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
If you want a better example of the pros and cons of a single-payer system where the gov't isn't trying to sabotage it...well, take a gander at Taiwan.
On one hand, it's a roaring success. Coverage is almost truly universal, and fewer people are dying as a result.
On the other hand...it's a fiscal mess. The Taiwanese gov't officials are afraid to raise the taxes on the public since they don't want to lose votes, meaning the service isn't properly funded. The Taiwanese gov't has even had to borrow money from banks to make ends meet.
This has also had an effect on the actual quality of Taiwan's health services. New advances in medicine and technology aren't readily available in Taiwan. There aren't enough doctors. Oh, and the providers aren't held accountable for the quality of their services provided.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat was an awesome article, IF Wanderer. The main thing now is to determine which "badges" (read the article) are going to be high priorities for voters in the Democratic primary.
"Heartlander" is going to be important, because Dem voters are going to want someone who can flip red states blue (they won't forget the electoral college defeat of 2016).
Also, "Muckraker", because people are still going to be angry with Trump. Being able to articulate exactly why the Trump administration has been the worst one in history will help capture the mood of Dem voters. "Brawler" less so, because people are getting sick of all the negative campaigning.
"Reproductive Freedom Fighter" and the "Civil Rights" badges will remain as central to Dem voter appeal as ever, because vulnerable populations make up so much of the base, despite this category being somewhat at odds with the "Heartlander" strategy. At the very least, it will be difficult for any single candidate to score high on both types of badges. The things you have to say and who you have to say them too may diverge too much.
It will be an interesting election, that's for sure.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
Has Warren even expressed any interest in running for President? People always bring her up, but all I've ever heard is that she thinks she can do more with her seat in the Senate.
I have no comment on Biden, and Sanders seems like he's probably been too soured by everything that's happened.
edited 6th Jun '17 7:59:31 PM by LSBK
What the hell happened at Breitbart? Several of her colleagues have said that her statements were horrid and stupid. The site must've really wanted to fire her, because this is Breitbart we're talking about.
I know this will come as a surprise, but.
The conservatives don't actually think they are racists. That includes Fox News and Breitbart. So when someone does something so blatantly racist and they are perfectly disposable, they can do this stuff to pretend they actually care.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesKaren Handel sums up the difference between liberals and conservatives.
"I do not support a livable wage." It'll be sad if Ossoff loses after such a blatant admission.
Re: Nevada's healthcare—while it's true Trump could try and cut off funding to Medicare, not only is that a losing strategy due to how many people are on Medicare, but this specific strategy of "cut off funding in order to make a state government treat a program the way you want" was already tried before and failed due to the Supreme Court deeming it unconstitutional. And no I don't mean the sanctuary city funding, I mean the ironic occurrence of Obama trying to pressure states to accept ACA Medicare expansions by threatening to withhold funding. So in short, as long as the SC stands by the precedent of that case, they should strike down any attempt to punish Nevada for the new bill, assuming it becomes law.
Re: AHCA—I too am very worried now. Aside from the budget not working with it, and itself not being likely to pass as-is, the only way I can see this working out is if the version which passed reconciliation is different enough from the House version...because that will require it having to go back through the House again, and considering how difficult it was for them to agree on it, let alone the first version of Trumpcare... Also, the Senators originally had said they didn't find the House bill acceptable and would be making changes, which leads to the scenario I just described. But then they also said they'd make their own bill from scratch, and presumably having the bill pass reconciliation means they didn't do that, doesn't it...?
Re: the leaked NSA info—from what I understand from other articles I've read, if the Russians succeeded in getting the info of those election staffers, there's several things they could have done. Since phishing can be used to gain access to someone's e-mail account, by fooling them into letting you reset their password, then the hackers could have gone into voter profiles and made changes, which would have flagged them and caused the voters to be removed from the rolls, disqualified from voting, and various other ways to prevent them from voting. Also, the voter rolls would have given the hackers access to the data which Cambridge Analytica used to tailor fake news and propaganda ads to individual voters as well as letting them know what regions of the country were particularly vulnerable to such tactics. Unfortunately this isn't illegal and isn't actual vote tampering (it's tampering with the voters themselves), but since it involves hacking into people's personal data which is a violation of privacy, it's still something which could be prosecuted and hopefully prevented in the future, if proven.
edited 6th Jun '17 9:04:20 PM by Ingonyama
"Jobs for all" is a literal impossibility. I mean, we can promise it if that's what it takes to win, but it's going to be a lie. The jobs of the past are just that—the jobs of the past. Coal miners, to pick a blatantly obvious example, are staring into a future where they are obsolete. Same goes for many of the other careers of a bygone era. I mean, some of them could find jobs standing in museums, wearing signs that say "Coal Miner, late twentieth century" but that's about as far as employment opportunities are going to go for them.
Obviously job retraining should be a thing, but the problem is the people in question have consistently voted against job retraining. When Democrats talk about giving them the tools to transition into the jobs of the future, they become furious because they want the jobs of the past to remain relevant.
So again, sure, the Dems can promise them jobs, but it's going to be a half-truth at best. The Dems will do everything they can to ensure that there is economic growth and job opportunities. But that's not really what a lot of Republican voters are looking for.
edited 6th Jun '17 9:04:30 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
plus, anyone who knows even basic macro-economics knows that 100% employment is impossible. there is a certain amount of unemployment that is impossible to place. transitional unemployment, being one of the "natural" forms of unemployment
not that I'd expect the general public to be aware of nuisances like that, but I'd damn as hell expect people running for government offices to know that. (or at least, those offices relevant to economics)
I'd hope it hurts her chances, but after Trump's Abysmal debate performances, I'm not so sure it will.
edited 6th Jun '17 9:10:29 PM by Jetyl
I'm afraid I can't explain myself, sir. Because I am not myself, you see?House Dem drafting articles of impeachment for Trump
Yeah, this probably won't be going anywhere. Still, I think it's still a useful indicator of where things stand at the moment.
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
Pointless nit-picking. Full employment isnt defined as "absolutely everyone has a job at all times".
And it is also not an utopian impossibility - the first world has had consecutive decades where unemployment was simply not a thing, and that did not cause the economy to stop functioning or any such nonsense - What it did do was direct a lot of the economic surplus to labor.
Which is why maintaining an army of the unemployed in involuntary idleness is currently deliberate policy. - I do not know what else to call the way central banks slam the breaks on whenever it starts to look like we are heading back to full employment.
Unemployment is not a natural state of affairs, it is class warfare from the top down. And idiotic macro-economics to boot.
Repost it here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
Long, but really interesting article which does a fair job to explain Europe's perspective on Trump and how it caused a power shift on the continent. Also surprisingly light in pot-shots against Merkel (the paper loves to take apart our government at every opportunity).
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/asia/north-korea-trump-climate-change/index.html
Even North Korea has called the US out on the Paris Climate Accord pullout, calling it the height of egoism and moral vacuum seeking only their own well-being, even at the cost of the entire planet, and calling the US selfish and stating that not only does it have grave consequences for the international efforts to protect the environment, but poses great danger to other areas as well. You know you've fucked up when North Korea is right about you and has a good point.
edited 7th Jun '17 12:37:39 AM by FireCrawler2002

I'm worried about the new ahca. If the revised version passes...