All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Tami]

McCarthy slams Democrats on funding for mail-in balloting

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Thursday slammed calls to include funding for mail-in voting in the next coronavirus relief bill, arguing Democrats are attempting to use the pandemic for their political benefit.

Voters in Wisconsin this week went to the polls in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, and Democrats have argued the federal government should fund mail-in balloting to ensure people can vote safely.

But Republicans, including President Trump, have criticized the idea, arguing it is an attempt to federalize elections and that Democrats are just trying to increase their votes.

I wonder if Republicans realize just how bad this makes them look and sound?

[TheDarman]

McCarthy slams Democrats on funding for mail-in balloting

I wonder if Republicans realize just how bad this makes them look and sound?

Allowing more people to vote gets them more votes? Then they should be winning elections.

[Tami]

The defeatist tone coming from some on the left is buffoonish to me.
It’s the whole Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line cliche played out in real time. Some on the left tend to carry an all or nothing approach to politics that I feel is ultimately destructive to their cause. Republicans tend to be way more pragmatic and tend to take a more long term view of getting stuff done. Trust me their are a lot of Republicans who don’t care for Trump but vote for him anyway, because they feel he’ll get some of their goals done.

First, Democrats also take the long term approach. Environmental protection, social initiatives, and so on. Democrats are pragmatic but understand that you can't cheapen things so much that teh future suffers for it. Sometimes you have to balance things out. Republicans are all about goals, but their goals are lopsided and care nothing for the future. So Republicans scheme long term, Democrats plan for the long term.

Much of the goals of the Republicans, like with everything, need to stand the test of time. What they get today, might not still exist 5 years from now. We've sen with Trump how easy it is to dismantle things. We've seen with the ACA and MfA, that good ideas are hard to get rid of. Bad ideas usually don't last, even if it takes a long time.

[Mister Mets]

Even in California as a Republican, what you are saying only applies to the presidency. There are tons of things to vote on (local, regional, etc.) on every ballot besides that. And, lets face it, the face in Washington at any given time has a lot less influence on local happenings than those other things to vote on will have.

People who don't vote are just dumb, uneducated, lazy and foolish.

California's runoff elections do allow Republicans to have a bit of an impact even if two Democrats make it to the last round.

As for how many elections your party has a chance of winning, that does depend on the area. In some parts of Texas, a Democrat will consistently be outvoted when it comes to congress, state legislature, and any other office.

You should still vote, if only to encourage others to do so.

The fact that he clearly does not hire people who know how to run a campaign makes the whole "Bernie would have won in 2016" meme so damn funny.

Obviously, he would have done better with the larger population who would be more receptive to his left-wing message than the smaller group of Democratic primary voters.

Allowing more people to vote gets them more votes? Then they should be winning elections.

In the article, McCarthy is quoted saying that he's concerned it makes fraud easier. So the argument would be that some of the votes may not be legitimate.

[Gray Lensman]

In the article, McCarthy is quoted saying that he's concerned it makes fraud easier. So the argument would be that some of the votes may not be legitimate.

That line has long been exposed as a bigger fraud than what they are trying to convince us of. Every attempt to find massive voter fraud comes back with a number that can be counted on one's hands, and with no real bias in partisan leanings. Trump is actually being honest for a brief moment when he says "If everyone could easily vote, Republicans would never win again."

[Mister Mets]

I wonder how much this kind of behavior is what makes people gravitate towards both Trump and Sanders. Both teams are full of people who are “tired” of being “politically correct” and demand action on the issues they view as problems without being “polite”. I wonder if it ends up being more a feature than a bug to get those who are apathetic involved. I don’t necessarily think it is the right move, but it seems like it worked well for Trump.

(This isn’t to say Bernie is a “left-Trump”. For one thing, there is no “left” Trump who only cares about himself and wants to decimate unfriendly populations and “own the libs” himself. For another, Bernie is a lot more disciplined with his message than his staff is. But he really needs to demonstrate better judgment, unless that is what he is going for—have firebrands that speak their mind in his campaign while allowing himself to also be individually “above” the fight.)

