2020 Election Thoughts

[greg775]

1 hour ago, pettie4sox said:

I would say the police reform is absolutely needed.  The defund the police is worst branding than calling basic human rights socialism.

Not trying to beat up AOC again but a.) did you see her statement: "Defund the police means defund the police!" In other words get rid of the police. Also b.) did you see the Democrat Senator Joe Manchin  in West Virginia said he would not vote for radical left issues like defunding the police, packing the court, adding states, etc., which means the Georgia elections don't matter. He will vote Republican on those issues. So this Democratic senator is now a Republican hero since his vote will make the difference with everybody voting party lines.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/525725-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tweets-displeasure-of-manchin-after-he-attacks-crazy-socialist

Edited November 13, 2020 by greg775

[whitesoxfan99]

54 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Sorry - I reread that and I realize my post may have been construed as saying police reform is not needed. I meant to say it absolutely is needed - so if white was saying that everyone supports defund the policy - if by defund the policy he means that is literally the same as police reform - than yeah, that is awful branding.  

I may be naive, but I always thought defund the police was the more extreme term that was thrown by a much smaller minority of people who want I guess far more radical police reform.  I think the reality is most of this nation supports police reform, including politicians on both side of the aisle - to different levels.  

I’m sure some people use it to say police should be abolished but it’s really referring to taking money  from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and other reforms.  

[Quin]

3 hours ago, pettie4sox said:

I just wanna say this list needs a way, way deeper dive.

- Max Rose represents Staten Island, a place with heavy police presence. I'm sure "defund the police" harmed him greatly.

- Debbie Murcasel-Powell (26th, Florida only has 27 districts) and Donna Shalala suffered from Donald Trump's heavy "Biden is a socialist" down ballot messaging. That messaging resonated with Cuban voters in Florida - it's why the state went red. 

- Medicare for All would not play well at all in Peterson, Cunningham, or Horn's districts. Having Peterson - a near 30 year incumbent and the most conservative Dem in the house from the most conservative district here - on here is really just trying to pad the stats.

(I say this as someone who would love to have Medicare for All in this country)

[Danny Dravot]

7 hours ago, pettie4sox said:

I would say the police reform is absolutely needed.  The defund the police is worst branding than calling basic human rights socialism.

Health insurance isn’t a “basic human right”. Freedom of speech is a human right because it requires nothing of another person for me to run my mouth however I please. But if you are given a right to health insurance, we are granting you unconditional access to another person’s labor. So...not a human right.

We should have a system where the truly needy have subsidized health insurance, but that’s much different than calling it a human right and it doesn’t address everybody regardless of their own situation. Why should the state pay for my health insurance or yours?

[Danny Dravot]

6 hours ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

I’m sure some people use it to say police should be abolished but it’s really referring to taking money  from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and other reforms.  

I think that is popular but I don’t think it’s all that progressive.

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I think that is popular but I don’t think it’s all that progressive.

That is literally to the letter what progressives want. That is exactly what defunding the police is supposed to mean. Word for word, precisely, without any changes.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Health insurance isn’t a “basic human right”. Freedom of speech is a human right because it requires nothing of another person for me to run my mouth however I please. But if you are given a right to health insurance, we are granting you unconditional access to another person’s labor. So...not a human right.

We should have a system where the truly needy have subsidized health insurance, but that’s much different than calling it a human right and it doesn’t address everybody regardless of their own situation. Why should the state pay for my health insurance or yours?

Because everyone benefits when people are able to access health care without difficulty. People who have illnesses, esp chronic ones, can get treatment to avoid things getting worse, allowing them to stay in the workforce. People who have health concerns can afford to take risks like starting businesses because they’re not locked to jobs by the health coverage. People who think they are healthy are not ambushed by huge costs when something goes wrong. When a pandemic strikes, people don’t spread things because they’re scared to get treatment due to the cost. People don’t die if the flu because they’re scared of the treatment costs, which we see every year - keeping them as productive members of society. Huge amounts of money and time are spent verifying that people qualify for health care, or denying it when possible - that money is basically hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, lots of it taxpayer dollars (think of the last time you had to spend a day calling your insurance to deal with a bill, someone was paid hundreds of dollars to process whatever issue you had). Generally it improves everyone’s quality of life, it’s the right thing to do, and there’s a reason why our health care system is by far the most expensive in the world per person - because we don’t start with that fundamental premise.

[Danny Dravot]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

That is literally to the letter what progressives want. That is exactly what defunding the police is supposed to mean. Word for word, precisely, without any changes.

Uh huh.

