All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[PwrdOn]

The logical thing to do is to utilize the Democrats who can win elections to take the White House and the Senate and then promote more progressive policies from a position of power.

How exactly would that work? People are voting for moderate candidates presumably because they DON'T want reforms to health care and immigration and all the rest. Besides, the general trend for Democrats is that they move to the right once they're in office. Both Clinton and Obama ran on fairly liberal platforms yet were largely content to continue, and in some cases even expand, the policies of their Republican predecessors. Joe Biden of all people is going to turn into some champion of social justice once in office? Can't even say that with a straight face.

[BeastieRunner]

Why is 45 using the malaria drug if he's not positive?

Doesn't that mean he is/was?

[JCAll]

Why is 45 using the malaria drug if he's not positive?

Doesn't that mean he is/was?

He's claiming it can be used as a preventative measure.

[BeastieRunner]

He's claiming it can be used as a preventative measure.

You can't use that when you're overweight ... it will kill you.

God, at this rate we might get President Pelsoi because you know Pence will not take a drug and try to pray it away. Like he tried to have his state do when they had AIDs breakout really bad.

Knowing America's luck, he will survive but many other elderly people and obese people with request it and end up dying.

[aja_christopher]

How exactly would that work? People are voting for moderate candidates presumably because they DON'T want reforms to health care and immigration and all the rest.

No they aren't -- nearly every Democrat from Roosevelt to Carter to Clinton to Obama to Hillary pushed for health care and immigration reforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States

The vast majority of the time it's Republicans who repeatedly oppose and obstruct said reforms -- not Democrats.

Your dishonesty isn't doing anything but proving that you'll go to almost any lengths to discredit those on the "left" that you disagree with.

[JCAll]

You can't use that when you're overweight ... it will kill you.

God, at this rate we might get President Pelsoi because you know Pence will not take a drug and try to pray it away. Like he tried to have his state do when they had AIDs breakout really bad.

Knowing America's luck, he will survive but many other elderly people and obese people with request it and end up dying.

Everything he's ever said about the stuff has been a lie, claiming to take it is probably no different. He's still just desperately refusing to admit he was wrong, and doesn't care if people get hurt because of it.

[PwrdOn]

No they aren't -- nearly every Democrat from Roosevelt to Carter to Clinton to Obama to Hillary pushed for health care and immigration reforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States

The vast majority of the time it's Republicans who repeatedly oppose and obstruct said reforms -- not Democrats.

Your dishonesty isn't doing anything but proving that you'll go to almost any lengths to discredit those on the "left" that you disagree with.

Even when Democrats have had majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency they've still failed to get their major legislation passed, because they fold way too easily to Republican pressure and keep trying to compromise even though the GOP has no intention of doing that. The closest that the Democrats ever came to universal health care was passing a watered down piece of legislation that was originally proposed by Nixon, and even then faced such a heavy backlash for it that they pretty much weren't able to do anything for the rest of Obama's administration, meaning that immigration reform, criminal justice reform, ending the war on terror, etc. all went on the back burner indefinitely. Besides, at least Obama and Clinton pretended like they were going to change how things were done when they were on the campaign trail, the only thing Biden has promised is that he'd veto any Medicare for all bill that came before him, and I have no reason to think that he's lying about that to try and sway swing voters.

Besides, calling out moderate Democrats for opposing "radical" reforms is discrediting them only in the sense that it discredits centrism as an idea. These candidates are only considered more electable in the first place because they have more appeal to conservative voters who are naturally opposed to any hint of progressivism, indeed if they were to turn into social justice crusaders upon reaching office, that would rightfully be considered a betrayal of the promises they made to get elected in the first place. The absolute best case scenario with Biden is that he ends up with majorities in both houses and manages to roll back most of Trump's legislation and resets America back to how it was in 2016 more or less, but there's no chance he'd try to push the envelope any more. If the Republicans manage to retain control of either chamber, there's no chance he can even do that. This isn't slander, this is simply what being a moderate in America means these days, and what all of these Biden supporters are voting for.

[aja_christopher]

Even when Democrats have had majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency they've still failed to get their major legislation passed, because they fold way too easily to Republican pressure and keep trying to compromise even though the GOP has no intention of doing that. The closest that the Democrats ever came to universal health care was passing a watered down piece of legislation that was originally proposed by Nixon, and even then faced such a heavy backlash for it that they pretty much weren't able to do anything for the rest of Obama's administration, meaning that immigration reform, criminal justice reform, ending the war on terror, etc. all went on the back burner indefinitely. Besides, at least Obama and Clinton pretended like they were going to change how things were done when they were on the campaign trail, the only thing Biden has promised is that he'd veto any Medicare for all bill that came before him, and I have no reason to think that he's lying about that to try and sway swing voters.