It's still not clear that Trump did better than any generic Republican would have in 2016.

And with a generic Republican President, the party wouldn't have to defend all the stuff Trump says on twitter.

So there are major disadvantages to even a successful nominee who is so outspoken. With apathy, there is also the question of why Sanders would assume he could get a much larger group to the polls on election day when he couldn't get a smaller group on his side in the primary.

Just because the party relies on minorities to win elections doesn't mean they care about their interests. These days they always talk about the importance of the Latino vote, but do you think Biden is really going to campaign on amnesty for undocumented immigrants or abolishing ICE or any of that other stuff that those voters care about but which are deemed completely untenable among DC insiders? Biden is basically offering to do just enough so that we can all stop feeling guilty and pretend like everything's fine, but without actually addressing the root cause of any of our problems in a substantive way. Like oh, maybe he will have a woman as his running mate and then he'll step aside in 2024 so that she can run, and we'll finally have a female president! But none of that really means anything, if neither he nor whoever he chooses has the courage or resolve to actually do anything to improve the condition of women in the face of what will undoubtedly be stiff Republican opposition.

If Joe Biden ran on abolishing ICE or amnesty for undocumented immigrants, he would probably lose the election. These are unpopular issues in the United States, which is one reason Democrats are so vague on the basic questions (IE- what should the legal limits be on immigration? what should happen to undocumented immigrants who cross the border next year?) Democrats aren't quiet about their views because they secretly believe things that would persuade centrist voters.

I'm curious about what policies you would like Biden and a Democratic Congress to implement to improve the condition of women that you think would be popular as a campaign rallying cry.

And several red states want to make what you did that day a crime.

What proposed legislation are you talking about?

Most of the issues Blacks and Latinos bring up are issues that affect EVERYBODY not just them.

Cops have used white folks for target practice for years at double the rate of blacks. Yet who is marching in the streets?

White folks abuse drugs more than anyone. In Texas WHITE MEN lead in prison time for procession of drugs. Yet Who is pushing for drug reform and decriminalization?

Fox News and that lot feed their nonsense to those who do not RESEARCH and fan flames of ignorance. Trying to paint something as a black issue for ratings.

If unarmed white men were shot at twice the rate of unarmed black men (a statistic that makes me curious about sourcing), that isn't very meaningful in a country where there are more than twice as many white men as black men.

The defeatist tone coming from some on the left is buffoonish to me.
It’s the whole Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line cliche played out in real time. Some on the left tend to carry an all or nothing approach to politics that I feel is ultimately destructive to their cause. Republicans tend to be way more pragmatic and tend to take a more long term view of getting stuff done. Trust me their are a lot of Republicans who don’t care for Trump but vote for him anyway, because they feel he’ll get some of their goals done. That why if you look at the last 50 years of politics conservatives tend to win. Liberals tend to gravitate around charismatic leaders, and falter when their candidate is some average, but functional Joe (pun intended). Conservatives can go ether way. By the time the general election comes along the Democratic primaries have already done half of the GOP’s job for them.

This gets messy. The Democratic establishment took more steps to stop Sanders than the Republican establishment took to stop Trump. Part of the factor was that Republicans were afraid of losing Trump supporters in future elections. But I could see why Sanders supporters were upset that the establishment and the party apparatus didn't remain neutral through the primary and leave it entirely to the voters.

[Malvolio]

Republicans don't care about defending what Trump says on Twitter. They like to have it around as a distraction from whatever voter suppression, anti-labor law, or conservative judicial appointment they're pushing through. That's why they would rather have Trump in the Oval Office than Pence.

