-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT13| And now the fun starts
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
This has always been the most baffling part of the "strategy" is he trying to run out the clock until he has less power?
Bingo. Divide and conquer, especially with how the suburban swinging is accellerating.
Post-election and has been doing crunch symposiums with Lieu for working up extra viciousness.
This is gross and sad.
Sanders lost me permanently when he attempted to dismiss Planned Parenthood as the "political establishment". I would definitely put that in the same category as Biden's dumb shit. Both Biden and Sanders have a tendency to attack and dismiss things in a cavalier and ignorant fashion that I find disqualifying. It's funny when it's Biden laughing at Paul Ryan or Sanders railing against Wall Street, but both of them shoot from the hip and often wildly miss the mark.
I don't want either of them anywhere near the Presidency because I think they both lack the perspective necessary to have empathy for people in situations outside of their core world views.
You do know that all research shows that free-college would mainly benefit people and groups that already get into college and pay for them? Middle Class White people?
The majority of minorites that need help, need it to even graduate high school in a fashion taht they are even prepared for college, much less pay for it.
I'd guess people interpreted that as "idk ask me when they're publicly known"
This is "I don't know what I truly want, but I know what I DON'T want!" the chart.
Anyone who's ever had a dumbass boss knows what i'm talking about.
Black people receive benefits from medicare and social security, and not even white people in the state of Mississippi want it repealed.
It's true that is racism used as way to get white people to vote against their economic interests, but if you put an actual good welfare program that helps people, they will learn to love it.
I also think that saying that we can't do big welfare programs until we end racism pretty much says that we can't do big welfare programs, and I refuse to be that defeatist, not to mention that all the welfare programs the US does have were passed in the time that the US was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more racist than it is right now.
You do know social security wasn't even allow d for non-whites when it was first implemented? And that is one of the big reasons it was passed?
Yup. Were it not for racism, we would be more socialist than the Nordic countries
The problem with the statement about "putting identity politics at the forefront and running a PC outrage campaign" is that it's not really true of Democratic politics. Even in 2016 (when you could arguably say Hillary tried, unsuccessfully to tap into this), North Carolina - a state that Trump won by three points - was ground zero for trans bathroom issues and their Republican governor fucking lost. Or look at Virginia in 2017, with Danica Roem's historic campaign. All her opponent could do was attack her for being a trans woman, including deliberately misgendering her in official statements, and was the primary sponsor of Virginia's own bathroom bill. Roem's campaign focused on healthcare and local infrastructure and she won handily.
Complaining about "identity politics" is the left equivalent of Fox News pushing the "Liberals don't want you to say Merry Christmas" narrative. No one on the left is pushing "identity politics" to the forefront of the conversation, or at least no one in the mainstream, and yet the myth persists. The same people also spent most of 2018 complaining that Democrats had no platform other than opposing Trump, even when like 90% of their campaign strategy centered around healthcare and didn't mention Trump. Suggesting that the problem with the Democratic Party in 2018 is that it focuses too strongly on "identity politics" is coded language for "the party's not white enough."
That's not actually true.
They put a bunch of rules that were designed to specifically fuck minorities (like the US always do) but it was never written as a "white only" law, and it really couldn't have been.
Either way that's besides the point, this is not really been the case for many years, and it didn't make white people hate those programs, even though the GOP and right wing media have been doing a 50 years project to try to vilify them.
For real, they were so unsuccessful in getting people to hate those programs they just gave up and started lying about liking them and trying to mask their destruction as "necessary steps we must take to protect the programs we love".
I can't tell who has the smaller 'Shouldn't Run', is it Beto or Klobuchar?
Also, very interesting to see that a Bernie candidacy easily has the biggest opposition of all the probable candidates (we all know Clinton isn't running).
Election day is in the past. She gave civility a few days to work. Now the claws are out.
Deliberately excluding certain classes of workers, such as domestic servants, was tantamount to making it a whites-only or nearly so law at the time, yes. It had to be expanded later.
If the effect is largely the same, the law doesn't have to have WHITES ONLY written in bold print.
It's not so much that you shouldn't try, but you have to acknowledge that much of that resistance is coming from that worldview.
http://theconversation.com/how-racism-has-shaped-welfare-policy-in-america-since-1935-63574
As posted above, the new medicaid work requirement exemptions are being rolled out in a way that disproportionately harms African Americans:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...aid-work-requirements-spread-to-3-states.html
A government unwilling to acknowledge racial disparity in policy and implementation is just going to perpetrate another half century of increasing wealth/health/outcome divides.
You have to convince at least some of the electorate that black welfare queens and drug peddling migrants are not going to be the primary beneficiaries of these programs, otherwise Fox and Limbaugh will kill both endeavors in their cribs. Or they'll pass, with so many stipulations and loopholes that the minority population won't be able to enjoy the same benefits as everyone else.
