Political Discussion

Indymisanthrope said:
Personally I’m not on board with writing this off as an act of political theater. The Republicans’ intransigence should be expected, but it’s still required to put them on the record here. Knowing the probable outcome doesn’t absolve Dems of the responsibility to zealously prosecute this case. I thought yesterday’s presentation was overwhelmingly damning, and will likely cement the events of that day as Trump’s only lasting legacy. The dangers of Trumpism, establishing January exceptions, the way the entire Republican Party has been radicalized, the manner in which all of this directly implicates more than a few of the Senate jurors themselves...we’re going to be talking about the impact of this week on our national politics for the next 50 years the way we’re still dealing with the fallout of Watergate today.
Click to expand...

Maybe pandering was the wrong word in my previous post because I completely agree with you that every rotten apple in the GOP needs to be paraded in front of the country for all to see.

Just for me, personally, I'm not going to dedicate much brain power to following to trial itself because I already know the rotten apples and the inevitable outcome.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Yeah that’s fair. I’m pretty riveted to the testimony itself, even if I’m trying to keep that separate from getting my hopes up that it will change the outcome. If seeing people chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” inside the Capitol as he’s evacuated with his family TWO MINUTES after Trump tweeted that he had let the country down doesn’t convince Senate Repubs to act honorably, what could?
Click to expand...

If the accused was a democrat.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
Honestly I think it's more shallow than that and they're using all of their current excuses to hide the real reason.

They don't want the only president in history to be impeached and convicted to be a Republican. In a party that's already fractured by the Trump base squawking about creating a new political party altogether, having another black eye on the GOP is the last thing they need.
Click to expand...
I hate this, as to me it makes the most sense for them to disown and rally against the last administration to separate themselves from him. They would save more face if they apologized and worked with the Democrats to start this country ACTUALLY healing. But it seems like they're afraid of losing the support of all the t***p supporters instead of simply just trying to bring them around, stop feeding them lies.

It's insane.
 
Max Sterling said:
I hate this, as to me it makes the most sense for them to disown and rally against the last administration to separate themselves from him. They would save more face if they apologized and worked with the Democrats to start this country ACTUALLY healing. But it seems like they're afraid of losing the support of all the t***p supporters instead of simply just trying to bring them around, stop feeding them lies.

It's insane.
Click to expand...

My best guess is that it will change the Republican Party platform and their base dramatically. People who don’t have the stomach for it will shift to the Dem party, leading them to have a wider base to please and varied platform. Hopefully that larger base leads to more power in government to make changes.
 
Dtknuckles said:
My best guess is that it will change the Republican Party platform and their base dramatically. People who don’t have the stomach for it will shift to the Dem party, leading them to have a wider base to please and varied platform. Hopefully that larger base leads to more power in government to make changes.
Click to expand...
That is the hope. I know the more staunch Libertarians who generally leaned Republican when forced to choose have mostly already fallen the other way. A lot of the more conservative "In the Middle" voters certainly have. With talks of the republicans splintering off to separate themselves from what they've become, I hope it sticks and isn't just like the DMV changing it's name to the DDS to lose some of the negative connotations, but nothing really changes...

Honestly, whatever weakens their position is positive at this point.
 
Max Sterling said:
That is the hope. I know the more staunch Libertarians who generally leaned Republican when forced to choose have mostly already fallen the other way. A lot of the more conservative "In the Middle" voters certainly have. With talks of the republicans splintering off to separate themselves from what they've become, I hope it sticks and isn't just like the DMV changing it's name to the DDS to lose some of the negative connotations, but nothing really changes...

Honestly, whatever weakens their position is positive at this point.
Click to expand...
What I believe the majority of Americans want is progressive policies. People want the New New Deal. People want M4A. People want police reform. People want living wages. The problem with both sides is that neither one of them wants to do what the people want because some of it is directly opposite from what most of the people funding both parties want. They would rather not pay for people's heathcare. They would rather not pay workers more. Until the major political parties put up candidates that campaign on what the majority of voters want, we are going to continue to see factions in government. We are going to see a lot of people who flip flop and change parties because both parties are okay with keeping the economic status quo. The rest of us aren't okay with the economic status quo and want to change it. Instead of even beginning to find the vocabular for these sorts of discussions then we are doomed to keep fighting each other over social issues every time we look at a ballot. While I believe that social issues are important, I think that a lot of social issues would be a lot better if more people were actually making a living wage at one job, instead of needing multiple jobs.
 
