US Politics

fishfingers15 said:
Yeah she should have resigned 10 years ago because America conspired to vote for President Orange buffoon. Morons
Click to expand...

She should have retired 10 years ago because she was 75 and had 2 different types of cancer. She doesnt deserve to sit on the court forever because she would rather do that than take up knitting. Her decision affects hundreds of millions of people. They had a supermajority. She could have practically chosen a successor to carry on her work. She was selfish.
 
Imagine someone thinking they were still the best person for the job.
 
Eboue said:
She should have retired 10 years ago because she was 75 and had 2 different types of cancer. She doesnt deserve to sit on the court forever because she would rather do that than take up knitting. Her decision affects hundreds of millions of people. They had a supermajority. She could have practically chosen a successor to carry on her work. She was selfish.
Click to expand...

Of course I agree she was selfish. Likewise, you should have not voted for Harambe when you knew there were 2 or 3 SC judges on the line here. You were selfish too. I will be surprised if we didn't have the same argument in this forum before.
 
berbatrick said:
@Pexbo

The Dems had the senate till 2014.
Click to expand...

Good point. She could have held on until 2012 until Obama got re-elected. But as Eboue mentions really she should have retired in 09-10 after her pancreatic cancer diagnosis. At her age and health there was no valid reason for her to stay on at that point. For me this is why the Republicans keep winning because the Democrats have no foresight and many of their most powerful people are more selfish than they are long term strategic thinkers. She should have been wise enough to see that stepping down under Obama would been the best move she could have made.

Ubik said:
Imagine someone thinking they were still the best person for the job.
Click to expand...

Yes. Hubris is definitely a problem with US Democrats.
 
Really good Podcast from the Atlantic this week on the last 30 years of the GOP. They've essentially become a party that exists solely to get into power, and have no identity in terms of policy or idea of what to do once they're there.

All stems from Newt Gingrich - how history could be different if his parents had a clue what the name would do to him - and his correct belief that the GOP could win purely on the power of fear and negation. Stand for nothing, furiously stand against everything.

What is fascinating is that demographics are really against this strategy. Even with a propaganda channel, exceptional 2010 gerrymandering and corrupt-as-f*ck politicians, their base will never grow above 40% of the population because they're choosing to alienate the others.

Also nice bit of history in that the only reason Reagan got involved was to run an ad with his actor hat on. An inciteful, longing for the good ole days ad too.
 
Beachryan said:
Really good Podcast from the Atlantic this week on the last 30 years of the GOP. They've essentially become a party that exists solely to get into power, and have no identity in terms of policy or idea of what to do once they're there.

All stems from Newt Gingrich - how history could be different if his parents had a clue what the name would do to him - and his correct belief that the GOP could win purely on the power of fear and negation. Stand for nothing, furiously stand against everything.

What is fascinating is that demographics are really against this strategy. Even with a propaganda channel, exceptional 2010 gerrymandering and corrupt-as-f*ck politicians, their base will never grow above 40% of the population because they're choosing to alienate the others.

Also nice bit of history in that the only reason Reagan got involved was to run an ad with his actor hat on. An inciteful, longing for the good ole days ad too.
Click to expand...

The main problem with US politics is the bolded also 100% applies to the Democrat party ever since Clintons in 1992.
 
Beachryan said:
Universal healthcare?
Click to expand...

For the new incoming like Ocasio-Cortez definitely but the Dems in power for the last 30 years haven't cared about it was what I meant. Hopefully we the people can keep enough pressure on them to not sell us out like they did in 08-10.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
For the new incoming like Ocasio-Cortez definitely but the Dems in power for the last 30 years haven't cared about it was what I meant. Hopefully we the people can keep enough pressure on them to not sell us out like they did in 08-10.
Click to expand...

What about the last administration which campaigned on and delivered (an albeit compromised version of) Universal Healthcare?
 