Besides, calling out moderate Democrats for opposing "radical" reforms is discrediting them only in the sense that it discredits centrism as an idea. These candidates are only considered more electable in the first place because they have more appeal to conservative voters who are naturally opposed to any hint of progressivism, indeed if they were to turn into social justice crusaders upon reaching office, that would rightfully be considered a betrayal of the promises they made to get elected in the first place. The absolute best case scenario with Biden is that he ends up with majorities in both houses and manages to roll back most of Trump's legislation and resets America back to how it was in 2016 more or less, but there's no chance he'd try to push the envelope any more. If the Republicans manage to retain control of either chamber, there's no chance he can even do that. This isn't slander, this is simply what being a moderate in America means these days, and what all of these Biden supporters are voting for.

They fail to pass some legislation due to infighting -- much like you continue to engage in despite your chosen candidates and ideologies losing soundly and repeatedly in elections -- but the vast majority of obstruction comes from Republicans and you know that.



There's no point in arguing with you about this because it's obvious you're more interested in attacking "moderates" than being objective.

Like I said a long time ago -- let me know when your cynicism becomes effective enough to win elections and pass legislation.

[worstblogever]

Would you prefer Democrats be defined in a similar way?

I think I wouuld prefer if you wouldn't hand-wave away the fact that your party has casually embraced white nationalism so it's the norm with such a transparent example of "whataboutism", Mets.

Also, it's very telling that you would "both sides" an argument where one side is white nationalists and the other are atheists or socialists.

1. Democratic socialists. i.e. the European model. i.e. Some of them are believing the rich should pay more taxes to equal the burden upon the state like say... THE EISENHOWER model from 60 years ago.
2. Atheists. i.e. The group that even the pope acknowledges can get into Heaven these days. i.e. People who believe in science and wow could we use more of those during a pandemic. Maybe you should read up on some secular humanism, which is when people do the right thing because they believe it's right rather than an invisible sky wizard tells them to.


Now, those are the "far left" parts of the Democratic Party that you're using as boogeymen, and I can tell you what they're really about, and why their beliefs are maligned by wankers on the right.

I'm hoping you're not about to try and explain to the forum how the White Nationalists and conspiracy theorists in the GOP are really just misunderstood, in turn.

Any Republican with any real moral center already left the party, rather than, instead, inexplicably, roll up their sleeves to dig in and do that.

[Powerboy]

How exactly would that work? People are voting for moderate candidates presumably because they DON'T want reforms to health care and immigration and all the rest. Besides, the general trend for Democrats is that they move to the right once they're in office. Both Clinton and Obama ran on fairly liberal platforms yet were largely content to continue, and in some cases even expand, the policies of their Republican predecessors. Joe Biden of all people is going to turn into some champion of social justice once in office? Can't even say that with a straight face.

Wasn't Obama on the verge of getting national health care started until the Tea Party fiasco in 2010?

I can't really say why Bernie doesn't get Democrat voters enough to win the nomination but a huge portion of the country does want national health care. Aside from that, if a Democrat gets the presidency with a Democrat House and Senate and pushes it through, I suspect it won't be long before the overwhelming majority realizes it's great to pay a minor tax (or maybe none depending on income) with no insurance and no medical bills except that basic tax and they don't have to live with pain anymore because they can't afford treatment even with insurance from work.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Even when Democrats have had majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency they've still failed to get their major legislation passed, because they fold way too easily to Republican pressure and keep trying to compromise even though the GOP has no intention of doing that. The closest that the Democrats ever came to universal health care was passing a watered down piece of legislation that was originally proposed by Nixon, and even then faced such a heavy backlash for it that they pretty much weren't able to do anything for the rest of Obama's administration, meaning that immigration reform, criminal justice reform, ending the war on terror, etc. all went on the back burner indefinitely. Besides, at least Obama and Clinton pretended like they were going to change how things were done when they were on the campaign trail, the only thing Biden has promised is that he'd veto any Medicare for all bill that came before him, and I have no reason to think that he's lying about that to try and sway swing voters.

It's really hard to change the system, even from within and it's harder still to do that when voters won't give them the majorities they need to do it more than 4 years. We could replace the Democrats with a leftist party and they'd still get crushed by the system because that's how it works and they're too ok with the belief that don't supporting the voting required for long term impacts (as in getting congress and the presidency in their pocket) because too many don't have any clue what they're doing - all they know is to be professionally contrarian to everything the Democrats do because the Democrats don't have he power to fix everything with a tiny time frame. Because compromise is crucial to passing legislation like that, they had huge difficulties passing the ACA - why do you expect them to accomplish passing a more radical bill? The obstacles won't go away by electing leftist politicians. America's a democracy, not a dictatorship. The reason they failed is because of the above, politicians can promise anything they like but if it requires something like a majority vote in congress they won't make it happen - not because they weren't genuine, it's about political reality.

Besides, calling out moderate Democrats for opposing "radical" reforms is discrediting them only in the sense that it discredits centrism as an idea. These candidates are only considered more electable in the first place because they have more appeal to conservative voters who are naturally opposed to any hint of progressivism, indeed if they were to turn into social justice crusaders upon reaching office, that would rightfully be considered a betrayal of the promises they made to get elected in the first place. The absolute best case scenario with Biden is that he ends up with majorities in both houses and manages to roll back most of Trump's legislation and resets America back to how it was in 2016 more or less, but there's no chance he'd try to push the envelope any more. If the Republicans manage to retain control of either chamber, there's no chance he can even do that. This isn't slander, this is simply what being a moderate in America means these days, and what all of these Biden supporters are voting for.

