U.S. Politics Vol. 7: A Dream of 2020

13941434445

Comments

  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    I mean you’re free to hold that opinion, I just don’t want you coming here and cheering on people handing out vigilante justice all the time. I can’t have a double standard where it’s ok to cheer on some violence and not others. If Andy Ngo was going around assaulting people then sure, dude deserves to get punched, but he wasn’t and going around beating up on people is illegal and will get you serious time. Regardless of my personal views on the matter, we can’t advocate that people commit serious assault on here. 
  • MattyWeavesMattyWeaves Mid-State New York
    So because I consider this a safe space to ask questions, is impeachment really a good idea?

    Like, I get why people want it, but it's not going to remove Trump from office as far as I know because the Senate is never going to vote him out.

    If anything, won't this charge his base up and potentially drive people to go out and vote for him in 2020?

    Please direct me if I'm far off here, I just see a lot of headlines, and tweets, and people on Reddit saying impeachment is a foregone conclusion at this point.
  • JoshTheBlackJoshTheBlack Atlanta, GA
    That seems to be the general consensus. I'd like to see impeachment proceedings because if not now, when? But yes, impeachment could totally backfire. I think most of his base will still vote either way.  
  • I would have loved if Mueller just lost his shit and yelled “ I cant tell whether to impeach goddammitt!!!! Congress grow a pair and do your fucking job!!! Im out......,,,,Mic drop
  • LordByLordBy Utah
    edited July 25
    So because I consider this a safe space to ask questions, is impeachment really a good idea?

    Like, I get why people want it, but it's not going to remove Trump from office as far as I know because the Senate is never going to vote him out.

    If anything, won't this charge his base up and potentially drive people to go out and vote for him in 2020?

    Please direct me if I'm far off here, I just see a lot of headlines, and tweets, and people on Reddit saying impeachment is a foregone conclusion at this point.
    The arguement for impeachment:
    - President has committed high crimes and/or misdemeanors, has violated his oath of office, and is arguably not fit for office therefore it is the House’s duty to impeach.
    - Not impeaching for this behavior is a bad precedent for future Presidencies and Congresses
    - The Democratic Party can’t constantly claim that he’s destroying the institutions of our government, dismantling our foreign policy, is a lying racist, obstructed justice, ignored lawful subpoenas to avoid congressional oversight, etc., while not using the Constitutional tool that they have to try to do something about it without looking feckless and alarmist.
    - While removal is unlikely, there is value in getting GOP Senators on the record choosing not to punish this illegal behavior. That kind of vote will haunt Senators for far longer than the Trump presidency lasts.
    - Trump probably has even odds of winning a second term and it would be tougher to impeach for behavior that took place before a re-election because the arguement could correctly be made that the people had their say about the behavior already so impeachment would look more like a nakedly political move to subvert the will of the people.
    - What If Trump wins the Presidency and the Republicans take back the House in 2020? The Democrats would regret not taking all possible action when they could.

    The arguement against impeachment:
    - Fires-up the Trump base and could increase turnout for the GOP in 2020 making re-election more likely.
    - Puts new Democrat Congresspeople from moderate/conservative districts in an impossible situation and could cost them their seats which could cost the Democrats the House majority.
    - President Mike Pence.
    MattyWeavesMarci
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    I too think there was a lot of good that came out of yesterday's hearings.  Just having him shoot down "totally exonerated", and "no obstruction no collusion", and also having him state each instance of obstruction was excellent.  Also shooting down "hoax" and "witch hunt."


    Great thread by Seth.  #2 is huge because US Intelligence is currently engaged in cyber warfare with attacks on Russia's power grids, and they are keeping Trump completely locked out of intelligence briefings.  Says a lot.  


  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    I see the follow up to the racist tirade last week that was “heavily discouraged” by “many Republican members of Congress” is to double down on the racism. I’m sure this isn’t part of some larger strategy of a 2020 campaign based around racism. 
  • Warren just dropped a zinger on Delaney, BOOM!
    hisdudeness915MrX
  • Why the fuck is Delaney still in the race? Hoping to capture the vaunted demographic of people who eat mayo on white bread? 
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    edited July 31
    I kinda need Marianne to be my new best friend. Whoever wins she needs to be their Stephen Miller.


