That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
I'll just point out this isn't the majority Bernie supporters, it's not even the majority of his delegates.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:07 am Have I mentioned how much I HATE the majority of Bernie supporters?
I feel like we've beaten this to death but the statement that major healthcare reform is very very popular has huge qualifications and addendums, because depends so much on what "major healthcare reform" means. If you ask a question like "should we build on and expand the ACA" you get a very positive response. If you ask about "medicare for all" you generally get a positive response. If you ask about things like "do you support Medicare for All if it means abolishing private insurance / higher taxes", the popularity goes way down.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:28 amI mostly agree but major healthcare reform is very, very popular. And it isn't unreasonable that they don't trust the centrists on this anymore after 10 years of the ACA.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:07 am Have I mentioned how much I HATE the majority of Bernie supporters? They sit here during a time when the Dems need desperately to project strength and unity against a party and man who seem to be openly working towards the end of Democracy in America and they want to cause problems because their bread isn't buttered properly.
I have some old colleagues that were and are huge bernie fans that voted tRump unapologetically. How they justify that is more baffling to me than straight tRump support as I can see the racists and misogynists embracing him but how do you go from progressive left to supporting him? Gah! One of them is a lesbian too. She plans on voting him again because Bernie isn't the Dem nominee. I refrained from asking her if she approved of seppuku politics.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:24 amYeah I have a buddy that is in his early 20s that was a die-hard Bernie supporter, and he spends a lot of time trashing Biden on Facebook. I'm not sure to what end. And I'm not talking "Biden's not progressive enough" type trashing, but more like "Biden is a sexual predator" type stuff.Remus West wrote:Have I mentioned how much I HATE the majority of Bernie supporters?
I've made the argument to him multiple times that getting Trump out of office is more important than any progressive agenda at the moment, and it just falls on deaf ears. It's seemingly like he'd rather the entire country burn to the ground than put in someone who isn't as progressive as he is. To me that's the ultimate cutting off your nose to spite your face, but whatever.
But that is the messaging problem that is the Democratic achille's heel. When they unbundle that stuff or ACA itself, the pieces of it are more popular than the sum. Why? Because they get beat on message from the right generally. This incapability to speak to the public is especially glaring as the Lincoln Project demonstrates their ability to do so with a fraction of the resources daily. So progressives are like...this should be the easiest thing to sell. People desperately want it. They are saying, "We won 2018 on it but you are soft-selling turning the dials on the ACA?!?" I agree it is risky/not straightforward but I also understand why they want to go for it.El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 12:58 pmI feel like we've beaten this to death but the statement that major healthcare reform is very very popular has huge qualifications and addendums, because depends so much on what "major healthcare reform" means. If you ask a question like "should we build on and expand the ACA" you get a very positive response. If you ask about "medicare for all" you generally get a positive response. If you ask about things like "do you support Medicare for All if it means abolishing private insurance / higher taxes", the popularity goes way down.malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:28 amI mostly agree but major healthcare reform is very, very popular. And it isn't unreasonable that they don't trust the centrists on this anymore after 10 years of the ACA.Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:07 am Have I mentioned how much I HATE the majority of Bernie supporters? They sit here during a time when the Dems need desperately to project strength and unity against a party and man who seem to be openly working towards the end of Democracy in America and they want to cause problems because their bread isn't buttered properly.
What I mean here is that the usual argument I hear is that they pulled their punch on the ACA to keep centrists including Republicans happy and then it was attacked anyway. The belief is they should have gone for the throat and snuck in the public option at least. And yeah we know it is more complicated than that but these are generally enthusiastic versus realistic people.Also, I don't totally get why the past 10 years of the ACA means that they don't trust the centrists anymore (which assumes that they once did)? The ACA has mostly worked as designed, in terms of greatly expanding health insurance. A lot of the bigger problems have come from Republican and SCOTUS sabotage. And the idea of the ACA was to greatly expand coverage and then use that as a baseline for further reforms that would further expand coverage. Which....seems like that is what is happening?
I agree with you. I'm not saying they could or should have fought that. It's more that a lot of these progressives were kids or young adults and might not have the most nuanced view on the topic. The problem though is that growing discontent with the system under Trump is only reinforcing these activist movements. It is what I was talking about in the other thread about systematic risks. The 'contradictions' in our system, for example that the wealthiest country in the world can't feed, house, or care medically for all our people, are now manifest and visible to increasing amounts of people. And it builds conflict that is inevitable, inescapable, and we can grump about it all we want but it isn't going away. That it isn't all grounded in reality or political savvy is sort of par for the course when populism is on the rise due to these forces.El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:47 pm They spent a lot of time trying to get the public option in the ACA. I strongly disagree that they pulled their punches, because the fact of 100% GOP intransigence meant that they couldn't lose a single Democratic senator, which meant that they needed something that 100% of red state Democrats would vote for. Plus their clock on getting something done was narrow because Franken didn't get seated until the summer (due to recount challenges) and they lost their 60th Senator when Coakley lost in the winter.
