread. Sorry folks! Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Cool, if we have to operate in a pragmatic and realistic manner, do you think it would be possible to win 5+ additional senators? Because if the option is "you have to win every single time without fail for upwards of two decades without ever losing control of both parts of the legislature or the presidency otherwise it's a dictatorship" then I think it's kind of over. The pragmatic and realistic response to "I think it's kind of over" isn't to stop pulling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Maybe because being able to point to a) an actual decisive piece of concrete action being taken to improve people's lives in a way that is real and immediate and b) a subsequent reaction by your opponent to take that away might be the type of thing to help convince people of your good intentions, with the hopes of gaining their vote? He hasn't gotten poo poo for trying executive action on student loan forgiveness and that was a lot more plausible to work legally than price caps would be. I don't know why you'd think him trying the same for insulin price caps would be remembered any more fondly once enforcement was blocked by the court. E: though this is at least not as unreasonable as the rest of what you've been saying. I don't think this one is a bad idea to be clear, just that it wouldn't make a difference in his chances imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Maybe because being able to point to a) an actual decisive piece of concrete action being taken to improve people's lives in a way that is real and immediate and b) a subsequent reaction by your opponent to take that away might be the type of thing to help convince people of your good intentions, with the hopes of gaining their vote? You're right, I mean after all look at all the credit people gave Biden for cancelling student loans! wait
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
Nihilists! gently caress me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Eight-Six posted:The pragmatic and realistic response to "I think it's kind of over" isn't to stop pulling. God dammit this isn't the electioneering thread. Sorry! Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
My loans have not been canceled E wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Ither posted:dadrips, please tell me how insulin prices get capped for all Americans without Dem control. How do they get capped with Democrat control?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:How do they get capped with Democrat control? Win a majority in the House and 60 + x seats in the Senate, where x is a sufficient number of votes to outnumber the rotating villains in the supermajority. Good luck figuring out the value of x, though. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
I don’t think the Dems necessarily need 60 votes in the senate anymore. The republicans have neutered the filibuster already, plus there are ways around the filibuster already. Dems do need a sufficient majority that they can overcome any conservative members of their party. I figure that number is probably 54.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
B B posted:Win a majority in the House and 60 + x seats in the Senate, where x is a sufficient number of votes to outnumber the rotating villains in the supermajority. Good luck figuring out the value of x, though. I think it's a bit more complicated than that if you consider second and third order effects. If the Republicans start losing one general election after another, it is possible that some of them - especially in purple states or districts - will move left, and start supporting some compromise proposals as an attempt to stave off future defeat. It's also possible that the Democrats, emboldened by the various holes already shot in the filibuster, may be able to do away with it more fully using a bare majority of filibuster-hostile senators. Again, I don't pretend to know how likely any of that is. There are various paths to getting a bill passed though and clearly not all of them have to involve 60 Democratic Senators, since they have passed some bills since the last time they had that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
hooman posted:Though it's on a different topic this is a very good post about the functioning of governance and state institutions which summarises why I struggle to believe that Trump will be able to overpower that state inertia to install himself as dictator. It could easily be that I am dumb and have too much belief in the resilience of democratic institutions. I hope that time will not have an opportunity to tell. The problem here is that the institutional inertia has been tilting towards Republicans for ages - they have had a majority on the Supreme Court for literal decades and all the methods people suggest to repair that require an commanding majority of the Senate which is also structurally incredibly unlikely due to the number of rural red states. Any scenario where Trump wins the election in the fall will give him the House and Senate as well due to the unfavorability of the 2024 Senate class. 