-
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 2019 |OT7| It's happening
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
It's weird how it's seen as her and the squad getting humbled while the Dems Overton Window continues to go left
4d chess!
I'm glad they decided to work through the Democratic Party, instead of running 3rd party and not accomplishing shit
New PPP (B on 538)/End Citizens United poll based on 628 NC registered voters, MoE is 3.9%, 42% Dem/35% Repub/23% Independents, conducted on September 16-17
Cal Cunningham: 45% (+4 since June poll)
Thom TIllis: 43% (+3 since June poll)
Unsure: 12% (-7 since June poll)
TIllis approval rating: 33% approve/51% disapprove/16% unsure (23/46/31 since June poll)
Trump approval rating: 47/49/4 (46/49/5 since June poll)
Generic Dem: 50%
Trump: 47%
Kind of weird to think about how on healthcare for example, the public option was seen as the progressive gold standard about a decade ago that the moderate/conservative wing of the party was freaking the fuck out over, now literally every Democrat in the country supports it and it's regarded as the chickenshit corporate sellout position.
I'd like to know what the supposed reasoning for Iran attacking Saudi Arabia is. Plus, how they managed to completely bypass the US presence in the region.
With this administration, incompetence is not out of the question
I'd still like to know if there were any people hurt in the attack. Because... where the hell has that information been?
Iran engaging in a game of chicken with the US doesn't strike me as being outside the realm of possibility now that Bolton's gone.
Indeed.
Makes me wonder (well, not really, I think I just know this is the case) if Obama is being judged more harshly in hindsight in leftist circles based on the politics of what he accomplished in 09-10 with a Democratic Congress, versus what positions he endorsed by the time he left office but couldn't really implement due to Republican obstructionism. Even within just the eight years he was president, the median Democratic position on just about everything has zoomed to the left.
I mean shit, one of the last major programs he proposed during his last year in office was wage insurance, a stone's throw away from the UBI that Yang proposed. You know who else endorsed a form of UBI to little fanfare? Harris, she promised up to $500 a month to families making less than $100,000. Clinton almost included it in her platform and only backed off once the numbers were crunched and showed it would need a major tax hike to work. She should have gone for it anyway, promising crazy shit and figuring out the details later seems to have been the winning strategy in 2016.
That's a great point, how has this not been released?
In fact, I'll maintain that I think media coverage has been widely restrained and muted considering the size of the attack.
No, thank you. I am not a fan of candidates who don't even have the conscious thought of figuring out how to realistically implement their legislative priorities. One of the refreshing things about Clinton.
When it comes to criticisms of Obama, there are aspects that make me go "yeah thats not great but times were different back then" and there are things that make go "no lol fuck that"
The whole situation around the attack is weird. Like, nobody spotted foreign drones in Saudi airspace? Or how about the US immediately blaming Iran with no proof rather than, you know, the people SA is actually at war with? See, it's stuff like this that makes it easy to jump to conspiracy theories.
In a vacuum I'd agree with you but I'd prefer the timeline where Clinton wins and can't realistically deliver on one of her promises (especially if it's taken as a given that the GOP still has a death grip on the House in this universe, which means no version of it would ever come up for a vote anyway) over this one where Trump wins and can't deliver on his economic promises, but can deliver on his bullshit culture war promises by murdering children.
And that's fair, not saying he's impervious to criticism, there's just plenty of people that conflate the two. "Oh, the Senate wouldn't pass a public option or the cap & trade bill? Guess Obama wasn't serious about wanting it, fuck that guy." He becomes a scapegoat for a systemic issue as if someone who was simply better could have done it.
Like I have a friend who argued with me once that Obama didn't do enough to overturn the Citizens United decision, even though he couldn't point to one singular thing Obama should have done differently that would have changed things. What would President Bernie have done? Smother Roberts in his sleep?
I mean that's what Obama did to Scalia and that didn't help at all
they were tiny drones, at night, kinda hard to see
I mean that's probably what will end up happening, but shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhush.
Eh. I don't panic. Shoring up Obamacare should be job one. It can be done relatively quickly (compared to coming up with a whole new plan) and doesn't preclude still coming up with a whole new plan.
And by 'shore up' I mean stuff like, make it what it was supposed to be in the first place. Reintroduce the public option. Start taxing people that don't have insurance that could afford it. Etc. We're going to have a fuckload to do, right off the bat. Instead of spending years forging the perfect thing, I'd rather some quick fixes to start saving lives asap, then coming back to look at it in more detail when we've made some real strides on the climate, on presidential oversight, voter disenfranchisement, the supreme court, state hood for territories, etc.
