THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 310, 311, 312 ... 645, 646, 647  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6420

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:47 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
governator wrote:
I'm not sure it's not working for Democrats. I don't think Dems just do identity politics, they push other agendas too (some people on left don't agree with). Dems does get majority supports from blacks, hispanics, asians, women and young people. I think the GOP victories had a lot to do with strategy of voting (they win more states where you get more electoral vote per individual votes, they're better at gerrymandering compare to dems). I guess it depends on how you define 'working for democrats'... politically they failed at the voting game but they succeed at expanding their base


The anti-Trump backlash will probably lead to some positive results in the short run, but I don't know that the Dems have expanded their base in the long run. Young people don't stay young forever. The current generation of retirees were hippies in the sixties. Heck, my brother was a pot smoking anti-war protester who voted for McGovern. Now he follows Milo on Facebook.


Of course young not gonna stay young forever but unless majority of them switched to conservatism as they got older, dems would still expand. Plus minorities would always be minorities and unless GOP anti-minority group policy/sentiments changes, they'll also would continue to back dems. While white population would decrease as a percentage, minority would increase.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:51 am    Post subject:

The GOP has a new plan to destroy Obamacare. Itís even crueler than the last one.

Surcharges on people with preexisting conditions anywhere from $5000 to $150,000 depending on disease. So basically pricing sick people out of the insurance market. You got breast cancer? Sure, you can have a policy but it will cost you an extra $28,000! Do you have a cancer that has metastasized? Hey, you can have insurance for the low, low price of $140,000 a year! Does your kid have autism? Fork over an extra $5,000 on top your already unafordable premium.

These people are the lowest of the low. They are in effect, trying to pit regular (currently healthy) people against sick people. Disgusting. Keep in mind, any of us could move from healthy category to sick category at anytime, and it's mostly beyond our control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 9004

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:03 am    Post subject:

I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.
_________________
°Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:13 am    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


The main part everyone wanted to keep (including Trump) was the preexisting condition piece. You f that part up, O-care will go into a death spiral, 20 million lose insurance, premiums spike and there will be no one to blame except the GOP. You (they) can't pick and choose like it's a menu. It all works together. You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27799

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:14 am    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


Haven't we seen that already with States opting out of Medicaid expansion while others have taken advantage of it? Some states have allow for "cross state insurance markets" while others have not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14295
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


The main part everyone wanted to keep (including Trump) was the preexisting condition piece. You f that part up, O-care will go into a death spiral, 20 million lose insurance, premiums spike and there will be no one to blame except the GOP. You (they) can't pick and choose like it's a menu. It all works together. You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.


This is correct. But it's also going into a death spiral as it currently stands because pre-existing conditions are expensive. Premiums are already spiking to crazy levels (see: up to 100% YoY in some states). Most insurance companies are already pulled out of all the state exchanges. We can't afford them unless things change on the supply side as our health coverage is vastly overpriced. BUT, good luck changing that one. Just look what happened when we tried to pass a bill in this senate on prescription drug prices -- Booker and other Democrats broke ranks to reject it because they're also bought and sold.

If we want to cover everything, we need to bring prices down. We need to let the government negotiate, and we need to drag down prices to something workable. And we need all politicians to represent the people not the drug/healthcare companies that contribute to their campaigns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 9004

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:53 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


The main part everyone wanted to keep (including Trump) was the preexisting condition piece. You f that part up, O-care will go into a death spiral, 20 million lose insurance, premiums spike and there will be no one to blame except the GOP. You (they) can't pick and choose like it's a menu. It all works together. You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.


But they don't care about any of that. They want some kind of compromise between their various factions to satisfy their base. Anyway, leaving it up to the states is something they've been discussing, based on what I've read in the last couple days. And it might still die in the Senate anyway....
_________________
°Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:00 pm    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


The main part everyone wanted to keep (including Trump) was the preexisting condition piece. You f that part up, O-care will go into a death spiral, 20 million lose insurance, premiums spike and there will be no one to blame except the GOP. You (they) can't pick and choose like it's a menu. It all works together. You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.


