|
is your username pronounced like dad rips or like da drips? jneed to know this.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted: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 The move from the -at-the-time- "Don't you dare credit Trump, Bernie and/or these other Dems I'm backing strongarmed him into this!" take on the direct payments" to the later "At least Trump gave us so much more money than feckless Democrats" is an amazing development of folk history of recent events. It's even sharper on account of how the other part of the stimulus the Trump administration oversaw got hoovered up by Republican allies with little oversight while the part overseen by Biden's went more directly to people rather than businesses even when it wasn't a lump sum check.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Judges will deliver whatever verdict the party that appointed them wants them to, as they have done since time immemorial This is famously not true. Judges ruling against the party that appointed them is a well-known, time-honored tradition. While judges tend to ideologically lean toward the party that appointed them on at least some issues, they do so not out of loyalty for being appointed but because they were chosen for their ideological views. Despite that, they have their own personal ideological views and many justices have at various times ruled against the position of the party that appointed them. Roberts and Alito were both appointed by the same party, but it's not unusual for them to come down on opposite sides of a ruling. The Federalist Society has had to devote considerable time and effort to grinding that down, which is pretty much the main reason for their existence. But after decades of efforts, it's notable that even though Trump's appointees were all Federalist Society members, Alito and Thomas are still the most reliably conservative votes on the court by a country mile. For example, while Gorsuch votes with the conservatives on abortion and gun rights, he handed down a major LGBT rights victory in Bostock, he defied the Trump administration on immigration in Sessions v Dimaya, and he's notoriously highly concerned with the rights and protections of indigenous peoples. 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? Sorry, did I say "legislatively messy"? Doesn't sound like something I would have said there. I hope that the reason you completely removed my post from the quote tag wasn't so that it would be less obvious that you were wildly reframing what I'd said. No, I'm pretty sure I said "highly illegal" and "Eli Lilly would ignore it, and so would the entire rest of the government" because "the presidency very plainly does not have the ability to arbitrarily declare price controls via executive order". When I say that the president does not have the power to do something, that's not some vague appeal to decorum. Executive officers are sworn to obey the Constitution, not the president. If the president gives an order that he plainly lacks the constitutional authority to give, then nobody in the executive branch is obligated to follow that order, and thus that order won't get enforced. Moreover, local and state authorities are unlikely to cooperate with an order they think is illegal; for instance, as doubts grew about the constitutionality of the long-extended eviction moratorium, some sheriffs stopped enforcing it even before the Supreme Court overturned it. And it's not about what I find distasteful, it's about what the American people as a whole find distasteful. If affordable insulin was overwhelmingly popular and if the American populace placed a high political importance on it, then Biden would be more likely to be able to enforce something like that despite lacking the constitutional authority...but he wouldn't need to ignore the Constitution to do so, because such a powerful political movement would certainly affect Congress as well, voting out members who oppose affordable insulin while voting in members who support affordable insulin. Unfortunately, we have some evidence that affordable insulin doesn't have that kind of public support, because the Republicans took the House in 2022 despite voting against affordable insulin for everyone a few months before. Clearly affordable insulin isn't that much of a vote-getter after all!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted: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 Republicans held a majority in the Senate for the entirety of Trump's presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
Legality is just a question of will, if Biden *really* wanted to he could ensure the staff involved in the enforcement of anti-price gouging measures on critical medicine had immunity. Again, if it's a question of this or christo-fascism, I'd expect Dems to throw literally every potential solution at the wall - including unilateral exec orders - to avoid it instead of just those that pass the monocle test. I'm also a bit stunned by the sheer number of folk itt who seem to think that "they won't credit us with it therefore it shouldn't be done" is a legitimate response - aside from the fact that doing the right thing should be motivation enough, rather than seeking your precious head pats and gold star, does it not indicate a failing on the part of the party's messaging if all these supposed historic progressive achievements are going uncommemorated? Acebuckeye13 posted: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 Oh good, then they should be excited and open to doing it again! Ither posted: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. I said trump is the *only* republican I can see doing this, and only because he's suggestible enough that a Bannon-type could plant the notion that doing so would make him super popular. Which it honestly might well do lobster shirt posted:is your username pronounced like dad rips or like da drips? jneed to know this. The first
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Reading this entire genocide/insulin conversation reminds me why politicians really don't bother going after leftist votes. It's a small, fickle part of the electorate with ever shifting goalposts who never has anything good to say about you and will threaten to leave you for an alcoholic abuser for forgetting to bring up the garbage bins from the sidewalk after spending your whole day cleaning the entire rest of the house. You can't please them, ever, so why bother (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
