Murrica: fuck yeah

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8451 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:44 am

Or maybe the apocalypse will get us first.

User avatar
AD
Posts: 67325
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 317 times
Received rep: 391 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8452 by AD » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:07 am

If only we were that lucky, Chimmy.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8453 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:36 am

I thought Obama didn't have the votes to pass a public option and reverted to the current scheme as what could get passed. All knew it was imperfect, but was what could get done and the hope was that once insurance was available to many more people that there was no going back and the system would eventually get fixed. The GOP's fumbling over repeal or repeal/replace has made a public option, even a single payer option more viable than ever now.

Seems to me to be textbook "gradualism".

:dunno:

Not saying gradualism is always the answer, but pointing to healthcare in the US since the ACA as an example of failed gradualism seems wrong.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8454 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:37 am

AD wrote:If only we were that lucky, Chimmy.


You are not. You will live a long and prosperous life.

:why:
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67325
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 317 times
Received rep: 391 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8455 by AD » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:01 am

:why:
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8456 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:34 am

Hillary Clinton and her private donors were going to embrace single payer after all. That was just the natural, incremental tide of things. No public pressure was necessary or anything.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8457 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:42 am

Notice here that Clinton, incrementalist-in-chief, doesn't say single payer is unfeasible now. She just says it is plain unfeasible. What has really changed now except for the fact that some people (like Kamala Harris) are finally beginning to realize that the Dems have been on the losing side of history too long and not in sync with public opinion?

On health care, an issue that has dominated the Democratic primary in recent days, Clinton hoped to convince Democrats that Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is not feasible and warned it would destroy the status quo.

“It’s a bit concerning to me, because it would basically end all the kinds of health care we know: Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP program, Children’s health insurance, Tri-care for the National Guard military, Affordable Care Act exchange policies, employer-based policies,” she said. “It would take all that and hand it over to the states.”


Speaking to a closed-to-the-press meeting of the “HIMSS14” (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Conference 2014) in Orlando Florida on February 26th, she condemned the Canadian and other nations’ single-payer healthcare systems by saying, “We don’t have one size fits all; our country is quite diverse. What works in New York City won’t work in Albuquerque.” The presumption is that what works in Canada cannot work here, that local control must trump everything in order to fix what’s wrong with American health care.


Back in March of 2008, when Hillary was running against Obama and proposed the same healthcare changes that Obama ended up adopting as President, there was a lengthy New York Times interview with her about healthcare, and she was asked her opinion of single-payer. She said: “I never seriously considered a single payer system. ... I think that, you know, there’s too many bells and whistles that Americans want that would not be available.” Besides, “Talking about single payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine and all the rest of this.”

Again, she was lying. Most polls showed overwhelming majority support by Americans for single-payer. For example, on 14-20 December 2007, an Associated Press/Yahoo poll of 1,523 registered voters, including 847 Democrats and 655 Republicans (about the same proportions Democratic and Republican as the U.S. population generally, at that time) asked these people whether “the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers,” and also asked them “Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan”; and 65 percent said yes to the first, and 54 percent said yes to the second.


see http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-sand ... re-we-know and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zues ... 81399.html

In retrospect, it is not hard to see why Clinton lost.

Can't wait for the inevitable rewriting of history about single payer as a triumph of centrist politics.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8458 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:04 pm

I don't think Hillary is a progressive -she does have to be pushed to the left, something the Sanders campaign did very well. Dems fielded a much too center-right establishment candidate. I don't feel sorry for Hillary's loss in the least, other than, you know, that it resulted in a Trump presidency. Of course, in the long game, a Trump presidency may turn out great for progressives. The blowback can certainly push things in their favour.

Of course, though, there is a distinction to be made between discussing Hillary's politics and the merits of the Dems approach to healthcare from Obama forward. TheACA was what could get done in 2009 and the gradualist gambit (that once extended, coverage could not be curtailed and thr flaws in the system would need to be corrected) appears to be working. This is much better than having had a public option defeated in 2009 and still being nowhere.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8459 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:06 pm

Imagine paying $300 for a routine check-up and then thinking to yourself that due to the wonders of incrementalism you might enjoy single payer healthcare in 20-30 years. If you're not dead by then.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8460 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:10 pm

Dog wrote:Of course, though, there is a distinction to be made between discussing Hillary's politics and the merits of the Dems approach to healthcare from Obama forward. TheACA was what could get done in 2009 and the gradualist gambit (that once extended, coverage could not be curtailed and thr flaws in the system would need to be corrected) appears to be working.