That’s why Mayor Frey walked into a several thousand plus crowd in Minneapolis, got asked by one of its leaders if he would commit to defunding the police, who then added, “We don’t want no more police! Is that clear?”, which received a massive cheer from the crowd, and then Frey did a walk of shame through a booing crowd when he said it was more nuanced than that.

Is there a prominent progressive politician that wants it that way? Probably not. Joe Biden? Definitely not. But there is absolutely an ACAB crowd out there that wants that.

[Danny Dravot]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Because everyone benefits when people are able to access health care without difficulty. People who have illnesses, esp chronic ones, can get treatment to avoid things getting worse, allowing them to stay in the workforce. People who have health concerns can afford to take risks like starting businesses because they’re not locked to jobs by the health coverage. People who think they are healthy are not ambushed by huge costs when something goes wrong. When a pandemic strikes, people don’t spread things because they’re scared to get treatment due to the cost. People don’t die if the flu because they’re scared of the treatment costs, which we see every year - keeping them as productive members of society. Huge amounts of money and time are spent verifying that people qualify for health care, or denying it when possible - that money is basically hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, lots of it taxpayer dollars (think of the last time you had to spend a day calling your insurance to deal with a bill, someone was paid hundreds of dollars to process whatever issue you had). Generally it improves everyone’s quality of life, it’s the right thing to do, and there’s a reason why our health care system is by far the most expensive in the world per person - because we don’t start with that fundamental premise.

What if I like my private insurance that I pay for? Can I keep it, or am I deprived of that choice? Are there limits on procedures covered by M4A? Are we going to pay for people to get boob jobs, for instance? Genuine questions.

[The Beast]

9 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

Matt Gaetz also kept his house seat. Marjorie Greene got into one. Is that because voters are obsessed with progressive policies? No. It’s because smaller house districts enable more heavily ideological candidates. AOC will retain NY-14 as long as she wants it, and those two Republican dingbats will do the same in theirs. However, none of them will ever be successful in running for statewide office. I’d put money on that.

Progressivism isn’t as popular as you think. If it was, they’d have taken the Senate easily in a year with a favorable map and a historically unpopular incumbent opponent at the top of the ticket. But they likely won’t. And contrary to your condescending claims, it’s not because the evil mainstream parties brainwash the stupid rubes. How does that even come across as a convincing or endearing argument in your mind?

@whitesoxfan99 what does “defund the police” (the popular concept) mean to you? How has it been marketed in your perception? I’m not trying to set you up, I’m legit curious what you think. Personally, I think Americans like the idea of taking some tasks away from police to make their jobs easier while providing more optimal responses to certain situations, but there have also been many of the hoi polloi who act like “defund the police” means they go away entirely.

 

If progressivism was as popular as people think, Biden wouldn’t have won the nomination, Warren or Sanders would have. It’s quite possible that they could have lost moderates, independents and republicans that voted for Biden of one of them were the nominee. 

As for policies, defunding the police and Medicare For All wouldn’t get passed in this Congress, even if they got the majority in the senate. A public option makes more sense and alienates fewer voters in terms of not displacing workers and the cost. And clearly the branding for “defunding” the police is wrong, instead it should be something like “reforming modern policing” since that is what the bill actually would be.

6 hours ago, greg775 said:

Not trying to beat up AOC again but a.) did you see her statement: "Defund the police means defund the police!" In other words get rid of the police. Also b.) did you see the Democrat Senator Joe Manchin  in West Virginia said he would not vote for radical left issues like defunding the police, packing the court, adding states, etc., which means the Georgia elections don't matter. He will vote Republican on those issues. So this Democratic senator is now a Republican hero since his vote will make the difference with everybody voting party lines.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/525725-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tweets-displeasure-of-manchin-after-he-attacks-crazy-socialist

He won’t “vote Republican,” he will vote as a moderate which is who he has been for years. You are so focused on AOC that you miss the point that their caucus doesn’t make up the majority of the Democratic seats in the legislature, at least not yet. Even so, it’s not likely the progressive caucus will become the Democratic Party given the needs and differing views of voters across the country. There will not be a vote for “defunding the police,” but there could be incremental reform.

[Balta1701]

19 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

What if I like my private insurance that I pay for? Can I keep it, or am I deprived of that choice? Are there limits on procedures covered by M4A? Are we going to pay for people to get boob jobs, for instance? Genuine questions.

If I got to build the best, most efficient and effective system I could from the ground up as a benevolent dictator? Medicare would be a minimal system that covers everyone. You pay like $5 if you need cancer treatment and preventative treatment like a COVID vaccine is free. In cases where not medically needed from an injury or health issue it probably wouldn’t cover cosmetic enhancement.

