American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[The Reformed American Republic]

right-wing propagandists use these terms as meaningless contextual cues to indicate to their viewers that an angry reaction is required about a racial issue.

They manipulate this with their own ulterior motives, I know. That's why I don't actually align with the right either.

[Ifreann]

...It’s alleged the professor who was initially consulted by the city took the remains to Princeton when he retired from Penn....

We all know what its like, don't we folks? You're leaving your job and so you pocket some pens, pack a few sets of human remains in your briefcase, maybe nab a stapler.

[Senkaku]

right-wing propagandists use these terms as meaningless contextual cues to indicate to their viewers that an angry reaction is required about a racial issue.

They manipulate this with their own ulterior motives, I know. That's why I don't actually align with the right either.

You do, though. You uncritically accept their hysteria over these supposed threats (which I think you know are wildly overblown to the point of being totally divorced from reality); you just don’t happen to agree with their approach to solving them (whip disaffected white voters into a violent frenzy until they destroy democracy and pave the way for some sort of apartheid oligarchy with some minimalist democratic window-dressing). You’re not an active participant, rather a bystander and an enabler (and it’s worse because you seem to have some awareness that you’re being manipulated but you go along with it anyways).

[Rusozak]

...rather than a supposed vast ideological gulf (as “horseshoe theory” would claim).

I agree there. Horseshoe theory is not applicable in this situation.

Horseshow theory is what happens when people forget about the "authoritarian or libertarian" axis. A far right authoritarian is closer on the chart to a far left authoritarian than a leftist libertarian, and just as far from a far right libertarian, so there's a perceived similarity with the classic examples of Stalinism and fascism, which are both authoritarian.

[The Reformed American Republic]

They manipulate this with their own ulterior motives, I know. That's why I don't actually align with the right either.

You do, though. You uncritically accept their hysteria over these supposed threats (which I think you know are wildly overblown to the point of being totally divorced from reality); you just don’t happen to agree with their approach to solving them (whip disaffected white voters into a violent frenzy until they destroy democracy and pave the way for some sort of apartheid oligarchy with some minimalist democratic window-dressing). You’re not an active participant, rather a bystander and an enabler (and it’s worse because you seem to have some awareness that you’re being manipulated but you go along with it anyways).

I'm not an enabler, as I go after the GOP just as harshly, and have done so before. I am guilty of nothing; just because I think it is a real issue doesn't make me this boogieman, even though it is exaggerated, and the right doesn't have any principles other than "own the libs" or some shit.

[Picairn]

How about Obama with the individual mandate, an idea put forth by Newt Gingrich to punish people for being too poor to afford insurance and enrich the insurance cartels by threatening a penalty more costly than the premiums for garbage coverage?

First, the individual mandate was not Gingrich's idea, it came from... you guessed it, the Heritage Foundation in a 1989 paper, A National Health System for America, specifically page 51. Heritage would later whine about it and try to rewrite history but everyone can see through their bullshit.

Secondly, the reasoning for the individual mandate is as follows: "Without incentives or a mandate, healthier individuals would tend to opt out of the system, since they make fewer claims and their premiums support the claims of the less-healthy, for the time being. Insurance companies would then raise rates to make up the lost revenue. That further increases the pressure on healthier individuals to opt out of buying health insurance, which will further increase rates, until such a market collapses. Mandated insurance is intended to prevent such a downward spiral." Sound logic, but recently it seems that the individual mandate was not as effective in increasing coverage as we thought, nor did its repeal by Trump and co. lead to any downward spirals. Ironically, one of the reasons for this ineffectiveness of the mandate was that the penalty was small ($695 per adult or 2.5% of income - mainly to appease Republicans) while harsher penalties in Massachusetts saw an enormous increase in enrollment and coverage. But a decrease in coverage definitely happened, as noted by the New York Times, from 12.2 million in 2017 to 11.4 million in 2020. That's an 800k decrease in 3 years.

But I digress. Poor people were helped, a lot, by the Medicare expansions (optional per National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) and the premium subsidies. A study by Frean et al. (2016) concluded that the Medicaid expansion led to "44% of coverage gains due to enrollment of previously eligible adults and children, including the 2011–2013 early Medicaid expansions" and "19% of coverage gains due to enrollment of adults who became newly eligible in 2014", while the premium subsidies helped 37% of coverage gains. The Medicaid expansion created lots of benefits for the low-income population, among them are "improved access to care, utilization of services, the affordability of care, and financial security", while the subsidies reduced uninsured rates for non-elderly people with incomes between 138 and 400 percent of the poverty line from 19.2 percent in 2013 to 12.5 percent in 2017. Obviously, there are many flaws in ACA (such as the coverage gap) and I'll not deny, but ACA overall improved healthcare coverage, which is a win for the left in general.

