I have tried to purge a lot of memories.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I have tried to purge a lot of memories.
I had actually forgotten about it. Goddamn was there a ton of bullshit this election. And a bunch of it played into sexist ideas about women pretty nicely.
broz0rs
Member
ErasureAcer
Banned
Anyone just see that piece on Nightline of 2 Iraqi soldiers committing war crimes? That should be a thread. Fuck W.
Kevitivity
Member
Would love to see a simular graphic forTrump.
RastaMentality
Banned
If this was Bush in 00 and there was actually a pretty good chance at reelection, I'd still be really down but I've pretty much gotten over it. Seeing Trump on the President wiki page is what did me in.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
The drone program is pure hypocrisy unless you're a patient historian. Iraq was in shambles not just due to bureaucratic lies and poor planning but more fundamentally because of a myopic and jingoistic belief in the infallibility of American interventionism. The Obama Doctrine and the campaign he ran on was about the rebuke of illegal wars, of carte blanche authorizations to use military force (we are currently STILL using the AUMF passed targeting al Qaeda to justify military strikes against ISIS), of disposing of governments only to replace them with our own oil company friendly puppets. It doesn't matter that the extreme expansion of drone usage was a careful and considerate mediation between the desire to withdraw from the washington playbook of comply-or-be-toppled and the need to protect American citizens both domestic and abroad; telling the average person that "accidentally" killing civilians (reckless disregard as a criminal law concept seems to only apply to us lowly peons) is commiserate with the esprit de corp of the Obama coalition because there are no boots on the ground sounds like the kind of two-faced gobbledy-gook legalese bullshit everyone has come to expect from the lying sacks of shit that make up the political establishment.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
WTF at the video
I refuse to even go near the wiki page and I've gone out of my way to avoid seeing his portrait.
TestOfTide
Banned
Ok, Trump has dementia. I am certain of it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Overall positive for Dems.
But they really need Ossoff to win.
But they really need Ossoff to win.
whyamihere
Banned
Well, is it?
If your goal is Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, is Ossoff for that? You have understand the trepidation, and it doesn't seem like you do. You say, these districts are the future!, but you also doesn't seem to grasp the fear of those on the Left that the coalition being built won't actually lead to transformative goals and just do lame 90s Democrat stuff with a dash of 09-10 congress for good measure.
I don't necessarily agree, but I also understand the POV and it really frightens me. I don't have an answer. Like, yes, we're winning in these places, but it's worth asking if winning in these places also turns the party down a path that I, personally, would prefer to not see it go down.
I don't have an answer. I've already said I'm annoyed at the Left for its lack of introspection on certain issues regarding white nationalism. But I also don't think you quite understand why a lot are wary of targetting affluent suburbs beyond "well, we're winning there".
And that's my problem. I don't want a party of Ossoffs. Obviously, he has the best chance to win of the 4 races, and he's the best "candidate" of the 4 in terms of politicking and I desperately want him to win, but Ossoff is a centrist who won't enact that change that I think the country desperately needs. I think he's as left as that district may go, perhaps, but building a bare majority on those districts seems like a house of cards if our goal is to expand health care, raise the minimum wage and build a stronger social democracy. I mean, are they? I'm not sure. Then I go back to people like Richard Blumenthal who are for single payer, or how people like Dan Lipinski are pieces of shit. I don't have an answer.
But I also don't think a lot of people here are engaging with a real fear that those on the left have.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean the larger question sort of becomes; if $15 minimum wage and Medicare for all can't flip affluent suburbs, and they can't flip rural districts, do we actually have the numbers to enact those sorts of changes? I don't think anyone really wants to confront that right now
I think Medicare for All and $15 national minimum wage are well-intentioned ideas that would be disastrous if actually implemented! I don't understand the trepidation, because I want these things to lose to more moderate options. What I don't want is bullshit like what happened w/ Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, etc. Us in suburbia aren't the enemy! We're just not radicals!
I see an actual universal health insurance system w/ a public option, UBI, a 11/12 dollar minimum wage as transformative! I also strongly believe that those affluent suburbs are where we can actually win. At the end of the day, these are the places that will help us gain a majority and actually pass legislation to help people and achieve progress in our country.