My old Mazda's 22-year old engine is working too. Doesn't mean it is taking me anywhere.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8461 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:12 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:Imagine paying $300 for a routine check-up and then thinking to yourself that due to the wonders of incrementalism you might enjoy single payer healthcare in 20-30 years. If you're not dead by then.


I vote that the US had a single payer public option since the 60s like the rest of the western world. That doesn't change the fact that Obama could not have passed a public option in 2009 -quite simply lacked congressional votes- and the ACA was the best option available.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8462 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:14 pm

Defenders of terms like "incrementalism" and "gradualism" need to realize that these are just code words for "fuck you." You don't actually need a term to label the process of doing something, the common sense notion that policies need time to enforce.

Like with everything in America, words like this are designed to frustrate progress, explain away ineptitude and justify predilection to the preferences of the rich over the poor.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8463 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:16 pm

Dog wrote:I vote that the US had a single payer public options since the 60s like the rest of the western world. That doesn't change the fact that Obama could not have passed a public option in 2009 -quite simply lacked congressional votes- and the ACA was the best option available.


Too much to ask for a commitment to single payer as a goal, for an articulation of Democratic values around the idea? Not even that.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8464 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:22 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:Defenders of terms like "incrementalism" and "gradualism" need to realize that these are just code words for "fuck you." You don't actually need a term to label the process of doing something, the common sense notion that policies need time to enforce.

Like with everything in America, words like this are designed to frustrate progress, explain away ineptitude and justify predilection to the preferences of the rich over the poor.


But, but the incrementalist/gradualist approach of the ACA appears to have worked. In that the alternative in 2009 would be nothing better and it made it so that even a GOP controlled white house, senate and house could not roll back coverage even after 7 years of running primarily on that. Because of that, a public option now seems more likely than ever. GOP overplayed their hand and lost. Dems were right, once coverage is extended it will be impossible to roll back.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8465 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:48 pm

Dog wrote:But, but the incrementalist/gradualist approach of the ACA appears to have worked. In that the alternative in 2009 would be nothing better and it made it so that even a GOP controlled white house, senate and house could not roll back coverage even after 7 years of running primarily on that. Because of that, a public option now seems more likely than ever. GOP overplayed their hand and lost. Dems were right, once coverage is extended it will be impossible to roll back.


I don't know what "gradualist approach of the ACA" means. There was nothing gradualist about ACA. Gradualism as a political ideology is meaningless.

If there was an actual goal, with an assured path to achieve single payer, nobody would complain. Most people were relieved to have Obamacare, but this doesn't mean they were content to stay with that system.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8466 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:53 pm

In the context of the ACA, gradualist means getting in a mandatory private insurance scheme with subsidies (even if Obama would have preferred a single payer public option) because that's what could have been done in 2009 in the belief that once coverage is extended it would be unlikely, politically, that it could be rolled back and that from there shortfalls in the ACA (which they knew to be imperfect) would have to be addressed and that moved the ball forward very considerably towards universal coverage. This is not after the fact reasoning -I clearly remember this being openly discussed in 2009 (get this wonky system in as we don't have the votes for a public option and then it will be unlikely that coverage can be rolled back and the wonky system will have to get fixed in a way that preserves universal coverage). I clearly remember it being discussed as a gradualist strategy to implement universal coverage.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8467 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:56 pm

I don't know what you advocate when you don't have the votes (such as the dems didn't have for a public option in 2009).
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8468 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:03 pm

Dog wrote:In the context of the ACA, gradualist means getting in a mandatory private insurance scheme with subsidies (even if Obama would have preferred single payer a public option) because that's what could have been done in 2009 in the belief that once coverage is extended it would be unlikely, politically, that it could be rolled back and that from there shortfalls in the ACA (which they knew to be imperfect) would have to be addressed and that moved the ball forward very considerably towards universal coverage. This is not after the fact reasoning -I clearly remember this being openly discussed in 2009 (get this wonky system in as we don't have the votes for a public option and then it will be unlikely that coverage can be rolled back and the wonky system will have to get fixed in a way that preserves universal coverage). I clearly remember it being discussed as a gradualist strategy to implement universal coverage.