Thirdly, if health insurance providers are truly benefitting from ACA, then they wouldn't have pulled out of ACA exchange rates en masse citing profit losses, ironically because some states rejected the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

Clinton and Biden were both huge proponents of mass incarceration. Biden, right at this very moment, is helping police departments all over the country further militarize. Clinton cut welfare. Every single Democratic President has expanded the military budget (yes, even relative to its size). Obama renewed the Patriot Act without even demanding any concessions and implemented unconstitutional mass surveillance. Obama and Biden both shamelessly use the full force of the federal government to persecute whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden and Reality Winner.

Obama increased deportations and not only of violent criminals, he enabled ICE to deport people over a joint or over absolutely no crime at all if they happened to be in the presence of someone else targeted by ICE, which ICE calls "collaterals."

This is true, but it doesn't make them into horseshoes with the right-wing Republicans. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and even famously backed a universal healthcare bill before failing due to fractures within the party and the powerful propaganda effort by pharmaceutical and health insurance companies. He also passed Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as a compromise after the 1993 failed UHC bill. Biden in his own Crime Bill included the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, something that even made Bernie vote for the crime bill, alongside the assault weapons ban. Biden was supportive of same-sex marriages in 2012, three years before Obergefell, and convinced Obama to support it. After the 2015 ruling he even said that it was "the civil rights movement of our generation" and compared it to Brown v. Board of Education. The guy was one of the first pioneers of climate change legislation, having introduced a climate bill way back in 1986. He supported an expansion of infrastructure back in the Obama days and announced a six-year plan to build a national high-speed rail network. He supports banking reforms, such as the Dodd-Frank Act and continues to defend them.

Collateral arrests did happen under the Obama administration, but he significantly restricted them. In 2011, the president of the ICE union, Chris Crane, testified to Congress that agents “were not permitted to arrest or even speak to confirmed or suspected illegal aliens encountered in the field during operations, and were prohibited from running standard criminal record checks for wants and warrants.” Generally, ICE agents were under instructions to arrest people identified in advance, and only those people. Many rank-and-file ICE agents hated this.

I can go more on Obama's political positions, but you get the idea. Clinton, Biden, and Obama while passed many disastrous right-wing policies either out of compromise or outdated beliefs are absolutely not parallel with the right-wing.

And as one example of the eternal policy of bombing brown people into freedom, Biden put forth Neera Tanden for a cabinet position, a woman who thinks Libyans owe us their oil as thanks for turning their country into a failed state where jihadis and slavers operate openly.

The nomination was ultimately withdrawn, after pressure from within the party and Manchin's announcement of not voting. Biden is planning to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, unconditionally. I might end up being wrong, but that's for the future.

[Genivaria]

They manipulate this with their own ulterior motives, I know. That's why I don't actually align with the right either.

You do, though. You uncritically accept their hysteria over these supposed threats (which I think you know are wildly overblown to the point of being totally divorced from reality); you just don’t happen to agree with their approach to solving them (whip disaffected white voters into a violent frenzy until they destroy democracy and pave the way for some sort of apartheid oligarchy with some minimalist democratic window-dressing). You’re not an active participant, rather a bystander and an enabler (and it’s worse because you seem to have some awareness that you’re being manipulated but you go along with it anyways).

In my experience people who identify as 'centrists' or 'hate both parties' tend to be right wingers.

[The Reformed American Republic]

You do, though. You uncritically accept their hysteria over these supposed threats (which I think you know are wildly overblown to the point of being totally divorced from reality); you just don’t happen to agree with their approach to solving them (whip disaffected white voters into a violent frenzy until they destroy democracy and pave the way for some sort of apartheid oligarchy with some minimalist democratic window-dressing). You’re not an active participant, rather a bystander and an enabler (and it’s worse because you seem to have some awareness that you’re being manipulated but you go along with it anyways).

In my experience people who identify as 'centrists' or 'hate both parties' tend to be right wingers.

I identify with the latter, but not the former. I cannot find a "centrist" who isn't a neoliberal.

[Genivaria]

In my experience people who identify as 'centrists' or 'hate both parties' tend to be right wingers.

I identify with the latter, but not the former. I cannot find a "centrist" who isn't a neoliberal.

Neoliberals are hated among the left.

[Kilobugya]

In my experience people who identify as 'centrists' or 'hate both parties' tend to be right wingers.