In '92, we didn't have the votes for single payer. In '06, we didn't have the votes for single payer. And in '18/'20, we still won't have the votes for single payer.
whyamihere
Banned
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I'm looking very hard for this as I can't seem to find it anymore but I've seen data that strongly suggests people tend to just vote party line nowadays and where they were elected has little correlation with how they vote. I.e. as long as you get a Democrat from a seat, you're safe on most Democratic issues because they're whippable. Once we get earmarks back this is even less a problem.
whyamihere
Banned
Yeah, this is where I'm sort of like, it doesn't matter. I don't have an answer, I'm more annoyed that there are those that don't understand that it's a legitimate fear.
I'm not? Single-payer is a radical idea in the US given the current state of our health care system. We're not in a position where that would be a smooth transition. (It'd also immediately turn the cannons of the health care industry on us!) Health Care in the United states is a massive industry that covers the majority of the working age population.
Going to single payer from what we have now would be bad for the same reasons going to the Metric system would be bad.
If you want single payer, you need it by default, over time. Those places that Obamacare insurers have started to completely pull out of? That's where you get your genesis.
I think the issue is that the nation is like the Senate. We can only go as far left as the center-left part of the nation will let us. The overton window got pushed pretty far to the left under Obama and I think that's where our focus should be.
Policy wise, compromise is inevitable and not necessarily bad. Different views will have different takes and see different weaknesses in policy.
That said, to get where pretty much everyone here wants to go, the overton window needs to be pushed even further left than it was under Obama. Part of that is going to be places like California and New York (and others) implementing these policies and showing that they are sustainable and do work.
Unfortunately, that shit takes time and we'll all be old men and women by the time we get where we're going. Until that point, all that can be done is keep pushing discourse left and getting left and center-left candidates elected where we can. Ossoff might be the best that can be done in his district right now, but if he does well then whoever comes after may well be able to push further left.
Policy wise, compromise is inevitable and not necessarily bad. Different views will have different takes and see different weaknesses in policy.
That said, to get where pretty much everyone here wants to go, the overton window needs to be pushed even further left than it was under Obama. Part of that is going to be places like California and New York (and others) implementing these policies and showing that they are sustainable and do work.
Unfortunately, that shit takes time and we'll all be old men and women by the time we get where we're going. Until that point, all that can be done is keep pushing discourse left and getting left and center-left candidates elected where we can. Ossoff might be the best that can be done in his district right now, but if he does well then whoever comes after may well be able to push further left.
whyamihere
Banned
Medicare for All, as of now, a popular policy position. Would that change once its partisianized and there's the messy legislative process of trying to enact it? Yes, definitely. But when you say "radicals", you know exactly the connotation. Do not do that with me.
To your earlier point.
That's my fear! This does NOT go far enough for me, so no, I do not accept that this is an end goal. Yes, I would take going through rich suburbs to win moderate assholes who might raise the minimum wage a dollar or two and get a public option, because hey, that's better than what we have now. But those are not end goals for me. If that's enough for you, have at it. You don't seem to actually understand that for a lot of people, that doesn't go far enough. People like Ossoff actually kind of suck as left-wingers. I'm glad to have him. I campaigned and donated to him. I do not want a party entirely built upon people like him, because then we're never actually going to get a strong social democracy. And that sucks!
Sure, I've made my peace with this. But there's a legitimate fear of running through affluence with simultaneously trying to expand the social safety net. I don't have an answer.
Well I guess it depends on if that fear leads to "perfect being the enemy of good". I just want to win without selling my soul and I think suburban Democrats get us there. Like a public option + $12 minimum is strictly better than we have now. If we could get those I would be happy and I think just getting more Democrats from anywhere would help. The entire Democratic party as a whole is more Left than it was in the past. Even our current "conservative" Democrats could get on board with a public option and a higher than current minimum wage.
At the end of the day though, I don't know why we can't target subruban districts AND still keep trying in rural ones or districts where going super-Left might work? Blah blah chew gum and walk at the same time blah blah?
