Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 07-13-2019, 09:56 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think you're framing it wrong. Achieving a legislative outcome is a team sport; you have to build coalitions, and you have to understand when your coalition is capable of achieving a specific outcome and when it's not. If anyone understands that, it's Nancy Pelosi. It's AOC and her ex-Bernie Bro "burn down the house" chief of staff Chakrabarti who don't seem to get that part of their job.



I think the message that some might take away, whether it's accurate or not, is that the Squad is trying to use accusations of racism as a way to intimidate the mostly white leadership of the party and white moderates into taking more aggressive positions that frankly lead to nowhere. Their tactics are only going to alienate voters in districts won by people such as Tim Ryan, Seth Moulton, and Connor Lamb.
It could also be that 2020 is not the goal. The goal could be to reshape the makeup of the Democratic Party.

Last edited by octopus; 07-13-2019 at 09:57 AM.
  #202  
Old 07-13-2019, 02:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
....
It takes three pitches by current Democratic candidates, and shows the percentage of Independents, voters over 65, and white voters with no college, who oppose them:
  • "Healthcare for undocumented Immigrants"---opposed by 63% of independents, 66% of over-65 voters, and 75% of white no-college voters.
  • "Free public-college tuition"---opposed by 53% of independents, 60% of over-65, and 57% of white no-college voters.
  • "Support allowing prisoners to vote"---opposed by 68% of independents, 73% of over-65, and 76% of white no-college voters.


..
In a poll of Democratic voters as a whole, only 30% favored the elimination of private health insurance-----70% opposed it. (The same You-Tube clip shows this and related findings at about the 16-minute mark.)

The Democratic electorate is far more centrist than AOC and her allies believe. And, yes, of course the worker-bees at 55 Savushkina are laboring mightily to encourage AOC in her false beliefs, and to encourage the idea that Dems who fail to push for the most extreme-left policies are nasty old racists who should be purged.

1. I dont think we should be checking for citizenship status when giving healthcare. I dont know of ANYONE who wants to give free health care ONLY to undocumented Immigrants. The way this is worded i can see why most wouldnt like it, but if you word it my way, I think most non-GOp would support it.

2. I think that, as in CA, Public Community colleges (this includes trade schools to some extent) should be almost free (some tiny charges for Student body fee, which can be waived), and after you get your two year degree, the next two years are subsidized, on a means test.

3. I think there should be a way for a felon to petition to get his voting rights back, like for example he was convicted of a Marijuana possession charge before that state made it legal. I dont think it should be automatic. I dont think many think it should be automatic, so again- a badly worded loaded question.

4. I dont know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance. I know of many who support Medicare for all or UHC, which is not that same thing at all. Of course with Medicare for all , you'd likely pay for a medicare supplement, and even in Canada & GB, some wealthy people do have private health insurance also. This question was worded in a loaded way.
  #203  
Old 07-13-2019, 03:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
How in the world is this "awful"? If she believes that she acted in a racist manner, then she should in fact point that out. It would be racist for her to remain silent and allow it to continue.

And yet she won’t actually stand by her accusations. What’s up with that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I mean, it's not like AOC was elected by those who wanted her to keep her head down. She made promises to shake things up, and she is. If she is being immature (which I can see), then I expect the more mature side of the party to be the more mature ones and listen to her. She represents a significant number of people.

In the only competitive election she has won, she received 16,898 votes. That’s 0.005% of the U.S. population that voted for her to “shake things up”.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I mean, how recently did we have a thread about Democrats being "spineless", and how this was a problem? Well, say what you want about her--she's got a spine. And maybe that's the spine injection we need.

Leave me out of that “we”. I vehemently disagree with that criticism of mainstream Democrats, especially if we are talking about Nancy Pelosi.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I mean, the thing everyone is upset about is that she called someone racist. That is the type of thing that, if you aren't racist, you shouldn't get upset about, per what I said before.

Really? So if someone publicly accuses me of embezzling from the poorbox, or molesting children, I shouldn’t get upset about it as long as it’s not true? Are you hearing the things you are saying?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
We're all Democrats here. If you want to argue that she should be standing with the other Democrats, then we need to model that and do it ourselves. We should stand with her against those who want to go after her. Not helping those who are using her to attack us.