We tend to call centrists "neither left nor left" here

[Galloism]

Critical race theory is pretty shit tho. The courts have said so.

Senkaku will never admit that. That contradicts their narrative.

If either of you can define an entire academic field in a post, feel free to start doing that. You won’t hear me saying there aren’t some academics with fucking batshit ideas about race (and other issues) and that people on the American left or within the Democratic/liberal tendency haven’t picked them up. Those people do exist; but this idea that they exist in large numbers and that they’re on the brink of taking over either the Democratic Party or the nation or both and imposing some sort of reverse-racism “wokeist” dystopia is just laughable. My point stands— right-wing propagandists use these terms as meaningless contextual cues to indicate to their viewers that an angry reaction is required about a racial issue. The American far right is not actually interested in exploring weird bits of critical theory and having a reasoned debate; they’re interested in starting a nationwide pogrom against minority groups as soon as possible.

That's correct of course. No one there is interested in reasoned debate.

But, just for the record, critical race theory is pretty shit. In practice, the 7th circuit court of appeals said "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites."

That's in the wikipedia article.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I identify with the latter, but not the former. I cannot find a "centrist" who isn't a neoliberal.

Neoliberals are hated among the left.

I am aware. I hate them too. I'm saying what is considered "centrism" is usually neoliberal, and thus unappealing, and so is the label.

[Genivaria]

If either of you can define an entire academic field in a post, feel free to start doing that. You won’t hear me saying there aren’t some academics with fucking batshit ideas about race (and other issues) and that people on the American left or within the Democratic/liberal tendency haven’t picked them up. Those people do exist; but this idea that they exist in large numbers and that they’re on the brink of taking over either the Democratic Party or the nation or both and imposing some sort of reverse-racism “wokeist” dystopia is just laughable. My point stands— right-wing propagandists use these terms as meaningless contextual cues to indicate to their viewers that an angry reaction is required about a racial issue. The American far right is not actually interested in exploring weird bits of critical theory and having a reasoned debate; they’re interested in starting a nationwide pogrom against minority groups as soon as possible.

That's correct of course. No one there is interested in reasoned debate.

But, just for the record, critical race theory is pretty shit. In practice, the 7th circuit court of appeals said "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites."

That's in the wikipedia article.

I browsed through it and still not sure I understand what it's about.

[Genivaria]

Neoliberals are hated among the left.

I am aware. I hate them too. I'm saying what is considered "centrism" is usually neoliberal, and thus unappealing, and so is the label.

I can agree with that.

[Senkaku]

I agree there. Horseshoe theory is not applicable in this situation.

Horseshow theory is what happens when people forget about the "authoritarian or libertarian" axis. A far right authoritarian is closer on the chart to a far left authoritarian than a leftist libertarian, and just as far from a far right libertarian, so there's a perceived similarity with the classic examples of Stalinism and fascism, which are both authoritarian.

Or... or... the world is more complicated than a political axis/compass...

You do, though. You uncritically accept their hysteria over these supposed threats (which I think you know are wildly overblown to the point of being totally divorced from reality); you just don’t happen to agree with their approach to solving them (whip disaffected white voters into a violent frenzy until they destroy democracy and pave the way for some sort of apartheid oligarchy with some minimalist democratic window-dressing). You’re not an active participant, rather a bystander and an enabler (and it’s worse because you seem to have some awareness that you’re being manipulated but you go along with it anyways).

I'm not an enabler, as I go after the GOP just as harshly, and have done so before.

People have this idea that if they don’t actively like or support something, that means they couldn’t possibly be enabling it, whether it’s a family member’s drug use or their country’s rising tide of reaction. “I tell her I don’t support her lifestyle every night at our family dinner!”

I am guilty of nothing; just because I think it is a real issue doesn't make me this boogieman, even though it is exaggerated, and the right doesn't have any principles other than "own the libs" or some shit.

You just basically agreed with me that all the right-wing fearmongering about “wokeism” is absurd propaganda that’s been overhyped to the point of hysteria and delusion; now in the same breath you turn around and say they’re onto something and that “it” is “a real issue” (whatever “it” even means at this point). I’m not saying you’re some boogeyman, I’m saying you’ve been duped into uncritically allowing the most rabid right-wing nutjobs set the terms of this country’s political conversation.

