I think it’s CYA to establish to any moderation attempt that they don’t share the opinions presented in the images.
Bernie cooked up this particular bullshit. 🤷
Some of wall street feels like Biden/Harris will be pretty moderate and they are happy with that
1 Like
Ok I’m really confused. Isn’t that the literal definition of incremental? Obamacare didn’t eliminate the insurance lobby (the final goal) but it did give many people access to healthcare that didn’t have it.
1 Like
So I’m going to split the baby here and piss everyone off.
Incrementalism is a workable plan when you haven’t been politically constipated for 30-40 years. Unfortunately when you don’t get anything done for that kind of time period you get forced to make BIG changes (even though that’s suboptimal for getting things right, we absolutely won’t get everything right and there will be meaningful mistakes made that cause problems for decades) when you finally become unblocked. So on this point the leftists ITT are absolutely correct that incrementalism isn’t workable here. We’re in a spot where we need to sprint recklessly toward the vicinity of where we need to be because we are massively out of position.
Under normal circumstances Clovis would be right here advocating for an incremental approach to basically any problem. He doesn’t need to change that thought process because it probably serves him very well in real life and he’s not a politician. In real life competent people do not find themselves in situations where making huge totally untested changes fast is a good decision. We avoid that by incrementally working towards what’s optimal 24/7/365 and as a result we never find ourselves in spots like these where the right call is to blow everything up.
But yeah incremental improvements right now are not at all acceptable. The only thing that makes me even a little optimistic about this specific situation is that the Democrats are basically going to HAVE to make large scale changes at this point when things unblock. We’re dealing with a massive health/economic crisis that demands almost nothing but big moves, so that’s probably what a bunch of incrementally minded politicians are going to do even if it isn’t happily.
3 Likes
They co-wrote Biden’s policy platform.
This is a fair point. I am sure I would agree if we drilled down and addressed specific issues.
Short of dems winning the presidency, house and senate none of these big changes are possible though. Even if they do they have to get through SCOTUS.
I get frustrated with the wishful thinking big changes people because they don’t say how it will be accomplished. We all wish someone could wrinkle their nose and the US would have UHC or no more racist institutions but nobody can. I see no path other than incremental, short of violent revolt.
AOC is president tomorrow. What does she do to enact sweeping changes?
For most of American history there was a steady flow of legislation through the government and things were perpetually changing on most major issues. Not all of it was in the right direction, but we would actually get things done in the meantime.
If you look at any decade of American history before the 00’s you see a steady stream of major legislation coming out and attempting to fix what wasn’t working. What went really wrong at a systemic level since the 80’s is that the GOP got political power, tried a bunch of stuff that they were for, and it didn’t work… so instead of letting politics do its thing and swing back the other way they took a bat to all the control panels to prevent anyone from unwinding the stupidity they had initiated.
If we have 53+ Senate seats, the presidency, and a house majority we should be able to get very nearly anything we want done. Starting with packing the court and disenfranchising GOP core voters. Voting is a privilege not a right they’ve been telling me.
The only political goal the Democratic Party should have in 2020 is the systematic destruction of the GOP. Until they are finished off there are no possible political solutions to the mess we are in. They simply do not deserve a seat at the table when it comes to deciding what we should do next.
6 Likes
This guy gets it.
We point out that deplorables love Trump because he triggers the libs. But the truth is that the left also loves triggering the right and no doubt that it’ll generate popularity.
People want to be entertained. Politics is normally boring and depressing, especially now given the situation.
1 Like
That’s a goal I can get behind. 
Do you see any world where a bunch of seats are added to SCOTUS though. I’d love to see it but find it hard to imagine.
Kamala Harris is not actually for UHC. She doesn’t have any real policy positions.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
1 Like
They expanded Medicaid eligibility to something like 10 million new people and cut the uninsured population by 40%.
Anecdotally, the ACA subsidies allowed me to afford insurance and get my medications during a terrible period in my life. Obviously, it would have been better if they did M4A and I never had to worry about it at all, but what is your evidence for the claim that the ACA did nothing for ~everyone?
I’ll say upfront that you’re not going to convince me, since I was a direct beneficiary in a circumstance that is fairly common, but I would still like to see some evidence.
8 Likes
lol minstrel shows weren’t political strategies to appeal to uninterested, apathetic people who never vote
Honest truth is that you’re wasting your time interacting with me. Save your anger for somebody who will get in a pissing contest with you.
Its possible that most BLM people, like the one i posted above, don’t see Kamala as a “normal cop”. Probably most, if not all, aren’t aware of the stuff thats been posted about her here about her time as the DA.
Kamala’s going to go whichever way the wind blows. She was “tough on crime” when that was popular, she’ll be vaguely pro-BLM when that’s trendy.
3 Likes
I guess… I guess I look at the history of Social Justice in the United States and all I see is mostly incremental change. Every single time we see a big win for Social Justice there’s an immediate reaction that causes a ton of retrenchment. Then slowly things get to a point where there’s enough pressure to get to the next stage.
Two steps forward and one and a half steps back is basically the whole history. The first black member of the house of representatives was from Mississippi in 1870.
Using dollars was a bad choice in my analogy. It caused unnecessary confusion. Poor communication by me.
I meant it to only illustrate that getting 70% of what you want is better than 0%.
53 isn’t even close to enough.
Eh. Politicians have a tendency to go the direction the wind is blowing. The wind right now is blowing everyone forcefully to the left. I mean Mitt Romney is effectively to the left of the Democratic Party on UBI. That’s just one example of a politician responding to the political environment.
These people don’t have to be true believers, they just have to believe that it’s good for them politically to do something.