This is one aspsect that has surprised me. I would have thought this would have been more driven by the business community because I suspect you are right. My firm stood up a new business in Europe and not worrying about healthcare eliminated so much of the start up burden. Entire HR reviews and internal consulting engagements became unnecessary. At the wider scope, every year companies have to deal with evaluating their health care costs, balance the benefit against their peers in the market, adjust their plans, and then deal with employee backlash. To build out these relatively tiny risk pools. It doesn't make much sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics ... index.htmlSen. Lindsey Graham's reelection campaign posted an advertisement to Facebook earlier this month featuring a digitally altered image of his opponent -- who is Black -- with a darker skin tone.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics ... index.htmlRepublican Sen. David Perdue's campaign took down a Facebook ad that appeared to make Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff's nose bigger, following accusations of anti-Semitism.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... ors-636189Rep. Ilhan Omar has come under fire for a campaign mailer that names three donors to her Democratic primary opponent, and they are all Jewish.
“Can We Trust Antone Melton-Meaux’s Money?” said the mailer obtained by Vice News, which posted a story on Thursday.
Every year, when we file our income tax return, we can tick off a check box and be registered to vote for any elections (local, provincial and federal) that come up. The idea of making it complicated to register to vote is foreign (Ha!) to me.
I haven't had to register since I turned 18 and I have moved 4 time since then. My registration followed me when my drivers license changed. They used to mail me precinct information every year (though not for primaries) but that stopped in 2018 for some reason (and my precinct changed voting locating that year.
)It is a metric that shows new voters are not coming into the fold for the next election. For the democrats to do well, they need to get out the vote and register new voters, particularly if there will be a blue wave. This is big.
I mean, we were already at the point where Obama's term ended 6 months before the election 'so the people could have a voice' in a Supreme Court appointment. Now we're looking to add time after the election for a GOP President.Scraper wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:44 am Delaying will be the new topic that Hannity and Carlson and the like start to hammer on. Heck, they'll probably start tonight. And their lemming viewers will eat the shit up. I know we say this a lot, but just imagine the rage from the right if Obama made that tweet instead. Remember in 2016 when they were convinced that Obama was going to somehow stay in office for a third term. No idea what evidence they used to cook that one up.
Definitely. The writing has been on the wall for a while now. The Trumpers are all of a sudden going to realize that COVID-19 is a really big deal, and we have to take every possible precaution to save lives and keep people safe. So. Fucking. Obvious.Scraper wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:44 am Delaying will be the new topic that Hannity and Carlson and the like start to hammer on. Heck, they'll probably start tonight. And their lemming viewers will eat the shit up. I know we say this a lot, but just imagine the rage from the right if Obama made that tweet instead. Remember in 2016 when they were convinced that Obama was going to somehow stay in office for a third term. No idea what evidence they used to cook that one up.
While insisting that we open cities and schools or withhold federal funding, of course.Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:03 amDefinitely. The writing has been on the wall for a while now. The Trumpers are all of a sudden going to realize that COVID-19 is a really big deal, and we have to take every possible precaution to save lives and keep people safe. So. Fucking. Obvious.Scraper wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:44 am Delaying will be the new topic that Hannity and Carlson and the like start to hammer on. Heck, they'll probably start tonight. And their lemming viewers will eat the shit up. I know we say this a lot, but just imagine the rage from the right if Obama made that tweet instead. Remember in 2016 when they were convinced that Obama was going to somehow stay in office for a third term. No idea what evidence they used to cook that one up.
Many people are telling him he can do it.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:11 am I don't worry that much about him delaying the election, so much as using a call for a delay to undermine the fairness of the election in other ways. The reality is that he almost certainly can't change the election date - it's clearly provided for in a current statute, so he would need Congress to pass a bill delaying the election, which the House wouldn't go along with. He could try to invoke some nebulous inherent constitutional authority to delay the election, but that sort of naked defiance of a clear statute is not the kind of thing that the SCOTUS has gone along with.
What I do worry about is, in addition to his pre-labeling the election result fraudulent, is this chain of events:
TRUMP / GOP: Coronavirus is terrible! We need to delay the election!
DEMOCRATS: NO, but let's do X, Y, and Z to make voting safe.
TRUMP / GOP: Nope! But now everything's going to be all messed up in voting because you won't reschedule!
TRUMP (A week before the election): Because Democrats refused to allow the election date to be moved, we need to implement the following restrictions on voting (to be selectively applied in Democratic areas)...
Truly, the best people. Like you wouldn't believe. Believe me.
That is likely the case in Michigan but it is also likely to happen automagically when you change the address on your license/renew your plates. I've never explicitly made a request.
SOS updates it for us. At least they did when I bought my house and changed my info to here.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 amThat is likely the case in Michigan but it is also likely to happen automagically when you change the address on your license/renew your plates. I've never explicitly made a request.
I'm sure that during a recent phone conversation there was a certain world leader that was giving him advice on how to efficiently manage the upcoming election...Zaxxon wrote:Truly, the best people. Like you wouldn't believe. Believe me.
There were a lot very fine people on both sides of these calls and assassinations were never discussed. If assassinations were credible, then he would have been briefed. And of course, Russia is funding election tampering. We funded Afghan and destroyed the USSR. Putin has no worse enemy than Trump but their monthly meetings are confidential. What can you do?