The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Dude. If you think getting treated at an ER is equivalent to universal health care you are ****ing delusional.

No one mentioned quality universal health care. How much better do you think it is for people forced into ACA exchange policies that have $5,000 deductibles combined with highly-restrictive networks? is that really so much better?

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

My offer to trade with anyone who feels their taxes are too high remains on the table.

You willing to work my 12 on/2 off schedule averaging 110hr/week?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

To your points above:

1) Nonsense. Not politically or maybe even economically possible to offer single payer in one swoop. Give it up already and stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.
2) Revenue bills originate in House. House wanted all gimmicky tax cuts to continue. Obama said no. Politically its a lot easier to propose a tax cut than a tax hike. Obama stuck to his guns and it helped reduce the deficit by 700Bn over 10 years, so stop crying.
3) If you can't see then you need to open your eyes or a google link. Defense spending is down, significantly from its Bush era heights.
4) You keep coming back to this point with nothing to back it up. Show me where nobody works for the CFPB, the Justice Dept or the SEC.
5) Nice you you to pooh pooh this one. Maybe you'll get lucky and Ralph Nader will run again in 2016 and siphon off enough votes to elect Ted Cruz. That'll really show us, huh?

1. LOL. It was a giveaway to insurance company execs. Nothing more, nothing less. Take your head out of the sand.
2. Wheeee. He got the Bush Tax Cuts off the table. Meanwhile the tax rates are still exactly the same for the rich as they were under Clinton. Our infrastructure is crumbling if you haven't noticed.
3. Wheeee again. Drone program is up. War is up. Our involvement in countries is up. I'll give him credit for cutting the bill but I won't give him credit for ending the wars cause they didn't end. As soon as Walker gets in there it will immediately increase.
4. Enforcement is a joke. No one went to Jail for what happened in 2008. The fines levied were so small that the CEO's laughed.
5. Ted is unelectable. Walker is dangerous, electable, and with Clinton continuing her self induced gun shot wounds (Email Gate) Walker's a shoe in.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

1. LOL. It was a giveaway to insurance company execs. Nothing more, nothing less. Take your head out of the sand.
2. Wheeee. He got the Bush Tax Cuts off the table. Meanwhile the tax rates are still exactly the same for the rich as they were under Clinton. Our infrastructure is crumbling if you haven't noticed.
3. Wheeee again. Drone program is up. War is up. Our involvement in countries is up. I'll give him credit for cutting the bill but I won't give him credit for ending the wars cause they didn't end. As soon as Walker gets in there it will immediately increase.
4. Enforcement is a joke. No one went to Jail for what happened in 2008. The fines levied were so small that the CEO's laughed.
5. Ted is unelectable. Walker is dangerous, electable, and with Clinton continuing her self induced gun shot wounds (Email Gate) Walker's a shoe in.

I'm with you 100% on 1-4.

You're wrong on 5, which is both good and bad. As to the bad: nobody is unelectable. Voting is no longer rational, it's tribal, and each party begins each election with a guaranteed 45%. That gets us within the margin where something stupid -- a gaffe, an act of nature, Swift Boating -- can flip the whole election. Anyone who can win a major party nomination can win a general election. A Goldwater or a McGovern could be president under current conditions.

As to the good: (well, to the extent that it's good) the nuclear attack the GOP and their Echo Chamber is going to make on Clinton will roll right off her, because they'll be using the same insane rhetoric they've been using for years. Everybody inside their bubble will believe every word; everybody else will see it as empty-headed screeching.

The election will probably just come down to how well the economy is doing in October 2016. Unless you believe the GOP demo is literally dying out fast enough to make a difference, which I do not.

 

[Priceless]

You willing to work my 12 on/2 off schedule averaging 110hr/week?

I can't work. My offer is that we trade incomes and taxes. You get my income and pay the meager tax bill that comes with it and I take your income and the crippling tax burden it brings.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

My offer to trade with anyone who feels their taxes are too high remains on the table.