Really? We should show her how to stand together as Democrats by standing with her in her attacks against other Democrats? That makes literally zero sense.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #204  
Old 07-13-2019, 04:04 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH66 View Post
AFAIK, a freshman lawmaker apparently calling the party leader racist in the most thinly veiled way is pretty awful
Hey, I'm not saying you have to like it. I'm just saying that no, it's not really a more drastic example of intraparty "public disarray" than Bob Dole in 1988 declaring that George Bush should "stop lying about [Dole's] record", or Pelosi in 2008 calling Joe Lieberman "totally irresponsible" and "one of [Republicans'] best weapons" for criticizing Barack Obama.
  #205  
Old 07-13-2019, 04:46 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
Lieberman deserved to be called out by Pelosi for the same reason AOC deserves to be called out by Pelosi: they are demonizing the majority of the Democratic Party. One from the right, one from the left. I am strongly against that, either way.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-13-2019 at 04:47 PM.
  #206  
Old 07-13-2019, 05:15 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Lieberman deserved to be called out by Pelosi for the same reason AOC deserves to be called out by Pelosi: they are demonizing the majority of the Democratic Party. One from the right, one from the left. I am strongly against that, either way.
There's a big difference between criticizing and demonizing. Please don't confuse the former with the latter.

This is a party that, quite frankly, needs a good intraparty debate right now. And some of that has to happen in the House. The Presidential candidates can argue over whether there should be Medicare for All, and what that should mean: if a Dem is elected in 2020, s/he will determine the party's policy agenda for 2021. But right now, the House has to decide whether and how it's going to take on Trump, which is something that the candidates can only do verbally.

And it's a target-rich environment, even if they forswear impeachment, and even if they avoid lines of inquiry that Trump, as President, can block or drag out forever. They can hold hearings on: the concentration camps, the ~2 dozen women who've credibly accused Trump of sexual assault, Kavanaugh (the Senate cut short many lines of inquiry last year that had nothing to do with his behavior towards women), Acosta/Epstein, 666 Fifth Avenue, emoluments, other uses of the Presidency to enrich Trump and his family...the list goes on. And while Trump will block a lot of stuff, they need to have a hearing on just how close we came to war with Iran a few weeks back, because that's scary stuff.

Point is, they can pick and choose their ground for taking on Trump, but they need to pick some fights with him that can at least make the point that they're doing so. And they can abandon passing bills that the Senate will never take up, because it's masturbation is what it is: they make the House Dems feel good, nobody else knows about them, and they don't affect anything else. And like I said, the next President will determine the 2021 legislative agenda, not the House.

So they need a good debate on the best line of attack against Trump, and the more public, the better - so that we, the voters, can get a sense of who's dragging their heels against any sort of attack at all. Because it's not just Pelosi. And maybe there's an argument for not taking on Trump at all, but let's see people make it openly, rather than be an invisible drag on the party.
  #207  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:02 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
1. I dont think we should be checking for citizenship status when giving healthcare. I dont know of ANYONE who wants to give free health care ONLY to undocumented Immigrants. The way this is worded i can see why most wouldnt like it, but if you word it my way, I think most non-GOp would support it.

2. I think that, as in CA, Public Community colleges (this includes trade schools to some extent) should be almost free (some tiny charges for Student body fee, which can be waived), and after you get your two year degree, the next two years are subsidized, on a means test.

3. I think there should be a way for a felon to petition to get his voting rights back, like for example he was convicted of a Marijuana possession charge before that state made it legal. I dont think it should be automatic. I dont think many think it should be automatic, so again- a badly worded loaded question.

4. I dont know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance. I know of many who support Medicare for all or UHC, which is not that same thing at all. Of course with Medicare for all , you'd likely pay for a medicare supplement, and even in Canada & GB, some wealthy people do have private health insurance also. This question was worded in a loaded way.
As you've reworded these, I agree that they'd be approved by a large proportion of Democrats. (Independents might be a tougher sell on some of them.)

But a problem for Dem candidates is that on some of these and other issues, their official positions DO sound fairly radical to independents and centrist Democrats. For example:

Quote:
Some Democratic presidential candidates who say they support “Medicare for All” are walking a tightrope on whether to fully embrace a key portion of the proposal that calls for eliminating private insurance.

