General politics

[TheLeviathan]

Well said Trevor Noah.

 

Maybe that belongs in the other thread, but I think the vast majority of people (myself included from time to time) struggle with this.  But there are growing factions on both sides that only operate this way.

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well said Trevor Noah.

 

Maybe that belongs in the other thread, but I think the vast majority of people (myself included from time to time) struggle with this.  But there are growing factions on both sides that only operate this way.

I just think this a unique and unfortunate case.  The error that led to confirmation bias was trusting the victim's account (as opposed to a wrong-headed view of objective facts).  (Indeed did anybody anticipate he paid his attackers? That wasn't really within the realm of reason when the story first broke).  And if the lesson to be learned is to distrust victims until their story is proven true, well I'm not on board.

 

Jussie, or whatever his name is, has set back our ability to believe victims and that's just a damn shame.  It's similar how the Duke Lacross case probably chilled the reporting of rape as result of the alleged-victim's lies.  Though here, at least, there weren't any accused persons victimized by the false accusation. (I don't view the Nigerians as victims (beyond their own poverty and depravity to do such thing) as they took money to commit violence.) 

[PseudoSABR]

[stringer bell]

Republican who "led" in votes in North Carolina 9 calls for a new election.

 

Party bosses had called for Harris to be certified the winner of the election. Information heard this week made it look like Harris was complicit in election fraud. His own son said he warned the candidate that Dowless was "shady".

[Vanimal46]

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1098691632013238274

This made me smile!

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

Funny for sure, even if it misses the point completely.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Funny for sure, even if it misses the point completely.

If I were the owner of the sign, I'd add another message along the lines of "Happy to share!"

[LaBombo]

 

This made me smile!

 

In an ideal world, the person who took the other half would cover the 'e' and make it into a campaign sign for The Knights Who Say 'Ni!".

[Brock Beauchamp]

Has anyone noticed a concentrated attack on Klobuchar amongst their out of state friends lately? In my feed, the hate is rampant.

 

I like Klobuchar quite a bit as a senator. I had no real desire to see her run for president. Even today, I still prefer other candidates over her... but this disinformation campaign is really starting to piss me off. I've seen her called everything from conservative to spineless to establishment and frankly, I don't really get it.

 

I just wonder why so much of the liberal hate is aimed at her right now. I see people rolling their eyes at Bernie - as they probably should - but outside of Harris, I haven't seen anything close to the outright vitriol that I've seen thrown at Klobuchar.

 

And for what reason? It just seems a bit too focused for me to believe it's coincidence. So few even knew about her before a week ago, except that pretty stellar handling of pure jackassery Kavanaugh threw at her last year.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Has anyone noticed a concentrated attack on Klobuchar amongst their out of state friends lately? In my feed, the hate is rampant.

 

I like Klobuchar quite a bit as a senator. I had no real desire to see her run for president. Even today, I still prefer other candidates over her... but this disinformation campaign is really starting to piss me off. I've seen her called everything from conservative to spineless to establishment and frankly, I don't really get it.

 

I just wonder why so much of the liberal hate is aimed at her right now. I see people rolling their eyes at Bernie - as they probably should - but outside of Harris, I haven't seen anything close to the outright vitriol that I've seen thrown at Klobuchar.

 

And for what reason? It just seems a bit too focused for me to believe it's coincidence. So few even knew about her before a week ago, except that pretty stellar handling of pure jackassery Kavanaugh threw at her last year.

 

You mean tripe like this?

 

Perfect is the enemy of good.  And liberals don't f****ing understand that.  It's a bit irritating since, I'll call it right now, that stupid attitude is going to get us four more years of Trump.  It may not matter who they nominate if these first few weeks of the shift to 2020 is any indication. 

 

They won't need to worry about how the Republicans will win, they'll have already done the work for them.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

You mean tripe like this?

 

Perfect is the enemy of good.  And liberals don't f****ing understand that.  It's a bit irritating since, I'll call it right now, that stupid attitude is going to get us four more years of Trump.  It may not matter who they nominate if these first few weeks of the shift to 2020 is any indication. 

 

They won't need to worry about how the Republicans will win, they'll have already done the work for them.

LOL I'm old enough to remember who the 2016 candidate was, but carry on

[TheLeviathan]

 

LOL I'm old enough to remember who the 2016 candidate was, but carry on

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

HRC was not a liberal.

[TheLeviathan]

 

HRC was not a liberal.

 

That has no bearing on what I said.

 

And if the last two weeks have been any indication, I guess Klobuchar isn't either.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

That has no bearing on what I said.

 

And if the last two weeks have been any indication, I guess Klobuchar isn't either.

We all mean different things by the L word. Klobuchar won't come right out and say she's for single payer, despite a friendly environment for it, but she'll continue to support Rube Goldberg-labyrinthine piecemeal health care bills that kinda sorta expand access to certain yada yada yada...

