2020 US General Election Thread VII: Summer of Discontent

[Zurkerx]

“She laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse”: Why Kamala Harris isn't a lock for VP.

The "that's politics" part is her answer to her attack on Biden regarding the bussing issue. It concerned the person (Dodd) so much, it is why he's been reportedly pushing for Rep. Bass given an increasing number of her opponents find her not trusting and other problems with her record, especially as AG and her failed run Presidential Campaign.

[Valrifell]

And this country is nowhere closer to Red Dawn 70 years later.

Largely because a small number of radical leftists aside, the majority of America is rightfully paranoid about communists.

I don't think that's true. As of May of last year, 40% of Americans saw socialism as a good thing.

While a majority view it as a bad thing, I think if we broaden our scope to be "are you afraid of a communist takeover?" The answer would be a majority "no" and a small percentage "I am the communist takeover"

[South Odreria 2]

“She laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse”: Why Kamala Harris isn't a lock for VP.

The "that's politics" part is her answer to her attack on Biden regarding the bussing issue. It concerned the person (Dodd) so much, it is why he's been reportedly pushing for Rep. Bass given an increasing number of her opponents find her not trusting and other problems with her record, especially as AG and her failed run Presidential Campaign.

“It. Was. A. Debate!!!” *hyena laugh* - Kampala when asked why she now loves someone she called a segregationist

[Thermodolia]

Largely because a small number of radical leftists aside, the majority of America is rightfully paranoid about communists.

I don't think that's true. As of May of last year, 40% of Americans saw socialism as a good thing.

While a majority view it as a bad thing, I think if we broaden our scope to be "are you afraid of a communist takeover?" The answer would be a majority "no" and a small percentage "I am the communist takeover"

There is a difference between socialism and communism. I consider myself a socialist but not a communist and quite frankly I despise communists

[Valrifell]

I don't think that's true. As of May of last year, 40% of Americans saw socialism as a good thing.

While a majority view it as a bad thing, I think if we broaden our scope to be "are you afraid of a communist takeover?" The answer would be a majority "no" and a small percentage "I am the communist takeover"

There is a difference between socialism and communism. I consider myself a socialist but not a communist and quite frankly I despise communists

Sure, but fear of a communist takeover is probably directly correlated to fear of leftist ideologies broadly due to the lack of common awareness of the nuances of leftist political theory.

So, since 40% of people think socialism is good, actually, I think it follows that the majority of people are unconcerned about the threats communists pose to the nation, particularly after the Cold War.

[South Odreria 2]

A classless stateless moneyless society is not likely to happen anytime soon. Socialism though has succeeded time and again.

[Ngelmish]

Don't worry though, the Democrats who have failed to fix Reagan's mess and make America a better place are totally going to fix Trump's mess and make America a better place.

The Republicans move the overton window to the right, and the Democrats block any efforts to move it back to the left.

Really, I should ignore this, but you see, the thing is, reality is considerably more complicated than that.

How?

After the Reagan Revolution, the Democratic Party was absolutely scrambled. Over the 80s, the party begins to abandon and distance themselves from the overt leftism pioneered by FDR and big government projects of that kind of sort, particularly because there was absolutely no taste for big expenditure at the time. So the early 90s Democrats are essentially diet Republicans, they want to deregulate, just not as much. Cut spending, just not as much. Lowkey pushing racist policies, just not as much.

What's important here is the lack of attacks/reversal of politics advocated by Reagan because, while harmful and against previously Democratic norms, he was just too gosh darn popular even post-presidency to compete with. Candidates lost were often perceived to have done so because they were "too liberal", essentially for the last few decades the Democrats conceded that the political heart of the nation was fundamentally conservative.

This has the bonus of limiting the damage of Reagan's legacy but doesn't reverse it. This trend of center-right Democrats competing with the moderately-right Republicans continues throughout the Clinton administration and Bush II. There was a resurgence of this attitude during the height of the War on Terror, too. The leftist elements of the Democratic party didn't really go away, though, just shrink and lose power to the moderate elements.

So, 70s and 80s Republicans moved to the right and found electoral success, Democrats simplified various factors and perceived the American public to be right-wing, and followed suit to reclaim the White House with Clinton on an overall Republican-ish platform. As we move farther from 1992, we ease up on that narrative which as allowed for more wiggle room for leftist candidates since the turn of the millennium.

You see, this subsequent post is an honest attempt to at least try and consider the incentives, principles, and priorities of the Democratic Party, which, contrary to your occasional contributions, generally does align itself with trying to do the kinds of things that you think are better in principle for both the country and the people living in it.