[PwrdOn]

If Joe Biden ran on abolishing ICE or amnesty for undocumented immigrants, he would probably lose the election. These are unpopular issues in the United States, which is one reason Democrats are so vague on the basic questions (IE- what should the legal limits be on immigration? what should happen to undocumented immigrants who cross the border next year?) Democrats aren't quiet about their views because they secretly believe things that would persuade centrist voters.

I'm curious about what policies you would like Biden and a Democratic Congress to implement to improve the condition of women that you think would be popular as a campaign rallying cry.

Those policies are unpopular because the Democrats have let the GOP seize the political initiative and define the narrative around these and many other issues for the last several decades, and have been too weak to take principled stances on them because they're afraid of alienating those precious Midwestern swing voters. It's pretty clear that Biden will not do anything to prioritize issues important to minorities or women because they're considered toxic to mainstream white America, and everybody basically knows that already. But if he's not going to push for social reform, and he's not going to push for economic reform, what is he actually going to do?

[Steel Inquisitor]

Haha. No that’s exactly how this goes. You and others here have already been critical of Sanders inability to bring in moderates and black voters in the south. I didn’t push back that he had flaw bringing them out for him. It was his job. Biden has the job to win this ejection. For the next 7 months his job is to turn out a coalition that will in large part need the more progressive wing to turn out to win. Just like Sanders he doesn’t have an excuse if he fails to turn out a unified coalition. You don’t get to have deprecate standards for those you like and don’t like.

Which we're right to do so, should we all just ignore the fact Sanders didn't bother appealing to Black voters with the Selma anniversary? Sanders "flaw" is that this par for the course with him, he's not that engaged with trying to build coalitions with those who are Democrats. He'll reach out to Joe Rogan before Hillary Clinton. You fail to acknowledge Sanders was responsibility for making it vastly harder for Biden to do this with his own voters, you don't see pushback from Mayor Pete, Warren or Harris voters. Or maybe he'll put in some effort this time in reigning them in since he likes Joe Biden?

Sanders dropped out he did so earlier than any final primary candidate since 2000. Biden has a month before the convention and more than half a year to start his reach out efforts. You don’t get to blame Sanders anymore. No more excuses in your back pocket

It only took a male nominee he was friends with and a virus that made interaction with people deadly. Where was this pragmatism with Hillary Clinton or Elisabeth Warren?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Which we're right to do so, should we all just ignore the fact Sanders didn't bother appealing to Black voters with the Selma anniversary? Sanders "flaw" is that this par for the course with him, he's not that engaged with trying to build coalitions with those who are Democrats. He'll reach out to Joe Rogan before Hillary Clinton. You fail to acknowledge Sanders was responsibility for making it vastly harder for Biden to do this with his own voters, you don't see pushback from Mayor Pete, Warren or Harris voters. Or maybe he'll put in some effort this time in reigning them in since he likes Joe Biden?



It only took a male nominee he was friends with and a virus that made interaction with people deadly. Where was this pragmatism with Hillary Clinton or Elisabeth Warren?

1. Sanders did well with black voters. His issue was that he did better with the younger black voters who turned out less. He was the second best in the black vote,


2. What? Why on Earth should he have dropped out for Warren. He asked her to run last time, she didn’t. He had a better base of support this time and she underperformed worse than anybody not named Tulsi and Bloomberg who stayed in. With Hillary he pushed her left. And he wasn’t nearly as much of a problem for her as she was for the last President. He’s the earliest final drop out since the 2000 election. Move on

3. No you are changing your standards. The candidate you didn’t like had to go out and cater to people. The candidate you do like needs the people to cater to him or else he shamed. We both know what that is. Have consistency

[Kirby101]

Biden unveils new progressive plans.

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-bern...49003b9d3.html

1. Lower the Medicare age from 65 to 60.

Under Biden's plan, Americans would be able to choose whether to access Medicare benefits when they turn 60.
If not, they would be permitted to remain on their employer's insurance, Biden's "public option" or other plans they can access through an Affordable Care Act marketplace.