Also this doesn't mean we stop trying for Medicare for All - I think we'll be better able to gauge our position after the midterms and see how the public mood is an how strong the backlash against the GOP is. Medicare for All can't be a thing until 2020 the earliest and by then we'll have a better idea if we have the votes then.
whyamihere
Banned
I want that!
I've got Ossoffs and Quists a-plenty
I've got Sherrods and Sinemas galore
You want things of above?
I've got twenty!
But who cares?
No big deal
I want more
There isn't one. This shit is complicated. We can only do the best we can and that crap is scary.
Then all you can do is push and wait. I mean, unless you want to call up Bill Gates and try to rig some elections. Which I am totally not advocating, but if you're down I am.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think what's politically possible and what's useful to run on are two different things and its important to keep that in mind. With enough national public enthusiasm behind any issue you can probably whip votes into shape. Campaign strategy is not governing strategy.
But this is part of my larger cynical perspective that the country has to be tricked into making progress, broadly
But this is part of my larger cynical perspective that the country has to be tricked into making progress, broadly
cartoon_soldier
Member
Higher minimum wage is a no brainier but it needs to be more than just blanket 15$ everywhere. People in rural towns are going to realize that such a high minimum wage hurts them.
Medicare for all is tricky because it can't be done without tax increases. Lowering Medicare age might be a better start.
In the end you have to run candidates that respond to the local district.
Medicare for all is tricky because it can't be done without tax increases. Lowering Medicare age might be a better start.
In the end you have to run candidates that respond to the local district.
Doubling the minimum wage in rural low-cost of living areas is radical change. Tearing down an entire nation's insurance systems and building one up inside the government is radical change. Healthcare is about to make up 20% of our GDP.
I'm not trying to be "cute" or connotate whatever you think I was trying to imply- these are things, that if implemented, would cause seismic changes in our nation's economy. And my legitimate fear is that they would be disastrous for us as a country! I'm not opposing these things out of some rigid ideology, I'm opposing them because I don't believe the good would outweigh the bad here.
When it comes to insurance, the immediate medium term goal needs to be severing the insurance<->employment link! We literally cannot do anything else before that occurs, because only at that point can you even start talking about Single Payer. Without transitioning people off of their employer-sponsored plans, it's not even possible without just utterly demolishing a sector of the economy while trying to build a carbon copy of it.
I'm not trying to be "cute" or connotate whatever you think I was trying to imply- these are things, that if implemented, would cause seismic changes in our nation's economy. And my legitimate fear is that they would be disastrous for us as a country! I'm not opposing these things out of some rigid ideology, I'm opposing them because I don't believe the good would outweigh the bad here.
When it comes to insurance, the immediate medium term goal needs to be severing the insurance<->employment link! We literally cannot do anything else before that occurs, because only at that point can you even start talking about Single Payer. Without transitioning people off of their employer-sponsored plans, it's not even possible without just utterly demolishing a sector of the economy while trying to build a carbon copy of it.
UBI is radical when we're in a world of jobs cults and even people on the left shit out the "dignity of work" nonsense.
In fact, for America, that seems more radical than single payer and a minimum wage based on productivity, which would exceed $15.
How do you convince the dweebs that the argument of dignity really is one of shams, ideals, and nothing in the aura of reality itself?
That video footage is really concerning. He genuinely looks completely out of it... Just dazed by the whole thing.
Tranqueris
Banned
Fuck it, I'm donating to Ossoff in the morning. At this point my motivation for him winning is not having to hear any defeatism garbage for a little while.
I see it as a corollary to decoupling insurance from employment. Once you sever that link, it makes increasing benefits easier on that axis.
In the meantime, you can fix the EITC so it doesn't screw over non-custodial parents and single people.
UBI is the stretch goal, It's obviously not doable short-term. But the other stuff all is. (Decoupling insurance is a medium-term thing once you get Obamacare fixed.)