4 years isn't enough time to replenish the ranks of the administrative state from the damage done by Trump, and the pandemic and the constant threat of governmental shutdown from the Republican house are contributing factors. I believe you are Australian, so maybe you are correct to view this as less than existential personally - literal nukes are still fairly unlikely. However, the US going full fash is horrible for the world at large, at best it would be the kind of destabilization that could lead to the next Iraq or Vietnam war as Trump picks fights with Iran, Mexico, and China and at worst it will destabilize things worldwide as the final vestiges of global cooperation and international law are discarded. That's mostly ignoring whatever impact the US domestic situation has on international cultural standards or trade - the fascist movements in Europe have also been growing, and it's not coincidental. It's not necessarily a cause-and-effect thing, where the Trump's first and second election are dominos in a line, but more a global tolerance for chauvinism, nationalism, and naked self-interest that serves as fecund ground for more of the same from every other country as the rewards for cooperation shrink. It's not even necessarily the last Trump personally will be the one that installs himself dictator, it's that the ratchet only goes one direction and even if he died of a heart attack the next day after winning the election he has already reshaped the Republican party in his image and rather than Nikki Haley putting the mask back on whatever awful person he selects as VP will take up the mantle. In 2016 he actually was enough of an outsider to the Republican party that he was willing to just put whatever guy had a cool nickname into his cabinet positions - since then, his inner circle has selected for people willing to involve themselves in his crimes and feed his grievances, and the end result is that every psycho in his orbit will be getting a nomination or pushing him towards whoever is the most morally bankrupt person to take a slot. In 2017 he was putting the pieces in based on what a different grifter each day was telling him, and ended up with pieces from a bunch of different puzzles - now, he is entirely focused on vengeance against his enemies for his trials and the narcissistic injury of losing in 2020, and the parts will all be from that one puzzle
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
The FL riot in 2000 (known as the Brooks Brothers riot) was more successful than J6, and specifically due to the class composition and practical goals of the rioters. They were people with a specific plan, which they executed, with the institutional power and organization to carry out their goals. J6 had no institutional backup, and no organization. They didn’t have a single military leader pledged to lead his troops on behalf of Trump. They didn’t seize communications networks, they didn’t seize any armories or police stations, they didn’t have a plan to take key stakeholders hostage much less get them out of the Capitol so their value could be extracted properly as hostages, they didn’t have any assassinations or coordinated bombings of essential institutions set up. They had literally none of the planning, coordination and organization that any previously successful coup in history has had. People who think j6 came close to “succeeding” need to read any amount of history of how actual coups work. They sound like children discussing their plans to become rock stars or MLB players, or maybe a rock star who plays MLB on the weekend. For a fun start, check out Luttwak’s Coup d’Etat, A Practical Handbook. It’s a concise, well-researched analysis that’s also breezy and readable. Author is a complete psycho fascist living in Argentina longing for the revanche, but grown ups can enjoy material from problematic artists. J6 was a tantrum and literally nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
anyway here's a current event https://x.com/BarbaraComstock/status/1764094601386733984?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Do you think he's done enough? Are you content with half measures that mean that uninsured people with diabetes - at least 2 million people - still have to pay hundreds of dollars? Again, I'm not interested in procedural niceties. I'm asking whether you think he's done enough, and should be happy with what he's achieved. Why not take this argument to the electoralism thread which has been linked for you over and over, rather than poo poo this one up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Executive order, with immediate, harsh and uncompromising penalties for any companies found to be profiting from the sale of insulin. Do you think this executive order is more likely under a republican president or democratic president? No, I'm not asking you if Biden will do this. I'm asking given the wide range of republican politicians and the wide range of democratic politicians, which party is more likely to enact this execute order? Also which party is more likely to confirm judges who would not strike this execute order down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:anyway here's a current event Edit: All right, I'm done tqlk8ng election here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
selec posted:The FL riot in 2000 (known as the Brooks Brothers riot) was more successful than J6, and specifically due to the class composition and practical goals of the rioters. They were people with a specific plan, which they executed, with the institutional power and organization to carry out their goals. The Brooks Brothers riot, that you just called "more successful," also didn't do any of the bolded things. The point of it wasn't to take control of the government at that specific moment, it was to delay the certification of the electoral count. This is actually similar to what the Brooks Brothers riot achieved - they disrupted a recount past the point that a court mandated that they'd be completed by, which let the issue continue to get ground up in the courts. In the same way, the goal of J6 was to disrupt the certification of the electoral results. It wasn't to immediately make the shaman king, it was to sow enough discord that Trump and co could scare enough people to go along with their nonsense later To succeed J6 didn't need to immediately overthrow the government, it just needed to get Mike Pence to get in that secret service car that they were telling him he had to get in. That could have led to a chain of events afterwards where it was enough, just like how the Brooks Brothers riot made it possible later on for the Supreme Court to choose the president
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:anyway here's a current event Hmm, I know a lot of it is just him riffing for claps from the chuds, but he might be worried because chuds one issues with their king is talking up vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
