Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Jewel Repetition
Dec 24, 2012

Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

the bitcoin of weed posted:

it's really cool how the obama admin did basically everything as wrong as possible

One of the amazing parts of the ACA you don't hear about much is how the Fiscally Responsible, Policy-Smart Dems put a cap on Medicare budget growth that was too low to match the growth of the medical industry, but also made it against the law to increase the amount beneficiaries pay because if they didn't they automatically lose every election for the next 20 years, and as a result the only place in the system to cut is disbursements so providers are paid about 80% as much from Medicare as from regular insurers (and it'll be even less in the future).

The result of this system is if you have Medicare most good doctors won't take you on as a patient through no fault of your own

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

GalacticAcid posted:

keith praises reagan and supported the libya intevention

thanks, but no thanks

I've always thought that Keith, while better than most Democrats, isn't actually significantly outside the norm. I'm not sure if I could see him supporting ideas as "radical" as a wealth tax (like Sanders did as a MfA funding mechanism).

I think there's at least some degree of people really wishing they could just throw their full unhesitating support behind someone, and Keith doesn't have the same "controversial" aspect as Sanders.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth

the bitcoin of weed posted:

it's really cool how the obama admin did basically everything as wrong as possible

the even cooler part is how idiots still think obama was “the best” president or even “a good” president.

Finicums Wake
Mar 13, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 8 years!

tower time posted:

Yeah, I was already going to the caucus because we have a 7-way race for governor and if no candidate gets more than 35% of the vote the nomination will be decided by the state democratic party. I want to make sure we send a delegate supporting the left-most candidate in the race. I hope someone tries to primary him from the left, but it seems like the big money and focus has been going into primary battles for the gov race and the other congressional districts. Worst case i will write someone in :sigh:

letting the state party play the role of king maker seems extremely bad

Homeless Friend
Jul 16, 2007

That party? The Democratic Party.

Willie Tomg
Feb 2, 2006

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

the even cooler part is how idiots still think obama was “the best” president or even “a good” president.

you gotta wonder if back in the day james buchanan had the same culty dead-enders praising how he kept peace even as ft. sumter was burning

GalacticAcid
Apr 8, 2013

NEW YORK VALUES

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

the even cooler part is how idiots still think obama was “the best” president or even “a good” president.

neither of those things are in conflict with being a piece of poo poo tbh

Jewel Repetition
Dec 24, 2012

Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

Jeb! Repetition posted:

One of the amazing parts of the ACA you don't hear about much is how the Fiscally Responsible, Policy-Smart Dems put a cap on Medicare budget growth that was too low to match the growth of the medical industry, but also made it against the law to increase the amount beneficiaries pay because if they didn't they automatically lose every election for the next 20 years, and as a result the only place in the system to cut is disbursements so providers are paid about 80% as much from Medicare as from regular insurers (and it'll be even less in the future).

The result of this system is if you have Medicare most good doctors won't take you on as a patient through no fault of your own

This would actually be brilliant if they have the secret goal of making sure we never have more socialized medicine by making everyone hate Medicare

Zerg Mans
Oct 19, 2006

Its actually about ethics in reporting Chelsea Manning's nazi party proclivities

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

Willie Tomg posted:

you gotta wonder if back in the day james buchanan had the same culty dead-enders praising how he kept peace even as ft. sumter was burning

I mean, it's a well-known phenomenon that has been consistent as long as I've been paying attention

The best president is the current president, if you voted for him, or the last president you voted for otherwise

The worst president is the current president, if you voted against him, or the last president you voted against otherwise

People generally have a maximum memory of 2 presidents, counting the current one

1994 Toyota Celica
Sep 11, 2008

by Nyc_Tattoo

Willie Tomg posted:

you gotta wonder if back in the day james buchanan had the same culty dead-enders praising how he kept peace even as ft. sumter was burning

they were called the Liberal Republicans and they were the main congressional voices against meaningful Reconstruction in the militarily occupied south

e: they became Andrew Johnson's main cheerleaders after Lincoln was shot

Yinlock
Oct 22, 2008

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

the even cooler part is how idiots still think obama was “the best” president or even “a good” president.

tbf if you don't pay attention to politics he seems great, and trump keeps bringing up the few good things he did(to destroy them) so it's kinda easy to see how that could happen

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

I was listening to NPR on the way home yesterday (Fresh Air specifically) and they were interviewing those Harvard professors who wrote the book about Trump and "how democracies die" that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

It was so dumb. They heavily implied that it's a good thing for political parties to have gatekeepers in "smoky backrooms" in order to prevent demagogues from reaching power, and that the move to primaries in 1972 was a bad thing. All in order to defend democracy, which is hilariously ironic. They also made it sound like Trump specifically is the danger, and the problem is how Trump diverges from mainstream Republican norms.