This is correct. But it's also going into a death spiral as it currently stands because pre-existing conditions are expensive. Premiums are already spiking to crazy levels (see: up to 100% YoY in some states). Most insurance companies are already pulled out of all the state exchanges. We can't afford them unless things change on the supply side as our health coverage is vastly overpriced. BUT, good luck changing that one. Just look what happened when we tried to pass a bill in this senate on prescription drug prices -- Booker and other Democrats broke ranks to reject it because they're also bought and sold.

If we want to cover everything, we need to bring prices down. We need to let the government negotiate, and we need to drag down prices to something workable. And we need all politicians to represent the people not the drug/healthcare companies that contribute to their campaigns.


The bolded part is not correct.

Politifact

NYT: No ĎDeath Spiralí: Insurers May Soon Profit From Obamacare Plans, Analysis Finds

It needs fixing, but it's not in a death spiral -- unless GOP tries to sabotage it. Big difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:06 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


The main part everyone wanted to keep (including Trump) was the preexisting condition piece. You f that part up, O-care will go into a death spiral, 20 million lose insurance, premiums spike and there will be no one to blame except the GOP. You (they) can't pick and choose like it's a menu. It all works together. You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.


But they don't care about any of that. They want some kind of compromise between their various factions to satisfy their base. Anyway, leaving it up to the states is something they've been discussing, based on what I've read in the last couple days. And it might still die in the Senate anyway....


The moderates care about being re-elected. If they believe their own (bleep) spin, they'll get what they deserve in 2018. But yeah, it probably won't pass the Senate anyway.

I don't see how you "leave it to the states" when the Federal subsidies are what keeps the whole thing afloat? Essentially, "leave it to the states" is an empty slogan which either means "going back to the way it was before Obamacare" or "Blue states like Mass which have their own system will be fine, and all the Red states will be screwed." Again, if anyone in the GOP thinks that's a winning strategy in the long term, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. Have them contact me at 1-800-Get-A-Clue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14295
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:06 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Wilt wrote:
I think one way they might be able to pass something, satisfying the "moderates" and the conservatives, is to leave it up to states to keep or reject the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Trump can declare it a win. And the moderates can then hope that there's some anti-Trump backlash next year, and their states will keep what people like about Obamacare.


The main part everyone wanted to keep (including Trump) was the preexisting condition piece. You f that part up, O-care will go into a death spiral, 20 million lose insurance, premiums spike and there will be no one to blame except the GOP. You (they) can't pick and choose like it's a menu. It all works together. You pull one thread and the whole thing unravels.


This is correct. But it's also going into a death spiral as it currently stands because pre-existing conditions are expensive. Premiums are already spiking to crazy levels (see: up to 100% YoY in some states). Most insurance companies are already pulled out of all the state exchanges. We can't afford them unless things change on the supply side as our health coverage is vastly overpriced. BUT, good luck changing that one. Just look what happened when we tried to pass a bill in this senate on prescription drug prices -- Booker and other Democrats broke ranks to reject it because they're also bought and sold.

If we want to cover everything, we need to bring prices down. We need to let the government negotiate, and we need to drag down prices to something workable. And we need all politicians to represent the people not the drug/healthcare companies that contribute to their campaigns.


The bolded part is not correct.

Politifact

NYT: No ĎDeath Spiralí: Insurers May Soon Profit From Obamacare Plans, Analysis Finds

It needs fixing, but it's not in a death spiral -- unless GOP tries to sabotage it. Big difference.


Sweet, so insurance companies are going to profit but consumers are still seeing unreasonable rate hikes across the board. It's a death spiral for consumers. And if "death spiral" is a bad description for it, call the rate hikes what they are - unreasonably burdensome.

