Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[daoneandonly]

Yeah I can understand the skepticism, I lost some respect for him after he kind of became a yes man, but perhaps he can undo some of that by doing the right thing here. Those who truly want to see the Republican party move forward in the right direction will want to remove Trump and cut ties with him. he did what we needed, he put 2 judges on the SCOTUS, his services are no longer needed. it's time to rally behind a real conservative, a Pence, a Kasich, a Rubio, or my personal preference Paul Ryan, etc.

I think Ryan could be the future of the party - he's probably the best pure politician of the group, but there are 2 things wrong with him as a political force: 1 is that he quit rather than fought. He showed some signs of being willing to fight when Trump got out of hand, but he never really showed the guts to stand up to him for any extended period, and when the going got tough - he allowed scum like Nunez to have their way. 2. He built a reputation as a policy expert, but he often appeared to be a phony n that regard. He was Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee but was not regarded highly by tax professionals. His ideas for balancing the budget were destroyed by think tanks, and there never seemed to be any substance to his arguments. He was a smart politician, but was too often too much fluff and too little substance.

Ryan, Pence, Rubio are all weak spined hypocrites. No substance to any of them. Kasich is the only one that has been consistent.

How so? Every politician has hypocritical tendencies, your wet dream Warren and Sanders ticket top that list probably more than any other Presidential candidate in the last 50 years

[I_Like_Dirt]

And then this...I didn't see a Buttigieg surge like this. Wondering if it came mostly from Biden supporters?

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus
USA Today/Suffolk

Biden 18
Warren 17
Buttigieg 13
Sanders 9
Harris 3
Steyer 3
Gabbard 3
Klobuchar 3
Yang 1
Booker 1
Bullock 0
O'Rourke 1
Bennet 0

If that poll is to be believed, it looks like it came at the expense of Biden, Warren AND Sanders. His fundraising just spiked, too. Makes me feel even more right now. I get the impression that a lot of centrists are looking for someone who they can get behind that won't rock the economy. I'm somewhat optimistic that Buttigieg isn't necessarily that guy but it's tough to say at this point. I'm hopeful he comes out with a few more aggressive policies after the election; he's made the point that he's the candidate that's going to have to live through the future fallout and I'm not wrong but he's also one of the candidates who'd be most likely to see an influx of influencers to the degree he's never witnessed before and I'm not sure how he'd cope with that.

To the point of centrist voters, the economy is going to be rocked whether or not elected officials tackle it or not. Trying to balance budgets traditionally is a recipe for long term economic disaster at this point as budgets won't balance the way they're planned with increased costs of natural disasters and not planning for a massive overhaul of the economy is a recipe for long term financial problems.

[daoneandonly]

the litmus test for passable conservative is on climate change. anyone who denies it cannot be voted for.

the conversation between R's and D's used to be on how to address climate change: free market solution (cap and trade) or government intervention (regulations). the ideological difference comes in the role that Government plays in addressing problems, not in disagreeing on the existence of a problem.

and yeah, Ryan is a dummy despite pumping himself up as a wonk. any grown man who says his favorite book is Atlas Shrugged is a dummy per se.

A litmus test for you is just that, a test for you. No one needs to follow you in some orderly line. is climate change an issue? Sure it is, is it to the degree that drama queens who just want their 15 minutes with verbiage like "How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words", not even close. There are far bigger fish to fry that trump climate change (puns intended)

[Zonkerbl]

Putin used to be the head of the KGB, who helped keep the middle east and yugoslavia from catching on fire for several decades using only slightly murderous oppressive regimes. How certain are we that we could do better? I mean, I hate to agree with Trump, but maybe let all the homicidal maniacs just fight it out amongst themselves (over a resource, oil, that is eventually going to dry up anyway)? Are we going to let one terrorist incident without precedent before or since force us into eternal war forever? Maybe what we need is some stupid jerk to screw everything up for us, save us from ourselves.

[JWizmentality]

I think Ryan could be the future of the party - he's probably the best pure politician of the group, but there are 2 things wrong with him as a political force: 1 is that he quit rather than fought. He showed some signs of being willing to fight when Trump got out of hand, but he never really showed the guts to stand up to him for any extended period, and when the going got tough - he allowed scum like Nunez to have their way. 2. He built a reputation as a policy expert, but he often appeared to be a phony n that regard. He was Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee but was not regarded highly by tax professionals. His ideas for balancing the budget were destroyed by think tanks, and there never seemed to be any substance to his arguments. He was a smart politician, but was too often too much fluff and too little substance.