B B posted:Republicans held a majority in the Senate for the entirety of Trump's presidency. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Those nasty leftists with their unreasonable demands, like "everybody should be able to go to a hospital without worrying about the financial implications" and "not actively aiding and abetting a literal fish in a barrel situation" I'm glad we have sensible centrists in power who will sensibly and dispassionately decide who deserves the best healthcare, based on their pre existing conditions, and sensibly ensure that billions upon billions of dollars per year are spent financing a fundamentalist government that the UN has all but called genocidal. Sensibly Have you considered it's not just Trotskyite paper distributors who are pissed right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Legality is just a question of will, if Biden *really* wanted to he could ensure the staff involved in the enforcement of anti-price gouging measures on critical medicine had immunity. Again, if it's a question of this or christo-fascism, I'd expect Dems to throw literally every potential solution at the wall - including unilateral exec orders - to avoid it instead of just those that pass the monocle test. Denying reality doesn't make it go away, especially on an internet forum where everyone can plainly see the parts of my posts you're deliberately ignoring. Even if you make a point of not quoting them, people can just scroll up and see the parts you're going out of your way to avoid acknowledging. It's not a question of "immunity", it's the fact federal regulatory agencies are not going to follow blatantly illegal orders. Not because they're worried about getting in trouble, but because they have no legal right or obligation to enforce those orders. If we won't credit them for the things they do, then they lose elections, and then not only do they lose elections and not get to keep doing those things, but their replacements will overturn the things they did do. If historic progressive achievements are going unrewarded, then one possibility is that the party is failing to message them well enough. Another possibility, of course, is that progressives were insincere from the beginning and lied about what they actually wanted, so they're not rewarding those progressive accomplishments because they never really wanted them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Those nasty leftists with their unreasonable demands, like "everybody should be able to go to a hospital without worrying about the financial implications" and "not actively aiding and abetting a literal fish in a barrel situation" While I think these are objectively extremely reasonable demands, it's important to pay attention to what is actually going on, though. Prices of insulin are now capped for the vast majority of people (I've been trying to dig up numbers and unfortunately it's really difficult), largely as a result of the IRA that included limits on rebates; I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the mechanism, but this site goes into some more detail https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/what-are-the-implications-of-the-recent-elimination-of-the-medicaid-prescription-drug-rebate-cap/ But the end result is that these private companies have now largely instituted their own caps on monthly insulin prices because it's cheaper/not more expensive to do so as a result of these rebate changes. This wouldn't have happened without the Inflation Reduction Act, and to be honest, I didn't think anything like the IRA had any chance of getting passed in the political climate we're in now. Biden does actually deserve some minimal amount of credit for this
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Denying reality doesn't make it go away, especially on an internet forum where everyone can plainly see the parts of my posts you're deliberately ignoring. Even if you make a point of not quoting them, people can just scroll up and see the parts you're going out of your way to avoid acknowledging. It's not a question of "immunity", it's the fact federal regulatory agencies are not going to follow blatantly illegal orders. Not because they're worried about getting in trouble, but because they have no legal right or obligation to enforce those orders. Those same federal regulatory agencies with a nominal remit to enforce anti-monopoly/price gouging laws? I'm glad you're spending so much time finding ways in which it just wouldn't be possible to make insulin affordable for all based off a hasty post made on an internet forum, as you've helpfully reminded me we're on - thanks, by the way, I'd almost forgot. Maybe if those think tanks with millions in corporate funding that support the Dems put their heads together, they can come up with something that works instead of relying on some half-baked poster's idea, eh? dadrips fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
Alsoquote:Late in the night of March 25, 2020, the Senate passed the $2 trillion bill in a unanimous 96–0 vote. Four Republicans did not vote, namely John Thune, who was "feeling ill", Rand Paul (who had tested positive for COVID-19), and Mitt Romney and Mike Lee, who were both in isolation after having had contact with Senator Paul.  And even then not 100% of dems voted for everything. I don't know how anyone can expect 100% of congress to vote in agreement 100% of the time when they represent different populations with different issues and priorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Legality is just a question of will 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Also Given that the Democrats aren't packed to the gills with conservatives like they were in their big majorities of the New Deal era you don't even need that many. But you do need more than razor-thin majorities no how much consistent Dems are at lining up behind Biden than they were behind LBJ. The idea that he swung his big dick and Congress lined up is, like FDR cowing the Supreme Court by proposing to pack it or Republicans just overruling parliamentarians who get in the way, not so much a simplistic telling as it is learning history wrong on purpose as a joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