From your article:

Quote:
As we have reported, premiums are increasing. But that isnít affecting the cost for most consumers, due to built-in subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The subsidies cap premium prices at a certain percentage of income for anyone below 400 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2016 that would be $47,520 for a single person).


So anyone making above $47,520 is getting no subsidies, and seeing double-digit YoY rate increases. I don't know if you see this, since you're self-employed, but I sure as hell do, as so do many other people. I have no option at work now except a HDHP which means insane OOP maximums and having to dump $3000/yr additional into an HSA that's a complete joke.

Literally the first result when I did a Google search on ACA 2017 rate increases

Quote:
Health insurance premiums on the Affordable Care Actís marketplaces (also called exchanges) are expected to increase faster in 2017 than in previous years due to a combination of factors, including substantial losses experienced by many insurers in this market and the phasing out of the ACAís reinsurance program. We analyzed 2017 premiums and insurer participation made available through Healthcare.gov on October 24, 2017, as well as data collected from states that run their own exchange websites.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/


Look at the percentages table. That is not sustainable. We have to figure out a way to cut the costs, and that's going to involve politicians growing a spine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:14 pm    Post subject:

Yes, the healthcare system is messed up, that's why Democrats want to FIX the ACA -- and HAVE wanted to for years but the GOP wanted nothing to do with fixing, only repealing.

So now, you either:

A) Fix ACA
b) Go single-payer (will never happen because Insurance companies have a death grip on the system and politicians)
c) Let people over 50 buy into Medicare (short term fix)
d) Repeal it, let all hell break loose, see 30 million people lose their insurance.
e) Do some half-ass, not-a-repeal, but not-a-replace like the GOP is attempting and piss off 75 million voters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14295
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:17 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Yes, the healthcare system is messed up, that's why Democrats want to FIX the ACA -- and HAVE wanted to for years but the GOP wanted nothing to do with fixing, only repealing.

So now, you either:

A) Fix ACA
b) Go single-payer (will never happen because Insurance companies have a death grip on the system and politicians)
c) Let people over 50 buy into Medicare (short term fix)

d) Repeal it, let all hell break loose, see 30 million people lose their insurance.
e) Do some half-ass, not-a-repeal, but not-a-replace like the GOP is attempting and piss off 75 million voters.


B and C are the only real solutions. C would probably be more politically practical, and if it was done in a certain way, say -- 50 this year, 40 in 5 years, and then everyone in 10, we could get to B in a decade.

Democrats are also not blameless -- gutless moves like Booker et al not allowing the government to negotiate and import on prescription drugs hurts us all. We had the votes to pass had 13 people not broken ranks.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020#top

Quote:
The Senate voted down the amendment 52-46, with two senators not voting. Unusually, the vote was not purely along party lines: 13 Republicans joined Sanders and a majority of Democrats in supporting the amendment, while 13 Democrats and a majority of Republicans opposed it.

One of those Democrats was New Jerseyís Cory Booker, who is considered a rising star in the party and a possible 2020 presidential contender.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/


Politicians need to grow a spine, and when they don't represent us, we need to vote them out of a job. One of my senators, Bennett, was one of those who voted no and also receives the most from pharmaceuticals. He won't get my vote next time, and I hope we primary him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Yes, the healthcare system is messed up, that's why Democrats want to FIX the ACA -- and HAVE wanted to for years but the GOP wanted nothing to do with fixing, only repealing.

So now, you either:

A) Fix ACA
b) Go single-payer (will never happen because Insurance companies have a death grip on the system and politicians)
c) Let people over 50 buy into Medicare (short term fix)

d) Repeal it, let all hell break loose, see 30 million people lose their insurance.
e) Do some half-ass, not-a-repeal, but not-a-replace like the GOP is attempting and piss off 75 million voters.


B and C are the only real solutions. C would probably be more politically practical, and if it was done in a certain way, say -- 50 this year, 40 in 5 years, and then everyone in 10, we could get to B in a decade.