One of the biggest lies that Americans tell themselves is that laws that don't specifically mention race can't be racist.
Ah yes, the fabled SOMEONE ENTIRELY NEW 2020. I hope that unicorn runs and farts rainbows like the stories of old. How do you also answer 'never heard of them' in SOMEONE NEW?
I am not denying that racists are an obstacle to progress in this country.
I'm challenging the idea that they're an insurmountable one, which outside being kinda counter-productive, is also not really supported by history.
Looks like the dems are primed to have their 2016 dumbass wildcard candidate moment.
SHERROD brown is prepping a campaign for 2020. he's starting to hire campaign workers, he's setting up a meeting with Obama in the next few months. I think he'll announce his race by nov. 2019
So, how long do people here think the shutdown will go on for?
I think Trump is too dumb, followed by too stubborn, to let this go quickly. Since we're relying on Nancy instead of Chuck to hold the line, I figure we're good for two weeks total, for starters. Nice trial by fire for Mick, too.
I think Trump is too dumb, followed by too stubborn, to let this go quickly. Since we're relying on Nancy instead of Chuck to hold the line, I figure we're good for two weeks total, for starters. Nice trial by fire for Mick, too.
Pffftt, he's a nobody on the national stage. He'll fare about as well as Webb did.
November 2019....what? Voting begins in January 19. The first debate is in June. You have to announce by May.
"And as an example, look at this program that technically didn't exclude minorities when enacted. It only defacto excluded them."
Unless you're suggesting all future social safety nets be implemented by defacto excluding minorities, this isn't actually a cogent argument against the post you originally quoted and you know it
As an example, I look at a system that does not exclude black people right now (in fact, they're over represented in many of those programs) and I observe how it doesn't make racist white people want to get it abolished, even though both the GOP and right wing media has been trying to get them to hate these programs for generations now.
Do you really don't understand my argument?
Most candidates will likely be in by the end of March.
Your argument is irrelevant when the point is that racism is a barrier to LEGISLATING SOCIAL SAFETY NETS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
During this fall I experienced two full-on shelter-in-place lockdowns and another three or four where we'd lock and cover the doors but continue teaching.
It won't be as good as it should be, but the next time there's a unified Democratic Congress+president it'll be significantly more progressive than it was from 2009-2011, which itself was more progressive than the one from 1993-1995.
Medicaid buy-in is probably the easiest solution in practice, the groundwork for it has already been laid with the Medicaid expansion.
Medicare has the better brand recognition though.
It was not a barrier in the 60s when people were way more racist, and even looking at social security, it wasn't that FDR had to make concessions to racists to get the votes for the bill. It was just that the bill was written mostly by racists and more importantly, administrated by racists who fucked black people because that's what racist people do. And by the way, the OG social security bill was waaaaay more sexist than it was racist.
And even looking at more recent events, the ACA didn't have a public option not because it didn't appeal enough to racists, it didn't have it because insurance companies bought enough Democrats to torpedo it. And looking forward, I can't imagine anything that a democrat would do that won't be vilified but the right. Seriously, you think if a Democratic candidate push for medicare for all white people the GOP wouldn't treat it like it's Sharia Law Communism?
So basically, tack a public option onto the ACA, call it Medi-something for all, and raise the subsidy ceiling to ~$200k for a family of four. We really can't do anything about the Medicaid expansion in Florida and Texas, but after the aforementioned fixes, people in those states will be clamoring for it when they realize they are basically subsidizing healthcare for the rest of the country.
It's super popular, very difficult to argue against, and fairly non-disruptive (at first).
This is way better than right now, but it will create a tiered healthcare system where rich people get way better treatment.
I'm not even saying it's the wrong thing to go after (it really depends on what majorities you have really), I'm just trying to point the issues with a public option solution.
I mean, this is unavoidable to a certain degree. Rich people will generally always seek better options than it what is available to lower classes. That's why private hospitals still exist in Canada, France, Germany, etc....., and rich people or folks with supplemental health insurance through their employer use them. It doesn't really matter, as long as there are enough providers accepting ACA plans to serve the general population.
Do you even read the shit that you are saying? That the racist people who wrote the racist bill didn't think about making it racist does nothing to prove your assertion that "no guys, really, racism isn't that big a deal in hindering America's social safety net".
The point is that American whites are opposed to their tax dollars going to support minorities.
That's why welfare is in shambles.
That's why food stamps keep being cut.
That's why Mississppi's education is so poor ('they just want to give your money to Hinds County!)
And until that is addressed, good luck getting shit all done.
Your refusal to acknowledge this is a systemic issue with leftist groups.
What voting happens in January 2019? How would there be primary voting if most candidates haven't announced yet?
- Status