Politics XXXIV (Politics never changes)

[Guard Dog]

Oh no it's still around. We deal with it all the time at work. 

[Maedhros]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Wealthy people buy favors from the government because the government will sell favors to wealthy people. The solution I'm hearing is "give the government more power". So it can sell bigger favors? Rather than trusting the government to go after the "wealthy people" I say take away the governments power to do favors for them.

Besides, no problem has ever been solved by employing the same means that created the problem. You cannot fight fire with fire so to speak. The trouble with health care in the US is the costs are out of control. When the end user is not responsible for the cost the provider has no incentive to lower the cost. That is what has come from subsidizing the ability to pay. The ACA built in regional protections so health plans and medical facilities don't have to compete with each other for business. No competition for business mans again, no incentive to reduce cost. Every possible wrong thing has been done to address the one problem that has made it a mess: cost.

Now that isn't saying there isn't something that can't be done. I've argued for this before. Rather than "free" (which isn't) health care for  all how about a catastrophic health insurance plan for everyone. Say they the individual is responsible for all health care cost up to a certain number. Just throwing out a number here so we'll say $10k. If you get a cold and need antibiotic, need stitches, need a knee brace, etc then it's on you. There will no doubt be numerous insurance products to cover the some of the "first $10k" costs. After that THEN there is a public program to help. So, you sprained your ankle? Too bad, take care of that yourself. Oh you have cancer? Come this way and we'll take care of you. That is a more workable idea IMO. 

Why does having a welfare state mean government gets more powerful? I just don't see the correlation. Again, the most democratic countries in this world are countries with strong welfare systems in place. A government should serve its people. Not just a minor % of it that happens to be rich.

As for your last point, that sounds better than the system you have now - but I'd still argue that free(ish) healthcare should simply be a human right in a modern country. We can afford it.

[ComradeYellow]

46 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Why does having a welfare state mean government gets more powerful? I just don't see the correlation. Again, the most democratic countries in this world are countries with strong welfare systems in place. A government should serve its people. Not just a minor % of it that happens to be rich.

As for your last point, that sounds better than the system you have now - but I'd still argue that free(ish) healthcare should simply be a human right in a modern country. We can afford it.

I think we tried Social Democracy from around 1932-1980 or so but it led to stagflation and annoyance which brought us brain dead idiots like Ronald Reagan.

Not sure I want to repeat that cycle again, the United States is too massive and diverse for a strong central policy.  Again, our best bet is to simply offer more regional opportunites where the Fed serves as merely a buffer for funds to local projects.  Controlled and operated locally.

Living in a country like Finland it's easy to champion Social Democracy but here it's a tough sell due to the sheer geographic size and wide range of backgrounds.

[Gorth]

If it's too big, it just needs to split up... oh wait, they already tried that.

 

Watch this space for the announcement of the New California Republic!

 

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

Why does having a welfare state mean government gets more powerful? I just don't see the correlation. Again, the most democratic countries in this world are countries with strong welfare systems in place. A government should serve its people. Not just a minor % of it that happens to be rich.

The state having control over $thing indirectly gives it, if not control, at least a degree of influence over people who rely on $thing. Apparatchiks can use $thing as leverage. So the reasoning goes, and to be fair this isn't completely baseless -- it's how things largely worked in, you guessed it, ye olde Sovetskij Sojuz. Since they couldn't directly buy people with money, they did with favors, privileges, sinecures, etc. when they couldn't or didn't want to resort to outright blackmail or intimidation. And since the state controlled just about everything, they had a lot of leverage.

Conversely, if you are John Galt and don't rely on the state for anything, it's supposed to be not quite powerless but much less able to **** you over. This is the part of the reasoning that doesn't hold water if you look at things like civil forfeiture, the surveillance state or quantitative easing.

The thing is people keep conflating collective whatever with Soviet agrarian collectivization policies, 1930 vintage. Sadly, authoritarianism is not an exclusive feature of the left.

[Guard Dog]

Charles Schumer does not get to use the phrase "independent judiciary" anymore: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

[Guard Dog]

Biden has a 7 point lead in Michigan. If he wins there Bernie's road gets rocky indeed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-michigan-121160

The other day Biden gave a speech promising to return character, honesty, and dignity to the white house. As appealing as I find that message I find the messenger somewhat lacking in credibility. But, at least on the last count he would be an improvement over what we have now. Those first two things... ain't been seen in these parts in a long, loooong time. 

Who was our last good President? Ford? Eisenhower? By good I mean the last one the roaches didn't scurry when the lights clicked on. 

In some way Ford was ideal. He didn't WANT to be President. All he ever wanted was to be the Speaker of the House. Spiro Agnew resigned as Vice President and took a plea on tax evasion and other stuff and the House Republicans forced Nixon to accept Ford. He wanted to retire at the end of Nixon's second term. Which as you know came much sooner than expected. 

[Guard Dog]

More on Schumer showing his rear end: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/486061-harold-ford-jr-slams-schumers-pay-the-price-remarks-you-cant-incite-violence

@Gromnir there are no angels in hell

[Amentep]

Does anyone have a link to the full text of what Schumer said?  I've seen the pull quotes, would be curious to see the full context.

[Malcador]

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Seems like nothing much to clutch one's pearls over, but I guess the current climate has people doing the equivalent of ****posting.

[Guard Dog]

Spoken in a such a tone before a mob on the steps of the court, it could be credibly called an incitement to violence. 

