We do spend a lot of time debating the castles-in-the-air stuff. Supposing best-case (Dems take White House and Senate and hold House), what is realistically achievable? Does the conventional wisdom of “an incoming president with Congress at his back has the political capital to accomplish One Really Big Thing before it all falls to shit” apply here?
If it’s all about the health care baby, then I worry where that leaves major climate change action, though I guess a lot of that can be shoehorned into executive orders. Until the next GOP president just rescinds them all.
Menzo
5892
This is a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma. If one candidate is going to talk in terms of big wishes and dreams that are impossible, but exciting to think about, then pretty much everyone has to.
I think a public option health plan and maybe some climate action, e.g. carbon taxes and / or renewable incentives.
Also, too, of those things only the postal system actually appears in the Constitution.
I think they have to try, so that a Dem President has two full terms to fight off repeal efforts, until it becomes the norm and largely immune to repeal. The problem in the Senate will be Manchin, probably.
You mean Republicans/Trump supporters. Conservative ideology has nothing to do with it.
Conservative is not a party. There is currently no party in American politics that represents conservative values.
-Tom
No, I mean conservatives. Here is the passage I was responding to:
Is there a conservative somewhere arguing in favor of these things? I’m open to the idea, but I don’t know of one.
Yes, fair enough. There I meant Republican.
As Mayor Pete explained on Fox News Sunday, Trump raised $125 million and has $150 million in the bank. Do you really want to fight this battle with one handed tied behind our back on some BS purity test.
One of the more enduring myths in American politics is that politician do the bidding of their donors.
In reality it is the other way around politician tell us what they belief and we donate money to ones who have a similar values. Now politician do change their views on subject, but that’s almost always an attempt to get more votes rather than more cash. I don’t think Mayor Pete or any of the folks running is go sell out their healthcare system for a lousy $5,600 from a Pharma executive.
Now money and corruption are factor in a small number of politician but it is for a lot more money than legal limits of $2,800/person.
A conservative would say that if you want to limit money in elections at this point, pass an amendment to the constitution that defines money as not a form of expression.
But, that doesn’t make a difference, if the outcome is exactly the same. You have someone in office that will do what Corporate US wants them to do.
Heck, it’s probably worse, because at least if politicians were as mercenary as having their opinions swayed, they have inclination to up the price before doing something drastic. Instead, Corporations find true believer that will do what they want, whether they pay them or not, and give them enough money to run. And when they make it into office, they can keep given them money to stay in office now they have someone that is willing to serve their interest.
Money may make a difference in the election. Having more money that Trump and team could be the difference between Trump and a Democrat. Do you want to take a chance, by turning down money from individuals who happen to work for a drug or an oil company. You know these people may hate Trump also, they could even be progressive.
No, but you can tell a lot about a politician by which groups are willing to fund them.
So, if the NRA, or the Proudboys, or the KKK or the GOP is willing to fund a certain politician, then you know there are probably a bunch of racists.
If big Pharma is betting big on some politicians, you can bet they thing they’ll be profits in that politician winning.
Who ever big oil supports will probably be in favor of ruin this planet.
Big tech will support politicians that let them keep slurping up data, and protecting their profits. And so on.
That being said, with Warren on the field, I can understand them backing anyone that can take her, even if goals don’t align 100%.
Timex
5904
I think that most of these plans end up having folks just have the option to purchase insurance through Medicare, so it’d not really disrupt the system or force anyone to pay twice.
You could either keep paying for your insurance, or you could pay into Medicare (with means based assistance).
Timex
5905
This doesn’t mesh with reality.
What policy platforms does he have that aren’t progressive?
Hey, you of all people should know that words matter. If you’re going to throw around the term “conservative” when you’re talking about no such thing, you don’t get to correct anyone arguing the other side who calls you a “socialist” or “communist”. Personally, I’d want the option to chafe if someone accuses me of being a socialist.
-Tom
Timex
5907
Biden, with the infinite baggage.
Tim_N
5908
Get it right, please. Investment bankers and management consultants occupy distinct circles of hell.
Thomas called his hearings a high tech lynching, though I suppose his being African American made that acceptable.