But no, y'all who want to jealously claim ownership of the "left" and "working class politics" reduce politics to a cartoonish mashup in which your priorities can never be met and therefore the process has to be short-circuited by revolutionary imposition of your policies by the top down. Because that comports with history and the reality that most people are complicated, somehow.

[South Odreria 2]

The Republicans move the overton window to the right, and the Democrats block any efforts to move it back to the left.

(Image)

Really, I should ignore this, but you see, the thing is, reality is considerably more complicated than that.

After the Reagan Revolution, the Democratic Party was absolutely scrambled. Over the 80s, the party begins to abandon and distance themselves from the overt leftism pioneered by FDR and big government projects of that kind of sort, particularly because there was absolutely no taste for big expenditure at the time. So the early 90s Democrats are essentially diet Republicans, they want to deregulate, just not as much. Cut spending, just not as much. Lowkey pushing racist policies, just not as much.

What's important here is the lack of attacks/reversal of politics advocated by Reagan because, while harmful and against previously Democratic norms, he was just too gosh darn popular even post-presidency to compete with. Candidates lost were often perceived to have done so because they were "too liberal", essentially for the last few decades the Democrats conceded that the political heart of the nation was fundamentally conservative.

This has the bonus of limiting the damage of Reagan's legacy but doesn't reverse it. This trend of center-right Democrats competing with the moderately-right Republicans continues throughout the Clinton administration and Bush II. There was a resurgence of this attitude during the height of the War on Terror, too. The leftist elements of the Democratic party didn't really go away, though, just shrink and lose power to the moderate elements.

So, 70s and 80s Republicans moved to the right and found electoral success, Democrats simplified various factors and perceived the American public to be right-wing, and followed suit to reclaim the White House with Clinton on an overall Republican-ish platform. As we move farther from 1992, we ease up on that narrative which as allowed for more wiggle room for leftist candidates since the turn of the millennium.

You see, this subsequent post is an honest attempt to at least try and consider the incentives, principles, and priorities of the Democratic Party, which, contrary to your occasional contributions, generally does align itself with trying to do the kinds of things that you think are better in principle for both the country and the people living in it.

But no, y'all who want to jealously claim ownership of the "left" and "working class politics" reduce politics to a cartoonish mashup in which your priorities can never be met and therefore the process has to be short-circuited by revolutionary imposition of your policies by the top down. Because that comports with history and the reality that most people are complicated, somehow.

Um interesting to hear that blargo’s “priorities can never be met” and that he demands “revolutionary imposition of his policies by the top down.” It’s pretty obvious that his priorities could be met but have not been. It’s also interesting that you talk about people being complicated will reducing a ton of the people on this board to a stereotype of bernie bro meanie heads.

[Genivaria]

“She laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse”: Why Kamala Harris isn't a lock for VP.

The "that's politics" part is her answer to her attack on Biden regarding the bussing issue. It concerned the person (Dodd) so much, it is why he's been reportedly pushing for Rep. Bass given an increasing number of her opponents find her not trusting and other problems with her record, especially as AG and her failed run Presidential Campaign.

"I have no principals beyond what gets me a position."
Yeah great sell.

[Genivaria]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'

Nearly 400 Democratic delegates plan to oppose any party platform that does not include "Medicare for All," saying the coronavirus pandemic illustrates the urgency.

“This pandemic has shown us that our private health insurance system does not work for the American people. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their health care at the same time,” Judith Whitmer, a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who chairs the convention’s Nevada delegation, told Politico. “There’s people leaving the hospital now with millions of dollars in medical bills. What are we going to do about that?”

Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

[South Odreria 2]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'

Nearly 400 Democratic delegates plan to oppose any party platform that does not include "Medicare for All," saying the coronavirus pandemic illustrates the urgency.

“This pandemic has shown us that our private health insurance system does not work for the American people. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their health care at the same time,” Judith Whitmer, a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who chairs the convention’s Nevada delegation, told Politico. “There’s people leaving the hospital now with millions of dollars in medical bills. What are we going to do about that?”

Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

What does Medicare for all even mean? The plan proposed by bernard was completely unfeasible.

[Asle Leopolka]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'

Nearly 400 Democratic delegates plan to oppose any party platform that does not include "Medicare for All," saying the coronavirus pandemic illustrates the urgency.

“This pandemic has shown us that our private health insurance system does not work for the American people. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their health care at the same time,” Judith Whitmer, a delegate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who chairs the convention’s Nevada delegation, told Politico. “There’s people leaving the hospital now with millions of dollars in medical bills. What are we going to do about that?”

Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much they'd save under a single-payer system. Such a shame.

[The Black Forrest]

“She laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse”: Why Kamala Harris isn't a lock for VP.