    (・_・)っdark

    (っ/

     Lノ┘     


     ∧___∧ 

    ⊂(・_・)  psychic

     ヽ⊂二/  

      (⌒)  /


    /       \FORCE 

    |  ●   ●       | 

    \  __            /

    gguenotCretanBull
  • edited August 3
    asmallcat said:
    Why the fuck is Delaney still in the race? Hoping to capture the vaunted demographic of people who eat mayo on white bread? 
    Well, would you rather have a mayo on white-bread sandwich that you can actually eat or take a unicorn ride over a rainbow to collect the pot of gold at the end (obviously to pay off your college debt)?  Cause that second option is kind of what the progressives are promising us.
  • Hope all of the El Paso BM fam is safe. 
    CretanBull
  • asmallcat said:
    Why the fuck is Delaney still in the race? Hoping to capture the vaunted demographic of people who eat mayo on white bread? 
    Well, would you rather have a mayo on white-bread sandwich that you can actually eat or take a unicorn ride over a rainbow to collect the pot of gold at the end (obviously to pay off your college debt)?  Cause that second option is kind of what the progressives are promising us.
    If health care and free/subsidized college education = a unicorn ride over a rainbow to a pot of gold, all of the Canadians, Aussies and Europeans here are going to be left wondering how we got those things without the unicorn ride.  I feel cheated now...but at least I've never paid a medical bill in my life and the BA & Masters degree that I got from the 20th best university in the world only cost me $21,000 (it was actually $30,000 but I got $9000 in grants and bursaries).
    asmallcat
  • asmallcat said:
    Why the fuck is Delaney still in the race? Hoping to capture the vaunted demographic of people who eat mayo on white bread? 
    Well, would you rather have a mayo on white-bread sandwich that you can actually eat or take a unicorn ride over a rainbow to collect the pot of gold at the end (obviously to pay off your college debt)?  Cause that second option is kind of what the progressives are promising us.
    If health care and free/subsidized college education = a unicorn ride over a rainbow to a pot of gold, all of the Canadians, Aussies and Europeans here are going to be left wondering how we got those things without the unicorn ride.  I feel cheated now...but at least I've never paid a medical bill in my life and the BA & Masters degree that I got from the 20th best university in the world only cost me $21,000 (it was actually $30,000 but I got $9000 in grants and bursaries).
    It’s not that we can’t move forward on the top 2-3 progressive initiatives (they would need to de-prioritize the rest which seems like a tall order at the moment) - it’s that the progressive candidates and activists are not being truthful about what their vision of American society will cost.  That cost is massive tax increases for the middle class.

    Although I don’t agree with most of the progressive policy stances, if the majority of the country understands the cost and still decides they’d like to move in that direction, I will suck it up and follow suit.  But saying that all the programs being promoted by the dems can be paid for by soaking the rich is just as disingenuous as saying we’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. 
    rhcoop
  • asmallcat said:
    Why the fuck is Delaney still in the race? Hoping to capture the vaunted demographic of people who eat mayo on white bread? 
    Well, would you rather have a mayo on white-bread sandwich that you can actually eat or take a unicorn ride over a rainbow to collect the pot of gold at the end (obviously to pay off your college debt)?  Cause that second option is kind of what the progressives are promising us.
    If health care and free/subsidized college education = a unicorn ride over a rainbow to a pot of gold, all of the Canadians, Aussies and Europeans here are going to be left wondering how we got those things without the unicorn ride.  I feel cheated now...but at least I've never paid a medical bill in my life and the BA & Masters degree that I got from the 20th best university in the world only cost me $21,000 (it was actually $30,000 but I got $9000 in grants and bursaries).
    It’s not that we can’t move forward on the top 2-3 progressive initiatives (they would need to de-prioritize the rest which seems like a tall order at the moment) - it’s that the progressive candidates and activists are not being truthful about what their vision of American society will cost.  That cost is massive tax increases for the middle class.

    Although I don’t agree with most of the progressive policy stances, if the majority of the country understands the cost and still decides they’d like to move in that direction, I will suck it up and follow suit.  But saying that all the programs being promoted by the dems can be paid for by soaking the rich is just as disingenuous as saying we’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. 
    If your taxes go up but your cost of living goes down even more, does it matter if your taxes go up?

    I don't want to get into my personal economic situation, as a vague ballpark I think that I'd be considered to be in the upper part of the middle-class scale.  I have a friend in Ohio and her boyfriend lives in Texas.  We all make roughly the same amount (within a few thousand dollars).  Of the three of us, I pay the most in taxes but the difference isn't that much - I pay about $3500 or so more.