dadrips posted:What reason do leftists have for supporting someone who has allowed reproductive rights to be trampled on, done nothing to expand access to healthcare or improve people's material circumstances, and been a full-throated supporter of the ongoing Israeli genocide? Biden did a fair bit to protect reproductive rights from right-wing trampling, and he did a fair bit to expand access to healthcare and attempt to improve people's material circumstances. He may not have done as much as you'd like, but given that he governed well to the left of how he campaigned, and given that progressivism has failed to sufficiently establish itself in Congress, that can't really be helped. If this is how a significant portion of leftists see Biden, then the current wave of leftism is going to be remarkably ineffective. Biden is the most progressive president in our parents' lifetimes, and if people hate him anyway because of bad vibes and outrage-bait narratives they saw on Twitter, then the lesson politicians are going to take away from this is that actual leftist policy isn't nearly as important as lining up someone sufficiently charismatic to spout lies at leftists. Sorry, but as incredible as it is to see Joe loving Biden of all people trying to drag the entire Democratic party left, it's even more incredible that the left hates him way more than they hated Barack Obama, someone who was worse in every conceivable way except for his age, skin color, and personal charisma. dadrips posted:Believe it or not, as a random internet poster I don't actually know what Americans want in aggregate. I can guess that the ones with diabetes want insulin to be affordable though, like it is in literally every other country Thanks to Joe Biden, who made drug prices a major issue in his presidency and made several moves targeting insulin prices specifically, several million people did get affordable insulin.  Even more people could get affordable insulin if Democrats took back the House and keep the Senate and presidency, which would allow the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act. Hopefully, leftists go out and help with that, instead of sitting around and deluding themselves into thinking that Dems haven't done anything for diabetics! dadrips posted:Given that it still costs hundreds for the uninsured, not enough. He could either compel existing enforcement authorities to do their job and clamp down on profiteering, or if that's not enough, issue an executive order compelling Eli Lily et al to sell it for ten cents a dose to all comers. Is that a radical measure? Maybe, but as we've all been discussing, it's either this or fascism. Such a measure wouldn't be "radical", it would be "wildly illegal". If Biden issued such an order, then Eli Lilly would ignore it, and so would the entire rest of the government. Why? Because the presidency very plainly does not have the ability to arbitrarily declare price controls via executive order, outside of very specific cases where the power has been specifically delegated to the presidency by laws passed by Congress. Also, judging from how Biden's presidency has gone, a measure like that would result in basically no gains in approval or popularity. Because Biden did (or at least attempted) a whole bunch of other radical stuff that pushed the limits of his presidential powers in order to help a ton of people, and barely anybody at all gives a flying gently caress about those unprecedented progressive accomplishments, no matter how many people were helped by them! For all the amazing poo poo Biden did, poo poo that I thought no Democratic president would ever dare to do, barely anyone appreciates it. At some point, we need to acknowledge that maybe leftist policy isn't the key to electoral success after all, instead of explaining away every failed progressive politician as being the progressive's fault for not being progressive enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Hmm, I know a lot of it is just him riffing for claps from the chuds, but he might be worried because chuds one issues with their king is talking up vaccines. Oh I'm sure it's just that his rotting spider's nest of a cerebellum mixed up the COVID vaccine and vaccines generally but, you know, defunding all public schools has been a republican policy plank ever since ever, so
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
Ither posted:Do you think this executive order is more likely under a republican president or democratic president? If it's a standard issue business bastard republican, no way it happens. if it's Trump, and someone from the populist side of his entourage gets his ear for long enough, I could honestly see him doing something comparable - see him giving everyone money during covid Judges will deliver whatever verdict the party that appointed them wants them to, as they have done since time immemorial
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
dadrips posted:The democracy that allows some of the most indefensible gerrymandering on the planet, allows the electoral college to exist, and can be overridden with a supreme court that the democrats refuse to pack? Yeah, it sounds real worthy of respect.. DV this is what I’m taking about. This is analogous to what happens with folks who get to college and discover biblical textual criticism. It’s probably preventable in the same way that is preventable (a basic understanding of the nature of faith). It’s a naive idealism encountering first critiques prompting an unnecessary abandonment rather than deeper understanding. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The Brooks Brothers riot, that you just called "more successful," also didn't do any of the bolded things. The point of it wasn't to take control of the government at that specific moment, it was to delay the certification of the electoral count. This is actually similar to what the Brooks Brothers riot achieved - they disrupted a recount past the point that a court mandated that they'd be completed by, which let the issue continue to get ground up in the courts. In the same way, the goal of J6 was to disrupt the certification of the electoral results. It wasn't to immediately make the shaman king, it was to sow enough discord that Trump and co could scare enough people to go along with their nonsense later Right, but the difference is the Bush rioters knew they had institutional support, and had an organized plan—I wouldn’t call what they did an insurrection anyway, that’s more of a courthouse coup. They knew they had a bunch of lawyers already lined up, and sympathetic judges. J6ers had nothing lined up and institutional support was nil because any potential institutional partners were sick of Trump. It was never going to happen, and couldn’t have happened, because the planning and institutional support were nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