They're considered "electable" because they win elections more often than not. Your use of "conservative" and "moderate" is vague, since you consider American Liberals conservatives which is false. Everything is conservative when a person's ideology is too far to the left. It's not like us or the Democrats don't want progress it's that we acknowledge the political reality that wanting something is not going to make it appear in reality, it requires compromise, long term planning and accepting change is slow. A president can only us the congress they are given, Biden may not be as progressive as I want but right now he's our only hope without that we won't get any progress, period. Sanders being president would be lucky to get back to the Obama status quo, under no circumstances will he get a free ride for his agenda with the Democrats party.

[aja_christopher]

Wasn't Obama on the verge of getting national health care started until the Tea Party fiasco in 2010?

I can't really say why Bernie doesn't get Democrat voters enough to win the nomination but a huge portion of the country does want national health care. Aside from that, if a Democrat gets the presidency with a Democrat House and Senate and pushes it through, I suspect it won't be long before the overwhelming majority realizes it's great to pay a minor tax (or maybe none depending on income) with no insurance and no medical bills except that basic tax and they don't have to live with pain anymore because they can't afford treatment even with insurance from work.

Many Americans don't like the idea of sudden changes in politics -- especially older voters who tend to be more conservative (and actually vote).

A gradual shift is more likely with the fallout from the pandemic likely pushing us more towards either extreme depending on who wins office.

Never forget that Republicans campaigned for years on repealing the ACA, winning the House, the Senate and the White House in the process.

[4saken1]

Even when Democrats have had majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency they've still failed to get their major legislation passed, because they fold way too easily to Republican pressure and keep trying to compromise even though the GOP has no intention of doing that. The closest that the Democrats ever came to universal health care was passing a watered down piece of legislation that was originally proposed by Nixon, and even then faced such a heavy backlash for it that they pretty much weren't able to do anything for the rest of Obama's administration, meaning that immigration reform, criminal justice reform, ending the war on terror, etc. all went on the back burner indefinitely. Besides, at least Obama and Clinton pretended like they were going to change how things were done when they were on the campaign trail, the only thing Biden has promised is that he'd veto any Medicare for all bill that came before him, and I have no reason to think that he's lying about that to try and sway swing voters.

Besides, calling out moderate Democrats for opposing "radical" reforms is discrediting them only in the sense that it discredits centrism as an idea. These candidates are only considered more electable in the first place because they have more appeal to conservative voters who are naturally opposed to any hint of progressivism, indeed if they were to turn into social justice crusaders upon reaching office, that would rightfully be considered a betrayal of the promises they made to get elected in the first place. The absolute best case scenario with Biden is that he ends up with majorities in both houses and manages to roll back most of Trump's legislation and resets America back to how it was in 2016 more or less, but there's no chance he'd try to push the envelope any more. If the Republicans manage to retain control of either chamber, there's no chance he can even do that. This isn't slander, this is simply what being a moderate in America means these days, and what all of these Biden supporters are voting for.

......and if, by some miracle a Progressive became President, they would quickly be labeled a turncoat, a moderate, and in general a traitor to the cause by their formerly most ardent supporters because they had to <gasp> compromise to get anything even remotely recognizable as something from their platform passed.

[PwrdOn]

Wasn't Obama on the verge of getting national health care started until the Tea Party fiasco in 2010?

I can't really say why Bernie doesn't get Democrat voters enough to win the nomination but a huge portion of the country does want national health care. Aside from that, if a Democrat gets the presidency with a Democrat House and Senate and pushes it through, I suspect it won't be long before the overwhelming majority realizes it's great to pay a minor tax (or maybe none depending on income) with no insurance and no medical bills except that basic tax and they don't have to live with pain anymore because they can't afford treatment even with insurance from work.

The reason America doesn't have universal health care is because most white voters don't want to see their tax money go to fund services that non-white people might use. This is also the reason why there is also so much hate for things like welfare and public education, while everyone recognizes that these are broadly beneficial to society as a whole, the people who have all the wealth and power figure they can do better hoarding all of the resources for themselves and letting the rest of the country go to ****, rather than actually giving up a bit of comfort and convenience to make things better for everyone. Not sure why anyone thinks the public will just miraculously come around on this anytime soon.

......and if, by some miracle a Progressive became President, they would quickly be labeled a turncoat, a moderate, and in general a traitor to the cause by their formerly most ardent supporters because they had to <gasp> compromise to get anything even remotely recognizable as something from their platform passed.

If the Republicans, as the minority party in this country, don't ever have to compromise to pass whatever the hell they want, why should the Democrats?

[jetengine]

The only way progressives get what they want in the time they want and without compromise is through replacing everyone, both Democrat and Republican. Which is impossible save for a revolution of some kind but at that point its not really a democracy even a shitty one like now