    For that $3500, I get socialized healthcare.  My friend in Ohio gets health insurance through her job, but her bf in Texas has to pay for his health insurance.  His health care costs him $3800 a year (so I'm already $300 ahead of him) but he had some health issues last year and he had to pay a few thousand dollars in deductibles.  Because he made some claims last year, his rates went up this year.  With my higher taxes, I'm way ahead of him.  My friend in Ohio is ahead of me on this point because her company pays her insurance.

    As I said above, my BA and Masters cost me $30,000 (minus $9000 that might not be available to everyone).  My friend in Ohio got her Master too, but it cost her $120,000.  We ended up with jobs that pay roughly the same.  The $90,000 difference in our education costs covers 25 years of the higher taxes that I pay.

    That's just a comparison of two things - education and health care.  I also get way more holidays (government-mandated), paid sick leave, expecting mothers get 15 weeks of paid leave, after the child is born (or adopted), we get 35 weeks of paid parental leave (that can be divided between both parents) etc.

    Point being...talking about taxes in absolute terms and not taking these other things into consideration isn't particularly useful.



    BloodyTaco
  • edited August 4
    asmallcat said:
    Why the fuck is Delaney still in the race? Hoping to capture the vaunted demographic of people who eat mayo on white bread? 
    Well, would you rather have a mayo on white-bread sandwich that you can actually eat or take a unicorn ride over a rainbow to collect the pot of gold at the end (obviously to pay off your college debt)?  Cause that second option is kind of what the progressives are promising us.
    If health care and free/subsidized college education = a unicorn ride over a rainbow to a pot of gold, all of the Canadians, Aussies and Europeans here are going to be left wondering how we got those things without the unicorn ride.  I feel cheated now...but at least I've never paid a medical bill in my life and the BA & Masters degree that I got from the 20th best university in the world only cost me $21,000 (it was actually $30,000 but I got $9000 in grants and bursaries).
    It’s not that we can’t move forward on the top 2-3 progressive initiatives (they would need to de-prioritize the rest which seems like a tall order at the moment) - it’s that the progressive candidates and activists are not being truthful about what their vision of American society will cost.  That cost is massive tax increases for the middle class.

    Although I don’t agree with most of the progressive policy stances, if the majority of the country understands the cost and still decides they’d like to move in that direction, I will suck it up and follow suit.  But saying that all the programs being promoted by the dems can be paid for by soaking the rich is just as disingenuous as saying we’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. 
    If your taxes go up but your cost of living goes down even more, does it matter if your taxes go up?

    I don't want to get into my personal economic situation, as a vague ballpark I think that I'd be considered to be in the upper part of the middle-class scale.  I have a friend in Ohio and her boyfriend lives in Texas.  We all make roughly the same amount (within a few thousand dollars).  Of the three of us, I pay the most in taxes but the difference isn't that much - I pay about $3500 or so more.

    For that $3500, I get socialized healthcare.  My friend in Ohio gets health insurance through her job, but her bf in Texas has to pay for his health insurance.  His health care costs him $3800 a year (so I'm already $300 ahead of him) but he had some health issues last year and he had to pay a few thousand dollars in deductibles.  Because he made some claims last year, his rates went up this year.  With my higher taxes, I'm way ahead of him.  My friend in Ohio is ahead of me on this point because her company pays her insurance.

    As I said above, my BA and Masters cost me $30,000 (minus $9000 that might not be available to everyone).  My friend in Ohio got her Master too, but it cost her $120,000.  We ended up with jobs that pay roughly the same.  The $90,000 difference in our education costs covers 25 years of the higher taxes that I pay.

    That's just a comparison of two things - education and health care.  I also get way more holidays (government-mandated), paid sick leave, expecting mothers get 15 weeks of paid leave, after the child is born (or adopted), we get 35 weeks of paid parental leave (that can be divided between both parents) etc.

    Point being...talking about taxes in absolute terms and not taking these other things into consideration isn't particularly useful.



    Yeah, I hear you and do think about that.  If my taxes go up by x amount but then I see cost savings of roughly the same amount or maybe even more than I’m coming out net ahead.  But for me, that is also assuming that the US government can run any kind of effective program.  I live in California and have literally, not one time in my life found a government program helpful, or even usable (I’m not taking about basic services like water, sewer, police, and fire - more like social programs).  Mainly, my taxes keep going up but I see very little in return, e.g. the roads still have potholes, the schools still suck, and homelessness is out of control.  So I have very little faith that the fed or state government can run a program of which I will see any benefit.  