Only a few White House hopefuls raised their hands when asked at last week’s debates if they were willing to abolish private insurers, even though others who were on the stage have publicly backed legislation from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) which would do just that.

...In a statement after last week’s debates, Sanders said there can be no middle ground, and his campaign called on all the candidates to unequivocally say where they stand on Medicare for All. "If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries," ...

A similar Kaiser poll from January found that support for Medicare for All dropped from 56 percent to 37 percent when respondents were told it would eliminate private health insurance.

...Democratic candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.)... supports a Medicare public option, but is not a co-sponsor of the Medicare for All bill.

“I am just simply concerned about kicking half of America off their health insurance in four years, which is what this bill says,” Klobuchar said.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...all-candidates

(My emphasis.)

There is all kinds of room for driving voters away, if the Democratic candidates choose that road.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...But right now, the House has to decide whether and how it's going to take on Trump, which is something that the candidates can only do verbally.

And it's a target-rich environment, even if they forswear impeachment, and even if they avoid lines of inquiry that Trump, as President, can block or drag out forever. They can hold hearings on: the concentration camps, the ~2 dozen women who've credibly accused Trump of sexual assault, Kavanaugh (the Senate cut short many lines of inquiry last year that had nothing to do with his behavior towards women), Acosta/Epstein, 666 Fifth Avenue, emoluments, other uses of the Presidency to enrich Trump and his family...the list goes on. ....
^100% this.
  #208  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:51 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,796
I'm on Medicare. Would someone please define "Medicare for all" for me?

I have a supplemental policy that covers that all-important 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. No, my supplemental policy doesn't pay for anything Medicare doesn't cover, but I could buy supplemental policies for dental, eyeglasses, etc. IMHO, that's a good system for America.

OTOH, Medicaid is pretty close to insurance of last-resort. Yes, it will pay for dental care and eyeglasses, at least under some circumstances, but you have to find a physician, dentist, or optometrist who'll take it. That forces a lot of Medicaid recipients to rely on either privately or publicly subsidized clinics. That's a lot closer to the socialized medicine the Republicans scream about.
  #209  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:11 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
I'm on Medicare. Would someone please define "Medicare for all" for me?
AFAICT, the definition differs from one candidate to the next.
Quote:
OTOH, Medicaid is pretty close to insurance of last-resort. Yes, it will pay for dental care and eyeglasses, at least under some circumstances, but you have to find a physician, dentist, or optometrist who'll take it. That forces a lot of Medicaid recipients to rely on either privately or publicly subsidized clinics. That's a lot closer to the socialized medicine the Republicans scream about.
But if we had Medicaid-for-all, physicians would have to choose between accepting it or going out of business.
  #210  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:29 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
How in the world is this "awful"? If she believes that she acted in a racist manner, then she should in fact point that out. It would be racist for her to remain silent and allow it to continue.

Calling that awful seems more like the right's usual reaction. But we're the left. We're supposed to take accusations of racism seriously. If someone (especially a person of color who ran on a social justice campaign) calls me racist, the response should be introspection and dialog. See if I can figure out what may have been or seemed racist, and then talk to them about what they perceived.
What's particularly awful is that there is absolutely no reason for the accusation, no basis in anything that Pelosi's done, just a "well I notice the people you disagree with happen to be young women of color..." kind of insinuation that's frankly a bullshit deflection from the things they disagree about. Moreover, the flipside of the argument is that Pelosi would be far more receptive to them if they were white guys, and I don't buy that for a second. "If you can't argue the issues, attack their character," is a shitty tactic to employ in any case, made infinitely worse when it's a false accusation.

If AOC actually believes that it's race that motivates Pelosi's attitude towards her, then she either has a lot more information regarding Pelosi than the public does, or she just sounds like someone who blames racism for everything that doesn't go her way.
  #211  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:35 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Hey, I'm not saying you have to like it. I'm just saying that no, it's not really a more drastic example of intraparty "public disarray" than Bob Dole in 1988 declaring that George Bush should "stop lying about [Dole's] record", or Pelosi in 2008 calling Joe Lieberman "totally irresponsible" and "one of [Republicans'] best weapons" for criticizing Barack Obama.
While I understand what you are saying about party infighting, I feel that AOC's race comment was worse than the others. I don't mind the back and forth over the issues, questions about leadership, party direction, and so forth, but I would have to throw a flag on that play...