Democrats are also not blameless -- gutless moves like Booker et al not allowing the government to negotiate and import on prescription drugs hurts us all.

Politicians need to grow a spine, and when they don't represent us, we need to vote them out of a job.


My biggest beef with Obama is that they caved on the Public Option. They were trying to be "bi-partisan" and hoped to get Republicans to join in. But R's were never going to help. Dems ended up taking the political hit anyway, they might as well have gone for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14295
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Yes, the healthcare system is messed up, that's why Democrats want to FIX the ACA -- and HAVE wanted to for years but the GOP wanted nothing to do with fixing, only repealing.

So now, you either:

A) Fix ACA
b) Go single-payer (will never happen because Insurance companies have a death grip on the system and politicians)
c) Let people over 50 buy into Medicare (short term fix)

d) Repeal it, let all hell break loose, see 30 million people lose their insurance.
e) Do some half-ass, not-a-repeal, but not-a-replace like the GOP is attempting and piss off 75 million voters.


B and C are the only real solutions. C would probably be more politically practical, and if it was done in a certain way, say -- 50 this year, 40 in 5 years, and then everyone in 10, we could get to B in a decade.

Democrats are also not blameless -- gutless moves like Booker et al not allowing the government to negotiate and import on prescription drugs hurts us all.

Politicians need to grow a spine, and when they don't represent us, we need to vote them out of a job.


My biggest beef with Obama is that they caved on the Public Option. They were trying to be "bi-partisan" and hoped to get Republicans to join in. But R's were never going to help. Dems ended up taking the political hit anyway, they might as well have gone for it.


I imagine that's Obama's biggest regret too. He was still in the mistaken belief that he could work across the aisle to get something done. Eliminating the public option from the get-go was a huge blunder. "Medicare for everyone" should have been the rallying cry. We could have possessed it through reconciliation anyway.

I'm just glad the blue dogs that torpedoed that got their butts handed to them in the midterms right after.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject:

My Senators are always reliably the most liberal/progressive voters (Elizabeth Warren & Ed Markey). My House Representative too (Capuano).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14295
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:26 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
My Senators are always reliably the most liberal/progressive voters (Elizabeth Warren & Ed Markey). My House Representative too (Capuano).


Except for that brief blip with Scott Brown, MA has been ok
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 78619
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:39 pm    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Yes, the healthcare system is messed up, that's why Democrats want to FIX the ACA -- and HAVE wanted to for years but the GOP wanted nothing to do with fixing, only repealing.

So now, you either:

A) Fix ACA
b) Go single-payer (will never happen because Insurance companies have a death grip on the system and politicians)
c) Let people over 50 buy into Medicare (short term fix)

d) Repeal it, let all hell break loose, see 30 million people lose their insurance.
e) Do some half-ass, not-a-repeal, but not-a-replace like the GOP is attempting and piss off 75 million voters.


B and C are the only real solutions. C would probably be more politically practical, and if it was done in a certain way, say -- 50 this year, 40 in 5 years, and then everyone in 10, we could get to B in a decade.

Democrats are also not blameless -- gutless moves like Booker et al not allowing the government to negotiate and import on prescription drugs hurts us all.

Politicians need to grow a spine, and when they don't represent us, we need to vote them out of a job.


My biggest beef with Obama is that they caved on the Public Option. They were trying to be "bi-partisan" and hoped to get Republicans to join in. But R's were never going to help. Dems ended up taking the political hit anyway, they might as well have gone for it.


I imagine that's Obama's biggest regret too. He was still in the mistaken belief that he could work across the aisle to get something done. Eliminating the public option from the get-go was a huge blunder. "Medicare for everyone" should have been the rallying cry. We could have possessed it through reconciliation anyway.

I'm just glad the blue dogs that torpedoed that got their butts handed to them in the midterms right after.


Me too, although the main culprit was one Joe Lieberman.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13533
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:41 pm    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
My Senators are always reliably the most liberal/progressive voters (Elizabeth Warren & Ed Markey). My House Representative too (Capuano).