[Senkaku]

If either of you can define an entire academic field in a post, feel free to start doing that. You won’t hear me saying there aren’t some academics with fucking batshit ideas about race (and other issues) and that people on the American left or within the Democratic/liberal tendency haven’t picked them up. Those people do exist; but this idea that they exist in large numbers and that they’re on the brink of taking over either the Democratic Party or the nation or both and imposing some sort of reverse-racism “wokeist” dystopia is just laughable. My point stands— right-wing propagandists use these terms as meaningless contextual cues to indicate to their viewers that an angry reaction is required about a racial issue. The American far right is not actually interested in exploring weird bits of critical theory and having a reasoned debate; they’re interested in starting a nationwide pogrom against minority groups as soon as possible.

That's correct of course. No one there is interested in reasoned debate.

But, just for the record, critical race theory is pretty shit. In practice, the 7th circuit court of appeals said "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites."

That's in the wikipedia article.

“Critical race theory” is not one thing. It’s a branch of an academic discipline; this makes about as much sense as saying “the philosophy of language is pretty shit.” Yeah, some of it is, because sometimes people are just trying to publish or they genuinely have bad ideas, but some of it is insightful and thought-provoking analysis done by titanic intellects. Every field has a mixture, reducing the entire thing to one scholar’s interpretation and using that to tar everyone involved is fucking absurd, and it’s why I say the term has become a propaganda cue totally divorced from its actual meaning.

[Galloism]

That's correct of course. No one there is interested in reasoned debate.

But, just for the record, critical race theory is pretty shit. In practice, the 7th circuit court of appeals said "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites."

That's in the wikipedia article.

I browsed through it and still not sure I understand what it's about.

Basically, white people invented racism, and thus they're the critical race. It also repudiates statistics and analysis in favor of storytelling (naming one's own reality), and this storytelling must be accepted as true and normal, regardless of the statistics or facts. It also explores whiteness as property, which basically comes down to treating whiteness as golden pass in life, and they go with the un/intentional racist creating "privilege" language and seeks to create racial guilt.

Because of the flaws of critical race theory, it's drawn some academic criticism, and judicial criticism where it's come up.

[Senkaku]

That's correct of course. No one there is interested in reasoned debate.

But, just for the record, critical race theory is pretty shit. In practice, the 7th circuit court of appeals said "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites."

That's in the wikipedia article.

I browsed through it and still not sure I understand what it's about.

Really? You didn’t absorb the full breadth of an entire specialized philosophical subdiscipline from browsing the Wikipedia article about it? Fucking shocker, I guess this means we have to throw the whole thing out!

[Galloism]

That's correct of course. No one there is interested in reasoned debate.

But, just for the record, critical race theory is pretty shit. In practice, the 7th circuit court of appeals said "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites."

That's in the wikipedia article.

“Critical race theory” is not one thing. It’s a branch of an academic discipline; this makes about as much sense as saying “the philosophy of language is pretty shit.” Yeah, some of it is, because sometimes people are just trying to publish or they genuinely have bad ideas, but some of it is insightful and thought-provoking analysis done by titanic intellects. Every field has a mixture, reducing the entire thing to one scholar’s interpretation and using that to tar everyone involved is fucking absurd, and it’s why I say the term has become a propaganda cue totally divorced from its actual meaning.

Yeah, thanks for playing. You're trying to conflate "critical race theory", which is a relatively well defined thing with certain parameters, with "racial studies", which is a broad subject matter, and that dog just don't hunt.

It's like saying "well, the theory of gravity is not one thing, it's a branch of academic discipline" and then trying to conflate it with physics.

[Senkaku]

“Critical race theory” is not one thing. It’s a branch of an academic discipline; this makes about as much sense as saying “the philosophy of language is pretty shit.” Yeah, some of it is, because sometimes people are just trying to publish or they genuinely have bad ideas, but some of it is insightful and thought-provoking analysis done by titanic intellects. Every field has a mixture, reducing the entire thing to one scholar’s interpretation and using that to tar everyone involved is fucking absurd, and it’s why I say the term has become a propaganda cue totally divorced from its actual meaning.

Yeah, thanks for playing. You're trying to conflate "critical race theory", which is a relatively well defined thing with certain parameters, with "racial studies", which is a broad subject matter, and that dog just don't hunt.

It's like saying "well, the theory of gravity is not one thing, it's a branch of academic discipline" and then trying to conflate it with physics.

...you’re saying “critical race theory” is as singular, concrete, and unified “a theory” as the laws of gravity? It’s a branch of critical theory with a shitload of scholars who’ve contributed to the body of work considered part of it; to suggest they’re operating at this level of ideological lockstep is cartoonishly silly.

[Ah General Kenobi]

Critical race theory is pretty shit tho. The courts have said so.

Senkaku will never admit that. That contradicts their narrative.