 

Truth be told I'd probably vote for her if she's the nominee. But I'm not sure how effective she would be as President. Probably not much.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We all mean different things by the L word. Klobuchar won't come right out and say she's for single payer, despite a friendly environment for it, but she'll continue to support Rube Goldberg-labyrinthine piecemeal health care bills that kinda sorta expand access to certain yada yada yada...

Truth be told I'd probably vote for her if she's the nominee. But I'm not sure how effective she would be as President. Probably not much.

 

On CNN she said she wants to work towards single payer but she's not sure it's immediately attainable.  She's been successful passing a lot of positive legislation by knowing how to get things done.

 

So it's strange to me that someone who has voiced supporter for Bernie would somehow use "effectiveness" as a measure to criticize another candidate.   But Klobuchar is by far the most effective candidate, by proof of legislative accomplishments, in the field.  Does that mean she's the right candidate?  I don't know yet. 

 

Arguing about how "L" she is is precisely the problem I was pointing out.  It's doing the Republican's work for them.

[Mike Sixel]

Klobuchar pretty much saying what I've said about healthcare. We aren't going from here to there in one step. And there are steps we can take to really help, that might actually pass....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Klobuchar pretty much saying what I've said about healthcare. We aren't going from here to there in one step. And there are steps we can take to really help, that might actually pass....

I wish a candidate would stop trying to go for broke with a federal solution and instead incentivize (temporarily) state-issued single payer solutions.

 

Let the New Yorks, Californias, Oregons, and Minnesotas set up their own systems, then watch other states' citizenry slowly get up in arms that they don't have similar coverage. Let the states compete against one another to implement the best system, then let the others copy and improve upon it.

 

It's not as if that's the way our republic was designed to function or anything. Sigh.

 

I'm getting pretty tired of "one-stop solutions" from a federal level. They rarely work well, almost never get implemented at a sufficient level because of blowback from the eternally-stupid south, and they rarely meet the needs of a diverse nation.

 

So give the states that want to be progressive a nudge in that direction and see what happens. I suspect mostly good things will follow.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

On CNN she said she wants to work towards single payer but she's not sure it's immediately attainable.  She's been successful passing a lot of positive legislation by knowing how to get things done.

 

So it's strange to me that someone who has voiced supporter for Bernie would somehow use "effectiveness" as a measure to criticize another candidate.   But Klobuchar is by far the most effective candidate, by proof of legislative accomplishments, in the field.  Does that mean she's the right candidate?  I don't know yet. 

 

Arguing about how "L" she is is precisely the problem I was pointing out.  It's doing the Republican's work for them.

There are a few things Klobuchar does really well, but I am skeptical of her legislative victories. I follow her on Facebook. This appears to be her basic formula:

 

1. Something bad happens that should never happen.

 

2. Klobuchar rides in with Jeff Flake and other low impact Senators on a “That Thing that happened should Never happen” bipartisan bill.

 

3. Klobuchar boasts about “getting things done.”

 

The point is that she’s never out in front on anything. Witness her position on single payer. She’s saying that if she’s president and controls Congress, she still doesn’t think single payer would be “immediately attainable”? Also, she is always seeking Republican buy in. Republicans aren’t in it to pass good bills anymore. I just don’t think she’s that effective or inspiring. People will disagree. I’m willing to keep an open mind on her.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Klobuchar pretty much saying what I've said about healthcare. We aren't going from here to there in one step. And there are steps we can take to really help, that might actually pass....

I wish a candidate would stop trying to go for broke...

What’s wrong with writing a bill that phases it in over a period of time?

[PseudoSABR]

Liberal was a dirty word for a long time.  And honestly, Levi's attitude is why there is a lot of pent up anger on the left.  Liberals have every right to demand their values represented in their elected officials; that shouldn't be done with vitriol, but Klobuchar's turn towards the middle/establishment is fair game to criticize, esp. in light of how popular "radical" left policies are. 

 

At some point compromise is important (i.e. don't give up the good for the perfect), but we need not start negotiating our values at the 50-yard line (this is what Dems have done for decades), because when it's time to make legislation, the right will take their pound of flesh, and what we end up with will be further conservative. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I wish a candidate would stop trying to go for broke with a federal solution and instead incentivize (temporarily) state-issued single payer solutions.

 

Let the New Yorks, Californias, Oregons, and Minnesotas set up their own systems, then watch other states' citizenry slowly get up in arms that they don't have similar coverage. Let the states compete against one another to implement the best system, then let the others copy and improve upon it.

 

It's not as if that's the way our republic was designed to function or anything. Sigh.