nolalady said:
What I believe the majority of Americans want is progressive policies. People want the New New Deal. People want M4A. People want police reform. People want living wages. The problem with both sides is that neither one of them wants to do what the people want because some of it is directly opposite from what most of the people funding both parties want. They would rather not pay for people's heathcare. They would rather not pay workers more. Until the major political parties put up candidates that campaign on what the majority of voters want, we are going to continue to see factions in government. We are going to see a lot of people who flip flop and change parties because both parties are okay with keeping the economic status quo. The rest of us aren't okay with the economic status quo and want to change it. Instead of even beginning to find the vocabular for these sorts of discussions then we are doomed to keep fighting each other over social issues every time we look at a ballot. While I believe that social issues are important, I think that a lot of social issues would be a lot better if more people were actually making a living wage at one job, instead of needing multiple jobs.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is we need to pull the money out of Government so that there's no incentive for our politicians to bow to the whims of lobbyists instead of the people that voted them into office? **surprised Pikachu face** How dare you.

I agree completely. Education and a living wage are two very obvious solutions to most of the problems we face. But how do we reform politicians, first? So many of them are corrupt and in the pocket of "big _____" whatever that may be. It seems like every couple years one or two progressive candidates sneak their way in, but most reasonable people who should be doing the job don't want the job. The amount of fundraising and campaigning someone has to do to even be a contender is perverse. I get really discouraged when I think about how many greedy old millionaires sit in power and decide things for the rest of us and not only are they there for far too long, they often times groom and set up their replacements in order to keep the status quo. How does half a nation defeat that when it seems like the other half of the nation is complicit? It's daunting.
 
I'm very, very interested in where this is going.

The party put forward the PRO Act, a measure designed to promote union organizing and approved by the House last year. The legislation would:

  • Allow the National Labor Relations Board to levy fines against employers who violate workers’ rights
  • Give employees more power to participate in strikes
  • Weaken so-called right to work laws
  • Offer certain independent contractors the protections held by employees
www.cnbc.com

Democrats reintroduce labor rights bill as Covid puts spotlight on workplace safety

The PRO Act aims to boost workers' bargaining rights during the pandemic but is unlikely to get through the Senate.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

Max Sterling said:
So what you're saying is we need to pull the money out of Government so that there's no incentive for our politicians to bow to the whims of lobbyists instead of the people that voted them into office? **surprised Pikachu face** How dare you.

I agree completely. Education and a living wage are two very obvious solutions to most of the problems we face. But how do we reform politicians, first? So many of them are corrupt and in the pocket of "big _____" whatever that may be. It seems like every couple years one or two progressive candidates sneak their way in, but most reasonable people who should be doing the job don't want the job. The amount of fundraising and campaigning someone has to do to even be a contender is perverse. I get really discouraged when I think about how many greedy old millionaires sit in power and decide things for the rest of us and not only are they there for far too long, they often times groom and set up their replacements in order to keep the status quo. How does half a nation defeat that when it seems like the other half of the nation is complicit? It's daunting.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure how we do this either.
I've been thinking about it and a lot of this all stems from inequity. One of the big ways to do that is to start actually prosecuting corporations using our already on the books anti-trust laws. If we could break these companies up, and they had to compete for workers and business, it would be a great thing for all workers. The second thing would be to limit what private equity can do. I'm still keeping my ear to the ground in regards to laws against surprise billing--private equity goes and buys a medical practice of several doctors, usually anesthesiologists, and sends them into a hospital to do their job, but because they aren't on your insurance (because they aren't in network with anyone), you get a huge bill. Congress keeps going back and forth on whether they want to pass a no surprise bills act, and that would be great for us, and a huge blow to private equity. We also need to protect workers rights, and this new bill that I mentioned above looks like it might be able to do some of that work.

As for that half the nation that is complicit, the people that are okay with how things are because they got into the stock market and housing market when things were cheap, and were able to pay for tuition with a summer job. Those people are starting to become the minority. More and more people are getting more and more unhappy with things. Don't give up on people--easier said than done, I know. I do have faith that we can steer towards a brighter future instead of the really scary hellscape that we are dealing with now.
 
nolalady said:
I'm very, very interested in where this is going.

