2020 Election Thoughts

[Quin]

16 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

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.

Regarding the first point: 

Because all progressive policies aren't going to carry everywhere in a big tent party. AOC can win in any sapphire blue district - she gets obliterated in Spanberger or Lamb's districts. But we've been having this discussion ad nauseum for the past few pages.

The problem isn't even really policies, it's branding. The Affordable Care Act is popular as hell. Obamacare less so. Because people don't bother digging into policy.

Bernie didn't run on "defund the police" because it's an albatross of a slogan - make it "unburden the police" with exact same framework and the moderate vote/never Trump conservatives jump right on board. The flip side is I had a (progressive) friend furious during the debates because he was upset that Biden wouldn't say "defund the police" even though he was outlining the policies of redistributing the responsibilities to appropriate parties - he just wanted him to say it for some reason. 

Regarding the second point:

The Democrats have been pushing policy. They've been passing bills (which die in the Senate). They've been pushing a $15 minimum wage, student debt relief, voting rights, immigrants rights, helping DREAMers, net neutrality, addressing climate change, net neutrality, etc. 

Here's a small list of bills that have died on McConnell's desk.

If the party could unite and run on these, it'd be much easier. Instead they have the Gregs of the world believing that AOC dictates the entire party platform with Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, so now all Democrats have to run with that (if they support it) or on defense (if they don't, according to the politics of their district). 

[Danny Dravot]

7 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

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.

Why, because I made a quip about vacations and nice cars?

I want a public option. I want people who cannot afford healthcare to be covered by the state until such point that they can afford healthcare. I want the state to control the cost of vital drugs, and whether it's private or public, insurance should have some form of catastrophic cap. I still remember seeing a donation jar at a gas station when I was a teenager for one of their coworkers who owed $60,000 for the treatment of their deceased child. That shouldn't happen.

But these subsidies should not cover me nor you. I can afford it and you've said in the past that you can too. If you added up my healthcare costs and took them off my plate (and somehow didn't raise my taxes a similar amount), that'd pay for my wife and I stay at the Four Seasons in Paris for a week. So, in my perception, we are discussing a provision not of necessity (which I support) but of luxury (which I do not).

[pettie4sox]

5 minutes ago, Quin said:

Regarding the first point: 

Because all progressive policies aren't going to carry everywhere in a big tent party. AOC can win in any sapphire blue district - she gets obliterated in Spanberger or Lamb's districts. But we've been having this discussion ad nauseum for the past few pages.

The problem isn't even really policies, it's branding. The Affordable Care Act is popular as hell. Obamacare less so. Because people don't bother digging into policy.

Bernie didn't run on "defund the police" because it's an albatross of a slogan - make it "unburden the police" with exact same framework and the moderate vote/never Trump conservatives jump right on board. The flip side is I had a (progressive) friend furious during the debates because he was upset that Biden wouldn't say "defund the police" even though he was outlining the policies of redistributing the responsibilities to appropriate parties - he just wanted him to say it for some reason. 

Regarding the second point:

The Democrats have been pushing policy. They've been passing bills (which die in the Senate). They've been pushing a $15 minimum wage, student debt relief, voting rights, immigrants rights, helping DREAMers, net neutrality, addressing climate change, net neutrality, etc. 

Here's a small list of bills that have died on McConnell's desk.

If the party could unite and run on these, it'd be much easier. Instead they have the Gregs of the world believing that AOC dictates the entire party platform with Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, so now all Democrats have to run with that (if they support it) or on defense (if they don't, according to the politics of their district). 

Maybe I just want to see them get obliterated before I assume.  I just think it's funny how people like Kasich claim the "far left" (whatever that means) almost cost Joe Biden the election when the evidence is contrary to that.  I get that people are scared of big change but IMO it's long overdue.  People are suffering out there and without bold legislation, the cycle of our failed state will continue.  Democrats should have been able to punch their ticket to senate but yet the likes of Graham, McConnell and Collins cruised to re-election... Why is that?  Maybe name calling and saying I'm not Trump doesn't resonate with as many people as they thought.

I agree the DNC needs to hire a top tier marketing firm to brand their ideas because whoever it is now has been failing at their job miserably.  You can't even get the DNC to unite against a candidate like Trump.  That speaks volumes.

[StrangeSox]

It's needlessly more expensive than a public system like every other modern country has. There's really no point beyond weird ideological hang ups that result in worse healthcare for a higher price tag.

[southsider2k5]

NYT did call Arizona for BIden last night.  The only states still hanging are GA and NC, with the first solidly Biden, the second to Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-arizona-president.html

[Kyyle23]

So, y'all are basically proving our point that any sort of Buster type thread devolves into *waves hand around* .....this.  So thanks for that.