 

I'm getting pretty tired of "one-stop solutions" from a federal level. They rarely work well, almost never get implemented at a sufficient level because of blowback from the eternally-stupid south, and they rarely meet the needs of a diverse nation.

 

So give the states that want to be progressive a nudge in that direction and see what happens. I suspect mostly good things will follow.

Part of the appeal of single payer is having bargaining power.  We lose a lot of that having 50 different bargainers instead of one.  

 

We can grandfather in a system of medicare-for-all, but campaigning on that notion is stupid in my mind. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Part of the appeal of single payer is having bargaining power. We lose a lot of that having 50 different bargainers instead of one.

 

We can grandfather in a system of medicare-for-all, but campaigning on that notion is stupid in my mind.

I don’t buy that at all. If you get a handful of states bargaining together, you equal or surpass the population of several mid-sized European countries in a hurry. If you get a handful that includes CA and NY, you can equal the largest European nations.

 

California by itself is larger than a lot of European nations. It’s also larger than Canada.

 

Never mind that my solution is something that could actually pass. You only need tepid buy-in from a few states for a program they don’t need to use, which gives moderates that ever-important plausible deniability in swing states. Let single payer infest states like a virus instead of ramming it down their throats, which would likely give us a redux of 2010. And after this country elected Trump, I’m terrified to think who those people would elect next.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don’t buy that at all. If you get a handful of states bargaining together, you equal or surpass the population of several mid-sized European countries in a hurry. If you get a handful that includes CA and NY, you can equal the largest European nations.

California by itself is larger than a lot of European nations. It’s also larger than Canada.

Oh so they are bargaining together now? But it's unrealistic to do it a the federal level? 

 

Let's not forget while we wait to get the perfect system right (how long would your plan take? sounds like decades to me), there are people without healthcare and who are going bankrupt because of medical bills.  We can be politically expedient about this problem, even in the face of many logistical hurdles. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Oh so they are bargaining together now? But it's unrealistic to do it a the federal level? 

 

Let's not forget while we wait to get the perfect system right (how long would your plan take? sounds like decades to me), there are people without healthcare and who are going bankrupt because of medical bills.  We can be politically expedient about this problem, even in the face of many logistical hurdles. 

Of course SOME states would negotiate together. Or they could go their own way and do it themselves. Or they could do nothing at all.

 

Couple this option with some de-regulation for the moderates to take back home (say, selling healthcare across state lines) and you could likely craft a bill that won't face enormous blowback that gave us the political climate of 2010 through today.

 

Look what happened to the ACA. Republicans steamrolled our government because the federal government rammed something down the states' throats. It led us directly to Trump. The same thing happened after the New Deal, we were just lucky enough to have a Republican president with a backbone at the time (Eisenhower) who told his own party to pound sand on the issue.

 

And yes, some people will go without healthcare for awhile. But the change has an actual chance of sticking without huge blowback from the middle of the country, which nearly doomed (and partially gutted) the already weak ACA.

 

My solution is also likely to be a hell of a lot more efficient than any federal program. I trust Minnesota to do right by Minnesota a lot more than I trust Washington to do right by Minnesota. I'm not against big government but I demand smart government. We rarely get that from Washington under the best of circumstances and it's nearly impossible in this environment.

[Brock Beauchamp]

For the record, Minnesota is a mid-sized state. Its population is within a few hundred thousand people of Finland, Norway, Ireland, and Denmark.

 

Those countries somehow manage to negotiate reasonable terms. Why can't individual states do the same? 

[TheLeviathan]

 

What’s wrong with writing a bill that phases it in over a period of time?

 

I guess I'd ask you that.  Didn't you just criticize her for suggesting exactly that? 

[TheLeviathan]

 

There are a few things Klobuchar does really well, but I am skeptical of her legislative victories.

 

But yet you support Bernie who has accomplished almost nothing in his time as a Senator.  At least hold them to the same standard or don't pretend otherwise.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

I'm getting pretty tired of "one-stop solutions" from a federal level. They rarely work well, almost never get implemented at a sufficient level because of blowback from the eternally-stupid south, and they rarely meet the needs of a diverse nation.

 

 

Not to mention the overreaction politically it causes.  The ACA was a major bill, didn't even go all the way, and it launched Republican dominance for a decade.  That doesn't mean you don't go after it, but being creative and getting right-win buy-in helps move the ball forward and keeps them from gaining political advantages.

[PseudoSABR]

The Republicans will totally play nice with a practical, slow move towards Medicare for all!

 

If the goal is to prevent a Republican backlash, might as well just let them win.  They'll characterize what ever plan the Democrats offer as socialism.  The lesson to be learned from the reaction to ACA shouldn't be "tone it down and do everything on a smaller scale" but rather that even if we take a Republican idea from a Republican state and advocate for it, the Republicans will eat you alive.