Among the "demagogues" they mentioned (again with the implication they were dangerous and it was good they were prevented from getting power) was Huey Long, lol.

The genuinely stupid, even in an academic/non-ideological sense, aspect of their argument (and similar arguments) is that it cherry picks the similarities between Trump and demagogues who have eroded/destroyed democracies and ignores the differences. There are various reasons to believe the Trump isn't actually trying to become a dictator (and is too incompetent to do it even if he wanted to), and it also ignores the fact that many other Republican presidents have also taken actions to erode democracy (heck, most things were done by non-Trump Republicans prior to his election).

edit: The argument also heavily implies that the status quo is a great thing that must be preserved, which is an incredibly privileged perspective (though not surprising coming from a couple Harvard professors). Arguments about the danger of our democracy being destroyed generally ignore the massive injustice occurring under our present system.

Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 20:22 on Jan 23, 2018

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth

Finicums Wake posted:

letting the state party play the role of king maker seems extremely bad

welcome to New York.

A Gnarlacious Bro
Apr 25, 2007

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Ytlaya posted:

I was listening to NPR on the way home yesterday (Fresh Air specifically) and they were interviewing those Harvard professors who wrote the book about Trump and "how democracies die" that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

It was so dumb. They heavily implied that it's a good thing for political parties to have gatekeepers in "smoky backrooms" in order to prevent demagogues from reaching power, and that the move to primaries in 1972 was a bad thing. All in order to defend democracy, which is hilariously ironic. They also made it sound like Trump specifically is the danger, and the problem is how Trump diverges from mainstream Republican norms.

Among the "demagogues" they mentioned (again with the implication they were dangerous and it was good they were prevented from getting power) was Huey Long, lol.

The genuinely stupid, even in an academic/non-ideological sense, aspect of their argument (and similar arguments) is that it cherry picks the similarities between Trump and demagogues who have eroded/destroyed democracies and ignores the differences. There are various reasons to believe the Trump isn't actually trying to become a dictator (and is too incompetent to do it even if he wanted to), and it also ignores the fact that many other Republican presidents have also taken actions to erode democracy (heck, most things were done by non-Trump Republicans prior to his election).

NPR is funded by the Koch brother's ya dingus, don't listen to it

Yinlock
Oct 22, 2008

my mom recently talked to me after seeing an obama interview and commented on his quiet dignity or whatever and we finally had to have The Talk about how obama actually loving sucks

to her credit she agreed but said she was just so fuckin' tired of trump that it was nice to see someone who could speak like an adult

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



ate poo poo on live tv posted:

the even cooler part is how idiots still think obama was “the best” president or even “a good” president.

ive said it before but heres the complete and exhaustive list of good presidents america has had:

1. FDR
2. lincoln

shittiest two are probably W and andrew johnson

Yinlock
Oct 22, 2008

Ytlaya posted:

The genuinely stupid, even in an academic/non-ideological sense, aspect of their argument (and similar arguments) is that it cherry picks the similarities between Trump and demagogues who have eroded/destroyed democracies and ignores the differences. There are various reasons to believe the Trump isn't actually trying to become a dictator (and is too incompetent to do it even if he wanted to), and it also ignores the fact that many other Republican presidents have also taken actions to erode democracy (heck, most things were done by non-Trump Republicans prior to his election).

trump's main problem is that he thinks he's already a dictator, and while that's not exactly wrong it's not right either

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

A Gnarlacious Bro posted:

NPR is funded by the Koch brother's ya dingus, don't listen to it

Well, this wasn't so much NPR as the Harvard professors who wrote that book (since Fresh Air is just an interview show, not a news show, and it's actually usually pretty decent for interviews).

Willie Tomg
Feb 2, 2006

A Gnarlacious Bro posted:

NPR is funded by the Koch brother's ya dingus, don't listen to it

its a decent ~News Source Of Record~ for getting a reasonably unpretentious technocratic centrist line, plus whatever fascists they have on as interview subjects.

it can't all be chapo and cum town

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

Yinlock posted:

my mom recently talked to me after seeing an obama interview and commented on his quiet dignity or whatever and we finally had to have The Talk about how obama actually loving sucks

to her credit she agreed but said she was just so fuckin' tired of trump that it was nice to see someone who could speak like an adult

p much every boomer is like this

Yinlock
Oct 22, 2008

loquacius posted:

p much every boomer is like this

boomers are generally fine with trump as long as browns are suffering

GalacticAcid
Apr 8, 2013

NEW YORK VALUES
til every boomer is white

GalacticAcid
Apr 8, 2013

NEW YORK VALUES
you might as well look at political positions of different meyers briggs categories

