Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
A real bad hombre
Aren't there only two or three single payer countries in the world right now?
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison
A procrastination in of itself
Sure but that's not because of anything to do with the number of people in the US, it's because campaigns in the US aren't focused around having activists and volunteers, they're focused around ad buys and securing donations. Campaign finance reform will first of all put a people of people and hours away from securing donations, that time and effort can go into connecting directly with voters. On top of that campaigns will have to adapt, that means focusing more on community building within local parties so that you can build up an activist base.
One thing that I think hurts the US in this instance is how US political parties are structured. In countries where you have proper party membership, instead of the US system that's more about party affiliation, you have a ready made base of activists to draw from.
For example I'm a fees paying member of the Labour Party in the UK, I have a local constituency party that I'm tied to, they send me emails and texts about local campaign events, the emails I tend to ignore but the texts are rare enough that I pay attention. If I wasn't unable to I'd probably be responding to those texts and going to the door knocking events that they're telling me about.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The story about NC lawmakers trying to cut food stamps is really bothering me. How could any true human conduct such a measure? How could any civilian support it?
edited 21st May '17 1:19:31 PM by BearyScary
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Because fuck minorities and the poor.
Oh really when?
Oh, bother.
Someone from NC might be able to answer that question.
My guess is that the people who aren't horrible selfish sociopaths out to Kill the Poor but support the cuts genuinely believe the system is wasteful and that people who don't need it are taking advantage of it. Maybe they think cutting it will remove the waste while still making sure people who really need it can still get food.
edited 21st May '17 1:18:55 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
The idea that those services are regularly abused is pretty ingrained. I've heard that attitude even from people who think they should still exist.
It's kind of like the Voter ID laws; yeah, the reason the law makers (and ordinary citizens) want them is just to keep Democrats from voting, but a lot of ordinary people also genuinely have no issue with the idea, and resist to it can often come off (or be painted) as wanting fraud, instead of seeing them for what they really are.
edited 21st May '17 1:20:46 PM by LSBK
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I think that plenty of people believe that. Or have been brainwashed to believe that.
@Linked: Depends on how loosely or stringently you define single-payer; universal medicare would still leave significant gaps where private insurance would be necessary.
@Kostya: What you described was essentially Sanders' proposal: medicare for all. It would require non-trivial tax-hikes on basically everyone, but the actual difference in cost to the end user could potentially be lower than it is now to have insurance in certain income brackets, depending on the specifics of the taxation.
@M84: Other countries have problems with healthcare, but the United States's system is frankly an international embarrassment in terms of how bad it is. the AHC was a step forwards of course.
* Which would be logistically one of the easier ways of implementing a universe healthcare system if it weren't for the political barriers; medicare was originally intended as a precursor to a more comprehensive healthcare system.
edited 21st May '17 1:28:37 PM by CaptainCapsase
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
So when's El Orange slated to hold his great speech about Islam?
"You can reply to this Message!"
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
From NC, the local Republicans really are just that cruel and malicious. They're out to kill the poor and starve minorities in any way they can.
The people who vote for them tend to believe that they're just trying to cut spending.
Oh really when?
Oh, bother.
Someone a while back posted an article about an NC Rep complaining that a duck ramp in the capital was government waste.
That right there is a perfect illustration of the cruel pettiness and Skewed Priorities of NC Republicans.
Disgusted, but not surprised
My general thinking is that you might be able to give individuals the benefit of the doubt, but once you've gotten into the levels of state and national government, they don't have the same excuses of ignorance, and actually have a responsibility to inform themselves about what will and won't work, and fight their own innate biases. I mean, everyone should do that, but they have an actual duty to do so.
That's why I don't really have much issue assigning malice to most of the congressional Republicans (or just dangerous indifference or self-servingness) but am much more hesitant to do that with your average Republican, even if both conscious and subconscious racism, is still an obvious part of Republican politics, and politics, in general.
edited 21st May '17 1:34:09 PM by LSBK
Oh, bother.
I've got a Republican dad who is extremely cynical about politics, so I know better than to demonize Republican voters in general. It helps that he doesn't actually vote anymore. He is that cynical and apathetic about politics.
I should clarify that when I say NC Republicans, I mean the ones who hold office like Reps and legislature seats.