What do you find more distasteful - uninsured Americans paying hundreds of dollars to continue living thanks to Eli Lily's desire for growing shareholder returns, or an immediate if legislatively messy solution to their peril? Are you really so preoccupied with decorum and doing things the right way, instead of real and immediate action that lets Americans know that the democratic party is on their side, and sends a decisive signal to pharma execs that they should keep their noses clean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
selec posted:Right, but the difference is the Bush rioters knew they had institutional support, and had an organized plan—I wouldn’t call what they did an insurrection anyway, that’s more of a courthouse coup. They knew they had a bunch of lawyers already lined up, and sympathetic judges. . . . so what? Like, ok, accepting your argument as true; j6 was doomed and futile from inception. 1) It was still a coup attempt. Attempt does not require that the act had a potential for success. If I try to stab you but don't realize the knife I picked up was a stage prop, that's still attempted murder. I suspect most crimes of attempt are committed by morons with no real hope of success. 2) this is also not an argument for giving them another try, or minimizing the risk that allowing them to prosper presents! Just because they were morons last time doesn't mean they will continue to fail in successive repeated attempts! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
dadrips posted:What do you find more distasteful - uninsured Americans paying hundreds of dollars to continue living thanks to Eli Lily's desire for growing shareholder returns, or an immediate if legislatively messy solution to their peril? Are you really so preoccupied with decorum and doing things the right way, instead of real and immediate action that lets Americans know that the democratic party is on their side, and sends a decisive signal to pharma execs that they should keep their noses clean? He directly said that the problem with your proposal is that it is clearly illegal and would not work due to folks refusing to follow illegal orders, not whatever you're imagining about "decorum and doing things the right way".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
selec posted:Right, but the difference is the Bush rioters knew they had institutional support, and had an organized plan—I wouldn’t call what they did an insurrection anyway, that’s more of a courthouse coup. They knew they had a bunch of lawyers already lined up, and sympathetic judges. Dude, they almost got them to delay the certification. Literally if Pence had gotten into that secret service car, they would have taken him away from the capitol and he wouldn't have been able to preside over the certification. What do you mean nothing could have come from it? Nobody knows what would have happened if the certification had been delayed, and it was empirically only not delayed because Pence stood his ground in that one moment Again, all that happened from the Brooks Brothers riot is that that one count got delayed past the deadline, which was what let it continue to go through the courts, which let the Republican court have a fig leaf that expediency was important, so they overrode the votes and personally selected who got to be president. You don't need a violent armed coup to literally kill the senators and presidents to change who gets the power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
dadrips posted:What do you find more distasteful - uninsured Americans paying hundreds of dollars to continue living thanks to Eli Lily's desire for growing shareholder returns, or an immediate if legislatively messy solution to their peril? Are you really so preoccupied with decorum and doing things the right way, instead of real and immediate action that lets Americans know that the democratic party is on their side, and sends a decisive signal to pharma execs that they should keep their noses clean? If anything Biden should take some executive action on your reading comprehension because ooh boy
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
dadrips posted:If it's a standard issue business bastard republican, no way it happens. if it's Trump, and someone from the populist side of his entourage gets his ear for long enough, I could honestly see him doing something comparable - see him giving everyone money during covid I really should stop responding because it's a gargantuan waste of my time but quick check, who controlled Congress when "trump" gave out all that money e: I'm being told it was democrats? no this can't be right
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
dadrips posted:If it's a standard issue business bastard republican, no way it happens. if it's Trump, and someone from the populist side of his entourage gets his ear for long enough, I could honestly see him doing something comparable - see him giving everyone money during covid If you truly think that republicans are more likely to enact that executive order, then we have widely different views of the world. So much so, that there's no point in continuing to talk about this. Have a good one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:26
|
|