You willing to work my 12 on/2 off schedule averaging 110hr/week?

I can't work. My offer is that we trade incomes and taxes. You get my income and pay the meager tax bill that comes with it and I take your income and the crippling tax burden it brings.

And there's the greedy progressive "logic" if ever I saw it. I won't work for it, but I'll surely take your income for my own.

Voting is no longer rational, it's tribal, and each party begins each election with a guaranteed 45%. That gets us within the margin where something stupid -- a gaffe, an act of nature, Swift Boating -- can flip the whole election. Anyone who can win a major party nomination can win a general election. A Goldwater or a McGovern could be president under current conditions.

There have been few moments in American history where voting was anything other than "tribal." When living in city ghettos during much of the 1800's, inhabitants were told for whom they were voting (and how many times they would vote). There were occasional shifts taking place, after corruption reached unbearable levels, such as those with Tammany Hall, but largely it's people voting how their parents, and to a lesser extent, how their neighbors vote.

 

[Priceless]

And there's the greedy progressive "logic" if ever I saw it. I won't work for it, but I'll surely take your income for my own.

But I'm willing to pay the crippling tax burden for him. Certainly after I pay those inordinately unfair taxes I'll be lucky to break even on the deal.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

There have been few moments in American history where voting was anything other than "tribal."

That's probably true.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Still too much crying out of my fellow libs. You will never be able to duplicate the insane outrage on the right, because conservatives are naturally unhappy people prone to things like xenophobia, conspiracy theories, and martyr complexes. Don't even try, its like starting a rock band and trying to make suckier music than Creed. Its not possible.

For libs, Obama's admin has been one of solid accomplishment. While I agree with one poster that we're certainly not done, the ball has been moved so far up the field that the GOP can't even catch a bus back to where the country was 10 years ago. Case in point when even Mittens Romney is talking about income inequality....

Best thing in all of this is that supply side economics has been crushed in the minds of the American voter. Who really believes giving Sheldon Alderson and the Koch brothers a billion dollar tax cut is going to help the middle class? For a long, long time, normal people believed that. If they still did we'd be talking about President Romney right now. That theory is mercifully dead, with only dead ender knuckledraggers like the Boner and Ryan still beating that dead horse. Thank both Clinton and Obama, two Presidents who presided over job growth and deficit reduction after taking over from incompetent Bushes. There's a reason why we'll end up having one GOP Presidency over at least an almost 30 year stretch from 1993-2021, and that Presidency was a disaster.

Looking forward to a Walker, Cruz, etc nomination. By the time the Clintons are done with them their own mothers won't vote for them.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Still too much crying out of my fellow libs.

It's not "crying," it's asserting the direction we want to move the country in, and noting where Democrats have let us down.

You often voice concern that by applying purity tests to sitting Democratic politicians we weaken liberalism's united front. Please bear in mind that disparaging other liberals for our divergence of opinion on some issues risks something similar.

One of the most salutary developments of the past 20 years has been the reversal of the parties in terms of competence in building and maintaining consensus. It used to be the Republicans who were able to leave their differences at the shoreline and the Democrats who would be a circular firing squad. With the rise of Newt and litmus test conservativism, this began to reverse, and today it's Democrats who have their act together and Republicans who are the gang that couldn't shoot straight. We learned those lessons and emerged as a stronger coalition. You are correct that we need to support sitting Dems, but we also have to continually work to move the Democratic party left against the corporatist tide that drags all US politics right.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Hmmm, yeah just like the Soviet Union. Except no planned economy or police state.

You have that classic conservative view: You have a problem and you're not worth over $100 million or an unborn fetus? Go * yourself!

The points being made were mostly economic in nature, for which my comment stands. Of course, as I noted (and you apparently missed), there are differences. Duh!

You're usually halfway rational, but that next to last sentence doesn't even make sense, so can't respond there.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's not "crying," it's asserting the direction we want to move the country in, and noting where Democrats have let us down.