Last edited by CAH66; 07-14-2019 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Typo
  #212  
Old 07-14-2019, 07:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
I'm on Medicare. Would someone please define "Medicare for all" for me?

I have a supplemental policy that covers that all-important 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. No, my supplemental policy doesn't pay for anything Medicare doesn't cover, but I could buy supplemental policies for dental, eyeglasses, etc. IMHO, that's a good system for America.
.
what Parts do you have? AFAIK, it would be Part A free, Part B= whatever the normal monthly cost would be, based upon your income. Etc.
  #213  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
CAH, Sherrerd, good points.

RTF, I will just reiterate that we should be listening to Democrats who win in places where Trump has an approval rating of north of 45%. They are clearly the ones who know how to frame things in the way that works in those crucial and difficult places.
  #214  
Old 07-15-2019, 06:59 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
CAH, Sherrerd, good points.

RTF, I will just reiterate that we should be listening to Democrats who win in places where Trump has an approval rating of north of 45%. They are clearly the ones who know how to frame things in the way that works in those crucial and difficult places.
Sure, listen to them. But listen to them on what ground to take Trump on, not on whether or not to do so. 'Not take him on' is the way to kill Dem turnout next year. Why bother electing people who are going to be all impotent once they're elected?
  #215  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:07 AM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
<clipped> 4. I dont know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance. I know of many who support Medicare for all or UHC, which is not that same thing at all. Of course with Medicare for all , you'd likely pay for a medicare supplement, and even in Canada & GB, some wealthy people do have private health insurance also. This question was worded in a loaded way.
You don’t know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance? Did you see the 1st Democratic debate?
When asked if they would abolish private health insurance entirely in favor of a government-run plan, on the 1st night Warren and de Blasio raised their hands, on the 2nd night Harris and Sanders raised their hands. That’s 4 people you should know that favor abolishing private health insurance.
Now Harris clarified/softened her position almost immediately but that leads to an ad against her that writes itself (could be from other Democratic candidates or by Trump if she’s the Democratic nominee): Clip of moderator asking the question, then zooms onto Harris raising her hand, then a clip of Harris clarifying her position, ending with offscreen announcer asking “Harris was for abolishing private health insurance before she was against it. What other issues will she change positions on?” Closes with a background of an eagle and an American flag, announcer stating “Paid for by Americans for America.”

It’s a difficult position for the candidates, they have to let voters know their position and distinguish themself from the other candidates but the more they speak, the more their words can be used against them.
I’ll get a pony before it happens but I’ve long wanted the candidates to only tell me about themself and their positions; don’t tell me about your opponent, I’m not liable to believe you/I’ll consider the source and it’s his/her job to tell me about themself and their positions.
  #216  
Old 07-16-2019, 05:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Sure, listen to them. But listen to them on what ground to take Trump on, not on whether or not to do so. 'Not take him on' is the way to kill Dem turnout next year. Why bother electing people who are going to be all impotent once they're elected?
Because having impotent Democrats is better than having Trump, and if you don't elect "impotent" Democrats, you'll have 4 more years of lawlessness, 4 more years of attacks on the Constitution, 4 more years of migrants in cages, 4 more years of dangerously unpredictable foreign policy.

There's no reason not to show up and vote for a Democrat, even an impotent one. Besides that, the degree to which Democrats are impotent depends on how many voters show up to vote down the ballot.
  #217  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:02 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,849
Going back to the original thread title, I'll sum it up this way:

The Democratic party seems to be at a crossroads right now. They have a choice between going down the road of Bernie Sanders and taking a hard left turn, and with that, choosing an aggressive, in-your-face "burn the motherfucker to the ground" approach to politics, or they can opt for the more pragmatic approach to politics. There's the Bernie Bro path, or the Barack Obama path. I'll take the advice of the guy who won became the first non-white president in American history and won two terms over the advice of people who support the guy who couldn't defeat a highly unpopular former Sec of State and is struggling to remain viable in the current primary.