The fundamental thing is that my takehome check has a 25% extra part that's "paid" to me that I don't even see cause it goes straight to my health insurance. Until you get the government covering that for people in a smooth transition off their employers, you can't move to any next steps.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It is NOT R+20 god damn it.
whyamihere
Banned
I do think you're being cute and you know exactly what you mean when you call someone radical versus an idea as "radical" and I think it's a big fuck you to people who share a different opinion than you on the matter. If that's not the case, fine. But you didn't call the idea "radical". You said "we're not radicals". That's a person, not an idea. It's ugly.
Is Jon Ossoff for a public option? Is Jon Ossoff for a buy-in for Medicare? Is he for lowering the Medicare age? Is he for Medicare for All? What's the line? How far is a party of Ossoffs willing to go? Again -- I WANT HIM IN CONGRESS. Desperately. But I also want single payer. I also DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. I am stating fears, not facts of what I think a party of affluent centrists will do. But I am also scared of a party that's supposedly for the working person and the middle class to be built through districts that are affluent, even though I will support that type of party of its the only option. But you're handwaving this away, saying it'll be fine, and that it doesn't matter. It sort of does, though. I want a party that expands the social safety net, expands social democracy. Is that even possible past a certain point when the left-wing party of the country is won through wealthy, affluent white suburbs? I don't know. But it's scary.
We're not going to agree. I just don't think you're even making an effort to understand my point, and that's what disappointing and frustrating me. Instead, you're calling people "radicals". You might not have meant it that way, but even unintentionally implying sit-down-and-shut-up-you-crazy-person isn't great.
If you say it enough times it becomes true
whyamihere
Banned
I still can't believe Quist almost overcame an R+58 deficit to almost win.
cartoon_soldier
Member
There are 300+ seats Dems have that are more democratic leaning than this seat based on cook pvi ratings.
VendettaRed07
Member
We're going to have to win in Montana in 2018 just to maintain the senate seats we have
whyamihere
Banned
Not done yet. Glacier County went 62-32 for Clinton in 16 and has no precincts reporting. It'll probably get him at 6% or below.
I have full confidence Tester can run 7% ahead of Quist.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Tester paid his taxes on time so that will help.
I don't think so, he's sitting at 6.5%. Is Glacier .5+ of the state population?
whyamihere
Banned
5000 votes in 2016, probably 4000ish votes there today. Looking at Roosevelt, another reservation county, that had an 11% swing. Would give Quist 67% of the vote if uniform in Glacier. Gianforte 26.4%.
Quist: 2680
Gianforte: 1056
Other: 264
Would end up with
Gianforte: 189,634
Quist: 167,229
Wicks: 21,600
378,463
Which would be:
Gianforte: 50.11%
Quist: 44.19%
Wicks: 5.71%
Difference of 5.92%
Could be also 3500 or 3000, which would change things. Just depends!
VendettaRed07
Member
Then people should not be writing this off as "oh well it was too red to win".
It can be won. We screwed up the chances with a poor candidate. If Tester can win there we need to get those same voters to flip the house seat in 2018 too
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
An ideology is just a cohesive set of moral, political, and economic beliefs. If you didn't have an ideology, you wouldn't have any way of determining whether something was good or bad (or your determination would be inconsistent). The fact of the matter is that you think these things would have 'bad' outweighing 'good' because of your ideology. It's also a relatively rigid ideology because across every PoliGAF ever, I don't think I've ever seen you concede a point. So "I'm not opposing these things out of some rigid ideology" is a lie. And I think the worst part is that it's a lie you've taught yourself to believe.
Probably exhausted. First time since January 20 he's worked more than four days in a row.
Seriously though I've put less than zero weight to the dementia/senility rumors (I always assume he's just an ass), but damn if that footage isn't concerning. Dude just disappears behind his eyes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You have to keep in mind other factors too. Tester has incumbency status and that should give him a boost over any candidate in an open seat, provided the Republican candidate isn't a complete disaster (which had Gianforte body slammed a journalist last week, he might have been enough of one).
I do agree we could have done better than Quist, but of the candidates who ran he was probably the best one. Go to battle with the soldiers you have. Hopefully Quist making it such a close race will encourage a stronger candidate to jump in for the 2018 general election.
How did Quist become the candidate anyway? Was he recruited? Did he win a primary?
- Status