You often voice concern that by applying purity tests to sitting Democratic politicians we weaken liberalism's united front. Please bear in mind that disparaging other liberals for our divergence of opinion on some issues risks something similar.

One of the most salutary developments of the past 20 years has been the reversal of the parties in terms of competence in building and maintaining consensus. It used to be the Republicans who were able to leave their differences at the shoreline and the Democrats who would be a circular firing squad. With the rise of Newt and litmus test conservativism, this began to reverse, and today it's Democrats who have their act together and Republicans who are the gang that couldn't shoot straight. We learned those lessons and emerged as a stronger coalition. You are correct that we need to support sitting Dems, but we also have to continually work to move the Democratic party left against the corporatist tide that drags all US politics right.

Kep I'm fine with all that but the problem is you're sliding from Dem concerned about moving the ball forward to one of these people who starts writing his "I've been let down by the Dems" speech two minutes after the Inaugural Address is finished. I'm on your side here policy wise but if you continue with the woe is me schtick, and then a bunch of people feel the same way, that's how you get George W Bush elected because Clinton/Gore disappointed your sensibilities so much that you (not you personally, but lefties in general) decided either not to vote or voted for a two bit huckster 3rd party candidate like Little Ralphie Nader. Basically you're playing into the hands of the people you don't want to see elected. Republicans after being in the wilderness for 8 years are going to see a Cruz/Walker/Paul candidacy as the Second Coming. Either me, you, and everyone else matches that intensity or we lose.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kep I'm fine with all that but the problem is you're sliding from Dem concerned about moving the ball forward to one of these people who starts writing his "I've been let down by the Dems" speech two minutes after the Inaugural Address is finished. I'm on your side here policy wise but if you continue with the woe is me schtick, and then a bunch of people feel the same way, that's how you get George W Bush elected because Clinton/Gore disappointed your sensibilities so much that you (not you personally, but lefties in general) decided either not to vote or voted for a two bit huckster 3rd party candidate like Little Ralphie Nader. Basically you're playing into the hands of the people you don't want to see elected. Republicans after being in the wilderness for 8 years are going to see a Cruz/Walker/Paul candidacy as the Second Coming. Either me, you, and everyone else matches that intensity or we lose.

If we're "playing into the hands" of the opposition by discussing where we want the country to go 10 months before the first primary, then just when is it safe to have that conversation? Because what I'm hearing is "never." Voicing a clear idea of where you want the country to head and how that is different from the official Democratic platform is a far cry from casting a protest vote for a third party candidate. In my opinion you are too quick to equate those things.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

If we're "playing into the hands" of the opposition by discussing where we want the country to go 10 months before the first primary, then just when is it safe to have that conversation? Because what I'm hearing is "never." Voicing a clear idea of where you want the country to head and how that is different from the official Democratic platform is a far cry from casting a protest vote for a third party candidate. In my opinion you are too quick to equate those things.

You're not having a discussion though, you're having a "woe is me, I'm disappointed for the umpteenth time" lament in just about every post. Tell me Kep, putting aside your "it keeps the GOP crazies at bay" oft repeated mantra, tell me one thing you think has been accomplished in the name of progessivism by 1) Bill Clinton and then 2) Barack Obama. This is a good test to see your mindset on this. If you can't name anything then isn't the problem more with you than them?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The points being made were mostly economic in nature, for which my comment stands. Of course, as I noted (and you apparently missed), there are differences.

The USSR had its political and economic structures inextricably linked under a single party dictatorship. Nobody is advocating that. The Soviet Union is the rhetorical equivalent of Nazi Germany; as soon as one cites it meaningful dialog ceases.

Not to mention that there are much better examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about in the democratic socialist movements in Scandinavia, Germany, Benelux, and France. The central premise is to expand democratic participation.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's not "crying," it's asserting the direction we want to move the country in, and noting where Democrats have let us down.