    We also have to be careful making broad comparisons to social programs in other countries.  The sheer population size and diversity of the US presents unique challenges from a much smaller, more homogenous country.  What works in a smaller country may not scale up to the US. 

    I guess the bottom line is that I don’t see effective government assistance for my family anytime soon so I would rather keep as much of my money as possible to invest in my family’s future privately.  Or maybe we should just move to Canada ;-)
    CretanBull
  • edited August 4
    3 mass shootings, 32 dead in less than a week, 29 dead in last 12 hours and............. ....................Nothing gets done
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited August 4
    adobo1148 said:
    3 mass shootings, 32 dead in less than a week, 29 dead in last 12 hours and............. ....................Nothing gets done

    The latest one (edit: not the lastest I guess) is directly on Trump. Ignore all the criminal activity, that alone is impeachable. And it's on the GOP as they continue to condone his incitement against immigrants and minorities by doing nothing and making excuses.
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited August 5
    Just wanted to share this thread from a friend of mine. If you're looking for a real mental health professional's assessment of the mass shootings = mental illness argument, this might help.


    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1158093114390777856.html

    hisdudeness915
  • DeeDee Adelaide

    We also have to be careful making broad comparisons to social programs in other countries.  The sheer population size and diversity of the US presents unique challenges from a much smaller, more homogenous country.  What works in a smaller country may not scale up to the US. 

    This is actually a really valid point that I haven’t seen anyone seriously address. For some reason I thought that Canada and the UK had similar population sizes to US, but the US has 10 times more than Canada and five times more than UK, so I wonder how a system change as big as the ones being proposed for health care could be effectively implemented on such a larger scale. 
  • Dee said:

    We also have to be careful making broad comparisons to social programs in other countries.  The sheer population size and diversity of the US presents unique challenges from a much smaller, more homogenous country.  What works in a smaller country may not scale up to the US. 

    This is actually a really valid point that I haven’t seen anyone seriously address. For some reason I thought that Canada and the UK had similar population sizes to US, but the US has 10 times more than Canada and five times more than UK, so I wonder how a system change as big as the ones being proposed for health care could be effectively implemented on such a larger scale. 
    I've seen this argument raised, and I don't really understand it.  It works in Finland with 5 million people, it works in Canada with 35 million people, it works in the UK with 65 million people, it works in Japan with 125 million people, it worked in Russia (until they privatized it) with 140 million people...at what point, and for what reason, do we expect the scaling to stop working?
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    @CretanBull But did any of those countries have to contend with switching the population from a vast (and powerful) private system, or was it just that health insurance basically didn’t exist until the government took on covering health costs? 
    CretanBull
  • Dee said:
    @CretanBull But did any of those countries have to contend with switching the population from a vast (and powerful) private system, or was it just that health insurance basically didn’t exist until the government took on covering health costs? 
    That's a good point, and I don't know the history of each country's health insurance history.  Canada switched from private to public systems, but we did in the 1960's (when our population was around 20 million or so). 

    Having said that, the prominent proposals are about expanding current public systems - Medicare and Medicaid - to include everyone which over time would diminish the demand for private care.  There would/could be a role for private insurance even in a public system, if not as an alternative but they could be contracted for administrative purposes etc.

    It definitely won't be easy, and the difficulty shouldn't be dismissed but I'm confident that if there's a will, it will get done.  I think the biggest obstacle is that the American government is full of people who fundamentally don't believe in government and will work to sabotage it.  We saw that with Obamacare, and that was essentially a Republican plan.   
  • Dee said:
    @CretanBull But did any of those countries have to contend with switching the population from a vast (and powerful) private system, or was it just that health insurance basically didn’t exist until the government took on covering health costs? 
    That's a good point, and I don't know the history of each country's health insurance history.  Canada switched from private to public systems, but we did in the 1960's (when our population was around 20 million or so). 

    Having said that, the prominent proposals are about expanding current public systems - Medicare and Medicaid - to include everyone which over time would diminish the demand for private care.  There would/could be a role for private insurance even in a public system, if not as an alternative but they could be contracted for administrative purposes etc.

    It definitely won't be easy, and the difficulty shouldn't be dismissed but I'm confident that if there's a will, it will get done.  I think the biggest obstacle is that the American government is full of people who fundamentally don't believe in government and will work to sabotage it.  We saw that with Obamacare, and that was essentially a Republican plan.   
    There are different variables introduced when you scale something up so that the same approach does not necessarily give you the same results.  It's like when a fund manager is super successful with a $50 million fund but can bomb with a $500 million fund.  You'd think the original investment strategy should work with the larger numbers but for some reason it doesn't.  Some of the variables may be physical but some may also be psychological/emotional when the stakes seem so much higher.  CretanBull brings up a good point that state funded health care has been successful at various population levels, so when exactly does the scaling issue happen?

