2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Phrossack]

I fear that Trump has set the bar so incredibly low that centrists and apathetics will say, "See? He didn't trigger WWIII or kill millions in death camps; he only ended up killing a few hundred thousand people by his third term. You liberals overblow everything."

Little do they remember that in 2015, they assured us Trump was too extreme for the primary; in 2016, he was too extreme to win the election; and so on. Day by day we have forgotten what life before Trump was like, what was normal, what politicians could get away with. He has bludgeoned most of America into a dulled and docile state of mind where anything he could do "will never happen" before he does it, and "wasn't a big deal" after he does. I don't think people realize that any one of his hundreds of scandals would have doomed literally any other administration.

 

[amadeus]

Little do they remember that in 2015, they assured us Trump was too extreme for the primary; in 2016, he was too extreme to win the election; and so on.

And rather than admit to being wrong about him, the answer is to dig in our heels and claim that although he didn't immediately become Hitler, or become Hitler during his first term, or become Hitler during his second term, or become Hitler in retirement, that he is still as bad and as dangerous as Hitler and we must be on constant guard to prevent this future Hitler from Hitler-ing.

 

[Lexicus]

And rather than admit to being wrong about him, the answer is to dig in our heels and claim that although he didn't immediately become Hitler, or become Hitler during his first term, or become Hitler during his second term, or become Hitler in retirement, that he is still as bad and as dangerous as Hitler and we must be on constant guard to prevent this future Hitler from Hitler-ing.

No, obviously the real answer is to engage in ****-eating trolling to pretend there is no danger because he's not literally Hitler

Moderator Action: Speaking of trolling, are we trolling here? --LM

 

[Phrossack]

And rather than admit to being wrong about him, the answer is to dig in our heels and claim that although he didn't immediately become Hitler, or become Hitler during his first term, or become Hitler during his second term, or become Hitler in retirement, that he is still as bad and as dangerous as Hitler and we must be on constant guard to prevent this future Hitler from Hitler-ing.

When we elect a President, we should not have to worry about whether he's as bad as Hitler, or whether he's "merely" a Mussolini or a Franco. We should not have to worry about this level of damage at all!

If you're less worried about the damage he's doing than you are about whether people are using a level of accusations you're comfortable with, then where are your priorities?

The fact is that centrists and apathetics have gone from saying "he can't win, don't be ridiculous" to "Look, he's spent four years eliminating our checks and balances and his handling of COVID killed an enormous amount of Americans, but don't you dare get upset about it!" They never had the courage to admit that Trump's insanity was not enough to stop his election, that all their rosy predictions were wrong, that things are bad and getting worse.

I used to think that Americans, for all our difference, would unite under one extreme circumstance: if our lives, our families, and our country were in danger, and huge numbers of us were dying, we'd put our differences aside and work against the threat.

Instead a madman urges people to inject bleach as 200,000 die and Americans are abducted by paramilitaries in unmarked vans and the best defense centrists can muster is that at least he hasn't built extermination camps so we should all shut up and stop complaining.

The goal of the centrist is to silence complaints and carry on with life at any cost, it seems.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, the middle is the real monster. The rhetoric of war.

 

[Phrossack]

Ah, the middle is the real monster. The rhetoric of war.

When hundreds of thousands die, when Americans are abducted by paramilitaries, when the President urges us to inject bleach, when he celebrates cops who cracked open the skull of an old man for no reason, all the center ever does is say, "So what? Accept your fate and shut up. Be grateful you aren't in death camps."

What moral defense can you offer for that stance? Why are we not allowed to be outraged at this endless series of crimes and atrocities? Is there any red line Trump can't cross without justifying our worries, or are we supposed to accept everything he does?

 

[amadeus]

When we elect a President, we should not have to worry about whether he's as bad as Hitler, or whether he's "merely" a Mussolini or a Franco. We should not have to worry about this level of damage at all!

Well, he's neither of those either. The coronavirus response has been comparable to Trump-free Europe, so it's hard to bludgeon him with that as if the U.S. is some sort of horrible outlier.

No, obviously the real answer is to engage in ****-eating trolling to pretend there is no danger because he's not literally Hitler

Rather rich of you of all people to accuse someone of trolling.

I'm going to keep on trolling here then: Sorry, there are no Hitlers here.

 

[Lexicus]

The coronavirus response has been comparable to Trump-free Europe

Lmao. If you really believe this, I guess you're not trolling after all, but just FYI it's easy for other people to mistake having no goddamn idea what you're talking about for trolling.

I'm going to keep on trolling here then: Sorry, there are no Hitlers here.

Unfortunately, "there are no Hitlers here" does not mean there is no danger here.

 

[Farm Boy]

When hundreds of thousands die, when Americans are abducted by paramilitaries, when the President urges us to inject bleach, when he celebrates cops who cracked open the skull of an old man for no reason, all the center ever does is say, "So what? Accept your fate and shut up. Be grateful you aren't in death camps."

What moral defense can you offer for that stance? Why are we not allowed to be outraged at this endless series of crimes and atrocities? Is there any red line Trump can't cross without justifying our worries, or are we supposed to accept everything he does?

I don't know man. Not my stance. And I think your take is inaccurate to get that stance. Really builds up steam tho, it's got a pacing to it. If I wanted to be mad at a stance, that would be a really good stance to be mad at.

 

[Ajidica]

750 dollars in tax. This is considerably less than I paid (then again, here we have debt-colony enforced tax laws which would break anyone else).

That feeling when you are genuinely surprised anyone in Greece is actually paying taxes, as tax-evasion was apparently a Greek national sport.

Unfortunately, "there are no Hitlers here" does not mean there is no danger here.

I've always disliked the Trump=Hitler comparison. There is a whole host of dodgy autocrats and sordid little El Presidentes to choose from which do a far better job of describing Trump and his sycophants.
Trevor Noah nailed it back in 2015:

 

[Sommerswerd]

And rather than admit to being wrong about him, the answer is to dig in our heels and claim that although he didn't immediately become Hitler, or become Hitler during his first term, or become Hitler during his second term, or become Hitler in retirement, that he is still as bad and as dangerous as Hitler and we must be on constant guard to prevent this future Hitler from Hitler-ing.

This argument is a red-herring. The fact that Trump does Hitler-like things doesn't mean that he is the next Hitler or as dangerous as Hitler... and it doesn't remotely need to. It's more than enough that he is a terrible, awful, no-good, very-bad President. The disastrous coronavirus handling alone is sufficient grounds to remove him from office.

Complaining about people comparing him to Hitler is just a distraction and the argument is irrelevant. He doesn't have to be Hitler. He's Trump. And Trump should be voted out of office in the next election because he's a terrible President.

 

[Kyriakos]

That feeling when you are genuinely surprised anyone in Greece is actually paying taxes, as tax-evasion was apparently a Greek national sport.

Funny. Imagine being the victim for a change, instead of having no national threats and still managing to elect Trump and be in civil war mentality.

 

[Berzerker]

The ACA is more popular now than when it was newer because the individual mandate was repealed in 2019, ie no more tax penalty for people who didn't have insurance

 

[Lexicus]

The ACA is more popular now than when it was newer because the individual mandate was repealed in 2019, ie no more tax penalty for people who didn't have insurance

The ACA achieved majority support in 2017

 

[Berzerker]

The ACA achieved majority support in 2017

I said it was more popular now than when it was newer... and it is. What happened in 2017 to make the ACA more popular? Trump took office after running on repealing the individual mandate. People were expecting the repeal sooner but it took effect in 2019. The polls show the mandate was an anchor, Biden will find that out now that he wants to bring it back.

Joe Biden, former vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, said Friday he would bring back the individual mandate, the penalty for not having health insurance, which was a pillar of the Affordable Care Act.

“Yes, I’d bring back the individual mandate,” Biden said in an interview on CNN. The individual mandate would be popular now, “compared to what’s being offered,” he added.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/05/joe...ack-obamacare-individual-mandate-penalty.html

Good luck with that Joe

Trump made the ACA more popular by dumping the worst part of it. I dont see the need for the mandate anyway, just use general revenue to subsidize the program. It was a tax on people who couldn't afford insurance and Democrats want to run on that? Let's see if the rank and file nominees agree with Joe.

The individual mandate would be popular now, “compared to what’s being offered,” he added.

Whats being offered to people who got nothing from the ACA but a big tax?

 

[Drakle]

I said it was more popular now than when it was newer... and it is. What happened in 2017 to make the ACA more popular? Trump took office after running on repealing the individual mandate. People were expecting the repeal sooner but it took effect in 2019. The polls show the mandate was an anchor, Biden will find that out now that he wants to bring it back.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/05/joe...ack-obamacare-individual-mandate-penalty.html

Good luck with that Joe

Trump made the ACA more popular by dumping the worst part of it. I dont see the need for the mandate anyway, just use general revenue to subsidize the program. It was a tax on people who couldn't afford insurance and Democrats want to run on that? Let's see if the rank and file nominees agree with Joe.

Whats being offered to people who got nothing from the ACA but a big tax?

The Individual mandate is Democrats valuing good policy, over popularity as they are wont to do. Bad technocratic streak. It isn't a revenue raiser, it is supposed to encourage people to get insured, to widen the risk pools.

A mandate is a common policy around the world in healthcare systems. But the ACA still sort of works without it, so I doubt it will actually be a Biden priority.

But the ACA being more popular has little to do with the mandate. Lots of people think that Obamacare and the ACA are different legislation. It is reflexive hatred of change, and being used to the benefits. I doubt most voters could accurately name the sections of the ACA.

 

[Lexicus]

I said it was more popular now than when it was newer... and it is. What happened in 2017 to make the ACA more popular? Trump took office after running on repealing the individual mandate. People were expecting the repeal sooner but it took effect in 2019. The polls show the mandate was an anchor, Biden will find that out now that he wants to bring it back.

The data don't support this view at all.
https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff.../#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=all

A mandate is a common policy around the world in healthcare systems. But the ACA still sort of works without it, so I doubt it will actually be a Biden priority.

Mandates that aren't coupled with price controls or outright forbidding health sector companies to be run for-profit are not common however.
Fundamentally costs in the US are spiralling out of control because government money is being used to pad private profits. That was already the defining problem of Medicare/Medicaid and the individual mandate made it a problem of the ACA as well. Penalizing people if they don't buy a service provided for a profit is, like, practically a feudal policy. It is rentier heaven.

That said, the mandate was the cost-control mechanism they needed in the absence of the public option. I'd have preferred if we ditched the mandate and kept the public option, but nooOOOooo...JoE LiEbErMaN....
I dearly hope to be able to one day gloat over how killing the public option (nice, easy euthanasia with morphine. metaphorically) caused the (metaphorical) firing-squad execution of the entire for-profit health insurance industry (Medicare 4 All, or my preferred name, Affordable Care Act II: Health Care Avengers)

But the ACA being more popular has little to do with the mandate. Lots of people think that Obamacare and the ACA are different legislation. It is reflexive hatred of change, and being used to the benefits. I doubt most voters could accurately name the sections of the ACA.

Yeah, it's gotten steadily more popular because it actually represents a concrete healthcare improvement for millions of people. And their actual experiences with the healthcare system hopefully count for more than the innumerable lies Republicans have told about the law.

 

[Drakle]

I'm not a healthcare expert, so I won't say more about the mandate and related issues. It is generally complex and tricky policy.

But of note, in regards to the SCOTUS, they already engaged in one major piece of sabotage. Medicaid expansion not being something automatic, but requiring state governments to willingly sign up. And despite this being free money from the government, many Republicans threw a fit over it, and prevented it from passing in their states. Which led directly to poorer health outcomes, more rural hospital closures and more deaths in non expansion states, than in expansion states. And despite it being genuinely popular. It has won in deep red states on the ballot directly (I think it has been successful in every state that had it on the ballot), and it has allowed some Democrats in deep red territories to win governor races.

Also in Lieberman news. He is endorsing Susan Collins in the Senate, with ads running touting his endorsement (for all that is worth). And his son is a spoiler in a Georgia jungle primary Senate election, which while unlikely to be the tipping point state, it could be the difference between Manchin being the King maker, and say Tester being the kingmaker. They are literally a plague. Crazy.

Man Gore was right about a lot of things, but Lieberman as VP was just awful.

 

[Takhisis]

the best defense centrists can muster is that at least he hasn't built extermination camps

Hmmm let us get back to you on that bit about the ‘n't’.

 

[Takhisis]

Ah, the middle is the real monster. The rhetoric of war.

Remember this thing about the shift of the Overton window. Today's middle are the former extremists who've been out-extreme'd by the newer extremists so at best the other end might just stay in place.

In 1980 the US inflicted itself a dodecade of Reagan + Bush (hard shift right →→→).
In '92 we saw Clinton defeat Bush (mild shift left at best ←–).
In '00 we saw Bush Jr. defeat Clinton's VP (shift right →→).
In '08 we saw Sarah Palin being empowered by John McCain in one of the grossest mistakes of his career, thankfully to be defeated by Obama, (net result: hold – –).
In 2016 we saw another Clinton being defeated by Donald Trump and his rasputin Mitch McConnell (hard shift right →→).​