2. Forgive student debt for low-income and middle-class individuals who have attended public colleges and universities.


Don't want to hear anymore about Biden being no different than Trump.

[Steel Inquisitor]

1. Sanders did well with black voters. His issue was that he did better with the younger black voters who turned out less. He was the second best in the black vote,

He did well with young voters, not all Black voters. Bloomberg is more savvy with those voters than he is, because he simply doesn't try to understand them or try to appeal to their politicians - like Clyburne.

2. What? Why on Earth should he have dropped out for Warren. He asked her to run last time, she didn’t. He had a better base of support this time and she underperformed worse than anybody not named Tulsi and Bloomberg who stayed in. With Hillary he pushed her left. And he wasn’t nearly as much of a problem for her as she was for the last President. He’s the earliest final drop out since the 2000 election. Move on

With Warren it was about him mending fences, he failed to keep her on side and was a low priority once that bridge was blow to pieces by him. I would have moved on had he not ran this year but since sanders did and repeatedly destroyed his campaign with Super Tuesday he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. He dragged out his campaign with Hilary long after it had been reduced to nothing, by the time he finally endorsed her the damage was done.

3. No you are changing your standards. The candidate you didn’t like had to go out and cater to people. The candidate you do like needs the people to cater to him or else he shamed. We both know what that is. Have consistency

Politicians cater to everyone, that's the job. Sanders is by far the worst at doing this than anybody else, short of Tulsi. The candidate I like lost the election and dropped out.

[numberthirty]

Biden unveils new progressive plans.

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-bern...49003b9d3.html

1. Lower the Medicare age from 65 to 60.

Under Biden's plan, Americans would be able to choose whether to access Medicare benefits when they turn 60.
If not, they would be permitted to remain on their employer's insurance, Biden's "public option" or other plans they can access through an Affordable Care Act marketplace.

2. Forgive student debt for low-income and middle-class individuals who have attended public colleges and universities.


Don't want to hear anymore about Biden being no different than Trump.

If you are still trying to frame that kind of stuff(setting aside that for profit insurance will still be robbing Americans...) as "Progressive" when it only means we will be starting to catch up to other parts of the world years too late?

Kind of a mind blower.

[Spidey5640]

Biden unveils new progressive plans.

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-bern...49003b9d3.html

1. Lower the Medicare age from 65 to 60.

Under Biden's plan, Americans would be able to choose whether to access Medicare benefits when they turn 60.
If not, they would be permitted to remain on their employer's insurance, Biden's "public option" or other plans they can access through an Affordable Care Act marketplace.

2. Forgive student debt for low-income and middle-class individuals who have attended public colleges and universities.


Don't want to hear anymore about Biden being no different than Trump.

Typically, there is no details as to how to pay for any of this. As always it will be by raising taxes and taking money out of American's pockets, because Dem truly believe it is "fairer" for the government to spend money rather than the people who actually work to earn it. Also colleges will LOVE student debt forgiveness. They'll raise tuition rates even faster and higher than they have been, knowing it will be paid for. Funny how the Dems never ask the colleges WHY do they raise tuition so frequently? Where is this tuition money going?

[Spidey5640]

Those policies are unpopular because the Democrats have let the GOP seize the political initiative and define the narrative around these and many other issues for the last several decades, and have been too weak to take principled stances on them because they're afraid of alienating those precious Midwestern swing voters. It's pretty clear that Biden will not do anything to prioritize issues important to minorities or women because they're considered toxic to mainstream white America, and everybody basically knows that already. But if he's not going to push for social reform, and he's not going to push for economic reform, what is he actually going to do?

Actually they are unpopular because there are still enough people in the country who believe in the Rule of Law, and that people who violate it, as do illegal aliens when they enter the country, should not be rewarded for doing so. America loves immigrants, LEGAL immigrants. Is it too much to ask to follow our laws to enter our country?