And by 'shore up' I mean stuff like, make it what it was supposed to be in the first place. Reintroduce the public option. Start taxing people that don't have insurance that could afford it. Etc. We're going to have a fuckload to do, right off the bat. Instead of spending years forging the perfect thing, I'd rather some quick fixes to start saving lives asap, then coming back to look at it in more detail when we've made some real strides on the climate, on presidential oversight, voter disenfranchisement, the supreme court, state hood for territories, etc.
It's also the most likely path to winning the election. They can surely find a way to rein in out of control costs too.
Messaging like that is too complicated for most people, so they don't bother.
A strong public option, dropping the Medicare enrollment age to 50 and introducing massive cost controls is my ideal for "fixing" Obamacare. The public option creates a backdoor to single-payer if the insurance companies can't get it together.
A bill to deal with prescription drug prices has been on Pelosi's top ten for a while, and now HRs 1-9 all have a bill attached to them, with the exception of HR 2 which has been set aside for infrastructure. Curious what Pelosi has planned for HR 10, it mentions in the article she has "something special" in mind for it but hasn't announced it yet.
(like, not that any of it will become law within the next year and a half, just interesting as it sort of forms the groundwork for what I imagine a unified House and Senate could pass right away under a Democratic president as easy "first 100 days" accomplishments)
Dropping Medicare to 50 would be amazing for my parents.
My dad's work insurance sucks.
You know I dont see why Pelosi would even insert herself into the equation on that one. Single Payet is not happening but I would rather she just shut up about it.
Also if all the fixes to Obamacare that were needed actually went through it would still be a big overhaul of our current system.
Also if all the fixes to Obamacare that were needed actually went through it would still be a big overhaul of our current system.
Wasn't Trump calling Bibi their king recently? Or was Trump saying that he's the Israeli king? How am I supposed to keep track of the ravings of a madman?
Please tell me that Schumer's message about Beto, and this message here, are some part of an nth dimensional chess to get people to respond to just how many agree with Beto, and how many people will come forward with exactly what they need from healthcare that not even Obamacare is providing.
"I believe the path to 'health care for all' is a path following the lead of the Affordable Care Act," Pelosi told Cramer. "Let's use our energy to have health care for all Americans, and that involves over 150 million families that have it through the private sector."
I get that she's trying to say "don't mess with the healthcare that 150 million families have", but it's such a reductive statement when you're not taking into account the financial health, access to employment, coverage denials, prescriptions, etc. The messaging of the ACA wasn't good even back when it was passed and Sebelius was in charge of implementing it.
Ah. That's the Democrats I know. Defeatist, no spines, don't disturb the pharmaceutical & insurance companies and their record profits, and make very slight incremental improvements to the existing abhorrent healthcare system. ObamaCare sucks. Fighting for Medicare For All entails Democrats fighting for it hard themselves. What Pelosi is doing is stupidly counter-productive.
I 100% believe Trump WANTS Warren, not that she will be easier to beat than Biden. Trump is a huge sexist and dumb enough to think the "Pocahontas" attack will work. She can beat him.
ACA is a massive improvement over the previous system, especially before it was hacked up by the Supreme Court (Medicaid expansion) and the GOP Congress and Trump (mandate). Letting the perfect be the enemy of good is just to the cause as helpful as Pelosi shooting down single-payer.
Medicare has relatively high associated costs, as well as coverage and lifetime limits, so it may not actually be a good thing if he's still working.
It's better than nothing (which is what most older retirees would have access to), but it's not the free access to care that some imagine it to be.
That should tell you why it's of the utmost importance that everyone fight for Medicare For All. ACA hasn't addressed anything about the affordable part of its name. It's still as expensive as it always has been. If an entire party doesn't fight for something with conviction, then we will never see universal healthcare happen. Aiming for slow, incremental improvements will ensure for-profit institutions will keep politicians at their beck-and-call.
Aiming for slow, incremental improvements is aiming for something that actually stands a chance of passing within the next 25 years.
Not saying we shouldn't fight for M4A (or again, that ACA is perfect), but the idea that it was a big sellout to insurance companies who love it is a joke.
If Nixon's ACA-esque bill had passed in the 70s, future politicians could have built on it and it could have culminated in Obama passing single-payer. Passing single-payer in 09 would have been a bigger system shock than it would be today.
Pass a public option (which was in the original ACA bill Pelosi passed!), implement cost controls, lower the Medicare age and watch the insurance industry adapt or die.
- Status