This is because words have different meanings and you know this very well. And meanings of words change within contexts, especially when used in a combative way against other words.

Let's not ignore the fact that words like "gradualism" and "incrementalism" have been used aggressively as a way to shape the party's underlying ideology. But is it not banal to define one's values around machinations rather than long-term goals and priorities? What has happened to vision?

Our language defines our priorities and our values. Why are the Democrats using conservative language, especially now and in the last election, if not out of fear of offending rich people?

The word you are looking for is compromise. Not incrementalism (which doesn't mean anything). There is no -ism to it. You don't go into a negotiation with the intention to compromise. To call this a strategy is fucking hilarious. It is the outcome; a sad one.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8469 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:19 pm

I use gradualism to describe a process. The end goals of varrious democrats will vary. If you try to get unity on a final goal that is too divisive at a given period of time, you will narrow your base and thus narrow your chances of getting something done. I think if you hold a view that is "beyond" that of others who may however allign with you on a interim goal and if you need the support of those others to get to you anywhere meaningful, then you seek to allign interest and get the interim goal. Once that is achieved, you can then push for your further goal.

In practical terms, if you want single payer and that won't pass in 2009 but you can allign on the ACA, you take the ACA especially if you believe that the ACA will become a "baseline" from which you can then push further.

Gradualism isn't an ideology. It's a strategy to achieve an ideology. If you don't have the power to muscle something through to the end, you strategize to push it as far as you think you can and be successful.

I agree that's it's not always the best strategy. For instance, it's not if you are shying away from a fight tou would otherwise win. It's probably not the best strategy if you are so far out that no interim steps are meaningful. However, if you can move the ball forward, I think you mive it forward as far as you can without failing or causing too much blowback that is counterproductive. I think voices from the further ends of the spectrum are useful -they help put things in the public discourse. I think implementation however is a more nuanced and pragmatic affair -there are many stakeholders pushing in different directions and to be effective you can't overplay your hand.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8470 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:31 pm

Take me and you, Chim. If you explicit what your end goal is for society it is probably too far left for me. I will disagree with you. However, there is plenty of interim goals on which we can work together as I'm fairly center-left (but fundamentally believe that both centralized economic systems and free market systems have inherent pros and cons and that they need to be balanced against each other to try to harness the most benefits with lowest drawbacks -a fundamental balancing act where the appropriate policy will depend on circumstances). We won't get to your end goal together, probably, but especially in a context of wealth concentration as we are seeing today (particularly in places like the US), we can agree on many goals.

If you have enough like minded people and can afford to tell people like me to fuck off, more power to you. If however you fall short of your required threshold of power and need people like me, then I'd suggest you take a gradualist approach with people like me and get the ball as far as you can to your end.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8471 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:33 pm

Dog wrote:I use gradualism to describe a process. The end goals of varrious democrats will vary. If you try to get unity on a final goal that is too divisive at a given period of time, you will narrow your base and thus narrow your chances of getting something done. I think if you hold a view that is "beyond" that of others who may however allign with you on a interim goal and if you need the support of those others to get to you anywhere meaningful, then you seek to allign interest and get the interim goal. Once that is achieved, you can then push for your further goal.

In practical terms, if you want single payer and that won't pass in 2009 but you can allign on the ACA, you take the ACA especially if you believe that the ACA will become a "baseline" from which you can then push further.

Gradualism isn't an ideology. It's a strategy to achieve an ideology. If you don't have the power to muscle something through to the end, you strategize to push it as far as you think you can and be successful.

I agree that's it's not always the best strategy. For instance, it's not if you are shying away from a fight tou would otherwise win. It's probably not the best strategy if you are so far out that no interim steps are meaningful. However, if you can move the ball forward, I think you mive it forward as far as you can without failing or causing too much blowback that is counterproductive. I think voices from the further ends of the spectrum are useful -they help put things in the public discourse. I think implementation however is a more nuanced and pragmatic affair -there are many stakeholders pushing in different directions and to be effective you can't overplay your hand.


A strategy separate from values? A process that is a strategy, but not an ideology? You are losing me.

Gradualism (aka incrementalism, pragmatism) is an attack word, and has been throughout the last election cycle. It has been a core component to an articulated set of values, expressed in contract with those of Sanders and the more progressive wing (who love nothing more than unicorns, it seems). It is also a complete red herring.