Last edited by asahi; 07-16-2019 at 06:03 AM.
  #218  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:23 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,337
Is there a term for someone who almost always agree with progressive's goals but almost never agrees with their strategy to achieve them? So for instance, I'd consider myself ideologically progressive, but think my ideological compatriots are constantly shooting themselves in the foot politically. I see the center-left to be more politically viable and therefore a faster way to ultimately achieve a progressive agenda. I contrast this with someone who is ideologically center-left and seeks that agenda as an end in itself.
  #219  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by dba Fred View Post
You don’t know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance? Did you see the 1st Democratic debate?
When asked if they would abolish private health insurance entirely in favor of a government-run plan, on the 1st night Warren and de Blasio raised their hands, on the 2nd night Harris and Sanders raised their hands. That’s 4 people you should know that favor abolishing private health insurance.
.
AFAIK, it's really only Sanders, as that's a simplistic question. I am not sure about Warren, she seems to be all over the place.
  #220  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:48 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because having impotent Democrats is better than having Trump,
Yes, and so what?
Quote:
and if you don't elect "impotent" Democrats, you'll have 4 more years of lawlessness, 4 more years of attacks on the Constitution, 4 more years of migrants in cages, 4 more years of dangerously unpredictable foreign policy.
Well, if all we have are impotent Dems, that will surely be the case. But again, so what?
Quote:
There's no reason not to show up and vote for a Democrat, even an impotent one.
Your audience for this is the set of people who are very likely to vote Democrat if they vote at all, but very often don't vote at all.

Convince THEM. But if you think they're going to be mobilized by House Democrats sitting around twiddling their thumbs while Trump keeps committing new outrages, you've got a very poor read on human nature.
Quote:
Besides that, the degree to which Democrats are impotent depends on how many voters show up to vote down the ballot.
THEY ALREADY DID. Less than eight and a half months ago.

If that rather impressive turnout last November didn't result in non-impotent Dems, why should they think it'll work better next time? They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result the next time.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 07-16-2019 at 02:48 PM.
  #221  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:56 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The Democratic party seems to be at a crossroads right now. They have a choice between going down the road of Bernie Sanders and taking a hard left turn, and with that, choosing an aggressive, in-your-face "burn the motherfucker to the ground" approach to politics, or they can opt for the more pragmatic approach to politics.
I believe this is called an "excluded middle."

There is a wide range of choices that don't involve impeachment (though impeaching a President who makes Nixon look like an amateur in the crook department would be fitting and proper) but also don't involve House Dems twiddling their thumbs and saying "if you vote for Dems in a SECOND election, then by God, we'll actually DO something!"
  #222  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:21 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Is there a term for someone who almost always agree with progressive's goals but almost never agrees with their strategy to achieve them? So for instance, I'd consider myself ideologically progressive, but think my ideological compatriots are constantly shooting themselves in the foot politically. I see the center-left to be more politically viable and therefore a faster way to ultimately achieve a progressive agenda. I contrast this with someone who is ideologically center-left and seeks that agenda as an end in itself.
"Incrementalism" is a term that gets applied to those who do want explicitly-progressive policies, but don't want to see them forced on a population not yet educated to understand them. Educate the population, and gradually bring on the lefty stuff--that can be called the incremental approach. (My emphasis in the quote.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because having impotent Democrats is better than having Trump, and if you don't elect "impotent" Democrats, you'll have 4 more years of lawlessness, 4 more years of attacks on the Constitution, 4 more years of migrants in cages, 4 more years of dangerously unpredictable foreign policy.

There's no reason not to show up and vote for a Democrat, even an impotent one. Besides that, the degree to which Democrats are impotent depends on how many voters show up to vote down the ballot.
Yes. It gets said a lot, but it needs to sink in: Trump presents an existential crisis---not only to democracy and the rule of law, but very possibly to existence itself. (Or human existence, at least.)

Failure to vote for the Democratic candidates (up and down the ballot), no matter who they are, is the equivalent of a vote for Trump.
  #223  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:26 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
"Incrementalism" is a term that gets applied to those who do want explicitly-progressive policies, but don't want to see them forced on a population not yet educated to understand them. Educate the population, and gradually bring on the lefty stuff--that can be called the incremental approach. (My emphasis in the quote.)