[Danny Dravot]

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

So, y'all are basically proving our point that any sort of Buster type thread devolves into *waves hand around* .....this.  So thanks for that.

Fair enough. @pettie4sox, you're more than welcome to PM me. 

[pettie4sox]

2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Why, because I made a quip about vacations and nice cars?

I want a public option. I want people who cannot afford healthcare to be covered by the state until such point that they can afford healthcare. I want the state to control the cost of vital drugs, and whether it's private or public, insurance should have some form of catastrophic cap. I still remember seeing a donation jar at a gas station when I was a teenager for one of their coworkers who owed $60,000 for the treatment of their deceased child. That shouldn't happen.

But these subsidies should not cover me nor you. I can afford it and you've said in the past that you can too. If you added up my healthcare costs and took them off my plate (and somehow didn't raise my taxes a similar amount), that'd pay for my wife and I stay at the Four Seasons in Paris for a week. So, in my perception, we are discussing a provision not of necessity (which I support) but of luxury (which I do not).

I don't really consider that a quip but OK.  I just don't assume to know people's situations.  You come at it from a glass half empty perspective and that's fine but I just think the whole thing is burden to society.  I want people to have freedom from the burden of healthcare because right now it's a conundrum.  I am all for private insurers being able to offer supplemental insurance for those who want it but the bulk of it should be covered.  You are not getting it for free, it's paid the same way the military is being paid for.

[Two-Gun Pete]

4 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

But if you are given a right to health insurance, we are granting you unconditional access to another person’s labor.

 Why should the state pay for my health insurance or yours?

Meh, this isn't all that compelling an argument, TBH. There are always others getting access to another's labor:

The "socialism" of publicly-funded kindergarten, primary, elementary, JR High, High Schools, and universities. 

The "socialism" of publicly-funded police, fire, and parks.

The "socialism" of publicly-funded roads, bridges, airports, and seaports.

The "socialism" of collectively-funded and publicly-funded armed forces, which have benefitted both you and I, as Veterans. (As an aside, I appreciate what you and ALL Vets have done to provide a blanket of freedom for others.)

There's also the "socialism" of cutting taxes to deficit spend, thereby getting access to future generations' labor.

Or the "socialism" of shithole southern red states, who get more in federal funds  than they pay in, compared to supposedly "socialist" blue states and cities.

 

So, on absolute terms, should another person get access to my labor? Those lazy, ill-industious shithole southern red states dip into my pocket every time theres a hurricane, then they boast about not having state income taxes.

I think its more nuanced than "derrr, all socialism bad." I think its a better question to ask what DEGREE of "socialism" we're willing to accept in a supposedly-free society.

 

YMMV.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Two-Gun Pete

[pettie4sox]

5 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

So, y'all are basically proving our point that any sort of Buster type thread devolves into *waves hand around* .....this.  So thanks for that.

The conversation has been civil.  Discussions should be welcome.

[Kyyle23]

1 minute ago, pettie4sox said:

The conversation has been civil.  Discussions should be welcome.

Lol ok 

[Quin]

1 minute ago, pettie4sox said:

Maybe I just want to see them get obliterated before I assume.  I just think it's funny how people like Kasich claim the "far left" (whatever that means) almost cost Joe Biden the election when the evidence is contrary to that.  I get that people are scared of big change but IMO it's long overdue.  People are suffering out there and without bold legislation, the cycle of our failed state will continue.  Democrats should have been able to punch their ticket to senate but yet the likes of Graham, McConnell and Collins cruised to re-election... Why is that?  Maybe name calling and saying I'm not Trump doesn't resonate with as many people as they thought.

I agree the DNC needs to hire a top tier marketing firm to brand their ideas because whoever it is now has been failing at their job miserably.  You can't even get the DNC to unite against a candidate like Trump.  That speaks volumes.

Personally, I don't think any part of the party is responsible for the race being close. What happened was what a lot of us didn't realize - Trump enlarged his base, whereas most of us thought it stayed stagnant. So Biden built a massive blue wave - built mostly on the back of defying Trump - that ran into massive red wave. The big issue is that there aren't many split ticket voters anymore, except apparently in Maine. 

Graham and McConnell were always going to be tough orders (McConnell was always nigh impossible). Collins was a disappointment. Cunningham dropped the ball with a sexting scandal of all things.

[Dick Allen]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

NYT did call Arizona for BIden last night.  The only states still hanging are GA and NC, with the first solidly Biden, the second to Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-arizona-president.html

Which gives Biden 306 electoral votes which we have been told for 4 years is a landslide of historic proportions.

[Danny Dravot]

6 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Meh, this isn't all that compelling an argument, TBH. There are always others getting access to another's labor:

The "socialism" of publicly-funded kindergarten, primary, elementary, JR High, High Schools, and universities. 