Even if you do have a whole new definition of the word that is entirely your own (I don't think so), it would not be meaningful if it is not consistent with the way the word is being used.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8472 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:36 pm

You don't see a distinction between strategy and ideology? Between process and substance?

That seems frighteningly black and white. As if anything short of ideological "purety" is nonexistent. That's the only way I see equating ideology and strategy -ie. there is no strategy that leads to something short of full ideological implementation.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8473 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:38 pm

Dog wrote:Take me and you, Chim. If you explicit what your end goal is for society it is probably too far left for me. I will disagree with you. However, there is plenty of interim goals on which we can work together as I'm fairly center-left (but fundamentally believe that both centralized economic systems and free market systems have inherent pros and cons and that they need to be balanced against each other to try to harness the most benefits with lowest drawbacks -a fundamental balancing act where the appropriate policy will depend on circumstances). We won't get to your end goal together, probably, but especially in a context of wealth concentration as we are seeing today (particularly in places like the US), we can agree on many goals.

If you have enough like minded people and can afford to tell people like me to fuck off, more power to you. If however you fall short of your required threshold of power and need people like me, then I'd suggest you take a gradualist approach with people like me and get the ball as far as you can to your end.


People are starving, wanker.

That is what's missing in your neat little example, people. Rewrite it. You make politics sound like business in which some folks make deals. If your ideology supports the tyranny of a system that lets people starve then fuck you.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8474 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:39 pm

Dog wrote:You don't see a distinction between strategy and ideology? Between process and substance?

That seems frighteningly black and white. As if anything short of ideological "purety" is nonexistent. That's the only way I see equating ideology and strategy -ie. there is no strategy that leads to something short of full ideological implementation.


Strategies are ideological.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8475 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:46 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:You don't see a distinction between strategy and ideology? Between process and substance?

That seems frighteningly black and white. As if anything short of ideological "purety" is nonexistent. That's the only way I see equating ideology and strategy -ie. there is no strategy that leads to something short of full ideological implementation.


Strategies are ideological.


They can be, but they aren't necessarily.

I think you take "gradualism" as an empty word fake progressives use to cynically kill progressive programs.

That will be true for some and not for others.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8476 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:47 pm

But seriously, what do you do when you don't have the votes? Like when Obama in 2009 would have preferred a public option but could not get that through congress?
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8477 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:48 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:Strategies are ideological.


They can be, but they aren't necessarily.


Always.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8478 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:52 pm

Dog wrote:But seriously, what do you do when you don't have the votes? Like when Obama in 2009 would have preferred a public option but could not get that through congress?


You can compromise, call it compromise, and then articulate a way forward in which single payer is still the end goal.

The red herring to gradualism is in the fact that everyone compromises. But it takes a special fool to make this a principle.

It is retarded as a strategy and insincere as a stated set of values.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8479 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:00 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:You make politics sound like business in which some folks make deals.


That is exactly what I think politics is, in any system. The more restrained the system, the smaller the number of stakeholders voices -which is not a good thing.

Dr_Chimera wrote: If your ideology supports the tyranny of a system that lets people starve then fuck you.


Hyperbole doesn't do much. You don't have a perfect system and neither do I, difference is perhaps that I realize it.

You seem to think of politics as good guys vs bad guys. There are no good guys or bad guys, just people in different relative circumstances. Change the circumstances, change the power dynamics -but the people stay the same, a function of their relative circumstances.

Centralize the economy and you will get plenty of abuse of power, corruption and injustices just the same. Perhaps the roles get played by different people, though.

It's not like you have a magic cure that others refuse to implement because they are stupid and/or mean.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8480 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:01 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:You make politics sound like business in which some folks make deals.


That is exactly what I think politics is, in any system. The more restrained the system, the smaller the number of stakeholders voices -which is not a good thing.


Oh I get it: you are actually this cynical. Okay then.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8481 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:04 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:But seriously, what do you do when you don't have the votes? Like when Obama in 2009 would have preferred a public option but could not get that through congress?


You can compromise, call it compromise, and then articulate a way forward in which single payer is still the end goal.

The red herring to gradualism is in the fact that everyone compromises. But it takes a special fool to make this a principle.

It is retarded as a strategy and insincere as a stated set of values.