Suppose all of that was the same but it was a gun control decision and the targets were Kagan and Sotomayor. Would that seem more threatening then?

Of course Trump showed is orange buttocks by suggesting Sotomayor & Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving him because they criticized him in public. They probably shouldn't have but no law against it.

Obama  showed his calling them out in the SotU address a few years ago. 

It's far too late to pretend the court is not hopelessly politicized. It's just one more turd in the toilet now.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

What a world we live in that thats considered "incitement of violence". Goddamn we as a society really need to learn how to stiffen our upper lips.

Not referring to you GD, just in general.

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, Gfted1 said:

What a world we live in that thats considered "incitement of violence". Goddamn we as a society really need to learn how to stiffen our upper lips.

Not referring to you GD, just in general.

Personally nothing would incite me to violence other than hurting my critters or stealing my stuff. But suppose the decision does not go the way he wants and one of those people he roused up in the speech guns down Kavanaugh at his kids softball game. It could happen. And the court case is not that big a deal anyway. And there is already past precedent going the other way. So this really is shouting fire when there is no fire.

[Malcador]

31 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Suppose all of that was the same but it was a gun control decision and the targets were Kagan and Sotomayor. Would that seem more threatening then?

Probably not, well unless the guy is wielding two AR-15s and CoD cosplay then given that baseline of insanity it may be more credible.

[Guard Dog]

Warren is out: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/elizabeth-warren-drops-out-of-presidential-race.html

There is also rumbling that if Bernie does not get the nomination he will try as IND. I doubt that will happen but you never know. 

[Gfted1]

36 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

But suppose the decision does not go the way he wants and one of those people he roused up in the speech guns down Kavanaugh at his kids softball game.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Wiki defines "incitement" as:

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal.

IMO, I dont see any criminal encouragement in that statement. It seems more akin to "you will reap what you sow". Meh. Everyone is one word away from Stage 4 Butthurt.

[Volourn]

"Of course Trump showed is orange buttocks by suggesting Sotomayor & Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving him because they criticized him in public. They probably shouldn't have but no law against it. "

 

If a judge clearly shows bias against a defendant they shouldn't be presiding over their cases. Also, of note, no hint of violence here (and Trump is no stranger tto  using niot so subtle hints of violence) but he didn't in that case.

 

However, Schumer can easily be seen as physical threats and even if he does not it surely encourages others to do giving them the moral okay to do so much like Trump has done  in the past. Of course, I believe in personal responsibility and if someone attacked the judges that would be on them. But, no doubt Schumer would  spout fake platitudes if it were happen much like when those republicans got shot up on the baseball field. People cheered and said they got what theyd eserved. LMAO

Edited March 7, 2020 by Volourn

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Somehow I'm not concerned about a judge (who may or may not have raped someone in college) getting shot by a frenzied supporter of the cheesecake superfan. I am concerned about the militarization of state forces, like ICE recently knocking on doors in full tacticool gear, because that is actually happening now.

[ShadySands]

16 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

There is also rumbling that if Bernie does not get the nomination he will try as IND. I doubt that will happen but you never know. 

I doubt it too. They spread that same rumor last time around.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

I doubt it too. They spread that same rumor last time around.

Yeah, IMO has like a ~0% chance of occurring. He is all about defeating Trump.

[Zoraptor]

Yet another ceasefire in Syria. Looks like it's basically a Turkish surrender, Syria gets to keep every bit of reclaimed territory and the rebels effectively hand over everything south of the M4 too. Turkey gets literally none of the stuff they were demanding beforehand- no return to original Sochi lines, no M5, observation points still surrounded. Looks like another 6 month delay to the rebel loss rather than anything permanent.

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I doubt it too. They spread that same rumor last time around.

Pretty much everything is being done the same way as last time. Absolutely no lessons learnt whatsoever. Anyone with any enthusiasm is a BernieBro, who couldn't be bothered voting so don't matter, what are they going to do if Hillary Joe is picked vote Trump?, everything has been done perfectly above board, [candidate] is electable Bernie isn't, Bernie isn't even a proper Democrat and will run as an independent if he loses, and, of course, there is absolutely no anti Bern bias. I've seen two different D talking heads on BBC and AlJ run through exactly that set of talking points with barely concealed glee, which also happened last time too.

At least Biden isn't actively disliked as much as Hillary was, but then he also wouldn't have the draw of being the first woman candidate. I find the emphasis on being 'electable' particularly stupid since electable for the Democrats always seems to mean run of the mill and inoffensive to party sensibilities. Every single candidate picked primarily for 'electability' has lost, because if you're labeling your candidate as 'electable' it's pretty much saying that there isn't anything better to say about them than that they can win. The successful D candidates of my lifetime- BClinton and Obama- were not the safe options, far from it, they were the ones with some ability to actively enthuse those who aren't apparatchniks. Every time they've gone for the safe candidate they've lost, and lost to extraordinarily flawed candidates like GWBush and Trump who at least had some ability to enthuse.

[HoonDing]

Make America Grope Again

[Malcador]

So are they cheating Bernie out of a win ?

[ShadySands]

16 minutes ago, Malcador said:

So are they cheating Bernie out of a win ?

No, not really and not directly.  They are trying to drive down and explain away his support somewhat gleefully though. 

Biden was basically saved by Jim Clyburn and then bolstered by the other candidates in his lane all dropping out and supporting him

[Malcador]

Ah ok, just been reading people carrying on as if there's some conspiracy against him. Bit dramatic as it's not as if he's completely toast, anyway.