It is by no means the only type of criticism from the left, but it seems to be repeated in dadrips and occasionally others that what they want isn't actually actually democracy but a dictatorship that happens to follow their ideas of good governance. I can't look at any of these calls for autocracy and see it as anything more than another case of "Surely these leopards won't eat my face!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Those same federal regulatory agencies with a nominal remit to enforce anti-monopoly/price gouging laws? Charging more than you personally think they should charge isn't price gouging or a monopoly. Also, there's no federal agencies enforcing price gouging laws, because price gouging isn't actually illegal under federal law. Price gouging is generally covered by state laws, rather than federal laws, so you should look to state agencies if you have concerns about price gouging. The Democrats have introduced several laws in the past few years that would make price gouging federally illegal, but they'd need actual majorities to pass them. We already know the way to get affordable insulin: elect more members of Congress who want to make insulin affordable, so they can pass a law capping insulin prices, because Congress (not the president) has the legal authority to do such a thing. Which means continuing to reelect Congressmen who support making insulin affordable (even if they disagree with you on other issues), while replacing Congressmen who oppose affordable insulin with Congressmen who support it. Though it's also important to have a president like Joe Biden who wants insulin to be affordable, rather than a president who opposes it and might very well veto such a bill, and thus it would also be important to reelect Joe Biden in 2024 if you wanted affordable insulin (even if he disagrees with you on other issues). Seriously, we had partial insulin price caps passed just two years ago, with a wider price cap covering almost everyone only being narrowly defeated in Congress. Just a few more seats going blue could very well be enough to get insulin price caps, as long as the presidency also stays blue. We don't need to act like affordable insulin is some fantasy that could never be brought about except by a dictator acting in total defiance of the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Legality is just a question of will You just gave the game away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Id sign up for Dictator Bernie Sanders
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
USCE 2024: Legality is just a question of will
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:USCE 2024: Legality is just a question of will Not even Alabama can stop the truly willing from jerking it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
blackmet posted:It's a small, fickle part of the electorate with ever shifting goalposts who never has anything good to say about you and will threaten to leave you for an alcoholic abuser for forgetting to bring up the garbage bins from the sidewalk after spending your whole day cleaning the entire rest of the house. What an oddly specific analogy
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
blackmet posted:Reading this entire genocide/insulin conversation reminds me why politicians really don't bother going after leftist votes. "The world should not be improved beyond throwing table scraps to the poor because the people who will actually take principled stands for morality and ethics based on values are mean to me, personally" sure is a take (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Feels like a misreading to me. It's not "no point in making anything better, because people are mean to me regardless", it's "no point in chasing the support of people who won't give me any credit for making incremental improvements, because I won't be able to give them everything they want and I'll lose my other supporters in trying."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Feels like a misreading to me. It's not "no point in making anything better, because people are mean to me regardless", it's "no point in chasing the support of people who won't give me any credit for making incremental improvements, because I won't be able to give them everything they want and I'll lose my other supporters in trying." The problem with that reading is it portrays the Democrats as Good, rather than the Lesser Evil that people constantly admit that they are. "How dare you not give me credit for only kicking three puppies today! I'm gonna stop trying!" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
dadrips posted:The first The second one is better imho
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The problem with that reading is it portrays the Democrats as Good, rather than the Lesser Evil that people constantly admit that they are. "How dare you not give me credit for only kicking three puppies today! I'm gonna stop trying!" I think I'm gonna favor "harm reduction" over "lesser evil" until December. Biden is absolutely the harm reduction candidate. I am an anarchist I understand that accelerationism burns people from the bottom of society up, not the top down
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The problem with that reading is it portrays the Democrats as Good, rather than the Lesser Evil that people constantly admit that they are. "How dare you not give me credit for only kicking three puppies today! I'm gonna stop trying!" No, I'm not saying that Democratic politicians are good. I am saying that many of them are self-serving political creatures who are in office because they have a demonstrated ability to win popularity contests by making voters think that they act in those voters' interests. There is a feedback loop for a politician where you support your voters' interests, they re-elect you at specified intervals, and thereby theoretically we have a virtuous cycle where everyone's agenda is pushed forward. If, however, the voters say "it's nice that you're not as terrible as the other guys, but due to a combination of factors including the other guys' relentless obstructionism you haven't achieved My Personal Threshold to get off the couch and go vote" then the feedback loop is broken. At best - the politician wins without your support, goes "ah, well, those guys are kind of useless aren't they", and seeks someone else's support for the next cycle. At worst, they lose and you get nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
There is a line between reasonable political advocacy/disappointment and outright nonsensical fantasy. It's okay to be disappointed or outraged that Biden isn't doing more for Gaza, for instance. It's a little less reasonable to demand things that are clearly impossible, and the people who do are never going to be satisfied. "Biden sucks because he won't use an executive order to make insulin $15" is about as practical as demanding Biden imprison and execute Mitch McConnell or use HAARP to solve the drought in California. If you're gonna demand nonsense then don't be upset when people write off your demands!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
