Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

I actually tried to have a conversation with a Trump fan on here over pollution issues involving Trump's EPA here in Illinois because he mentioned going to school in Chicago. It was like talking to a brick wall screaming "libtard" and culture war references at me.

A lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening as this stuff further percolates into their lives and well being.

It's funny how a lot of these issues are really just the result of kicking the can down the road ad infinitum.

Democrats compromised on the New Deal by excluding blacks in order to attract Southern votes, and as a result modern Democrats are now having to wrestle with the problem of persistent poverty among black communities. Hell were this the 60s I'm sure you'd have people like Skroe and Ezra Klein advising against passing the Civil Rights Act because it cost the Democrats the South.

The folks calling for incremental change don't seem to get that the US already has a massive deficit in that regard. At what point is the US going to stop mortgaging its problems and actually reckon with its foundational flaws?

[Gestopft]

I remember Republicans letting an epidemic persist because they thought HIV was justified punishment for the sin of being queer.

I've read about that. My only memory of George Sr. being president was seeing him get off of AF1 on TV, and my parents telling me who he was.

- - - Updated - - -

Democrats compromised on the New Deal by excluding blacks in order to attract Southern votes

Attract, or maintain?

[Wyrt]

Most of the younger crowd don't have much memory of Republicans before George W. Bush.

When the Iraq War and the Great Recession are two of the biggest formative political events for a generation, I think it's pretty easy to understand why they would see Trump as "just another Republican." Not saying they are right, but the consequences of the ways in which Trump has fucked this country haven't yet come to fruition in the same way as the consequences of Bush's presidency have.

Republican presidents have been bad all the way back to Reagan. Probably even before him to.

Medicare 4 All, for one, as I detailed in this thread. Got ignored, which is par for the course.

So now providing healthcare for everyone is bigoted? What?

[Gestopft]

So now providing healthcare for everyone is bigoted? What?

The argument was that under a M4A system, the GoP could then make it so that Medicare doesn't cover certain trans medical needs.

- - - Updated - - -

Republican presidents have been bad all the way back to Reagan. Probably even before him to.

Oh I know; I was barely even alive during Reagan. My point was about generational memory.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

So now providing healthcare for everyone is bigoted? What?

You really should go back and read what I read.

But, I'll propose a little scenario for you. How well do you think red states are doing in administering the healthcare of those in their states? Do you want them in charge of your healthcare? How many do you think coverage trans related care, exactly?

[Wyrt]

The argument was that under a M4A system, the GoP could then make it so that Medicare doesn't cover certain trans medical needs.

Um, don't most private insurance providers consider it to be elective procedures and therefore don't cover it? So, at worst nothing would change for them.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Um, don't most private insurance providers consider it to be elective procedures and therefore don't cover it? So, at worst nothing would change for them.

Depends on the state. We've been fairly successfully in obtaining it as mandated coverage in many states. Illinois, for example. That's how I got surgery covered.

[Elegiac]

I've read about that. My only memory of George Sr. being president was seeing him get off of AF1 on TV, and my parents telling me who he was.

Was referring to the Reagan administration specifically, but yes.

There's a reason why, at most LGBT events, the older people tend to be white women. The AIDS crisis cut a huge swathe in the queer community and it was not only ignored by the government, but the administration actively obstructed efforts to try and combat it for aforementioned reasons.

And the thing is, that didn't happen when the US was in a state of political disease. There wasn't a Freedom Caucus or an Alt-Right, and people were not talking about the end of American democracy - and yet the "functional" US government allowed hundreds of thousands of people to die. Cause Jesus. Or because public healthcare is socialism.

Trump is novel primarily in that unlike previous Republican presidents he threatens the livelihoods of more than just minorities. Which is really the biggest sin, in the view of a lot of the establishment moderates.

[Gestopft]

There wasn't a Freedom Caucus or an Alt-Right, and people were not talking about the end of American democracy - and yet the "functional" US government allowed hundreds of thousands of people to die. Cause Jesus. Or because public healthcare is socialism.

Cause back then it was the "Moral Majority," and I think it's instructive to note that without the politicization of Evangelicals into the Republican Party, it might've been a lot harder for the billionaires to screw the working class the way they have.

[Elegiac]

Cause back then it was the "Moral Majority," and I think it's instructive to note that without the politicization of Evangelicals into the Republican Party, it might've been a lot harder for the billionaires to screw the working class the way they have.

Yes. My point being that even "functional" American government has a high human cost that people in the center really only seem to care about when said human cost starts to affect them personally.

So them bandying about threats of what might happen under a second Trump term simply for voicing criticism of X candidate? Hun, we've already lived or are living it. Check y'all privilege.

[Wyrt]

Depends on the state. We've been fairly successfully in obtaining it as mandated coverage in many states. Illinois, for example. That's how I got surgery covered.

So then what is the solution to the healthcare problem in the US, and it is a problem, if Medicare for All is discriminatory?

Because administering it on a state level wouldn't help transpeople, and others, in red states as they'd almost certainly make it as minimal and restrictive as possible.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

So then what is the solution to the healthcare problem in the US, and it is a problem, if Medicare for All is discriminatory?