Yes. It gets said a lot, but it needs to sink in: Trump presents an existential crisis---not only to democracy and the rule of law, but very possibly to existence itself. (Or human existence, at least.)

Failure to vote for the Democratic candidates (up and down the ballot), no matter who they are, is the equivalent of a vote for Trump.
Is incrementalism equivalent to slippery slope?
  #224  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:53 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Is incrementalism equivalent to slippery slope?
No.
  #225  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:57 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Is incrementalism equivalent to slippery slope?
More like slippery staircase.
  #226  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:08 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
No.
What’s the difference?
  #227  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What’s the difference?
They're just different. Look them up. If you are going for some negative sounding description of incrementalism, also Google "ratchet effect". The ratchet effect is what got the Right so freaked about Obamacare and quite rightly, from their view.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-16-2019 at 07:32 PM.
  #228  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:35 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What’s the difference?
A "slippery slope" is an excuse for not doing something.

For example: 'If we let people without an extra $2,000 per month to spend on health insurance buy a basic-needs, subsidized policy for only $200 per month, then the next thing you know they'll expect to be taken care of in luxury while lounging around, doing nothing and paying no taxes.'

"Incrementalism" is a reason to actually do something, as opposed to waiting until Everything Is Perfect.

For example: 'A perfect health care system would be nice, but in the meantime, let's let a few extra million people who've been uninsured for years, buy affordable health care insurance, because that will be more cost-effective for the nation than having people go to the emergency room for basic care.'
  #229  
Old 07-16-2019, 08:57 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
A "slippery slope" is an excuse for not doing something.

For example: 'If we let people without an extra $2,000 per month to spend on health insurance buy a basic-needs, subsidized policy for only $200 per month, then the next thing you know they'll expect to be taken care of in luxury while lounging around, doing nothing and paying no taxes.'
Not at all. What you just described is a 'moral hazard'. Incentivize people to do something, and more people will do it.

A slippery slope is more like this:

"If we pass a law that mandates public health care, then once that's in place people will start passing laws restricting individual choice on the grounds that the public has to pay for their mistakes. And once we establish that society has a right to control individual behavior for economic reasons, the floodgates to terrible legislation will open up."

Or, "If you force us to register all our guns, you will then have the tools, and therefore the motivation, to start banning them. And once you start banning guns, soon you'll be banning knives and anything else you don't like."

Those are slippery slope arguments.

Quote:
"Incrementalism" is a reason to actually do something, as opposed to waiting until Everything Is Perfect.

For example: 'A perfect health care system would be nice, but in the meantime, let's let a few extra million people who've been uninsured for years, buy affordable health care insurance, because that will be more cost-effective for the nation than having people go to the emergency room for basic care.'
In a political context, that's about right. However, an explicitly incrementalist policy pretty much enables slippery slope claims. After all, you can't have only one increment, or it's not really an increment - it's just a change.
  #230  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
I suggest you both let octopus Google it.
  #231  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because having impotent Democrats is better than having Trump, and if you don't elect "impotent" Democrats, you'll have 4 more years of lawlessness, 4 more years of attacks on the Constitution, 4 more years of migrants in cages, 4 more years of dangerously unpredictable foreign policy.

This. Progressives are so impatient to enact their wishlists. How about if we just get back to normal first?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-16-2019 at 09:28 PM.
  #232  
Old 07-17-2019, 08:01 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I suggest you both let octopus Google it.
Heh--yes, not much point in arguing with the standard conservative position that virtually all government action amounts to Moral Hazard.

Oddly enough, conservatives never seem to apply that principle to the sub-prime mortgage crisis---according to them, those bankers were all just misunderstood visionaries using their initiative. But that's another topic altogether.
  #233  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:02 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
I actually do see a lot of right wingers who hate bankers.
  #234  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:51 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I actually do see a lot of right wingers who hate bankers.
I suppose, but wasn't the Tea Party line a complaint that the bad, bad, government had decided to give our tax dollars to the big banks, in an unjust and unfair bail-out? Thus putting the blame on Government, rather than on the bankers... (In any case, kind of a side issue.)
  #235  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:12 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What’s the difference?
If I say, "I'm going to do X, then I'm going to do Y," that's not a slippery slope, that's just me making plans. If I say, "I'm going to do X," and you say, "If you do X, then you must then do Y," that's a slippery slope, because I didn't say I was intending to do Y, and there's no reason I necessarily must do Y once I've done X.