The "that's politics" part is her answer to her attack on Biden regarding the bussing issue. It concerned the person (Dodd) so much, it is why he's been reportedly pushing for Rep. Bass given an increasing number of her opponents find her not trusting and other problems with her record, especially as AG and her failed run Presidential Campaign.

"I have no principals beyond what gets me a position."
Yeah great sell.

So?...........she is a politician?

[The Black Forrest]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'


Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much they'd save under a single-payer system. Such a shame.

But the death panels.

[The Emerald Legion]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'


Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much they'd save under a single-payer system. Such a shame.

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much you'd lose under a single payer system.

[Cisairse]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'


Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

What does Medicare for all even mean? The plan proposed by bernard was completely unfeasible.

Medicare-for-All means that the government will cure my cancer and the more cancer I have after the election the more right-wing Joe Biden is.

[Necroghastia]

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much they'd save under a single-payer system. Such a shame.

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much you'd lose under a single payer system.

I couldn't agree more, since they'd see that it was less than they are losing currently.

[The Emerald Legion]

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much you'd lose under a single payer system.

I couldn't agree more, since they'd see that it was less than they are losing currently.

Not really no.

[The Black Forrest]

I couldn't agree more, since they'd see that it was less than they are losing currently.

Not really no.

Ok. Let’s see your numbers.

[SD_Film Artists]

Or because it's just a bigger political football rather than the difference between 20 generations and 6 generations. In America a person who happens to be of Caucasian decent is "white" because everything has to be about colour. Meanwhile Vikings are ok and fun

That it's a bigger political football is intrinsically linked to its relationship in the recent* history of the economic disempowerment of black groups, because immediately following emancipation they were kept poor by sharecropping and Jim Crow. Recency absolutely is the larger contributing factor

But that's not slavery, it's institutionalised racism which- while obviously bad- isn't the same a slavery. As for dealing with the cultural fallout of said racism, if anything the recent history of racism is all the more reason not to repeat it and instead push for equality; equality which you're not going to get if you keep giving a single f*** about someone's melanin content.

as to why people think we need a better conversation about slavery

What better conversation is there to have? Are people denying it? Are people saying that the numbers in slavery "isn't as much as what black people say" or other things which mirror holocaust denyal? Because otherwise "having a better conversation about slavery" is just code for "Let's pretend that all European history is about slavery and by extension not allow any celebration of European history".

Even if you don't think it's still a thing, mass segregation was very popular only a few short decades ago, in the 1960s.

And it's coming back, only this time it's self-imposed.

[Thermodolia]

360 Democratic delegates say they'll oppose party platform that does not include 'Medicare for All'


Not holding my breath, his donors say no.

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much they'd save under a single-payer system. Such a shame.

Multi-payer is better for the US. Universal Healthcare doesn’t automatically mean single payer

[South Odreria 2]

Really wish more people did the math and saw how much they'd save under a single-payer system. Such a shame.

Multi-payer is better for the US. Universal Healthcare doesn’t automatically mean single payer

No country is 100% single payer on everything anyway because that would be insane. Copays and deductibles are needed for the system to function.

[Valrifell]

That it's a bigger political football is intrinsically linked to its relationship in the recent* history of the economic disempowerment of black groups, because immediately following emancipation they were kept poor by sharecropping and Jim Crow. Recency absolutely is the larger contributing factor

But that's not slavery, it's institutionalised racism which- while obviously bad- isn't the same a slavery. As for dealing with the cultural fallout of said racism, if anything the recent history of racism is all the more reason not to repeat it and instead push for equality; equality which you're not going to get if you keep giving a single f*** about someone's melanin content.

This is a remarkably easy stance to have today, even though that the systems that were designed to make it difficult for people of a particular skin color to be well off are still in place today and that black people are more likely to be poor, on account of aforementioned systems. Talking about melanin content is necessary because without pointing out the systematic abuse against a group of people it's easy to brush it off as individualized abuse, but we know better than that. But we pretend that skin color no longer matters and the US is post-racial, it's easier to ignore issues when racists flair up. That's bad. We're not at a place where we can safely ignore race as a contributing factor to societal woes, that's idealistic and premature. Pushing for total equality is exactly what's happening right now, except it's with the frame of elevating black people which makes others uncomfortable, I guess. But again, the elevating is necessary because they were disadvantaged in the first place.

That is to say, equality can not be achieved without some degree of intention. Coasting or trying to address the issues without noting skin color would render several solutions ineffective at best.

as to why people think we need a better conversation about slavery

What better conversation is there to have? Are people denying it? Are people saying that the numbers in slavery "isn't as much as what black people say" or other things which mirror holocaust denyal? Because otherwise "having a better conversation about slavery" is just code for "Let's pretend that all European history is about slavery and by extension not allow any celebration of European history".