Ryan, Pence, Rubio are all weak spined hypocrites. No substance to any of them. Kasich is the only one that has been consistent.

How so? Every politician has hypocritical tendencies, your wet dream Warren and Sanders ticket top that list probably more than any other Presidential candidate in the last 50 years

I'm not getting into a which one is worst pi$$ing match with you. Especially when your foundational beliefs aren't even based in fact. Stay triggered on my wet dream. I be killing millions of potential babies.

[daoneandonly]

Ryan, Pence, Rubio are all weak spined hypocrites. No substance to any of them. Kasich is the only one that has been consistent.

How so? Every politician has hypocritical tendencies, your wet dream Warren and Sanders ticket top that list probably more than any other Presidential candidate in the last 50 years

I'm not getting into a which one is worst pi$$ing match with you. Especially when your foundational beliefs aren't even based in fact. Stay triggered on my wet dream. I be killing millions of potential babies.

And what's your foundational belief? That everything should be handed to everyone, people bringing you a side of fries should make $50K a year. Yeah, there's a world we should all strive to live for, do nothing, get everything. In other words, the mantra of your two vagabond candidates

Warren still can't say middle class taxes will be raised, cause she's full of crap

[pancakes3]

i mean, the US has been international "peacekeepers" since far before 9/11, but i agree that we've done so and are doing so with awful outcomes (vietnam, central american banana wars, et al).

and yes, oil is the reason. it's also the reason we're not dirtying our hands in trying to prevent african and asian genocides.

however, i'm turning the corner on "endless war" in that there is value in having/being international peacekeepers (with the caveat that we're spending untold trillions on the military). i would rather reap the bloody benefits of being the dominant global military and all the power it entails than being the dominant global military while at the same time turning isolationist. "speak softly and carry a big stick" doesn't mean "sit on your @ss and carry a big stick." you exercise the soft power that the big stick entails.

in an ideal world, we defund Big Stick and put it towards other spending avenues, and exert political influence through economic pressure rather than militaristic threats but that's a different conversation.

[Zonkerbl]

Do I trust this country to be the peacekeeper though? Not anymore.

[Ruzious]

Biden is definitely not done. Warren is too far left to run away with anything, and with all of her specifics in what she'd do, her complete failure to come up with a realistic way to balance a budget is going to be her undoing unless she comes up with a much better answer. As much as some folks make assumptions about Biden, he's the most likely to win it. I'm not surprised that Buttigieg is moving up, because Warren and Sanders have huge holes as potential candidates in the general election - not just that no conservative would vote for them - no centrist wants to vote for them - and because people love to take shots at Biden.

Warren's working on my request - or at least a way to pay for her Medicare for All plan. https://www.masslive.com/politics/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-to-release-plan-to-finance-medicare-for-all.html

Seems to me, centrists and conservatives should be for improving Obamacare rather than creating a new system.

[pancakes3]

the current health care paradigm is a broken one and like climate change, should be a non-partisan issue. the ideological difference is how to fix it. the current republican platform saying that we need to go to the pre-Obamacare regime is failing to acknowledge the problem, let alone address the problem.

i think what's tricky is that health care is a trifurcated market with routine/preventative services on one end and all of the other services at the other end.

things like teeth cleaning, vaccinations, glasses, cancer screenings, etc. are expected costs and really have no business being run through an insurance scheme (you insure against things you don't expect to happen).

surgeries and ER visits - you don't necessarily expect to happen, so you could insure but i'm unconvinced that an insurance plan is the best way to establish that market.

the third branch of the market gets to services that are essential medical luxuries like cosmetic/elective surgery and the like.

there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all solution that would properly encompass the markets for all three of these very different services.

and the existential question underlying on whether or not to even let free market principles dictate market is that capitalism's foundation is built on top of the supply/demand curve. that curve, by definition, will have people who cannot afford the service and are priced out of purchasing that good. if we don't set artificial ceilings to make health services affordable, we're implicitly saying that there will (again, by definition) be a portion of the population that will be priced out of health services, and the logical extension is that there will be people who die in this system because they're too poor. are we, as a society, ok with that?

and i really don't see a huge difference between m4a and obamacare to say that they're fundamentally different solutions or that m4a is a "new" system as opposed to obamacare.

[doclinkin]

in an ideal world, we defund Big Stick and put it towards other spending avenues, and exert political influence through economic pressure rather than militaristic threats but that's a different conversation.

Too much money in it. If we stop buying weapons then they will start selling them to someone else. Who else would you like to be the world's peacekeeper? I'm a lefty and liberal and marched for nuclear disarmament as a kid. I 'm also a realist and wargamer who watches the dirty pool tactics of power. I doubt we will ever as a species transcend that bloody instinct. Might as well elect civil and thoughtful people to try to steer clear of big War, but essentially we are paying extortion money to a multibillion dollar industry in part to prevent others from paying them.

If we could pay those engineers to work on better projects, cool, but China and Russia would be happy to pay them. And as of right now the Saudis and Dubai et al are comfortable with us being their police force, but if we are not willing to do it then they can fund a high tech mercenary army as easily as they can build a skyscraper.

[Pointgod]

Putin used to be the head of the KGB, who helped keep the middle east and yugoslavia from catching on fire for several decades using only slightly murderous oppressive regimes. How certain are we that we could do better? I mean, I hate to agree with Trump, but maybe let all the homicidal maniacs just fight it out amongst themselves (over a resource, oil, that is eventually going to dry up anyway)? Are we going to let one terrorist incident without precedent before or since force us into eternal war forever? Maybe what we need is some stupid jerk to screw everything up for us, save us from ourselves.

What’s to say that the problems in the Middle East, if left alone won’t blow back on the US? That’s sometimes the effect of “not my problem”. There seem to be a lack of good actors in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran the biggest culprits) which makes peace that much more difficult.

[popper]

the current health care paradigm is a broken one and like climate change, should be a non-partisan issue. the ideological difference is how to fix it. the current republican platform saying that we need to go to the pre-Obamacare regime is failing to acknowledge the problem, let alone address the problem.

i think what's tricky is that health care is a trifurcated market with routine/preventative services on one end and all of the other services at the other end.

things like teeth cleaning, vaccinations, glasses, cancer screenings, etc. are expected costs and really have no business being run through an insurance scheme (you insure against things you don't expect to happen).

surgeries and ER visits - you don't necessarily expect to happen, so you could insure but i'm unconvinced that an insurance plan is the best way to establish that market.

the third branch of the market gets to services that are essential medical luxuries like cosmetic/elective surgery and the like.

there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all solution that would properly encompass the markets for all three of these very different services.

and the existential question underlying on whether or not to even let free market principles dictate market is that capitalism's foundation is built on top of the supply/demand curve. that curve, by definition, will have people who cannot afford the service and are priced out of purchasing that good. if we don't set artificial ceilings to make health services affordable, we're implicitly saying that there will (again, by definition) be a portion of the population that will be priced out of health services, and the logical extension is that there will be people who die in this system because they're too poor. are we, as a society, ok with that?

and i really don't see a huge difference between m4a and obamacare to say that they're fundamentally different solutions or that m4a is a "new" system as opposed to obamacare.

We should all be thankful and proud of our countrymen, who by the thousands donate their medical and dental skills to alleviate suffering, here and abroad. I know a handful of these kind souls and they are my heroes. We should also be thankful to the millions of Americans who financially support them. Private charity is an incredible force for good in this world.

[dobrojim]

i mean, the US has been international "peacekeepers" since far before 9/11, but i agree that we've done so and are doing so with awful outcomes (vietnam, central american banana wars, et al).

and yes, oil is the reason. it's also the reason we're not dirtying our hands in trying to prevent african and asian genocides.

however, i'm turning the corner on "endless war" in that there is value in having/being international peacekeepers (with the caveat that we're spending untold trillions on the military). i would rather reap the bloody benefits of being the dominant global military and all the power it entails than being the dominant global military while at the same time turning isolationist. "speak softly and carry a big stick" doesn't mean "sit on your @ss and carry a big stick." you exercise the soft power that the big stick entails.

in an ideal world, we defund Big Stick and put it towards other spending avenues, and exert political influence through economic pressure rather than militaristic threats but that's a different conversation.

The problem with this thinking is that when contemplating the next intervention
no one asks, "then what?".

And no one ever questions the utility of trying to impose military solutions
on what are diplomatic problems.

[dobrojim]

Biden is definitely not done. Warren is too far left to run away with anything, and with all of her specifics in what she'd do, her complete failure to come up with a realistic way to balance a budget is going to be her undoing unless she comes up with a much better answer. As much as some folks make assumptions about Biden, he's the most likely to win it. I'm not surprised that Buttigieg is moving up, because Warren and Sanders have huge holes as potential candidates in the general election - not just that no conservative would vote for them - no centrist wants to vote for them - and because people love to take shots at Biden.

Warren's working on my request - or at least a way to pay for her Medicare for All plan. https://www.masslive.com/politics/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-to-release-plan-to-finance-medicare-for-all.html

Seems to me, centrists and conservatives should be for improving Obamacare rather than creating a new system.

Klobuchar

[dobrojim]

the litmus test for passable conservative is on climate change. anyone who denies it cannot be voted for.

the conversation between R's and D's used to be on how to address climate change: free market solution (cap and trade) or government intervention (regulations). the ideological difference comes in the role that Government plays in addressing problems, not in disagreeing on the existence of a problem.

and yeah, Ryan is a dummy despite pumping himself up as a wonk. any grown man who says his favorite book is Atlas Shrugged is a dummy per se.

A litmus test for you is just that, a test for you. No one needs to follow you in some orderly line. is climate change an issue? Sure it is, is it to the degree that drama queens who just want their 15 minutes with verbiage like "How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words", not even close. There are far bigger fish to fry that trump climate change (puns intended)

This is both naive and condescending based on what at best is a very superficial understanding
of the potential impacts of climate change. Do you think massive crop failure due to drought
is a minnow that no one should be concerned about?

And what's your foundational belief? That everything should be handed to everyone, people bringing you a side of fries should make $50K a year. Yeah, there's a world we should all strive to live for, do nothing, get everything. In other words, the mantra of your two vagabond candidates

Classic strawman.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The problem with this thinking is that when contemplating the next intervention
no one asks, "then what?".

And no one ever questions the utility of trying to impose military solutions
on what are diplomatic problems.

There is a place for the military. Economic and political solutions only work as far as there is a military to back them up. It really takes all three branches working together to function effectively. And the reason to be out there policing the world, so to speak, is that peace is incredibly profitable for America in the current world order. People talk about war being profitable but it's really just a few opportunists that benefit on a much greater price paid by everyone else.

The bigger issue is that the economic branch has effectively won out over the military and political branches. And the political branch really only has any will if it's a knee-jerk rage reaction as we saw with Afghanistan. The military can be used effectively to support order while other countries build themselves up. It's been done many times before and can easily be done again. The middle east is going to be a flashpoint for quite some time yet, though. The hatred there runs deep. Probably the best way to try to foment peace in the region would be to actually push for an end to fossil fuels to take the money out of it. There would still be all sorts of fights and such but there wouldn't be nearly the same degree of money supporting it the conflict which would at least give a chance at some sort of stability at some point.

[dckingsfan]

A litmus test for you is just that, a test for you. No one needs to follow you in some orderly line. is climate change an issue? Sure it is, is it to the degree that drama queens who just want their 15 minutes with verbiage like "How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words", not even close. There are far bigger fish to fry that trump climate change (puns intended)

This is both naive and condescending based on what at best is a very superficial understanding of the potential impacts of climate change. Do you think massive crop failure due to drought is a minnow that no one should be concerned about?

A trillion here a trillion there - pretty soon it becomes real money. Eh - just ignore it - it will go away.

[dobrojim]

There is a place for the military.

As a last resort. Since we spend such an incredible amount of money on it,
it tends to be the first response.

Military solutions tend to lead to occupations. Occupation is not a sustainable
solution to the typical problems that prompted the intervention to begin with.

[Zonkerbl]

There is a place for the military.

As a last resort. Since we spend such an incredible amount of money on it,
it tends to be the first response.

Military solutions tend to lead to occupations. Occupation is not a sustainable
solution to the typical problems that prompted the intervention to begin with.

I agree. When you've got a hammer in your hand, everything starts to look like a nail.