If either of you can define an entire academic field in a post, feel free to start doing that. You won’t hear me saying there aren’t some academics with fucking batshit ideas about race (and other issues) and that people on the American left or within the Democratic/liberal tendency haven’t picked them up. Those people do exist; but this idea that they exist in large numbers and that they’re on the brink of taking over either the Democratic Party or the nation or both and imposing some sort of reverse-racism “wokeist” dystopia is just laughable. My point stands— right-wing propagandists use these terms as meaningless contextual cues to indicate to their viewers that an angry reaction is required about a racial issue. The American far right is not actually interested in exploring weird bits of critical theory and having a reasoned debate; they’re interested in starting a nationwide pogrom against minority groups as soon as possible.

i like how you accuse the right for all of these things about overexaggerating certain things and believing in the worst possible scenario and then go ahead and do that same thing. very interesting projections

[The Reformed American Republic]

Horseshow theory is what happens when people forget about the "authoritarian or libertarian" axis. A far right authoritarian is closer on the chart to a far left authoritarian than a leftist libertarian, and just as far from a far right libertarian, so there's a perceived similarity with the classic examples of Stalinism and fascism, which are both authoritarian.

Or... or... the world is more complicated than a political axis/compass...

I'm not an enabler, as I go after the GOP just as harshly, and have done so before.

People have this idea that if they don’t actively like or support something, that means they couldn’t possibly be enabling it, whether it’s a family member’s drug use or their country’s rising tide of reaction. “I tell her I don’t support her lifestyle every night at our family dinner!”

I am guilty of nothing; just because I think it is a real issue doesn't make me this boogieman, even though it is exaggerated, and the right doesn't have any principles other than "own the libs" or some shit.

You just basically agreed with me that all the right-wing fearmongering about “wokeism” is absurd propaganda that’s been overhyped to the point of hysteria and delusion; now in the same breath you turn around and say they’re onto something and that “it” is “a real issue” (whatever “it” even means at this point). I’m not saying you’re some boogeyman, I’m saying you’ve been duped into uncritically allowing the most rabid right-wing nutjobs set the terms of this country’s political conversation.

"Exaggerated" does not mean "nonexistent."

[Galloism]

Yeah, thanks for playing. You're trying to conflate "critical race theory", which is a relatively well defined thing with certain parameters, with "racial studies", which is a broad subject matter, and that dog just don't hunt.

It's like saying "well, the theory of gravity is not one thing, it's a branch of academic discipline" and then trying to conflate it with physics.

...you’re saying “critical race theory” is as concrete and unified a theory as the laws of gravity? It’s a branch of critical theory with a shitload of scholars who’ve contributed to the body of work considered part of it; to suggest they’re operating at this level of ideological lockstep is cartoonishly silly.

First off, you should know there is both a law of gravity and theory of gravity. If you didn't know that, they're two separate things.

I said theory of gravity, a research area with a shitload of scholars who've contributed to the body of work considered part of it, but is still a fairly well defined thing with fairly well defined parameters.

Like Critical Race Theory, which is recognized as pretty shit. Except the theory of gravity is far more interesting and less poisoned by bullshit.

[Ah General Kenobi]

I browsed through it and still not sure I understand what it's about.

Basically, white people invented racism, and thus they're the critical race. It also repudiates statistics and analysis in favor of storytelling (naming one's own reality), and this storytelling must be accepted as true and normal, regardless of the statistics or facts. It also explores whiteness as property, which basically comes down to treating whiteness as golden pass in life, and they go with the un/intentional racist creating "privilege" language and seeks to create racial guilt.

Because of the flaws of critical race theory, it's drawn some academic criticism, and judicial criticism where it's come up.

not that im saying i agree with these people but storytelling is more powerful than the ben shapiro school of facts and logic and maybe the best way to counter it is through alternative stories that are a bit more uplifting. just a thought

[Genivaria]

Basically, white people invented racism, and thus they're the critical race. It also repudiates statistics and analysis in favor of storytelling (naming one's own reality), and this storytelling must be accepted as true and normal, regardless of the statistics or facts. It also explores whiteness as property, which basically comes down to treating whiteness as golden pass in life, and they go with the un/intentional racist creating "privilege" language and seeks to create racial guilt.

Because of the flaws of critical race theory, it's drawn some academic criticism, and judicial criticism where it's come up.

not that im saying i agree with these people but storytelling is more powerful than the ben shapiro school of facts and logic and maybe the best way to counter it is through alternative stories that are a bit more uplifting. just a thought

I'm sorry but all I heard was "Jedi Scum!"