You often voice concern that by applying purity tests to sitting Democratic politicians we weaken liberalism's united front. Please bear in mind that disparaging other liberals for our divergence of opinion on some issues risks something similar.

One of the most salutary developments of the past 20 years has been the reversal of the parties in terms of competence in building and maintaining consensus. It used to be the Republicans who were able to leave their differences at the shoreline and the Democrats who would be a circular firing squad. With the rise of Newt and litmus test conservativism, this began to reverse, and today it's Democrats who have their act together and Republicans who are the gang that couldn't shoot straight. We learned those lessons and emerged as a stronger coalition. You are correct that we need to support sitting Dems, but we also have to continually work to move the Democratic party left against the corporatist tide that drags all US politics right.

Actually, I'd say both parties have become a bit of a circle jerk. Just take a look at the number of "retired" folk in the military under the Obama regime. It isn't limited to government, either; just take a look at what is happening within schools, aka the democrat "think tank".

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

If we're "playing into the hands" of the opposition by discussing where we want the country to go 10 months before the first primary, then just when is it safe to have that conversation? Because what I'm hearing is "never." Voicing a clear idea of where you want the country to head and how that is different from the official Democratic platform is a far cry from casting a protest vote for a third party candidate. In my opinion you are too quick to equate those things.

We can have that discussion at the same time the NRA leads a meaningful discussion of gun violence.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

You're not having a discussion though, you're having a "woe is me, I'm disappointed for the umpteenth time" lament in just about every post.

This is a matter of taste, I guess, because I think I am for the most part positive about the political left in this country. My emphasis is on what we should be trying to accomplish more than what we have accomplished, that's true.

Clinton's biggest policy achievement was the economic boom of the 90's driven by his partial reversal of Reagonomics. Politically, he renewed the association in the public mind of Democratic leadership with prosperity. The GOP had feasted for 12 years on their painstakingly created image of the Democrats as naive, feckless peaceniks. Clinton dispelled that myth by attacking it head on and drove it back to the fetid swamps of the GOP base.

Obama's biggest policy achievement was stopping the Great Recession from turning into the Second Great Depression. It didn't hurt that along the way he made progress on health care with Obamacare. His SCOTUS appointments were adequate. Politically his achievements are probably perishable -- he inspired higher black turnout, but this will probably just evaporate with the next white face.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This is a matter of taste, I guess, because I think I am for the most part positive about the political left in this country. My emphasis is on what we should be trying to accomplish more than what we have accomplished, that's true.

Clinton's biggest policy achievement was the economic boom of the 90's driven by his partial reversal of Reagonomics. Politically, he renewed the association in the public mind of Democratic leadership with prosperity. The GOP had feasted for 12 years on their painstakingly created image of the Democrats as naive, feckless peaceniks. Clinton dispelled that myth by attacking it head on and drove it back to the fetid swamps of the GOP base.

Obama's biggest policy achievement was stopping the Great Recession from turning into the Second Great Depression. It didn't hurt that along the way he made progress on health care with Obamacare. His SCOTUS appointments were adequate. Politically his achievements are probably perishable -- he inspired higher black turnout, but this will probably just evaporate with the next white face.

Oh right, because the dot com boom had NOTHING to with Clinton's "success". You could have put taxes at 99% and there would have still been growth there.

I see you're also buying into Obummer's race baiting. Not to mention, for someone who hates the 1%, I'm shocked you're actually in favour of the bailout, given who it ended up helping.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The USSR had its political and economic structures inextricably linked under a single party dictatorship. Nobody is advocating that. The Soviet Union is the rhetorical equivalent of Nazi Germany; as soon as one cites it meaningful dialog ceases.

Not to mention that there are much better examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about in the democratic socialist movements in Scandinavia, Germany, Benelux, and France. The central premise is to expand democratic participation.

Oh, good heavens. I never said that much of what you listed sounded to me a lot like the Soviet Union, but obviously there are big differences. Can't anybody get the most simple point being made?