Except for that brief blip with Scott Brown, MA has been ok


We also have a Republican governor (yuk) right now.

We have the urban/rural, blue/red split just like most states. That Scott Brown thing was a combo of protest voters (always a BAD idea) and a poor Democratic candidate (she was a great State Attorney General, but not a good politician). Good old Scott Brown just got appointed by Trump to be Ambassador to New Zealand. What a douche.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14295
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:34 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
I'm just glad the blue dogs that torpedoed that got their butts handed to them in the midterms right after.


Me too, although the main culprit was one Joe Lieberman.


You're absolutely right. He was #60 and wouldn't vote without the public option being removed.

Scumbag, sore loser, and all-around general waste of space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 10723

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:01 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

I don't know about that. You may feel that demonization by the left is more righteous, but then you're part of the left. People on the right feel that their demonization of you is more righteous. I won't say that the right and the left are mirror images, because they aren't. However, the parallels are striking.

My point isn't that it's more righteous, though I obviously think it is. My point is that you can't look at the ad hominem of calling someone who disagrees with you as racist or sexist or whatever and blame the left losing power for on being quick to ad hominem instead of be reasonable... because the right does the same thing. Why aren't we talking about conservatives losing voters for being quick to call anyone who disagrees with them fragile snowflakes?

Because it doesn't lose them voters, because it's not the act of ad hominem itself but rather the subject matter. Which raises the real question -- even if the left weren't wont to the ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares disagree with them, would their reasoned discussion about the institutionalized or otherwise latent racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. still detract voters? Because it seems it's the TOPIC that irks people, not just the way it's presented.

Quote:

This presumes that there are large numbers of open minded people in our society. My impression is to the contrary.

That's silly. Open-mindedness is not, for the most part, a variable thing. Humans mostly operate the same way. You're not going to find a person on the religious right be open-minded about abortion, but you will find non-religious people who feel vaguely queasy about the idea of abortions open-minded about the other side. And as I've noted several times, there's literally no downside to having your messaging ignored. If you fail to change someone's mind, you haven't made things worse.

Quote:

Given that the GOP controls all three branches of the federal government and about two-thirds of state governments, it would not seem that identity politics are working for the Democrats. In a way, it is actually poisonous. The left just assumes that blacks, Hispanics, and women will vote for the Democrats.

At most, that's a criticism of the way the party handles identity politics, not a criticism of the actual merits of identity politics. If you think it's poisonous, there's a way to neutralize the poison while keeping the good stuff.

And I'd argue that for the most part, the GOP controls the government mostly due to GOP strategy over the last 6 years as well as Clinton being a poor candidate (down ticket effect). Blaming it all on identity politics is reductive.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18897

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:27 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
My point isn't that it's more righteous, though I obviously think it is. My point is that you can't look at the ad hominem of calling someone who disagrees with you as racist or sexist or whatever and blame the left losing power for on being quick to ad hominem instead of be reasonable... because the right does the same thing. Why aren't we talking about conservatives losing voters for being quick to call anyone who disagrees with them fragile snowflakes?

Because it doesn't lose them voters, because it's not the act of ad hominem itself but rather the subject matter. Which raises the real question -- even if the left weren't wont to the ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares disagree with them, would their reasoned discussion about the institutionalized or otherwise latent racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. still detract voters? Because it seems it's the TOPIC that irks people, not just the way it's presented.


I'd say that it's some of both. More importantly, does it gain voters? In the short run, it might, but only as a specific reaction against Trump. He's an easy target. On the other hand, Trump should have been an easy target last November, yet a major reason why HRC lost is that minority voters and Democrats in general did not turn out in key states.

tox wrote:
That's silly. Open-mindedness is not, for the most part, a variable thing. Humans mostly operate the same way. You're not going to find a person on the religious right be open-minded about abortion, but you will find non-religious people who feel vaguely queasy about the idea of abortions open-minded about the other side. And as I've noted several times, there's literally no downside to having your messaging ignored. If you fail to change someone's mind, you haven't made things worse.