If I say, "I'm going to make a sandwich, then eat it," that's not a slippery slope, that's just me having one plan that's contingent on the other. If I say, "I'm going to make a sandwich," and you say, "That means next you're going to eat a sandwich," that's a slippery slope; I may be making this sandwich for someone else, for example, and have no sandwich eating plans of my own.
  #236  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
Well, Miller wins the "stupidest explanation of slippery slope" competition. Now, I suggest octopus goes ahead and Google it.
  #237  
Old 07-28-2019, 03:15 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Here is a good article on wanting too much purity in a Dem candidate

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ket/ar-AAEWOe0
  #238  
Old 07-28-2019, 04:06 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Here is a good article on wanting too much purity in a Dem candidate

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ket/ar-AAEWOe0
...that wasn't a good article about "wanting too much purity in a Dem candidate." That was a terrible article written by a partisan hack where she attacked strawman versions of the recent criticisms of her writing and the paper she writes for.
  #239  
Old 07-28-2019, 04:09 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
I read somewhere around 9% of Obama 2012 voters voted for Trump in 2016. That seems like a lot to me. I wonder how many of that 9% were Bernie fans. Probably more than a few.
  #240  
Old 07-28-2019, 04:50 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 230
I would have thought that if Bernie or bust people had any real impact on election day it would have been because quite a few stayed at home choosing to not vote, as opposed to voting for candidates they may have thought were two sides of the same horrid coin.
  #241  
Old 07-28-2019, 05:07 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Here is a good article on wanting too much purity in a Dem candidate

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ket/ar-AAEWOe0
I'm not really convinced that wanting purity is necessarily the problem. In fact I would argue that the Democratic will need the energy of an activist progressive left if it is to win, even if the candidate who represents the party ends up being someone better known as a centrist or a pragmatist. The problem I've seen to date with the more outspoken progressives isn't their passion for issues; it's their tactics. They have to agree to be part of the team, even if they can't get everything they want from Pelosi. By all means, they're free to charge hard until the floor debate ends, but once it ends, they have to agree to keep whatever squabbling they do largely in-house.

On the flip side, the same is true for the party leadership and the moderates. I've called out The Squad and some others like Rep. Pocan for their twitter wars, but Nancy Pelosi also probably erred when she gave a fairly smug assessment of some of her colleagues in an interview with the NY Times (?). They both have to agree to play by the same rules in maintaining their coalition and they have to accept there may be days when they might not appreciate all coalition members, but they can never lose sight of what's most important: beating Donald Trump.
  #242  
Old 07-28-2019, 05:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I would have thought that if Bernie or bust people had any real impact on election day it would have been because quite a few stayed at home choosing to not vote, as opposed to voting for candidates they may have thought were two sides of the same horrid coin.
I think this is most likely what happened. Most of the hardcore Sanders supporters, AFAIK, either voted for Clinton, and most of the rest either stayed home or voted for Jill Green. Maybe 1-3% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump either out of spite towards Clinton personally or because they're so angry at the system that they've become voters who are perpetually floating from one fringe candidate to the next, looking for a home.

Unfortunately, the last election was close enough that embittered Bernie voters could have made the difference. Obviously, Clinton did not help herself, so it's certainly far from their fault, but in a vote where every ballot counts, it's worth paying attention to the hairline fractures in the coalition.