Well, that's going to be on the people who want to pass it, isn't it? The deal with M4A is it's going to have to have a buy by the country to even get passed. And if you bargain away minority concerns (i.e. not just LGBTQ) you won't get it through the Democrats given we're dug in like ticks. There are a LOT of considerations that go into such a plan, and that precisely was my point. I feel like a lot of people for M4A would get blindsided by demands they hadn't considered before.

Because administering it on a state level wouldn't help transpeople, and others, in red states as they'd almost certainly make it as minimal and restrictive as possible.

M4A administered by the Republicans would be horrendous for women and trans people. Both groups make ample use of places like Planned Parenthood, which would be decimated by M4A under a Republican administration.

It's bad in red states for trans people, but at least we currently have options.

[Wyrt]

Well, that's going to be on the people who want to pass it, isn't it? The deal with M4A is it's going to have to have a buy by the country to even get passed. And if you bargain away minority concerns (i.e. not just LGBTQ) you won't get it through the Democrats given we're dug in like ticks. There are a LOT of considerations that go into such a plan, and that precisely was my point. I feel like a lot of people for M4A would get blindsided by demands they hadn't considered before.


M4A administered by the Republicans would be horrendous for women and trans people. Both groups make ample use of places like Planned Parenthood, which would be decimated by M4A under a Republican administration.

It's bad in red states for trans people, but at least we currently have options.

Yes, Republicans can come into power and change laws to harm minorities. They can do that with almost any law. They almost did it with the ACA and that absolutely would have harmed minorities.

Even if Democrats put protections for minorities in Medicare for All Republicans can still come to power and change the law.

Should Democrats just stop making laws because Republicans might come in and change them one day?

[JohnBrown1917]

Most of the younger crowd don't have much memory of Republicans before George W. Bush.

When the Iraq War and the Great Recession are two of the biggest formative political events for a generation, I think it's pretty easy to understand why they would see Trump as "just another Republican." Not saying they are right, but the consequences of the ways in which Trump has fucked this country haven't yet come to fruition in the same way as the consequences of Bush's presidency have.

Reagan, the first Bush and Nixon where also horrible people, clearly the sort of people that Skroe would support, but they where all racist and fucked over the poor as a hobby. GoP presidents are among the most evil people to have ever walked this earth.

He even brought up Iran again, like its a good thing what the US is doing in the middle east. The problem these folk have with Trump is that he is not subtle about how he wants to fuck over the people outside the US, the poor and the minorities. support the same coups, the same death squads, the same wars that lead to millions of innocent deaths etc.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Should Democrats just stop making laws because Republicans might come in and change them one day?

That's not the question, though. The question still is if Democrats should pass law without listening to minorities or seeking out the very real consequences -- including Republican interference -- when considering that law.

I'm outlining some of M4A, and given your responses I gather you think they're pretty inconvenient.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Or people are trying of trans being included in lgbt, for no reason whatsoever. They also try to say what a woman is and control who is a woman. In fact, a lot of trans people saying they're now women are misogynistic as shit. I used to be supportive of trans issues some years ago but as I've been exposed to the movements supporting them more and more I'm more than willing to just throw them under the bus for how they behave to women.

~fingerspin~

Keep making my point for me. Thanks.

[Elegiac]

Or people are tired of trans being included in lgb(t), for no reason whatsoever. They also try to say what a woman is and control who is a woman. In fact, a lot of trans people saying they're now women are misogynistic as shit. I used to be supportive of trans issues some years ago but as I've been exposed to the movements supporting them more and more I'm more than willing to just throw them under the bus for how they behave to women.

So, you decided to become a TERF?

This is exactly the concern with Joe Rogan, lol.

[Wyrt]

That's not the question, though. The question still is if Democrats should pass law without listening to minorities or or seeking out the very real consequences -- including Republican interference -- when considering that law.

I'm outlining some of M4A, and given your responses I gather you think they're pretty inconvenient.

Republicans can get into power and pass a "Religious Freedom in Healthcare" act that would undo your state's requirement for insurance companies to provide trans related services along with other things.

Everything that's not in the constitution is fragile. Everything. It can be changed at the whim of which ever party is in power and there is no way to stop it other than a constitutional amendment.

[JohnBrown1917]

Or people are tired of trans being included in lgb(t), for no reason whatsoever. They also try to say what a woman is and control who is a woman. In fact, a lot of trans people saying they're now women are misogynistic as shit. I used to be supportive of trans issues some years ago but as I've been exposed to the movements supporting them more and more I'm more than willing to just throw them under the bus for how they behave to women.

You should not throw people under the bus for how some of them might act. They still get a lot of problems from bigots and high suicide rates due to constant harassment.

Dropping trans support would be the most idiotic thing any left-wing politician could do, and would deserve no support. Nobody deserves to be above anybody else.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Republicans can get into power and pass a "Religious Freedom in Healthcare" act that would undo your state's requirement for insurance companies to provide trans related services along with other things.

Illinois has a Democratic super majority and our last Republican governor signed HB 1785. I'm not worried. Plus, the Senate would need those 60 votes if we're talking federal.

I'm less worried about the Republicans doing what you claim unless the Democrats give them the opening to do so by removing protections in favor of letting the federal government decide. Republicans hold a lot more sway there than in Illinois.