Pexbo said:
What about the last administration which campaigned on and delivered (an albeit compromised version of) Universal Healthcare?
Click to expand...
The closest thing that resemble something remotely universal in that bill was the public option and it got taken out because supposedly they didn’t have the votes in the Senate, only for the bill to be passed not needing a supermajority in the Senate at all.

Obama on a personal level is a thoroughly decent man, but his politics has been decidedly rightwing, centre right at best. His favorite economist is Tom Friedman ffs.
 
Pexbo said:
What about the last administration which campaigned on and delivered (an albeit compromised version of) Universal Healthcare?
Click to expand...

Oh no I don't accept this one at all. Forcing people to buy expensive, inefficient private insurance is not what the people thought Obama meant when he was campaigning on a public option. Obama campaigned on a public option and what he delivered was an awful plan written by the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies based on a 1989 extremely conservative Heritage Foundation plan to benefit for-profit insurance companies.

First, nothing about the ACA fixed any of the structural incentive problems that come with privatized health insurance. See here for detailed look from a businessman from a libertarian perspective who still acknowledges that national universal coverage for catastrophic coverage is necessary. So here we have a libertarian who is actually saying we need more of a public option (nationalized catastrophic coverage) than what the Democrats in Congress were fighting for!

@berbatrick has posted some great articles detailing the bait and switch the Democrats pulled with campaigning on the popular idea that the US would get European/Australian/Canadian/Japanese style universal public insurance yet somehow we get a privatized insurance system based on a 1989 ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation plan that the HMO and pharmaceuticals wanted with no patients rights, consumer activist or representative for the millions driven to bankruptcy and the brink by insane privatized medical bills.

What I heard many idealistic liberals around the SF Bay Area were saying in 2007/08 ("Obama is finally going to give the US public universal health care like the rest of the civilized world!!!") and what they got (As Tom Daschle says " It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it’s debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation") were drastically different. We had a massive bait and switch pulled on us. The Obama campaign allowed the idea that he was going to force a public option to the discussion (that even in 2008 had 65% popularity). But no they didn't fight for that.

So no, Obama was the exact opposite of standing up for policy or principled ideas. He was the opposite of standing his ground for meaningful health care reform including public options. He sold the US public down the river and firmly into the hands of the insurance companies and pharmaceutical profiteers. He allowed the health profiteers and pharmaceuticals to write the bill they have wanted since the 1990s to firmly entrench a privatized (and inefficient) health care bureaucracy.

And as @Eboue recently linked in another thread, the ACA didn't even reduce any costs as they consistently claimed. Go look in the health care thread where I have linked research that documents things like how physicians have only grown by 150% since the 1980s in the US while "health care administrators" have grown by 3200%
Or how the profiteers in health care and pharma have been working behind the scenes and spending a lot in lobbying to kill any Congressional momentum for the public option that has only grown in popularity. So yeah universal healthcare is the opposite of an issue the Democrats were principled on policy and issues and the perfect example of a bait and switch of selling one thing on the campaign trail to appeal to the people and then governing solely for the benefit of privatized for-profit special interests.
 
Dem Leader Steny Hoyer Says House Won’t Seat NC Republican Amid Election Fraud Investigation

By now you’ve probably heard about the election fraud investigation in North Carolina’s 9th district. The state board of elections dissolved today without certifying the results, days before the new Congress is seated.

But the latest development is that Democratic House leader Steny Hoyer is now saying the House will not seat Republican Mark Harris.

In a statement to the Washington Post, Hoyer said, “Given the now well-documented election fraud that took place in NC-09, Democrats would object to any attempt by [Mark] Harris to be seated on January 3. In this instance, the integrity of our democratic process outweighs concerns about the seat being vacant at the start of the new Congress.”

He said on MSNBC late this afternoon that they would “certainLy” oppose Harris’ seating because he is not the certified winner.

“We’ll see what the court does,” he said, “but it is clear apparently from all sides that there was fraud committed by certain participants in the administration of the election.”
Click to expand...



https://www.mediaite.com/online/dem...republican-amid-election-fraud-investigation/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.