The party put forward the PRO Act, a measure designed to promote union organizing and approved by the House last year. The legislation would:

  • Allow the National Labor Relations Board to levy fines against employers who violate workers’ rights
  • Give employees more power to participate in strikes
  • Weaken so-called right to work laws
  • Offer certain independent contractors the protections held by employees
www.cnbc.com

Democrats reintroduce labor rights bill as Covid puts spotlight on workplace safety

The PRO Act aims to boost workers' bargaining rights during the pandemic but is unlikely to get through the Senate.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com


I'm not really sure how we do this either.
I've been thinking about it and a lot of this all stems from inequity. One of the big ways to do that is to start actually prosecuting corporations using our already on the books anti-trust laws. If we could break these companies up, and they had to compete for workers and business, it would be a great thing for all workers. The second thing would be to limit what private equity can do. I'm still keeping my ear to the ground in regards to laws against surprise billing--private equity goes and buys a medical practice of several doctors, usually anesthesiologists, and sends them into a hospital to do their job, but because they aren't on your insurance (because they aren't in network with anyone), you get a huge bill. Congress keeps going back and forth on whether they want to pass a no surprise bills act, and that would be great for us, and a huge blow to private equity. We also need to protect workers rights, and this new bill that I mentioned above looks like it might be able to do some of that work.

As for that half the nation that is complicit, the people that are okay with how things are because they got into the stock market and housing market when things were cheap, and were able to pay for tuition with a summer job. Those people are starting to become the minority. More and more people are getting more and more unhappy with things. Don't give up on people--easier said than done, I know. I do have faith that we can steer towards a brighter future instead of the really scary hellscape that we are dealing with now.
Click to expand...

The sheriffs department in my area just announced that they expanded the wage theft division. So many people in my area are worried about street crime or property crime, but wage theft causes much more loss.
 
CNN is reporting that many republican senators are no longer trying to keep up the appearance that they are impartial.

Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham are among them.

It's clear that the Republican senators minds were made up before the trial even started.

But as the meeting between the defense lawyers and Graham, Cruz and Lee demonstrated, some Republicans are not even interested in maintaining the appearance that they are impartial. Cruz, a Texas Republican, described the session with Trump's defense team as a chance to share their thoughts about the legal strategy.
"I think the end result of this impeachment trial is crystal clear to everybody," Cruz told CNN on Thursday. "Donald Trump will be acquitted. ... It takes 67 votes to convict him and every person in the Senate chamber understands that there are not the votes to convict, nor should there be."
Click to expand...
 
RenegadeMonster said:
CNN is reporting that many republican senators are no longer trying to keep up the appearance that they are impartial.

Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham are among them.

It's clear that the Republican senators minds were made up before the trial even started.
Click to expand...
Yes, but was this really a surprise?
 
grumble grumble grumble
Oh great, more "access" to healthcare....not actual healthcare that people can afford, but everyone has "access"...

Democrats' coronavirus relief proposal includes major changes to the Affordable Care Act, aiming to make health insurance more affordable for the millions of people who have lost their employer-based coverage during the pandemic.

What we're watching: A large coalition of insurers, employers, hospitals and doctors — groups that often butt heads — support many of the components of Democrats' proposal.

Yes, but: Notably absent from all of this are policies that would meaningfully reduce the actual cost of care.

  • Increasing subsidies just means that the government would shoulder more of the burden, while the U.S's extraordinarily high prices go untouched.
  • Any attempt to control the cost of care would quickly erode any support from the health care industry.
What we're watching: "These subsidy enhancements, along with a new outreach campaign that reverses the 90% cut by the Trump administration, has the potential to supercharge the upcoming reopened enrollment period," said KFF's Larry Levitt.

www.axios.com

The biggest ACA overhaul in a decade is underway

Democrats' coronavirus relief bill would boost ACA subsidies.
www.axios.com www.axios.com
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I literally just shouted at an empty room at hearing that “Calvary” bullshit. That was the most brazenly ludicrous thing I’ve maybe ever heard.
Click to expand...
...And now after whining and complaining about the Dems taking Trumps comments out of context we will now show you a bunch of clips of Democrats taken out of context 🙄

This defense would be absolutely laughable except I am sure it will give the GOP enough cover to “whatabout” their way out of having to defend their decision to vote not to convict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top