If you or your company wanted to provide an additional insurance benefit above that through a private insurer, that provides treatments like those and a higher level of service, access to certain high level doctors or facilities or whatever, I would keep that as fully legal and encouraged. Medicare currently has supplemental plans like that for seniors, although they’re a little different as they also cover some copay costs which are too high in Medicare itself. Generally, France, Canada, Germany have setups like that, they are far cheaper than what the US does and have better health outcomes at every level other than the richest of the rich. In fact, we spend more on Medicare right now per person than those countries spend to cover everyone, so this design literally cuts taxes. You can always quarrel at the margins for how much to spend on certain procedures or drugs and what limits there should be, but the administration savings are so large that you save a ton of money, taxpayer dollars included, that you could easily run a system more generous than any of those countries while still saving a ton of money.

But check your privilege here. Why did you default to asking about a procedure for a woman, that could never affect you directly? Should viagra be covered? 

[Danny Dravot]

10 minutes ago, The Beast said:

If progressivism was as popular as people think, Biden wouldn’t have won the nomination, Warren or Sanders would have. It’s quite possible that they could have lost moderates, independents and republicans that voted for Biden of one of them were the nominee. 

As for policies, defunding the police and Medicare For All wouldn’t get passed in this Congress, even if they got the majority in the senate. A public option makes more sense and alienates fewer voters in terms of not displacing workers and the cost. And clearly the branding for “defunding” the police is wrong, instead it should be something like “reforming modern policing” since that is what the bill actually would be.

I agree with all of that. Completely. I maintain that Trump would have crushed Sanders (personally, I voted for Biden but I would have sat out a Trump-Sanders contest).

[Danny Dravot]

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If I got to build the best, most efficient and effective system I could from the ground up as a benevolent dictator? Medicare would be a minimal system that covers everyone. You pay like $5 if you need cancer treatment and preventative treatment like a COVID vaccine is free. In cases where not medically needed from an injury or health issue it probably wouldn’t cover cosmetic enhancement.

If you or your company wanted to provide an additional insurance benefit above that through a private insurer, that provides treatments like those and a higher level of service, access to certain high level doctors or facilities or whatever, I would keep that as fully legal and encouraged. Medicare currently has supplemental plans like that for seniors, although they’re a little different as they also cover some copay costs which are too high in Medicare itself. Generally, France, Canada, Germany have setups like that, they are far cheaper than what the US does and have better health outcomes at every level other than the richest of the rich. In fact, we spend more on Medicare right now per person than those countries spend to cover everyone, so this design literally cuts taxes. You can always quarrel at the margins for how much to spend on certain procedures or drugs and what limits there should be, but the administration savings are so large that you save a ton of money, taxpayer dollars included, that you could easily run a system more generous than any of those countries while still saving a ton of money.

But check your privilege here. Why did you default to asking about a procedure for a woman, that could never affect you directly? Should viagra be covered? 

Check my privilege? Get outta here. My wife wants a boob reduction, eventually. So it does affect me, and no, you shouldn’t pay for it. I picked some medical procedure that I saw as useless and went with it. It wasn’t some misogynistic thing where I just wanted to pick on women. Since you want to level the playing field and pick on men too, no, Viagra should not be covered.

It’s very simple. You shouldn’t die because you get cancer and can’t afford chemo (or insurance that includes chemo). You shouldn’t die of any disease because you can’t afford it. We should subsidize many things in healthcare (still not a human right but that’s neither here nor there). We shouldn’t subsidize quality of life things like many forms of plastic surgery or Viagra, and we shouldn’t subsidize them for people who can otherwise afford them.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Check my privilege? Get outta here. My wife wants a boob reduction, eventually. So it does affect me, and no, you shouldn’t pay for it. I picked some medical procedure that I saw as useless and went with it. It wasn’t some misogynistic thing where I just wanted to pick on women. Since you want to level the playing field and pick on men too, no, Viagra should not be covered.

It’s very simple. You shouldn’t die because you get cancer and can’t afford chemo (or insurance that includes chemo). You shouldn’t die of any disease because you can’t afford it. We should subsidize many things in healthcare (still not a human right but that’s neither here nor there). We shouldn’t subsidize quality of life things like many forms of plastic surgery or Viagra, and we shouldn’t subsidize them for people who can otherwise afford them.

Personally I think a breast reduction and viagra are both quality of life issues, so I would have no problem covering both, but that’s an ok disagreement, very different from arguing that anyone who cant afford the current system should just find a better job like we hear all the time today.