What's more concerning as we move into the social media era is that fringe groups -- and maybe we don't even have to call the "fringe", just passionate -- can form very strong associations with very hardened attitudes. They can form virtual tribes within tribes. With social media and with modern mass communication, they can encourage each other to engage in behavior that provides them with a sense of self-satisfaction (i.e. "Screw the machine") and the group might be impervious, even spiteful, to calls to join a broader coalition.
  #243  
Old 07-28-2019, 06:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...What's more concerning as we move into the social media era is that fringe groups -- and maybe we don't even have to call the "fringe", just passionate -- can form very strong associations with very hardened attitudes. They can form virtual tribes within tribes. With social media and with modern mass communication, they can encourage each other to engage in behavior that provides them with a sense of self-satisfaction (i.e. "Screw the machine") and the group might be impervious, even spiteful, to calls to join a broader coalition.
And of course they will be encouraged in this by operatives for groups who want to see Trump remain in office.

These pro-GOP/Kremlin/other-foreign-adversary groups are greatly aided in their work by human psychology. There are few more popular positions to take than "you can't fool me!" And it will be suggested that Those Establishment Democrats are trying to fool you, but you're too smart for that, aren't you? You're not going to play their game by actually voting for a Democrat, are you??????

This message will have great appeal to some who think of themselves as being on the left, and being opponents of Trump. And I'm not sure how they can be inoculated against it. That stance of being anti-Establishment is so seductive, that they may not realize how thoroughly they're being manipulated by the right.
  #244  
Old 07-28-2019, 06:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
And of course they will be encouraged in this by operatives for groups who want to see Trump remain in office.
Golly, if only the Dems could possibly hire some trolls to fuck with Republican divisions but alas, they are far too pure of spirit.

It is time for Dems to quit crying like babies about Russian interference. Email leaks should obviously be avoided, the feds should investigate and social media companies should be encouraged to shut down foreign troll farms but you should get a grip on the fact that this is reality moving forward and Americans can easily do the same thing.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-28-2019 at 06:20 PM.
  #245  
Old 07-28-2019, 06:46 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Golly, if only the Dems could possibly hire some trolls to fuck with Republican divisions but alas, they are far too pure of spirit.

It is time for Dems to quit crying like babies about Russian interference. Email leaks should obviously be avoided, the feds should investigate and social media companies should be encouraged to shut down foreign troll farms but you should get a grip on the fact that this is reality moving forward and Americans can easily do the same thing.
Well, the task of doing 'the same thing' is complicated by the fact that getting white supremacists (for example) to turn on each other requires an ability to get into the mindset of a white supremacist. And there aren't natural demographic groups to pit one against the other: do you try to get the Proud Boys to suspect that the Prosperity Gospel people are secretly against them? They probably are against each other....but they're united in wanting to make sure the Supreme Court puts all them gays and womens and Muslims back in their proper place. That's a tough unity to dissolve.

At any rate, no crying is required. Just vigilance.
  #246  
Old 07-28-2019, 06:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
Sorry, that is super dumb. The Russians didn't exploit schisms between exotic flavors of super lefties. They exploited differences between hard left and center left. White middle of the road and black middle of the road. Fiscal lefties and social lefties.

The Republican vote is not entirely composed of White Supremacists. There are broader fault lines to attack.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-28-2019 at 06:58 PM.
  #247  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:07 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Golly, if only the Dems could possibly hire some trolls to fuck with Republican divisions but alas, they are far too pure of spirit.

It is time for Dems to quit crying like babies about Russian interference. Email leaks should obviously be avoided, the feds should investigate and social media companies should be encouraged to shut down foreign troll farms but you should get a grip on the fact that this is reality moving forward and Americans can easily do the same thing.
No they are most definitely not and to suggest otherwise implies a lack of paying attention to the 2016 Republican primary where some Democrats and most of the pro-liberal media voted for Trump and provided orders of magnitude more help than the Russians in order to cause mischief. You like what you got?

Last edited by octopus; 07-28-2019 at 07:08 PM.
  #248  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
I don't understand what "No they are most definitely not" is referring to. Or where you get "pro-liberal media voted for Trump"

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-28-2019 at 07:14 PM.
  #249  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:35 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I don't understand what "No they are most definitely not" is referring to. Or where you get "pro-liberal media voted for Trump"
Definitely not to pure.
Some Democrats voted for Trump in the primary to cause chaos.
Pro liberal media promoted Trump in the primary to cause chaos.
The value of the publicity was orders of magnitude greater than a few Russian memes.

Last edited by octopus; 07-28-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #250  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,450
What did the anti-liberal media do?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017