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

GalacticAcid posted:

you might as well look at political positions of different meyers briggs categories

The #Resistance people who blatantly only care about Trump because he is rude and vulgar are all boomers, fite me

Jewel Repetition
Dec 24, 2012

Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

GalacticAcid posted:

you might as well look at political positions of different meyers briggs categories

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



Ytlaya posted:

I was listening to NPR on the way home yesterday (Fresh Air specifically) and they were interviewing those Harvard professors who wrote the book about Trump and "how democracies die" that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

It was so dumb. They heavily implied that it's a good thing for political parties to have gatekeepers in "smoky backrooms" in order to prevent demagogues from reaching power, and that the move to primaries in 1972 was a bad thing. All in order to defend democracy, which is hilariously ironic. They also made it sound like Trump specifically is the danger, and the problem is how Trump diverges from mainstream Republican norms.

Among the "demagogues" they mentioned (again with the implication they were dangerous and it was good they were prevented from getting power) was Huey Long, lol.

The genuinely stupid, even in an academic/non-ideological sense, aspect of their argument (and similar arguments) is that it cherry picks the similarities between Trump and demagogues who have eroded/destroyed democracies and ignores the differences. There are various reasons to believe the Trump isn't actually trying to become a dictator (and is too incompetent to do it even if he wanted to), and it also ignores the fact that many other Republican presidents have also taken actions to erode democracy (heck, most things were done by non-Trump Republicans prior to his election).

edit: The argument also heavily implies that the status quo is a great thing that must be preserved, which is an incredibly privileged perspective (though not surprising coming from a couple Harvard professors). Arguments about the danger of our democracy being destroyed generally ignore the massive injustice occurring under our present system.

this is from a recent review of this book (i think its the same one) which is pretty loving funny

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/trump-exceptionalism-will-kill-every-last-one-of-your-brain-cells

quote:


...

I dwell on Levitsky and Ziblatt because their book actually offers a highly illuminating insight into how this kind of Harvard liberalism conceives of politics. Although they are mainly concerned with proving that Donald Trump is a monstrous departure from the norm, it quickly becomes clear that their standard for what constitutes “authoritarianism” would encompass a broad range of anti-establishment candidates, including Bernie Sanders:

What kinds of candidates tend to test positive on a litmus test for authoritarianism? Very often, populist outsiders claiming to represent the voice of “the people,” wage war on what they depict as a corrupt and conspiratorial elite. Populists tend to deny the legitimacy of established parties, attacking them as undemocratic and even unpatriotic.. They tell voters that the existing system is not really a democracy but instead has been hijacked, corrupted, or rigged by the elite. And they promise to bury that elite and return power to “the people.”

And when one of these candidates comes alone, one that attacks “established parties” as “undemocratic,” telling voters that the existing system is “corrupt,” Levitsky and Ziblatt make it clear that political parties need to act as “gatekeepers” to ensure that the candidates do not win:

Potential demagogues exist in all democracies, and occasionally, one or more of them strike a public chord. But in some democracies, political leaders heed the warning signs and take steps to ensure that authoritarians remain on the fringes, far from the centers of power. When faced with the rise of extremists or demagogues, they make a concerted effort to isolate and defeat them. Although mass responses to extremist appeals matter, what matters more is whether political elites, and especially parties, serve as filters. Put simply, political parties are democracy’s gatekeepers.

They then explain what political parties ought to do to fulfill this “gatekeeping” function. Let me quote it at length, because it’s fascinating:

Keeping authoritarian politicians out of power is more easily said than done. Democracies, after all, are not supposed to ban parties or prohibit candidates from standing for election, and we do not advocate such measures. The responsibility for filtering out authoritarians lies, rather, with political parties and party leaders: democracy’s gatekeepers. Successful gatekeeping requires that mainstream parties isolate and defeat extremist forces, a behavior political scientist Nancy Bermeo calls “distancing.” Prodemocratic parties may engage in distancing in several ways. First, they can keep would-be authoritarians off party ballots at election time. This requires that they resist the temptation to nominate these extremists for higher office even when they can deliver votes… Parties can root out extremists in the grass roots of their own ranks… [W]henever extremists emerge as serious electoral contenders, mainstream parties must forge a united front to defeat them. To quote Linz, they must be willing to “join with opponents ideologically distant but committed to the survival of the democratic political order.” In normal circumstances, this is almost unimaginable. Picture Senator Edward Kennedy and other liberal Democrats campaigning for Ronald Reagan, or the British Labour Party and their trade union allies endorsing Margaret Thatcher. Each party’s followers would be infuriated at this seeming betrayal of principles. But in extraordinary times, courageous party leadership means putting democracy and country before party and articulating to voters what is at stake.

