Predisent Donald J. Trump: Episode VII: Space Force Awakens | Keep Trumpy Bear Great

[Gredival]

Oh look it's the "Dems don't want to get rid of X entirely, so they are just like the Republicans" Jill Stein spiel.

As if the only choices were "X or not-X" rather than "unregulated X or regulated X"

[Byrthnoth]

You could also see it as a recognition that the only bipartisan issue of the last two years was deregulating banks. Because we need a 2/3 majority to do things in the Senate, if 100% of one party is in favor of an idea and 30-40% of the other party is in favor, then it passes. For something like deregulating banks, giving tax breaks, etc. there is always going to be that kind of support so those are the kinds of things that get done (unless the president vetoes.)

In order to fix our dysfunctional campaign finance system, we would need to fix Congress because there isn't serious support for changing the status quo inside a body that is supermajority incumbent. In order to do that, we would have to elect a Democrat to the presidency with the massive blue wave across all elected offices that Bernie's supporters always assumed would accompany his victory when discussing his policy goals. In reality, there can be no expectation of change on a federal level for the next 5-10 years because demographics aren't changing that quickly and the Senate is effectively gerrymandered against the Democrats for the foreseeable future. In order for actual policies to pass/change through Congress, Democrats would need to get a majority in the Senate, and trash the filibuster (ideally also reducing the vote margin to 51%). To keep the system un-broken, they would need to either induct a few states (Puerto Rico / DC?) or pass constitutional amendments.

So big changes aren't going to happen. That said, hopefully the last two years have shown that the presidency is tragically important when you have an impotent Congress. I'm reaching for a basic enough captain-based metaphor here. It's not that I want a captain that is going to steer the ship perfectly, use super fancy techniques to detect potential icebergs before they become problems, or even one that is going to dodge every potential bump in the night. When the general election hits, I be voting for the candidate who is at least going to read the map because I'd rather have a map-reader (Democrat) than someone who goes with their gut (Republican.)

Republicans have been making bad-faith, fact-free arguments since Reagan. Give me someone who is at least using facts.

[djzombie]

Oh look it's the "Dems don't want to get rid of X entirely, so they are just like the Republicans" Jill Stein spiel.

As if the only choices were "X or not-X" rather than "unregulated X or regulated X"

If this is regarding my comments - this is not at all what I said, implied, or alluded to.

[Andalusian girls]

the 'both parties are the same' reduction is the laziest of political insights; there isn't unanimity of opinion within the parties much less between them. there is a window of discourse in American society, as in all societies, but does anyone think a President Gore would have charted the same course as a President Bush? can you look at what the Dems did when they controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency and claim it is the same as what the Republicans did when they controlled such? can you look at the immigration legislation Rubio/McCain tried to pass and pretend it has anything in common with Trump's efforts on the matter? the differences go far wider and deeper than simply 'the political theater of social issues', (a take that is itself reductive by marginalizing the import of social issues).

[Ksandra]

are we pretending that both arms of this machine wouldn't steer us in considerably different directions given absolute authority, or am I misunderstanding your point

Just wanted to let you all know I thought I clicked the BG outages thread, saw this post first and thought, "WHAT KIND OF FIGHT DID RAGU AND SONO HAVE?"

[BerenTebogo]

Liz nooooooooo

[Gredival]

If this is regarding my comments - this is not at all what I said, implied, or alluded to.

Then explain what

If we choose R or D, we're supporting trickle down economics, the military industrial complex, big pharma, insurance companies - basically every corporate interest in America is supported by both parties.

is supposed to mean.

[djzombie]

It means exactly what it says. Your summary of it is a gross oversimplification that doesn't remotely represent what I said.

[Cail]

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Friday freezing federal workers' pay for 2019, following through on a proposal he announced earlier in the year.

The move, which nixes a 2.1% across-the-board pay raise that was set to take effect in January, comes as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are expecting to begin the new year furloughed or working without pay because of a partial government shutdown.
Trump told lawmakers he planned to scrap the 2019 pay bump for federal workers in August, saying the federal budget couldn't support it. In addition to the 2.1% pay increase, the executive order also cancels a yearly adjustment of paychecks based on the region of the country where workers are posted, called the "locality pay increase," that was due to take effect in January.
The move does not affect a 2.6% pay increase for US troops next year that was passed as part of the massive defense spending bill Trump signed in August.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/29/polit...eze/index.html

[Gredival]

It means exactly what it says. Your summary of it is a gross oversimplification that doesn't remotely represent what I said.

1. Your viewpoint is a gross oversimplification of politics that doesn't remotely represent reality.

2. No, it's really not. You're saying both parties support the same "corporate interests" ignoring the tangible differences in policy between the two parties. Your criticism of the Dems' stance on big pharma and insurance companies is essentially that these industries would continue to exist (as they in fact do in every other Western Democracy, even those with significantly more "socialist" leaning economics) in a government run by the Democrats. So that basically boils down to the fact you ignore the real world effects of deregulation vs. regulation in favor of talking about the completely non-viable alternative of these industries being bankrupted or somehow co-opted.

[djzombie]

2. No, it's really not. You're saying both parties support the same "corporate interests" ignoring the tangible differences in policy between the two parties. Your criticism of the Dems' stance on big pharma and insurance companies is essentially that these industries would continue to exist (as they in fact do in every other Western Democracy, even those with significantly more "socialist" leaning economics) in a government run by the Democrats. So that basically boils down to the fact you ignore the real world effects of deregulation vs. regulation in favor of talking about the completely non-viable alternative of these industries being bankrupted or somehow co-opted.

Deregulation implies that industry will regulate itself. Corporations are not benevolent entities, they exist to make as much profit as possible. To expect them to regulate themselves is absurd.

You assume I want these industries bankrupted, I want them regulated.

I think there should be more regulations regarding all those industries I mentioned. Banks need more regulations regarding what they can charge in interest and overdraft fees, along with reinstating Glass–Steagall which separated commercial and investment banking and prevented banking institutions from gambling with people's pensions on the stock market.

I think there should more regulation of the health care/insurance industry. You want to provide the insurance industry with a population that has to pay for health insurance then you need to have some kind of standard of coverage that they must supply. As it is now - we're forced to buy health insurance or suffer a tax penalty - however most people's health insurance plans are garbage which require them to pay a high deductible, 20% to 40% of the total cost in most cases. So we have to pay these cunts and then they provide nothing unless you have to have a surgery that costs 100,000's of thousands of dollars, and then you're still stuck with a 20-30k medical bill. Fucking broken, clearly only working for CEOs of insurance companies who are making record profit every year.

Hospitals in general should have some pricing standards as well - though 1/1/19 is a good first step, hospitals are now required to post all their prices online.

The military industrial complex, how many countries do we need to drone bomb without officially declaring war to obtain their natural resources, or in the case of Afghanistan protect and grow opium for pharma, and then give inflated no bid contracts to rebuild the fucking country we just blew up.

Pharma, are you seeing the inflation of prices in life saving drugs? Did you know it's illegal for medicare (arguably the largest healthcare insurer in the country) to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies? That sound right to you?

Plenty here is fucked up - I don't see either party moving to fix it - these are the issues both parties continually support despite supporting them being detrimental to the people of this country.

You can say the democrats are running on universal healthcare, and while the next presidential candidate may run on that platform - they certainly won't implement it. Our government is paid incredible sums of money to keep the status quo because it continues to profit, and there is very little your average citizen can do to change it. This is a point I'm willing to concede, but I'll believe it when they finally implement a system that doesn't cost your average citizen 40% of their paycheck for little to no benefit at all.

I didn't even get into the war on drugs or how our criminal justice system systemically incarcerates poor people and people of color disproportionately, or how fines are disproportionately punitive to poor people. A 300 dollar fine doesn't mean shit to someone driving 90 down the highway in a BMW. To someone barely getting by that might be half their paycheck or better.

My oversimplification was primarily due to time constraints because I'm sitting at work. But fuck it, aint shit goin on today

[Gredival]

Deregulation implies that industry will regulate itself. Corporations are not benevolent entities, they exist to make as much profit as possible. To expect them to regulate themselves is absurd.

You assume I want these industries bankrupted, I want them regulated.

Guess which party is the party of deregulation and which is the party of regulation?

Plenty here is fucked up - I don't see either party moving to fix it - these are the issues both parties continually support despite supporting them being detrimental to the people of this country.

Then you are blind. When the Dems were actually in power they did plenty. Since being out of power they have consistently voted to protect regulations.

You can say the democrats are running on universal healthcare, and while the next presidential candidate may run on that platform - they certainly won't implement it.

Because that's not how the government works. Unless you can deliver a 60+ seat super majority in the Senate.

I didn't even get into the war on drugs or how our criminal justice system systemically incarcerates poor people and people of color disproportionately

Guess which party is systemically in favor of more and greater criminal justice reforms?

[djzombie]

The biggest point you're missing is that "in favor of" != "actively pursuing".

I can be "in favor of" insurance/health care reform while still taking large checks from that industry which prevents me from "actively pursuing" any real change.

Many of the policies you say Democrats support - they haven't done anything to actively pursue change regarding the position they "support", aside from just saying they support it.

[Yabby]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/29/polit...eze/index.html

If shit like this keeps up, it is going to be hard to keep talent around. Half the reason I stay at my job and don't seek WAY higher pay outside of government work is that it is stable (or was) and steady increases. It's hard enough to find talented tech people to accept anything lower than 80k (For the level I hire for). The job i have now had to be "re-classified" because anyone willing to take the job couldn't do it, so they had to change the title to get a class bump to get in an acceptable range. I understand freezes during recessions, but doing it now is just going to cost more money overall because the further the base pay gets from the private sector they less talent you can find. Less talent means you need more people or the public itself suffers.

This is looking at it from a tech perspective.