When you expect a politician to break laws and become a dictator to achieve your goals then they aren't going to court your vote. The sad reality is a huge chunk of the voting populace doesn't really support great things either from malice or ignorance. If you want to make things better work to support leftist in primaries and local elections instead of spending your energy convincing the people trying to make a difference that it's pointless and prepping for some violent revolution that will never come and if it does it's not going to be your side running things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
Biden doesn't need to frame himself as strong and agile. He needs to articulate a clear vision of a better future, and campaign not for himself as president, but for strong majorities in the House and Senate, asking the American people for a mandate in pursuing that vision. Regardless of which dem signs the legislation as they build that future, well beyond biden's lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I think I'm gonna favor "harm reduction" over "lesser evil" until December. Certainly, I just think it's kinda cracked that people will outright say it, but then get extremely haughty at other people not full-throatedly voicing support for groups and politicians already admitted to be evil. The line used to be that you can do all your complaining during the primary so long as you vote party line in the general, but now people have been bitching about criticism being levied during the primary. Well, the line's been shifted, now you do your agitating offscreen, where nobody can see you, so the primaries aren't tainted by dissent. It kinda sounds like they don't actually want any criticism ever being directed at the Good Team, but that doesn't sound very democratic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I understand that accelerationism burns people from the bottom of society up, not the top down They're all going to burn anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The problem with that reading is it portrays the Democrats as Good, rather than the Lesser Evil that people constantly admit that they are. "How dare you not give me credit for only kicking three puppies today! I'm gonna stop trying!" If acknowledging the actual real-life good things Democrats do conflicts with your desire to see them as puppy-kicking villains, it sounds like the problem there might be with you rather than with the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If acknowledging the actual real-life good things Democrats do conflicts with your desire to see them as puppy-kicking villains, it sounds like the problem there might be with you rather than with the Dems. They're literally facilitating a genocide. You don't have to pretend they're kicking puppies when Biden circumvented Congress to provide Israel with ammunition they used to turn children into mist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Certainly, I just think it's kinda cracked that people will outright say it, but then get extremely haughty at other people not full-throatedly voicing support for groups and politicians already admitted to be evil. It would be fine if there was any kind of actual primary challenge being mounted instead of people openly pregaming for how they're going to spend the general election season campaigning against the Democratic nominee again. And as usual, yawning loudly when told there are other primary elections likely to steer the course of the party and country going forward. All from people who spent long years harping about how they need something to support because just opposing things doesn't energize them. Instead it's just specifically that opposing fascists doesn't energize them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It would be fine if there was any kind of actual primary challenge being mounted instead of people openly pregaming for how they're going to spend the general election season campaigning against the Democratic nominee again. And as usual, yawning loudly when told there are other primary elections likely to steer the course of the party and country going forward. All from people who spent long years harping about how they need something to support because just opposing things doesn't energize them. Instead it's just specifically that opposing fascists doesn't energize them. Why are you spending time arguing against them if they're not going to be convinced? Why not spend your time and energy trying to GOTV in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why are you spending time arguing against them if they're not going to be convinced? Why not spend your time and energy trying to GOTV in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, etc? As with opposing fascists themselves, it's important to argue against other people you won't convince because the argument isn't to convince them but rather the other people they would otherwise be working to convince unopposed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
B B posted:They're literally facilitating a genocide. You don't have to pretend they're kicking puppies when Biden circumvented Congress to provide Israel with ammunition they used to turn children into mist. True. You also don't have to pretend they didn't do a lot (even if not enough) to make insulin cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:True. You also don't have to pretend they didn't do a lot (even if not enough) to make insulin cheaper. This really is the crux of the issue, there's this weird trend lately that of someone does a bad thing you have free reign to just make this up about them and the things they've done. The problem is if you spend all your time lying about what's going on people are less likely to listen to you about the actual bad things that are happening, this is a basic lesson we teach children as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Why are you spending time arguing against them if they're not going to be convinced? Why not spend your time and energy trying to GOTV in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, etc? Well it's a lot easier to shitpost at work, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2024 21:55
|
|