    I suspect the diversity of the US may play a more significant role in coming up with a successful state funded health care program.  The different viewpoints, backgrounds, and life experiences of the US population may lead to more challenges in delivering an acceptable health care plan that works for the majority of folks than in a more homogenous country like Sweden.

    In any event, I believe something will happen as health care costs are probably the number one concern for most Americans.  We've seen costs just skyrocket over the past decade, with no signs of slowing down.  This has a significant impact on retirees, and we all know they turn out to vote.

    As an aside, I came across a great political quote related to the importance of diverse thought in political discourse, "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist."
    rhcoop
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited August 5
    I'm not really sold on the complications of scaling but concede that there are almost certainly hundreds of related problems that anyone outside of the health/insurance industries wouldn't be aware of.

    I don't think diversity would be a barrier though...Toronto is (statistically/definitively) the most diverse city in the world.  A full 50% of the city's population wasn't born in Canada, and that hasn't been a healthcare obstacle.

    I *think* an American system would likely be broken down state by state, the Federal government would lay out basic requirements that would need to be met and leave it to the states to implement a system that met those requirements, tailored to the specific needs of the state.  That's how it's done here.  Our federal government gives money to each of the provinces in the form of a 'transfer fund' and that money is used on healthcare needs within each province.  The different provinces have mildly different systems, but the federal government mandates the bare minimums that each system has to provide.  I don't think the systems are wildly different from province to province, although Quebec's plan includes dental care - I don't think any of the other provinces do (mine in Ontario doesn't).
    Flukesjoejerryronnie
  • I couldn't get the image large enough to fit in with the messageboard file size limits, but it demonstrates how the El Paso shooter's manifesto contains phrased and expression pulled directly from Trump, Carlson, the Daily Caller etc.
  • I never really understood the diversity or population arguments - 35% of the country is ALREADY on medicare or medicaid, not the mention the few million who use the VA, so it's not like we'd be starting at 0. I also don't think there's, like, cultural or racial lines around healthcare - I mean, what's the argument there? East Asians don't want health care while northern Europeans want too much health care? Whose cultural beliefs are "I don't want health care." That argument always sounds to me like a polite way of saying "well, there's a lot of white people in the US who don't their taxes to help pay for healthcare for brown people" and, frankly, fuck those people.

    The only real issue I see is the geographic size of the US - there's a lot of rural areas with not a lot of people, but those people will still need health care, so there will need to be some urgent care places and some hospitals that probably wouldn't exist in a free market system. But for fuck's sake we pay like twice as much per capita in health care than every other country and still have 30 million uninsured people so I don't think we could really fuck it up more than it already is. 
    CretanBullBloodyTaco
  • Trump just spoke out against white supremacy, over/under on how soon he walks that back, say.............Tuesday afternoon?
    Dee
  • asmallcat said:
    I never really understood the diversity or population arguments - 35% of the country is ALREADY on medicare or medicaid, not the mention the few million who use the VA, so it's not like we'd be starting at 0. I also don't think there's, like, cultural or racial lines around healthcare - I mean, what's the argument there? East Asians don't want health care while northern Europeans want too much health care? Whose cultural beliefs are "I don't want health care." That argument always sounds to me like a polite way of saying "well, there's a lot of white people in the US who don't their taxes to help pay for healthcare for brown people" and, frankly, fuck those people.

    The only real issue I see is the geographic size of the US - there's a lot of rural areas with not a lot of people, but those people will still need health care, so there will need to be some urgent care places and some hospitals that probably wouldn't exist in a free market system. But for fuck's sake we pay like twice as much per capita in health care than every other country and still have 30 million uninsured people so I don't think we could really fuck it up more than it already is. 
    Yeah, we already have government healthcare for around 100 million people in the US. Despite the complaints that government can’t do anything effectively, folks on Medicare at least are broadly happy with it.

    Most of the Democratic Healthcare plans cover the transition. Like drop Medicare age down from 65 to 50, and then keep dropping it in stages for example.

    I imagine the ultimate compromise will look something like a public option in the ACA exchanges perhaps coupled with a lower Medicare age like 50 or 55 to take some of the claims pressure from older folks out of the market. Then the public option will slowly take over the market over several years.
Sign In or Register to comment.