I don't really know what you are saying. Articulate to who? At the expense of getting an agreement? In 2009 clearly articulting that the ACA is meant as a gateway to single payer may well have killed the ACA itself. There are many factions, even amongt the democrats. Some will have single payer as an end goal and some not. Push single payer when you can win single payer.

You can have privately held goals and public discourses.

:hillary:
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8482 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:04 pm

I'm sorry, all this time I thought our politics could aspire to serve, you know, citizens. I am a naive idiot.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8483 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:05 pm

Dog wrote:In 2009 clearly articulting that the ACA is meant as a gateway to single payer may well have killed the ACA itself.


Your "may" is doing so much work here.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8484 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:06 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:You make politics sound like business in which some folks make deals.


That is exactly what I think politics is, in any system. The more restrained the system, the smaller the number of stakeholders voices -which is not a good thing.


Oh I get it: you are actually this cynical. Okay then.


That's not cynical. I think politics (when not corrupt, when it actually works) is the arena where diverging interests meet to hash out a way forward.

I may have my own ideologies that I bring to the discourse, but ultimately it is a discourse. I'm not alone.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8485 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:08 pm

Dog wrote:That's not cynical. I think politics (when not corrupt, when it actually works) is the arena where diverging interests meet to hash out a way forward.

I may have my own ideologies that I bring to the discourse, but ultimately it is a discourse. I'm not alone.


Wow, no shit man.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8486 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:11 pm

Can't... promise... good... things... to people... republicans.. and ... rich donors... might get mad. Must.. divide... everything... by two.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8487 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:12 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:In 2009 clearly articulting that the ACA is meant as a gateway to single payer may well have killed the ACA itself.


Your "may" is doing so much work here.


Of course it is, I can't tell what ifs with certainty. What seems to be clear is that a public option did not have required congressional support but ACA did. In that context, what is the purpose of stating "fine, but the end goal is single payer" if that risked putting the deal in jeopardy? Is there an upside to making that statement that warrants the risk? Dems lost control of congress on the backnof the ACA. Would the blowback have been even harsher if single payer was the ultimate goal? Also, the ultimate goal of who? Many democrats themselves did not have that as an ultimate goal. ACA was were the deal was at in 2009. Obama may, in a vacuum have preferred single payer, but he couldn't get it. So he strategically moved the ball forward. I'm not even sure what you are upset about outside of theoretical ideological purity.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8488 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:13 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:That's not cynical. I think politics (when not corrupt, when it actually works) is the arena where diverging interests meet to hash out a way forward.

I may have my own ideologies that I bring to the discourse, but ultimately it is a discourse. I'm not alone.


Wow, no shit man.


Yes. That's the position you called "cynical". Seems very common sense to me too. Happy we agree.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8489 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:14 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:In 2009 clearly articulting that the ACA is meant as a gateway to single payer may well have killed the ACA itself.


Your "may" is doing so much work here.


Of course it is, I can't tell what ifs with certainty. What seems to be clear is that a public option did not have required congressional support but ACA did. In that context, what is the purpose of stating "fine, but the end goal is single payer" if that risked putting the deal in jeopardy? Is there an upside to making that statement that warrants the risk? Dems lost control of congress on the backnof the ACA. Would the blowback have been even harsher if single payer was the ultimate goal? Also, the ultimate foal of who? Many democrats themselves did not have that as an ultimate goal. ACA was were the deal was at in 2009. Obama may, in a vacuum have preferred single payer, but he couldn't get it. So he strategically moved the ball forward. I'm not even sure what you are upset about outside of theoretical ideological purity.


You're aware that it's been almost a decade since Obamacare passed? And you are saying that all of this time the Dems have been afraid to articulate the end goal of single payer, that they actually wanted single payer but were shaking in their boots because of republican blowback? And all the nasty shit said about single payer by establishment dems was just theater to hide their wonderful intentions for the greater good of society?
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8490 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:16 pm

Dog wrote:Yes. That's the position you called "cynical". Seems very common sense to me too. Happy we agree.


That was not a position. It was an observation, and the fact that you mistake observations for positions is hilarious.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8491 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:20 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:
Your "may" is doing so much work here.