Here, then, we have two Harvard professors arguing that when a candidate comes along alleging that party elites are rigging the system against voters, party elites need to respond by… rigging the system against voters. Note that it doesn’t matter whether the candidates are correct to say that the party is undemocratic and corrupt. As soon as they have made the charge, they become a “populist authoritarian” who must be stopped at all costs so that the “democratic political order” can survive. The euphemisms here are downright Orwellian, although to be honest Oceania was a little more subtle in its propaganda against Eurasia and Eastasia.

...

SKULL.GIF
Jan 20, 2017


FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

NPR has tons of good programming, but their American politics coverage is pretty eh. On par with every other major U.S. news organization, but they should be better.

Yinlock
Oct 22, 2008

FactsAreUseless posted:

On par with every other major U.S. news organization,

so absolute dogshit

DEEP STATE PLOT
Aug 13, 2008

Yes...Ha ha ha...YES!



Shear Modulus posted:

ive said it before but heres the complete and exhaustive list of good presidents america has had:

1. FDR
2. lincoln

shittiest two are probably W and andrew johnson

reagan is the shittiest for a whole lot of reasons

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



the arguments of "we have to rig the polls and squash dissent and criticism of the government in order to save democracy from authoritarianism" is of course the exact same argument that was done to justify those actions during the cold war. democracy inc by wolin had an interesting summary of this with a lot of quotes of lovely 60s-70s Thought Leadership and US intelligence strategies

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Yinlock posted:

so absolute dogshit
Better than cable news, fantastic at U.S. reporting when they do special series - Guilty and Charged, their recent one on sexual abuse of the intellectually disabled - but I'd put them with like major newspapers. Mostly good but there's a very establishment bent to it.

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



the subtext of course is that in this context democracy doesnt mean democracy per se but rather something like market liberalism

financially racist posted:

reagan is the shittiest for a whole lot of reasons

yeah hes certainly up there

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

Jeb! Repetition posted:

One of the amazing parts of the ACA you don't hear about much is how the Fiscally Responsible, Policy-Smart Dems put a cap on Medicare budget growth that was too low to match the growth of the medical industry, but also made it against the law to increase the amount beneficiaries pay because if they didn't they automatically lose every election for the next 20 years, and as a result the only place in the system to cut is disbursements so providers are paid about 80% as much from Medicare as from regular insurers (and it'll be even less in the future).

The result of this system is if you have Medicare most good doctors won't take you on as a patient through no fault of your own

medicare recipients, like medicaid recipients, have pretty much been bucketed into managed-care plans these days. You can still get a good medicare supplemental PPO if you're willing to pay for it (above and beyond the Part B premiums of $135/month for all but the poorest olds), but for $0 additional premiums a month olds can get no-copay, no-deductible, all-drugs-covered managed-care plans for that $135.

incentivizing managed-care plans was also a part of the ACA, which is why you have 80 percent & upward of medicaid recipients using those plans, especially in blue states.

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



Nice Polite Republicans

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Hot Karl Marx posted:

Don't worry guys, dems got them right where they want them

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/house-senate-showdown-immigration/index.html?adkey=bn

Opps nvm, republicans renegged again rofl

charlie brown at least meant well while being a gigantic loving loser

Shear Modulus
Jun 9, 2010



cuck schumer is charlie brown and the loyal minority and poor dem voters are the adults but instead of charlie brown hearing everything the adults say as "wah wah whap" it comes through as "bipartisan consolidation of data centers"

tower time
Jul 30, 2008




Finicums Wake posted:

letting the state party play the role of king maker seems extremely bad

Yeah. I only recently learned about it because the last competitive Democratic primary for a Governor's nomination here was in 2005 when I was in high school. Even then it was a three way race rather than a clown car field of seven. I'm a supporter of Cathy Glasson, a nursing union organizer who is running on m4a and a $15 min wage that is then tied to inflation after. The state party is more likely to choose Fred Hubbell, who is a multimillionaire CEO that ran a regional equivalent of Macy's and is running on economic development and re-instating planned parenthood funding. Then there is Nate Boulton, a sort of generic state senator that is well connected in Des Moines and has a relatively good voting record. Rounding it out are Andy Mgcuire, the former IDP chair that oversaw this last election and massive democratic losses and was the Clinton campaign organizer in the state in 2008. Ross Wilburn is a former mayor of Iowa City, I really know nothing about jon Neiderbach, and John Norris seems like a good man who was behind a lot of democratic victories in Iowa in past and really reads the pulse of things right - he worked for Jesse Jackson's campaign back in 1988 and Sanders in 2016.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

GalacticAcid
Apr 8, 2013

NEW YORK VALUES
cuck schumer

  • Locked thread