[Danny Dravot]

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Personally I think a breast reduction and viagra are both quality of life issues, so I would have no problem covering both, but that’s an ok disagreement, very different from arguing that anyone who cant afford the current system should just find a better job like we hear all the time today.

That’s fair. I think those are “quality of life” things as well, which is why it should be an individual responsibility and not a collective one. After all, driving a nice car is a quality of life thing, so should you help me achieve that? No way. Subsidize the life threatening stuff, keep drug prices low, let people figure out the QOL stuff on their own time and dime.

[The Beast]

41 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I agree with all of that. Completely. I maintain that Trump would have crushed Sanders (personally, I voted for Biden but I would have sat out a Trump-Sanders contest).

I would have voted in Illinois for someone else but if I were elsewhere in a battleground state I would have had to vote for Sanders just to beat Trump.

One other thought on the parties. Caucuses like the Freedom Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus can have all the agendas they want, but I would prefer that we have legislators who combat problems together, like those who are in the Problem Solver’s Caucus (or groups like the Blue Dog coalition or the Republican Main Street Partnership). It is a stretch given how our politics work in terms of how partisan they have become, but I’m still convinced the way to make lasting change is through bipartisan legislation and not just parties coming into power. I also can’t see a progressive party or far right party forming any time soon, instead we might see a battle within the two parties about the direction of progressivism and Trumpian policy.

With that being said, I’m also curious as to what the Biden administration’s agenda will be if Warnock and Ossoff win in GA. The coronavirus relief bill would seem to be the top priority legislatively but I wonder if he would focus on the public option next, or something else. Certainly I don’t believe he will do anything Greg suggested that AOC said in his post. 

[Balta1701]

30 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I would have voted in Illinois for someone else but if I were elsewhere in a battleground state I would have had to vote for Sanders just to beat Trump.

One other thought on the parties. Caucuses like the Freedom Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus can have all the agendas they want, but I would prefer that we have legislators who combat problems together, like those who are in the Problem Solver’s Caucus (or groups like the Blue Dog coalition or the Republican Main Street Partnership). It is a stretch given how our politics work in terms of how partisan they have become, but I’m still convinced the way to make lasting change is through bipartisan legislation and not just parties coming into power. I also can’t see a progressive party or far right party forming any time soon, instead we might see a battle within the two parties about the direction of progressivism and Trumpian policy.

With that being said, I’m also curious as to what the Biden administration’s agenda will be if Warnock and Ossoff win in GA. The coronavirus relief bill would seem to be the top priority legislatively but I wonder if he would focus on the public option next, or something else. Certainly I don’t believe he will do anything Greg suggested that AOC said in his post. 

Personally, I think that if the Democrats win both Georgia seats, their legislative agenda would still be somewhat limited at least in year 1, because there’s a legit crisis. It’s going to be hard to hold 8 months of hearings to develop major new health care policy in the middle of this nightmare.

The things I think you would see are:

1. A major stimulus and recovery bill similar to the Cares act, with money for schools, restaurants and bars, small businesses, health care firms that have been damaged, the unemployed, and another round of checks to everyone. Perhaps some long term back to work projects get included as stuff to spend money on.

2. The DREAM act. It’s been written for 10 years, it could have gotten 60+ votes in the Senate every single year but McConnell will never bring it up because the people it helps aren’t white. It takes zero work and it is a good win for people.

3. Some minor tweaks on health care and immigration, clear fixes that have become obvious about how the program is running. For example, something has to be done now that the Republicans changed the individual mandate in their tax increase bill.

4. probably a few things to codify things that presidents other than Trump never did, like making it illegal to have a president owning businesses that are taking direct payments from foreign governments.

5. A lot of other stuff related to the virus crisis. There should be a bipartisan commission created to investigate the government response, there may need to be changes to the CDC or other contracts with businesses, and that will take an awful lot of congressional time.

Getting to anything big beyond that requires ending the current crisis. Until that is over, you won’t see a major new tax bill or healthcare bill.

[Danny Dravot]

58 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I would have voted in Illinois for someone else but if I were elsewhere in a battleground state I would have had to vote for Sanders just to beat Trump.

One other thought on the parties. Caucuses like the Freedom Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus can have all the agendas they want, but I would prefer that we have legislators who combat problems together, like those who are in the Problem Solver’s Caucus (or groups like the Blue Dog coalition or the Republican Main Street Partnership). It is a stretch given how our politics work in terms of how partisan they have become, but I’m still convinced the way to make lasting change is through bipartisan legislation and not just parties coming into power. I also can’t see a progressive party or far right party forming any time soon, instead we might see a battle within the two parties about the direction of progressivism and Trumpian policy.

With that being said, I’m also curious as to what the Biden administration’s agenda will be if Warnock and Ossoff win in GA. The coronavirus relief bill would seem to be the top priority legislatively but I wonder if he would focus on the public option next, or something else. Certainly I don’t believe he will do anything Greg suggested that AOC said in his post. 

I totally agree with this. I’m not thrilled about Biden but I did vote for him and his likely SecDef, Michele Flournoy, is like ideological viagra for me. I despise Trump’s character more than his policies (for the most part). If I had a rooting interest in this election, it was a Biden win with a Republican Senate, so I’m sitting pretty right now.

[southsider2k5]

3 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

Health insurance isn’t a “basic human right”. Freedom of speech is a human right because it requires nothing of another person for me to run my mouth however I please. But if you are given a right to health insurance, we are granting you unconditional access to another person’s labor. So...not a human right.

We should have a system where the truly needy have subsidized health insurance, but that’s much different than calling it a human right and it doesn’t address everybody regardless of their own situation. Why should the state pay for my health insurance or yours?

Its cute you think you aren't paying for others in the system we have set up now.

[pettie4sox]

3 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

Health insurance isn’t a “basic human right”. Freedom of speech is a human right because it requires nothing of another person for me to run my mouth however I please. But if you are given a right to health insurance, we are granting you unconditional access to another person’s labor. So...not a human right.

We should have a system where the truly needy have subsidized health insurance, but that’s much different than calling it a human right and it doesn’t address everybody regardless of their own situation. Why should the state pay for my health insurance or yours?

By that logic we should have an option whether we want our tax dollars to go to the military.  I'm sure plenty of people would opt out of that.

Edited November 13, 2020 by pettie4sox

[pettie4sox]

9 hours ago, Quin said:

I just wanna say this list needs a way, way deeper dive.

- Max Rose represents Staten Island, a place with heavy police presence. I'm sure "defund the police" harmed him greatly.

- Debbie Murcasel-Powell (26th, Florida only has 27 districts) and Donna Shalala suffered from Donald Trump's heavy "Biden is a socialist" down ballot messaging. That messaging resonated with Cuban voters in Florida - it's why the state went red. 

- Medicare for All would not play well at all in Peterson, Cunningham, or Horn's districts. Having Peterson - a near 30 year incumbent and the most conservative Dem in the house from the most conservative district here - on here is really just trying to pad the stats.

(I say this as someone who would love to have Medicare for All in this country)

Why do we need to limit the message of "progressives" to defund the police though.  I think if they stick to policies that actually help you as a worker that message will resonate with most even if they don't want to admit it.  

 

You want you healthcare?  You want a livable wage?  You want to build for the future?  Back them up with policy and the democrats would actually have a message instead of their do nothing and claim the other side is bad.  People are desperate and if dems sounds like repubs which they do quite frankly, just vote for the repub.  I would.

Edited November 13, 2020 by pettie4sox

[Danny Dravot]

25 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

By that logic we should have an option whether we want our tax dollars to go to the military.  I'm sure plenty of people would opt out of that.

The military is a collective good and one of the few legitimate purposes of the federal government. Helping you save money on healthcare so you can take a vacation and drive a nicer car is not.

[pettie4sox]

13 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

The military is a collective good and one of the few legitimate purposes of the federal government. Helping you save money on healthcare so you can take a vacation and drive a nicer car is not.

I would enjoy discussing things with you more if you weren't so linear in thinking.  You are the king of straw man and very disingenuous.

[Danny Dravot]

1 minute ago, pettie4sox said:

I would enjoy discussing things with you more if you weren't so linear in thinking.  You are the king of straw man and very disingenuous.

I suspect we’ll always disagree because I am certain we have fundamental differences on what the purpose of this country actually is. But I’m still willing to talk about it. You’re more than welcome to point out my straw men just like you’re more than welcome to point out how I’m misremembering our earlier debate about the Electoral College. If you just want to complain about it in vague terms, then, sincerely, have a nice day.

[pettie4sox]

1 minute ago, Danny Dravot said:

I suspect we’ll always disagree because I am certain we have fundamental differences on what the purpose of this country actually is. But I’m still willing to talk about it. You’re more than welcome to point out my straw men just like you’re more than welcome to point out how I’m misremembering our earlier debate about the Electoral College. If you just want to complain about it in vague terms, then, sincerely, have a nice day.

I do not care if we disagree but if you're not going to have an honest discussion what's the point?  If you can't see that from your posts I don't know what to tell you.  The last part of your previous post is evidence that you're just trying to drive your POV home and that you are not trying to have an honest discussion.