Of course it is, I can't tell what ifs with certainty. What seems to be clear is that a public option did not have required congressional support but ACA did. In that context, what is the purpose of stating "fine, but the end goal is single payer" if that risked putting the deal in jeopardy? Is there an upside to making that statement that warrants the risk? Dems lost control of congress on the backnof the ACA. Would the blowback have been even harsher if single payer was the ultimate goal? Also, the ultimate foal of who? Many democrats themselves did not have that as an ultimate goal. ACA was were the deal was at in 2009. Obama may, in a vacuum have preferred single payer, but he couldn't get it. So he strategically moved the ball forward. I'm not even sure what you are upset about outside of theoretical ideological purity.


You're aware that it's been almost a decade since Obamacare passed? And you are saying that all of this time the Dems have been afraid to articulate the end goal of single payer, that they actually wanted single payer but were shaking in their boots because of republican blowback? And all the nasty shit said about single payer by establishment dems was just theater to hide their wonderful intentions for the greater good of society?


I'm saying many dems that want single payer have been bidding their time. You are aware that the dems lost control of congress in 2010. A massive midterm defeat at the hands of the GOP largely on the back of the ACA. When exactly would have been a good time to try to pass single payer through a GOD controlled congress afterwards?

The GOP fumble on repeal and replace is actually the best window forward towards a oublic option or single payer, when the dems retake power. Now, after the GOP fiasco, is a good time to push single payer for the dems.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8492 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:22 pm

Dog wrote:I'm saying many dems that want single payer have been bisding their time.


Judging by the last election result they waited too long, hiding in fear, too scared to simply express support for an idea and inspire people. It's hard work.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8493 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:23 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:Yes. That's the position you called "cynical". Seems very common sense to me too. Happy we agree.


That was not a position. It was an observation, and the fact that you mistake observations for positions is hilarious.


Is it more hilarious than dismising the description of politics as a deal making arena as cynical?
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8494 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:24 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:I'm saying many dems that want single payer have been bisding their time.


Judging by the last election result they waited too long, hiding in fear, too scared to simply express support for an idea and inspire people. It's hard work.


This is probably the crux of your anger here -Hillary as candidate over Bernie.

I fully agree that the dems grossly misread the electorate.

They should have gone with Biden.

:danson:
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8495 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:27 pm

Dog wrote:Is it more hilarious than dismising the description of politics as a deal making arena as cynical?


Only two things are possible, neither of which reflect well on you.

a) You are making an obvious description, which is completely banal.

b) You are presenting that description as your worldview about what exists and what is possible. I would call this aspirational, but it does not seem you have any aspirations. To you, everything that results derives out of a factory conveyor belt of deals.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8496 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:33 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:I'm sorry, all this time I thought our politics could aspire to serve, you know, citizens. I am a naive idiot.


You say that as if "the citizens" are a unified thing that have a single interest. That's where I think you are wrong -that's where I think most leftist ideology falls appart. This naive thinking that there is a magical cooperative good in all that is being held back by an abusive few. That if you set "the people free", you unlock this societal harmony.

That's not human nature, man.

People behave in a more or less rational game theory like fashion. They cheat when they can and they cooperate when they think it in their best interest to. People do this to varying degrees according to their personalities and circumstances, but all people do. Rich and poor and middle class. Change the power structures and roles adjust but the same bevahiour is exhibited. Socialism doesn't magically unlock "goodness" -if only it can eliminate the few bad apples in society oppressing the pure people.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8497 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:38 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:Is it more hilarious than dismising the description of politics as a deal making arena as cynical?


Only two things are possible, neither of which reflect well on you.

a) You are making an obvious description, which is completely banal.

b) You are presenting that description as your worldview about what exists and what is possible. I would call this aspirational, but it does not seem you have any aspirations. To you, everything that results derives out of a factory conveyor belt of deals.


You said "You make politics sound like business in which some folks make deals."

I said "yes, that's what I think it is"

You said "wow, that so cynical!!1"

I said "how is that cynical, seems quite obvious/banal to me".

This whole tangent to the discussion is entirely without any meaningful substance. The only remarkable thing here is that in your first post you did not seem to see politics as a deal making arena. Perhaps because you like to think of it in more idealistic terms.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8498 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:45 pm

Btw, I do enjoy our little discussions Chimmy old pal.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8499 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:09 pm

Dog wrote:Btw, I do enjoy our little discussions Chimmy old pal.


I don't. You're awful.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53313
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1058 times
Received rep: 644 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8500 by Dog » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:13 pm

:(

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mcphee and 4 guests