My sense is that open-mindedness, on political matters anyway, is indeed variable and is at an all-time low. Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't call out racism or sexism if you think you see it. From an electoral perspective, however, you need a better product than that.

tox wrote:
At most, that's a criticism of the way the party handles identity politics, not a criticism of the actual merits of identity politics. If you think it's poisonous, there's a way to neutralize the poison while keeping the good stuff.


Sure. However, the way that the party handles identity politics is the problem.

tox wrote:
And I'd argue that for the most part, the GOP controls the government mostly due to GOP strategy over the last 6 years as well as Clinton being a poor candidate (down ticket effect). Blaming it all on identity politics is reductive.


Okay, but identity politics is woven into all of that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 9004

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:37 pm    Post subject:

"The plan gets better and better and better, and itís gotten really, really good. And a lot of people are liking it a lot." - Trump


Great!!!!
_________________
°Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18897

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:54 pm    Post subject:

Welcome back to Voodoo Economics.

Quote:
As Trump's first 100 days in office draw to a close, the disclosure is the latest sign that the White House could part ways with congressional Republicans who want to pay for tax cuts by taxing imports and eliminating a business tax deduction for debt interest payments.

"Some of the lowering in (tax) rates is going to be offset by less deductions and simpler taxes," Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said in a question-and-answer session on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings in Washington.

"But the majority of it will be made up by what we believe is fundamentally growth and dynamic scoring," he added.

Dynamic scoring is a little-known government forecasting method that uses economic modeling to predict changes in revenues resulting from economic growth spurred by new tax and economic policies.

Republicans believe major tax reform would drive annual U.S. economic growth above 3 percent. But if anticipated improvement fails to materialize, the strategy could rob the Treasury of tax revenue and saddle the economy with bigger deficits and higher debt burdens.

Mnuchin said dynamic scoring could give Trump and Congress a $2 trillion revenue cushion for the first major overhaul of the U.S. tax code since 1986.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-trump-idUSKBN17M2PQ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 10723

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:30 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

I'd say that it's some of both. More importantly, does it gain voters? In the short run, it might, but only as a specific reaction against Trump. He's an easy target. On the other hand, Trump should have been an easy target last November, yet a major reason why HRC lost is that minority voters and Democrats in general did not turn out in key states.
----
My sense is that open-mindedness, on political matters anyway, is indeed variable and is at an all-time low. Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't call out racism or sexism if you think you see it. From an electoral perspective, however, you need a better product than that.

My point about open-mindedness is that fundamentally the psychology of humans is the same. What's changed vis-a-vis politics is that people are more attached to their identities as partisans. But again, who cares about partisans on the opposite side? You aren't going to lose voters, because the people who kneejerk against your messaging disagreed with it to begin with. That's why I keep pointing out that it doesn't lose them votes.

Rather, the issue as I see it boils down to the fact that Hilary didn't have a strong economic message the way Trump did, even if economists in unison hated Trump's economics. So it's not so much that identity politics cost her votes (if anything, it probably gained her a few votes from people who'd otherwise stay at home if she were more lukewarm about it). It's that the rest of her package didn't win her any more votes. This distinction is what I've been getting at. It's about the balance, not so much the content. I do think elements of the left have a problem with identity politics gone too far, but I'm not sure I see it at a national level so much as at certain places like college campuses that get disproportionate representation in the media and such. You know what they say about the loudest voices.

Quote:

Sure. However, the way that the party handles identity politics is the problem.
Okay, but identity politics is woven into all of that.

Don't disagree with this at all. My argument has always been to do it smarter, not to abandon it completely.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Goldenwest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2101

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject:

I liked Trumps public quote "North Korea was once part of China" that was a brilliant piece of diplomacy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 310, 311, 312 ... 645, 646, 647  Next
Page 311 of 647
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB