I won't hold my breath, given that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's big idea after the 2018 midterms was to institute pay-go.
Bernie/Biden task force presents suggestions
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Oh, I'm perfectly willing to admit differences between the parties. Republicans are honest about what they do. Democrats lie, build straw man platforms designed to fail, collaborate with Republicans, and blockade the left.
You need to recognize those "differences" are anything but performative, and intended to keep people like you from reading the fine print whilst attacking anyone who speaks otherwise.
If they do that, who will they blame for passing milquetoast and insubstantial policy?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,855
- 3,724
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Ahh, ok, that makes more sense, I apologize for assuming the worst. I do think the republicans will try and kill anything, but I also think the democrats will have learned from the ACA and almost ignore them. There will be wheeling and dealing within their own party, but I still see that as more of a feature. To me it says that if the democrats 100% controlled government they could still be trusted to have healthy debate over the issues rather than just trying to be black and white about things. Really the only problem with that is that the republicans are still out there waiting to take seats and prove how bad government can be again.
We're drawing different strategic conclusions, yes. But I do not believe for a second that a party platform is ever built to appeal to one political demographic ("moderates" or centrists, progressives, etc). It's a balancing act.
But, strategically speaking, the progressives do not hold an enormous amount of leverage, and tend to overestimate themselves (again, I say this as a socialist). And the numbers do not show these "low info moderates" as you've described them as being anywhere even close to locked-in for the Democrats. Quite a few progressives/ lefties have tended to characterise anything non-progressive from the Biden campaign as self-defeating, or only explicable as a product of corruption. But the numbers do not bare this out.
I've just been through an election in which a "broad church" party, the UK Labour Party, stationed itself quite a bit further to the left. They assumed that "traditional" Labour voters would stick with them, and a higher turnout from lefties and the youth would make up for any shortfall and bring them to victory. They got slaughtered. Those "traditional" voters-- your "low info moderates"-- were considered locked-in, uncontested. A chunk of them abandoned the party (not even most; but enough) and now the post-election analysis is pointing out how presumptuous they acted.
Firstly, there's obviously enormous overlap.Those aren't the low-info's I'm talking about.
Poll: Cable news viewers more likely to believe political falsehoods than print, public radio consumers
It should surprise no one that where we gets our news plays a significant part in determining what we believe to be true. But lying isn’t partisan. Democrat or Conservative, both parties lie with astonishing frequency. According to a recentthenextweb.com
Survey: NPR's listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed - Poynter
From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.www.poynter.org
Partisanship and Cable News Audiences
In recent years, Republican viewers have migrated increasingly to Fox News but Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN's audience.www.pewresearch.org
I'm talking about cable news brain worms, and if you think CNN and MSNBC aren't "foxing" Democrats, I have some fantastic beachfront property in Montana to sell you.
Secondly, these are the people you're relying on to be locked-in Democrat voters? The last link there alone demolishes that notion.
I do not trust a career politician to kill a political institution no matter how badly it's been corrupted, end of story. What's used as a tool against one party is used as the tool of that party when they gain power. Always is. I will not give Biden any benefit on the doubt on this score whatsoever unless he actually does something about it. For all the Dems cry about gerrymandering, if a Blue Wave happens this year to put the Dems in charge of the legislature in this census year, I do not doubt for a second that they'll gerrymander things their own way, and then it'll be Republicans' turn to cry foul.
They need to quit scare tactics about climate change about the Green New Deal, and they need to change the narrative from what it will cost. For the first, something that some liberals simply cannot understand is that not only do a significant number of conservatives not bow to scare tactics, they actively resent and turn on their users. For the latter, focusing on what the country gains from energy independence gained from renewable energy investment, and a detailed plan for converting out-dated jobs to new ones to support renewables, is what will touch the self-interest of those unconcerned with environmental degradation. That kind of information exists. It's pushed in fits and bursts. But it needs to become the narrative.
Liberals overestimate the industry resistance to renewables. Sure, the oil field workers don't want to learn a new trade, and the executives don't want to waste their land and contract deals that bring in oil and gas. But those same executives also have been testing the waters with branching out to renewables research for years now. Solid government incentives on a plan to convert over will win over a significant chunk of lobbyists; it isn't a pure "us vs them" scenario.
USA
I'm sorry, I am not sure how ANYONE can claim "Republicans are honest about what they do" with straight face. There is no other political party in the US that lies as much as republicans do, Period. Not even remotely close. I live in a GOP state, I receive ALL of the GOP newsletters. We literally have elected GOP officials here who are of the "Obama is a gay Muslim variety" and am under a constant barrage of GOP propaganda about it taking 5 days to report a burglary under democrats, Mexican criminals are coming to rape and murder us and how the republicans are going to make a better healthcare system when they have no plan at all. The only person who could claim that "Republicans are honest" has never listened to what a republican says. All you have to do is compare their individual scorecards of our elected officials on fact checking to see the massive differences in fact and fiction here. It is ALSO very important to look at the details of what they lie about and why. There isn't any other party that comes anywhere near close to meeting the sheer constant barrage of lies perpetrated by republicans. Sure, we like to say " all politicians lie" " both parties are the same" but when we crunch the actual numbers here, no one.. not Green, Libertarians, or Dems come close to the sheer amount of BS that comes from the GOP. We really do not have another party in the US to compare the level of misinformation pushed by Republicans in the US, they are in a class of their own in this regard with no one being able to touch them on it.
Sure, we can pull individual examples and say " look at this! They all do it!" but then you look at the numbers of times it happens and the number of elected officials from that party who are doing so and what they are doing it about and it is off the charts, there is no real comparison here.
Last edited:
Sure. the oil industry will make a dramatic shift into renewables when it benefits them to, and they have surely laid the groundwork for that transition knowing the likelihood increases year on year.
But there's a lot of hard-headed pragmatism there. It's still easier for oil companies to drill rather than move focus (never mind that many of those drilling rights are already paid for and would become lost investments), and it's cheap and easy to line the pockets of politicians in lobbying. They'll move to renewables when government makes it worthwhile, or as we could say, "bribes" them with tons of public money.
The issue for politicians is that they can do nothing and let oil money lavishly fund their re-elections, or instead lay out large amounts of government money to push renewables - with the tax or national debt that incurs and resultant unpopularity. Thus the inclination of politicians is going to lean towards oil.
Not at all. 2019 was, foremost in most peoples' minds, an election over Brexit. Then you also have the internal factionalism and some degree of sabotage.
But any analysis of the 2019 Labour campaign would see that they had shifted their emphasis significantly in comparison with past elections. The manifesto was enormous, and was filled with huge, ambitious, eye-catching programmes targeted primarily towards left-wingers and (especially) the young.
It was obvious to see why this wouldn't play as well among traditional Labour "heartlands" voters in the North & Wales. It wasn't that these people aren't sympathetic to left-wing and worker-oriented ideas; but the manifesto was focusing on dozens of decades-long projects, with scant focus on the here-and-now. It wasn't terribly realistic even if they'd won. And those are the places where the collapse occurred.
It was complacency about the "old" voting bloc, and a misjudgement that the "new" voting bloc they were courting was big enough. It wasn't, and isn't. A balancing act is always required, and it's never a good idea to take a voting bloc for granted.
Last edited:
The problem is platforms are non-binding, and here as well as other threads do I make effort to demonstrate Democratic policy positions and action (as opposed to rhetoric) are at complete odds with its platform. You're continuing to push the old, long-disproven lie that platforms matter in any way other than bilking people into voting for a party. Born out by...
Yes, because we're looking at Biden's past statements and Senate record and noting how dramatically the two contrast. It's the height of lunacy to suppose a Presidential candidate with a nearly-fifty year record on Capitol Hill, let alone one whose Senate record is living testament to the economic and social straits in which the United States finds itself today, will up and reverse his entire ideology within three months.
Your issue with reliance on polling numbers, is for the decade before 2016 polls have become consistently less stable, predictable, and useful as a metric for predicting voter behavior. That was an eminent concern before 2016 -- hell, Nate Silver became famous because of it -- and 2016 should have been another '48 in terms of meta-analysis and methodology reform. It wasn't thanks to Russiagate, and little to nothing has changed in the past four years except polarization. Again, you aren't adapting your methodology or arguments to reflect the post-2016 electoral landscape despite all evidence or arguments to the contrary.
Don't pretend you didn't read my last sentence and didn't understand my point. Because it's the same point I've been making this whole-ass time.
Telling you want to focus on the crazy shit Republicans say, rather than ask yourself if their policy positions and proposals are consistent with it.
Compare that to, say, Monday of this week when the sitting Speaker of the House published a letter condemning the deployment of DHS agents to US cities for crowd control, the same day her House caucus brought a DHS funding increase to the floor.
I am not " just focusing on the crazy shit they say", it isn't like that is some sort of outlier, it is the mainstream of their newsletters now. Years ago, it would have been seen as fringe, but their fringe is now all they have left as is the core of their campaigning. It isn't just " crazy talk" either, as we are seeing Lindsey Grahams " over my dead body" talk in action now with the hold up on the necessary unemployment relief that is meant to prevent a complete economic collapse. People are going to lose their homes and literally die over this, but yet, they are still trying to block relief.
You do understand that they want the increase DHS funding in order to focus on other issues, such as protecting hospital systems from cyber terrorists during the pandemic ,rather than have them be deployed for crowd control against constitutionally protected protesters against the states will right? Not wanting them to do one thing they think should be handled by another department does not mean they want to restrict funding for them to do the jobs they want them to be allocated to do. It is like saying, I want to increase school funding in order to better educate our children, but I do not want to allow schools to cut biology studies to start bible study programs with that school funding as there should be a separation of church and state.
There is nothing contradictory in Pelosi's actions as she wants to provide them with the funding to focus on other issues while also not wanting them to do something that is better handled by other agencies and isn't their job to do in the fist place. Trump wanting to misuse DHS for other purposes against the will of the states themselves and the people does not somehow mean that those same departments do not need the funding to do the jobs they are needed to do right now.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,855
- 3,724
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
If partisan gerrymandering is legal then why would they not? They would be actively hurting themselves by not doing it.
Gee, I dunno, maybe one would hope that once they had the power to reform aa they keep calling for, they'd actually reform instead of just continue the abuse of the system, but in their own favor. Or have I got my expectations too high of public servants? I know they have other things to concern them, lots of women out there to subject to a scratch and sniff test.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,855
- 3,724
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Well the supreme court said that partisan gerrymandering is out of their hands. You would need to try push for the democrats to take on that issue as one of their campaign platforms to try and get that changed, or push for state reform, really districts should just be squares to get rid of all of it, that has its own problems but fuck it.
No, I'm not. In other threads I've talked extensively about his record, and how enormously, materially different it is from his opponent's in ways that aren't seriously disputable.
Policy positions and actions, as well as electoral platforms, are not built to target a single demographic, either. Progressives do not have a huge amount of leverage to impact the former, either, I'm afraid to say, and must use their votes strategically. They do not have the numbers (or the reliability, given the shoddy turnout) to hold their votes to ransom and expect massive concessions to win them.
It's in the Democrats' interests to cater to the Progressives. It is not in their interest to abandon the idea of acting as a broad church and ignore the traditional Democratic voters, on the misplaced assumption that they're "locked in", as UK Labour did.
I'm not expecting that at all. I'm hoping for a forced concessionary approach as a result of internal pressures from Sanders, AOC, and the unity task forces they've set up.
Yet it would be an even greater change in direction for Biden to get anywhere even close to Trump on healthcare, environmentalism, almost any area of policy (800 billion cut over a decade to medicare/aid alone)... and I'm frequently coming across forumites seeming to treat that as a foregone conclusion.
I'm not adapting my methodology to the demographic assumptions you're making, because I haven't yet been presented with a single piece of evidence to indicate these "low info moderates" are locked-in for the Democrats and can reliably be ignored.
Polls aren't a great indicator. What's worse than using an unreliable indicator? Not using one at all, and relying on one's own sympathies to guide strategic decisions (or reading tea leaves).
I see and understand the point, but I'm still being presented with data showing that "cable news brain worms" aren't reliable Democratic voters.
It seems the conclusion you're drawing only works if you're tremendously selective about how you get your sample ("without a college degree" isn't a good proxy, but watching television is?!) and then rest on enormous assumptions about future behaviour.
Generally, presumptuousness doesn't pay off come election time.
Last edited:
Strange way of saying "yes, their policies are consistent with their crazy talk".
Three things to say about this:
1. I live about a half hour from where that AIDS outbreak in Indiana hit thanks to Pence. The hep-A outbreak two years ago hit the area hard, too, and for largely the same reasons as the AIDS outbreak. I'll buy that logic when it protects Planned Parenthood.
2. Because budgets don't work that way in practice. You can line-item all you like, agencies can and do find ways around it which is precisely how and why COPS funding keeps going to grenade launchers and armored fighting vehicles for county and metro police departments. Not that one has to really consider that, considering the increases to CBP and ICE are to discretionary funding.
3. Imagine defending CISA in a world in which Edward Snowden exists.
That is just it, their crazy talk isn't consistent with their actions because while they are doing these terrible things, they directly lie to their constituents about the impact of their decisions and blame the damages done by their own actions on other people instead. It is like the whole Obamacare debacle. Republicans undermined and sabotaged the ACA by having GOP states refuse the medicaid expansion and not pay the subsidies they were required to do while at the same time, tell their constituents that their lack of access to care was caused by Obamacare rather than the republicans intentional sabotage.
1) Why would the department of homeland security be involved in the Aids outbreak or Planned parenthood? That is a health department issue, those are entirely different departments. The department of homeland security is in charge of protecting hospitals from the constant barrage of cyber security attacks that have greatly increased under the pandemic, but that does not mean they would have anything to do with providing actual medical relief.
2)Budgets do work that way in practice when you actually designate the funds directly instead of just giving our slush funds. You can write the allocation of funding into the bill itself. That is all a part of properly legislating.
“This year, the House must hold CBP accountable for their egregious violation of the law by withholding any further funding and imposing additional accountability measures with real consequences,” they added.
The DHS bill does fund the agencies, though the number of ICE beds was reduced, and the funds for President Trump's border wall were rescinded.
House to bring controversial Homeland Security bill to floor
The House will bring the controversial Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill to the floor as part of a seven-bill appropriations next week.
3) Imagine not having anything to protect our hospital computer systems from cyber terrorism during a pandemic...
Cyber Attacks Are Killing Hospital Patients: Could Cybercriminals Be Prosecuted for Murder?
As cyber attacks increasingly target critical infrastructure, it’s causing real world deaths. Here’s what attorneys say about prosecuting the attackers for murder… Cybercrime is growing every year. And so are...
www.thesslstore.com
A Hospital Paralyzed by Hackers
A cyberattack in Los Angeles has left doctors locked out of patient records for more than a week. Unless the medical facility pays a ransom, it's unclear that they'll get that information back.
www.theatlantic.com
10,000,000 Cyber Attack – Maureen Data Systems
www.mdsny.com
Cyber-attacks on healthcare facilities 'growing threat' during coronavirus pandemic
Acronis believes it is likely cybercriminals will target government agencies, healthcare facilities and medical professionals treating patients during the COVID-19 crisis.
www.healthcareitnews.com
Cyberattacks against hospitals must stop, says Red Cross
International rules needed to clamp down on hackers who are targeting healthcare – and risking lives during the COVID-19 pandemic.
www.zdnet.com
Cyber Attacks Against Hospitals Have ‘Significantly Increased’ As Hackers Seek To Maximize Profits
INTERPOL cautions that cyber-attacks against hospitals have significantly increased and could directly lead to deaths
www.forbes.com
If we do not fund those who are preventing people from being killed by cyber terrorists targeting hospitals, we do not have anyone to stop this from happening. There isn't anything that Snowden provided that would be serious enough to defund the agencies that are protecting our hospitals right now.
This is a "but Trump!" free zone, thanks. We're talking about Democratic policy positions, versus Democratic rhetoric, past behavior, and predictability of future behavior.
Yes, policy positions and actions very much are. They're just not the same demographic Democrats appeal to with platforms.
Which is my point. Allow me to make myself beyond clear: the Democratic platform is a deliberately-constructed series of lies and straw-man positions to extract votes from stupid people. Clear enough?
Enough to blame for 2016 and launch a four-year-long revenge campaign, it seems.
You mean this?
John Prescott says 'bitter' Blairites are trying to sabotage Labour's election chances
Without naming MPs, Lord Prescott dubbed the former Brown and Blair advisors 'Bitterites'
www.independent.co.uk
A History of Sabotaging Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn showed the way for mass radical politics. He only had to fend off attacks from the Right, the press, and his own party to do it.
www.jacobinmag.com
Labour was warned antisemitism report was deliberately misleading, leak reveals
Party’s lawyer said private messages were presented selectively and without context
www.theguardian.com
Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which gets filled first.
No shit. So why are Democrats relying exclusively on disproven metrics to fuel disproven electoral strategy, with the same discredited strategists and policy elites behind the helm, hiding behind a provable bad-faith platform while simultaneously tacking right to appeal to demos that don't exist?
At the end of the day, we're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about history. You haven't been "presented with" anything, because you're refusing to look.
You going to argue cable news viewers aren't politically polarized?
And yet, Republicans managed to do exactly what they said they were going to do.
Funny you don't mention who "they" are. Because "they" are "the squad", and their quote is a criticism of what the bill doesn't do.
Why should taxpayers be held fiscally liable for the failure of EHR vendors to secure their systems as contractually obliged? Taxpayers have been the ones footing private corporations' bills to contract with private corporations to implement EHR systems in the first place. As far as I'm concerned this is another case of "privatize profit, socialize risk and cost".
Last edited:
No, the republicans didn't do what they said they would do, because what the Republicans claimed they were going to do was ensure that their constituents had jobs so they would be able to keep their homes, but the same companies the GOP claimed to be protecting laid off their workers instead anyways leaving their constituents without jobs and without this relief they will then be homeless too all the while blaming democrats for the ramifications for their own actions. Lying to their constituents =\= doing what they said they were going to do.
Public hospitals are already tax payer funded and protecting the hospitals and the people within from enemies foreign and domestic is part of the requirements set forth by the constitution as a duty of the federal government. Failing to do so is failing to fill their constitutional requirements. The constitution does not have limitations on what weapons the enemy is using, in this case that weapon just happens to be computers. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government has to protect US citizens from enemies foreign and domestic except for those killed with computers.
Last edited: