| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22148 Posts
On March 26 2021 09:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I don't see Biden vetoing any form of UHC if it makes its way to his desk by some miracle.I thought that was specifically M4A, not other possible universal healthcare proposals? No matter what he may or may not have specifically adressed. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On March 26 2021 09:26 Gorsameth wrote: I don't see Biden vetoing any form of UHC if it makes its way to his desk by some miracle. No matter what he may or may not have specifically adressed. Agreed, if that were to somehow happen he'd sign it without hesitation. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1082 Posts
The flip side is that I don’t see his administration pushing UHC and whipping the votes for it. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32746 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45374 Posts
On March 26 2021 10:10 farvacola wrote: It's still very much up in the air, but I'm guessing that the filibuster gets reverted to its talking form or abolished altogether by this time next year. I find that more likely than Republicans making concessions on the legislative items Democrats want and need to pass. Are there any Dems that aren't on board with reforming the filibuster? I guess that's what really matters, in terms of having the votes. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On March 26 2021 10:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Are there any Dems that aren't on board with reforming the filibuster? I guess that's what really matters, in terms of having the votes. The centrists like Manchin and Sinema have postured against filibuster repeal, but I think they can be plied by circumstance when Republican intransigence gums up their legislative initiatives. For example, Manchin has thrown his weight behind heavy infrastructure investment and that'd be a great foil for his cozying up to filibuster reform. On March 26 2021 10:24 JimmiC wrote: I think it is a long way off, because first you have to get enough people to agree on having UHC and then you have to decide how to do that. The easiest would be some sort of insurance for all funded by the gov and keeping the private system in place. The issue is on a per person basis that would make the US government paying over double what the Can gov does and our system is a big tax burden. Making the whole system public would make the costs way less for the tax payer, but buying all the private companies would be bonkers expensive and a government take over of the businesses would be so "anti American" you might actually get a revolution. I guess with how massive the deficit is and how that does not seem to matter any more maybe they just pay and don't care? I'm also not sure how popular UHC will be if it will be tax funded. US people seem to hate taxes more than almost anything. Given how many ways Medicare and Medicaid are designed to limit their influence on the healthcare market, I don't think reform that heads toward UHC would be as difficult as it seems. For example, Medicare Part D is statutorily prohibited from negotiating drug prices and either contracts with private insurers straight up or instead utilizes prices set by a basket of private insurers (known as an ASP). Fixing that takes simple legislative majorities. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45374 Posts
On March 26 2021 13:00 JimmiC wrote: This is confusing me. I understand that Republicans are saying that they are making the elections more secure with these rules, but what is with the no food and water stuff? Is that not just mean to voters? Is the thought that more dem voters go after work and will be hungry, or hotter at that point? What is the security concern? It almost feels like they are moving the rules to more like a car dealership who does a competition on who can keep their hand on the car the longest wins it. I must be missing something because it just makes no sense to me. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/georgia-state-lawmakers-approve-restrictions-174647820.html Long voting lines are more likely to occur in urban areas, due to higher population densities, and urban areas tend to lean liberal. This is just another way to specifically screw with polling stations that would otherwise have higher Democratic turnout: if the voters get too hungry or thirsty, then maybe they'll leave before they cast their votes. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
Even though I think they’re transparently targeted attempts to suppress turnout, at least there’s some rationale for things like photo IDs for voters and the likes. There is absolutely nothing even in wild hypothetical land that giving a queuing voter a bottle of water could possibly impact fraud. They’re not even hiding what they’re trying to do here, no doubt this will be enthusiastically cheered on by the same people who complain that a rapist skunk has been cancelled as evidence of their freedoms being curtailed. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11786 Posts
On March 26 2021 13:19 WombaT wrote: Come the fuck on, there’s no justification whatsoever for criminalising giving a drink to someone waiting in line to vote, utterly preposterous. Even though I think they’re transparently targeted attempts to suppress turnout, at least there’s some rationale for things like photo IDs for voters and the likes. There is absolutely nothing even in wild hypothetical land that giving a queuing voter a bottle of water could possibly impact fraud. They’re not even hiding what they’re trying to do here, no doubt this will be enthusiastically cheered on by the same people who complain that a rapist skunk has been cancelled as evidence of their freedoms being curtailed. You make the mistake of assuming that republicans have any sort of shame or decency. They do not. A very good predictive algorithm for republican behaviour is: Will it increase their chance of winning elections? If yes, they do it. Will it take money from the poor and give it to the rich? If yes, they do it. Is it generally evil? If yes, they do it. I like to call this the "What Would Darth Vader Do" algorithm. Though i guess Darth Vader didn't try to steal money from the poor to give it to the superrich, so he has that going for him. If ever you wonder what republicans will do in a given situation, simply ask yourself: "WWDVD?" | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On March 26 2021 14:00 Simberto wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that republicans have any sort of shame or decency. They do not. A very good predictive algorithm for republican behaviour is: Will it increase their chance of winning elections? If yes, they do it. Will it take money from the poor and give it to the rich? If yes, they do it. Is it generally evil? If yes, they do it. I like to call this the "What Would Darth Vader Do" algorithm. Though i guess Darth Vader didn't try to steal money from the poor to give it to the superrich, so he has that going for him. If ever you wonder what republicans will do in a given situation, simply ask yourself: "WWDVD?" I always had Darth down more as an enforcer than the guy making the calls, but indeed. I’m confused by this particular one as I’m not sure it even increases their chances in elections. All sorts of other dubious voter suppression you can package as cutting fraud, or ‘if you value your vote you should free up the time’ and people will lap it up. Criminalising hydrating people just seems so shitty and without rationale that even some Republicans, never mind those on the fence must surely be thinking ‘wait a second here...’ I’m not under any particular illusions about the Republicans but there’s a difference between say, shitting on the poor via a combination of policy and bootstrap rhetoric, and going around and kicking homeless people in the face on the sidewalk for all to see. This seems to stray a little towards the latter, but hey maybe it plays well to their crowd, I sure as fuck can’t predict which way they bend on all sorts of seemingly contradictory stances. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States837 Posts
Because it sounds low iq, but is there an actual talking point that Republicans can point towards? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On March 26 2021 16:01 Husyelt wrote: Well what’s the actual reason for the not “giving water to voters in line.” Because it sounds low iq, but is there an actual talking point that Republicans can point towards? The greatest generation didn’t die on the fields of France for your freedomTM so that a bunch of snowflake gen xers can’t handle voting without staying hydrated, my grandpappy didn’t drink his own piss on Iwo Jima to see America turn this soft. Or something. I am genuinely baffled by this one though. | ||
|
Slydie
1932 Posts
On March 26 2021 16:01 Husyelt wrote: Well what’s the actual reason for the not “giving water to voters in line.” Because it sounds low iq, but is there an actual talking point that Republicans can point towards? That it can be used as last-minute campaigning, "buying" votes. That the waiting line should never be long enough for that to be an issue at all is another question. I find it very puzzling that voterlaws is even such a big topic in the US. Everywhere else, thera are fair and functional voter laws, and the parties focus on getting as many votes as possible rather than keeping people from voting. Texas had a record turnout, but Trump won the state comfortably anyway. The Republicans might not even gain that much from their bullshit... | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1082 Posts
On March 26 2021 17:04 Slydie wrote: That it can be used as last-minute campaigning, "buying" votes. That the waiting line should never be long enough for that to be an issue at all is another question. I find it very puzzling that voterlaws is even such a big topic in the US. Everywhere else, thera are fair and functional voter laws, and the parties focus on getting as many votes as possible rather than keeping people from voting. Texas had a record turnout, but Trump won the state comfortably anyway. The Republicans might not even gain that much from their bullshit... If you look at a map of the US where they separate Red/Blue counties. It's almost always City = Blue, Everywhere Else = Red. Even in crazy red or blue states, that still pretty much holds. Mississippi has approximately the same demographics as Georgia. Georgia was able to bust through some of the suppression and eked out a Blue victory. Mississippi didn't even come close. Limiting the number of voting places in cities, and then making standing in line worse, very much favors the Red side. It very likely can and has led to states being flipped. Michigan 2016 may be one of those examples. People saw long lines in the cities, heard that it was a clear Clinton victory anyways, so didn't bother to stand in multi-hour long lines. That likely cost her the state. Do that again in a few other states, and you swing the whole election... which happened. 4 years of Trump. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8726 Posts
On March 26 2021 16:01 Husyelt wrote: Well what’s the actual reason for the not “giving water to voters in line.” Because it sounds low iq, but is there an actual talking point that Republicans can point towards? it's just the logical conclusion to making it a crime giving foreigners ("brown people") water as they try to cross the border/desert into the US. the next best "unamerican thing" are Democrat city dwellers. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8000 Posts
Gotta love dictatorships. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Ample
JyJ vs sSak
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs YSC
Larva vs Shine
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
The PondCast
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