[arus2001]

Well, yeah, when you get Republicans stonewalling 6 of 8 Obama years and even doing their damnedest before their own majority, of course it doesn't look like Dems accomplished much. Personally, it frustrates me things aren't happening more quickly on a scale that really needs to happen, but I would vastly favor the party that's at least willing to take the steps toward such ends than the one that'd rather turtle up or do the exact opposite of what we'd like. Thoughts 'n prayers 'n shit.

[djzombie]

Well, yeah, when you get Republicans stonewalling 6 of 8 Obama years and even doing their damnedest before their own majority, of course it doesn't look like Dems accomplished much. Personally, it frustrates me things aren't happening more quickly on a scale that really needs to happen, but I would vastly favor the party that's at least willing to take the steps toward such ends than the one that'd rather turtle up or do the exact opposite of what we'd like. Thoughts 'n prayers 'n shit.

I agree with your sentiment here, though I am incredibly cynical about politics in this country and I really view the "party that's at least willing to take those steps" as the party "who says they're willing to take those steps but continues to take corporate handouts to continue the status quo". That might not be the reality, I can accept that - but that is how it looks to me, and you're right that view of mine could be caused by obstructionist tactics by Republicans preventing Democrats from getting anything done. I am just tired of the same old shit, we pay these assholes ridiculous amounts of money to take half the year off and accomplish nothing aside from to give themselves a raise and distribute 2 trillion dollars of tax payer money among themselves.

I honestly think we would get more accomplished if we elected our representatives by sortition, random selection based on the demographic of the area they represent.

A jury proves this, you can take pretty much any 12 people, put them in a room, lay out the facts, and they'll come to a consensus. The reason nothing gets accomplished is because our government (both parties) is paid to not accomplish anything.

I get it though, my views are really cynical - maybe they'll change when something good actually gets accomplished that affects my every day life.

If you want real change, make it illegal for politicians to take money and gifts from lobbyists and corporations (or anyone else for that matter), and firing squad the first motherfucker that violates it for treason - probably not a popular idea among politicians

[Dotsudoku]

at the very least we pay half of these assholes ridiculous amounts of money to keep things from getting any worse

[arus2001]

Well, you're not wrong that finance reform is needed and that people on both sides take "donations" that they probably shouldn't.

Unfortunately, I think the political awareness of most posters here entails the terms of Dubya, Obama, and now Trump. That's a 10:8 ratio in terms of years of presidential power. And if you go even earlier, you've got 8 of Clinton, 4 of Bush Sr., then the 8 of Reagan pushing things to 22:16 in favor of the republicans. Being born in the early 80's, myself, I can only really say my awareness starting coming into being during Clinton's second term, where before that I maybe knew Bush was doing shit in Iraq and we just had to support our troops and whatever. I suspect for a lot of folks here, their awareness begins more in Dubya's time, with 9/11 probably being my equivalent of Iraq. I guess I can't really emphasize enough that Obama getting blueballed would really skew the interpretation of Dems if he's about all one knows of the party when they're in office. Sandwiched between the morally bankrupt and inept leadership of Trump and the possibly well-meaning, but generally impotent Dubya doesn't paint the best picture of the past 14 years. You can probably dig up enough interviews and the like where Obama outright says he believes Single Payer healthcare is what this country needs, but is also cognizant that it won't be happening anytime soon due to factors outside his control. So, he tried what he could with Obamacare, but it's being systematically ripped apart by some of those forces you're cynical of while often pandering to the country's unfortunate racism and fondness for feelings over facts.

Certainly, I'd like to see other reforms like term limits in all federal level offices, among that the SC not being a "for life" position. There should probably be cooldowns in jumping between high level positions, too. Gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression obviously need to GTFO, as well. I even take a more extreme position that you shouldn't be able to run for such offices if you're over 50, as it's obvious part of the problem is old views and corruption miring things down without care for the younger generations as they'll eventually have to clean up all these messes, if even possible. But as long as education is treated more as an afterthought, the general society is going to remain too stupid to these needs and instead war and bicker with each other over more inane shit like walls we don't need or evil caravans full of rapists, murders, and drug dealers invading.

[djzombie]

Elizabeth Warren announced today that she is running for President in 2020.

She is a candidate I would actually vote for. Wouldn't vote for Hilary if they tried to put her up again, but Elizabeth Warren has been very forward about financial reform. She is one of the few politicians I believe has a genuine interest in helping the average American citizen.

[kuronosan]

Elizabeth Warren announced today that she is running for President in 2020.

She is a candidate I would actually vote for. Wouldn't vote for Hilary if they tried to put her up again, but Elizabeth Warren has been very forward about financial reform. She is one of the few politicians I believe has a genuine interest in helping the average American citizen.

She is going to lose terribly, if only because the idiot Sanders supporters who didn't vote will do it again or vote for someone else because they feel like Warren sold Bernie out.

Again, a good candidate with some baggage but somebody who could do a really good job if elected.