The "socialism" of publicly-funded police, fire, and parks.

The "socialism" of publicly-funded roads, bridges, airports, and seaports.

There's also the "socialism" of cutting taxes to deficit spend, thereby getting access to future generations' labor.

Or the "socialism" of shithole southern red states, who get more in federal funds from supposedly "socialist" blue states and cities.

 

So, on absolute terms, should another person get access to my labor? Those lazy, ill-industious shithole southern red states dip into my pocket every time theres a hurricane, then they boast about not having state income taxes.

I think its more nuanced than "derrr, all socialism bad." I think its a better question to ask what DEGREE of "socialism" we're willing to accept in a supposedly-free society.

 

YMMV.

I live in one of those shithole southern red states. So thanks.

Actually, I agree with your point about what level of "socialism" (I assume you used quotes because roads, parks, cops and even Britain's NHS isn't ACTUAL socialism). I would set the divider a little closer to "not socialism" than you, as seen in this discussion, but like you said, YMMV.

[Danny Dravot]

8 minutes ago, Quin said:

 there aren't many split ticket voters anymore

Hi.

[pettie4sox]

8 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Lol ok 

Joe Biden voice:  "Come on man...."

[Kyyle23]

Just now, pettie4sox said:

Joe Biden voice:  "Come on man...."

Ok since you and dravot have gotten into it, you both have mildly insulted each other's intelligence.

I agree with "come on man" because I have seen this happen before, many times.  It sucks but it is what it is. 
 

carry on, this thread has a shelf life.  Enjoy it 

[southsider2k5]

12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Which gives Biden 306 electoral votes which we have been told for 4 years is a landslide of historic proportions.

And he is leading by 5 million votes, so there is also that.

[Quin]

11 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Hi.

I said many  

[southsider2k5]

14 minutes ago, Quin said:

Personally, I don't think any part of the party is responsible for the race being close. What happened was what a lot of us didn't realize - Trump enlarged his base, whereas most of us thought it stayed stagnant. So Biden built a massive blue wave - built mostly on the back of defying Trump - that ran into massive red wave. The big issue is that there aren't many split ticket voters anymore, except apparently in Maine. 

Graham and McConnell were always going to be tough orders (McConnell was always nigh impossible). Collins was a disappointment. Cunningham dropped the ball with a sexting scandal of all things.

For the first time ever, I came within one race of being a full straight ticket voter.  Typically my ballot looks like swiss cheese.  This time around, I pulled for one GOP at the county level who I personally know well and absolutely adore for what he does in our community.  I almost didn't vote for him, but if I didn't the person on the other side was a DUI arrest and a drug arrest who told the cop he should be fighting real crimes.

[Danny Dravot]

10 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Ok since you and dravot have gotten into it, you both have mildly insulted each other's intelligence.

I agree with "come on man" because I have seen this happen before, many times.  It sucks but it is what it is. 
 

carry on, this thread has a shelf life.  Enjoy it 

That wasn't my goal. @pettie4sox if I insulted you personally at all, I apologize.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Danny Dravot

[Two-Gun Pete]

17 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I live in one of those shithole southern red states. So thanks.

Actually, I agree with your point about what level of "socialism" (I assume you used quotes because roads, parks, cops and even Britain's NHS isn't ACTUAL socialism). I would set the divider a little closer to "not socialism" than you, as seen in this discussion, but like you said, YMMV.

Hey, no worries. Its an American tradition for industrious blue states to allow freeloading red states to continue to freeload. And for red politicians to shit-talk blue states that bail out shithole southern red states over and over.

 

That said, I read your previous argument about "socialized health care" to be some iteration of:

 

"No one should have access to my labor, EVAR!"

 

So, I used quotations to refer back to your point about others "having access to another's labor. " Apologies if I misread your argument, but "derr, all socialism bad " is intellectually dishonest; hereto fore, I hadn't detected that type of thought from you in this thread.

As an aside, in the UK, some of their citizens are on NHS, while others buy private health insurance. Ultimately, I think this is where adding a public option to the ACA would come into the picture.

[pettie4sox]

5 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

That wasn't my goal. @pettie4sox if I insulted you personally at all, I apologize.

I do not think you insulted my intelligence.  Maybe he is referring to my linear thinking comment but that's not an insult that's describing one's way of thinking about situations.   Kyyle is trying stir things up to close the thread.  Typical buzzkill mod. ?

[pettie4sox]

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And he is leading by 5 million votes, so there is also that.

There is something "legit" about winning the electoral college and popular vote.

[Kyyle23]

Hey this isn't typical for me I'm usually stirring the shit up