What is the AHC? Do you mean the ACA?
edited 21st May '17 1:39:36 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Yeah, I don't think the average Republican voter is evil or anything, it's the politicians I have a problem with.
Although I have way too many relatives on the one side of my family in the US who are staunch Republican voters...and they're the absolute dumbest and craziest people you'll ever meet. There's a reason I never even consider going to the "Extended Family Reunions". The pro-Confederacy guy who lives in a very pro-Union state without realizing is one of them. However, I don't say that as a value judgment. They're victims of a massive propaganda empire, complete with a social paradigm that glorifies ignorance.
The people who made and perpetuate the propaganda empire and who initially created that social paradigm? They're just awful people.
edited 21st May '17 1:41:51 PM by Zendervai
Not Three Laws compliant.
A lot of them believe that the poor are lazy, and want to provide incentives to work harder. Ignorance and prejudice, yes, but not genocidal levels of evil.
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
@ 3of4 Trump urges Muslim leaders to lead fight against radicalisation
"Drive them out of this earth," he told regional leaders in Riyadh, as part of his first official trip abroad.
Mr Trump blamed Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival, for instability in the region.
... speaking in the Saudi capital to leaders of 55 Muslim-majority countries, Mr Trump called this a "new chapter", saying he was not there to "lecture" them or impose the American way of life.
The fight against extremism, he added, was not a battle between different faiths or civilizations: "This is a battle between good and evil".
"A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists, and drive out the extremists".
But, he added, the countries could not wait for "American power" to act, and had to "fulfil their part of the burden".
He singled out Iran for criticism, accusing it of fuelling sectarian conflict and supporting "unspeakable crimes" by the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama, this US president made no mention of human rights or democracy. But he did condemn the oppression of women.
And amongst several cynical reactions to the speech from around the region on social media, some have pointed out that here in Saudi Arabia women are forbidden to drive and there are no parliamentary elections. In Iran, the country accused by Mr Trump of being behind much of the current terrorism across the Middle East, they have just had a free election and women are free to drive.
Analysts said the speech was a change for Mr Trump, who is trying to redefine his relationship with the Muslim world after several controversial remarks, including an interview last year in which he famously said: "I think Islam hates us."
His highly anticipated address did not include the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism", which he had used before and is considered offensive by many Muslims. A transcript of the text published on his Facebook page included a mention of "Islamist extremism" and "Islamist terror groups".
But in his speech Mr Trump said: "That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds." It was not immediately clear if he stumbled over the word or decided to change the script.
The speech has already been made. Not much on reactions yet, but for pre-speech reactions to his visit: 'Trump, servant of God': How Saudis are viewing his visit
edited 21st May '17 1:55:36 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
@M84: Yeah, I meant the Affordable Care Act.
When it comes to my family, basically everyone is a democrat except for my maternal grandmother, my paternal grandparents, and their oldest son and his family. Among the Republicans, the more reluctant supporters of Trump happened to be mostly on the Chinese side of my family, compared to the white side of my family. Which is disheartening, but not surprising.
edited 21st May '17 1:48:34 PM by CaptainCapsase
The Trump speech was clearly aimed at the Saudis not the alt right.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Oh, bother.
The current administration refuses to even acknowledge that radical white nationalist right-wing terrorism is a thing.
Doesn't trump not realize many countries are already combatting extremism? Also re single payer healthcare: it has to be a gradual switch. That's what the aca was meant to be, part of a longer term change.
Not the point. If Trump's speech had been aimed at the alt right, it would have been a "you are all terrorists" slag fest. Which would probably cause several new versions of the Teheran hostage crisis.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Oh, bother.
Of course he doesn't know it. He thinks people in those countries are too lazy, weak, apathetic, etc. to handle extremism and that poor America has been picking up their slack.
edited 21st May '17 1:56:50 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
"Medicare-for-All" is what he called it but if you read the actual proposal it was significantly more generous then anything Medicare currently offers. Krugman even mentioned that it was more generous thenmost other Universal Healthcare programs around the world. That' probably more then caused people to balk at the idea.
The saddest thing is that the victims are convinced to work against their best interests.
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
We can get into the specifics when we have the votes.
New Survey coming this weekend!