Given that Tom Cotton recently said that slavery was a necessary evil and several officials called it a choice... I think we still need more time to think this one over. Not even to mention the adamant refusal to acknowledge that maybe having statues glorifying confederates is a bad idea.

I don't think anyone is saying get rid of Oktoberfest or St. Patricks day, too. So people are pretty okay with expressions of European ancestry.

Even if you don't think it's still a thing, mass segregation was very popular only a few short decades ago, in the 1960s.

And it's coming back, only this time it's self-imposed.

Self-imposed segregation is better than government imposed segregation if we take your point at face-value. Self-segregation has been here since Jim Crow ended, by the way, it's an inevitable byproduct of redlining and ghettoization that happened during the white flight. Again, this is something that can only be fixed with intent. Only now are people taking issue with it because some people have advocated for the idea of "black only spaces", being ignorant of the fact that they already de-facto exist.

[Ngelmish]

Really, I should ignore this, but you see, the thing is, reality is considerably more complicated than that.



You see, this subsequent post is an honest attempt to at least try and consider the incentives, principles, and priorities of the Democratic Party, which, contrary to your occasional contributions, generally does align itself with trying to do the kinds of things that you think are better in principle for both the country and the people living in it.

But no, y'all who want to jealously claim ownership of the "left" and "working class politics" reduce politics to a cartoonish mashup in which your priorities can never be met and therefore the process has to be short-circuited by revolutionary imposition of your policies by the top down. Because that comports with history and the reality that most people are complicated, somehow.

Um interesting to hear that blargo’s “priorities can never be met” and that he demands “revolutionary imposition of his policies by the top down.” It’s pretty obvious that his priorities could be met but have not been. It’s also interesting that you talk about people being complicated will reducing a ton of the people on this board to a stereotype of bernie bro meanie heads.

You know perfectly well that the policies he talks about being non-negotiable for him are/have gained traction within a wide swath of the intstitutional Democratic Party, but no, that's not good enough for him, so he has to come in and reduce politics to "Democrats are spineless and bad and letting the GOP win!"

You can pretend that that isn't a reductionist, simplistic, untrue argument if you want to -- at that point whether or not Bernie Sanders was your preferred vehicle for other policies is really sort of beside the point.

[SD_Film Artists]

But that's not slavery, it's institutionalised racism which- while obviously bad- isn't the same a slavery. As for dealing with the cultural fallout of said racism, if anything the recent history of racism is all the more reason not to repeat it and instead push for equality; equality which you're not going to get if you keep giving a single f*** about someone's melanin content.

The systems that were designed to make it difficult for people of a particular skin color to be well off are still in place today

Then remove them. Sure it's easier said than done but it's better than perpetuating the problem by fighting fire with fire.

it's easier to ignore issues when racists flair up.

Don't let it be easy- make it clear and illegal. If the illegality isn't clear then that's what lawyers are for.

Pushing for total equality is exactly what's happening right now, except it's with the frame of elevating black people. [...] But again, the elevating is necessary because they were disadvantaged in the first place.

Elevating to a level of equality; nothing more or less.

Given that Tom Cotton recently said that slavery was a necessary evil and several officials called it a choice... I think we still need more time to think this one over. Not even to mention the adamant refusal to acknowledge that maybe having statues glorifying confederates is a bad idea.

I don't think anyone is saying get rid of Oktoberfest or St. Patricks day, too. So people are pretty okay with expressions of European ancestry.

But it's not always so black & white (no pun intended). What if the guy who introduced Oktoberfest had a 0.05 share in a company which may have possibly profited from slavery? Ban Oktoberfest!! It sounds silly but the satues being vandalised and other acts of historical revisionism aren't always against people who had a direct and/or defining role in slavery; sometimes they even had an active role against slavery. It's not even reserved to race; as someone with Aspergers Syndrome I'd offend some autistics simply by stating my diagnosis, and why? Because a lady in the 1980's decided that this kind of autism should be named after some guy from 1940's Germany who has zero relevance or admiration amoung modern Aspergers folk. But nope, Aspergers is suddenly tantamount of celebrating Nazism even though the guy wasn't himself a Nazi.

More on-topic, there was a story that a 1920's themed party was protested against for 'celebrating a time when people of colour were discriminated againt'. Perhaps it was just some right-wing bait, or perhaps it was true; either way it's typical of the habit of extending guilt to other areas.

Self-imposed segregation is better than government imposed segregation if we take your point at face-value. Self-segregation has been here since Jim Crow ended, by the way, it's an inevitable byproduct of redlining and ghettoization that happened during the white flight. Again, this is something that can only be fixed with intent. Only now are people taking issue with it because some people have advocated for the idea of "black only spaces", being ignorant of the fact that they already de-facto exist.

It's just relacing one form of racism with another.