US politics general thread

[The_Assimilator]

It still gets me every time that socialist in the USA is centrist anywhere else.

 

[Unhappy438]

And yet it's hugely popular and Trump was unable to repeal it.

I would say that's more down to the democrats forming a unified front against Trump. They will basically never vote for anything with Trump regardless of their beliefs.

Where did you pull that figure from?

Just based on the number of people that voted for Bernie in the primaries give or take.

 

[cerebus]

I would say that's more down to the democrats forming a unified front against Trump. They will basically never vote for anything with Trump regardless of their beliefs.

No, it's down to public support.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/03/04/obamacare-hits-highs-in-popularity-and-profits/1

Just based on the number of people that voted for Bernie in the primaries give or take.

That has nothing to do with socialist policies. If you ask an average American where they stand on specific policies from the democratic socialist platform - i.e. universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, free college education, taxpayer-funded infrastructure improvements - they are hugely popular. Hell, Trump coopted a lot of Sanders' campaign points when he was running.

It still gets me every time that socialist in the USA is centrist anywhere else.

Exactly this. Democratic socialism isn't even remotely close to Venezuelan socialism - it's closer to British or Scandanavian models that work just fine.

 

[Unhappy438]

No, it's down to public support.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/03/04/obamacare-hits-highs-in-popularity-and-profits/1

As i said its easy to rally support for something among democrats when Trump opposes it. Before Trump only 37% of Americans approved of Obamacare.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/obamacare-poll_n_5639192.html

That has nothing to do with socialist policies. If you ask an average American where they stand on specific policies from the democratic socialist platform - i.e. universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, free college education, taxpayer-funded infrastructure improvements - they are hugely popular. Hell, Trump coopted a lot of Sanders' campaign points when he was running.

Yet when they have a chance to vote for someone serious about the matter they choose not to. There seems to be a disconnect there.

 

[Unhappy438]

It still gets me every time that socialist in the USA is centrist anywhere else.

Ya the right in the US has this issue of discerning the difference, anything that draws away from the welfare that is the US military is literally Stalin.

 

[cerebus]

As i said its easy to rally support for something among democrats when Trump opposes it. Before Trump only 37% of Americans approved of Obamacare.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/obamacare-poll_n_5639192.html

Or, back in 2014 Obamacare was new and buggy, healthcare.gov was a huge mess, and it didn't have time to gain public support; seeing that it's steadily gained support every year since launching.

https://newrepublic.com/article/121581/obamacare-opinion-poll-repeal-popularity-driven-old-people

Yet when they have a chance to vote for someone serious about the matter they choose not to. There seems to be a disconnect there.

Yes there is a disconnect, and I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Sanders was a very new face in politics and even he didn't take his own presidential bid as seriously as he could. Plus he was demonized and continues to be so by the establishment media. The word Socialism is a huge boogeyman.

 

[Unhappy438]

Or, back in 2014 Obamacare was new and buggy, healthcare.gov was a huge mess, and it didn't have time to gain public support; seeing that it's steadily gained support every year since launching.

https://newrepublic.com/article/121581/obamacare-opinion-poll-repeal-popularity-driven-old-people


Nope, it hasnt gained support every year since launching. It was more unpopular in 2014 than 2013. Fyi it was 4 years old in 2014.

 

[cerebus]

https://newrepublic.com/article/121581/obamacare-opinion-poll-repeal-popularity-driven-old-people
Nope, it hasnt gained support every year since launching. It was more unpopular in 2014 than 2013. Fyi it was 4 years old in 2014.

Ok, it's still a big mistake to attribute pro-Obamacare sentiment to anti-Trumpism, on no basis.

 

[Unhappy438]

Ok, it's still a big mistake to attribute pro-Obamacare sentiment to anti-Trumpism, on no basis.

Why it was 40% just before Trump and now its in the 50s . It literally shot up the moment he tried to get rid of it.

 

[cerebus]

Why it was 40% just before Trump and now its in the 50s . It literally shot up the moment he tried to get rid of it.

Yes because people realised they could lose it they suddenly stopped griping about everything that was wrong with it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/politics/obamacare-approval-poll.html

What’s changed is that the prospect of Obamacare’s repeal has become much more real. Mr. Trump identified it as a top domestic policy priority, and Congress rapidly passed a budget bill laying the groundwork for a broader repeal.

“There is a shifting public focus away from what is wrong with the Affordable Care Act to a world where 21 million people could lose coverage,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard, in an email. “The Affordable Care Act may not be more popular, but the implications of repeal are shifting people to a less negative stand on the law.”

All of which proves that right-wing demonisation of 'socialist' policies can only go so far.

 

[Unhappy438]

Yes because people realised they could lose it they suddenly stopped griping about everything that was wrong with it.

I concede that could be a point, unfortunately we wont know the difference between those that would rather have it than nothing and those who support it because Trump.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Good article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html

With a very good example of the aforementioned bad faith.

There are obvious reasons why science communication is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor, but a huge one is that there’s a politically motivated push to destabilize scientific authority. At a Heartland Institute conference last month, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House science committee, told attendees he would now refer to “climate science” as “politically correct science,” to loud cheers. This lumps scientists in with the nebulous “left” and, as Daniel Engber pointed out here in Slate about the upcoming March for Science, rebrands scientific authority as just another form of elitism.

You post the facts about it.
1) Not wanting illegal immigration into your country is not a position of racism.
2) Uncontrolled immigration is not a good thing for society. It can fuel racial tensions.
3) It isn't racist to state that immigration will not solve the world's problems. (See the gumball immigration video)
4) Stating b.s reasons for immigration like "Diversity" adds fuel to the fire.

Pretty good example of the bad faith mentioned earlier. You're arguing against caricatures and strawmen. And I don't think it's because you don't understand what people are actually saying.

 

[Unhappy438]

Guarding Trumps Hollywood star :crylaugh:

 

[konfab]

Pretty good example of the bad faith mentioned earlier. You're arguing against caricatures and strawmen. And I don't think it's because you don't understand what people are actually saying.

And thinking the problem is only restricted to Republicans and climate change is only looking at half the problem.

In America, that means that coal, the dirtiest and deadliest source of all, overwhelmingly filled the void. And still today, only 30 percent of Democrats support increased use of nuclear power, compared to 54 percent of Republicans. Imagine the accusations of science-denial that would be hurled at Republicans if these roles were reversed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really

Would you take any evidence I can provide to show that Democrats or "liberals" consider people who are against immigration as racist?

 

[Unhappy438]

And thinking the problem is only restricted to Republicans and climate change is only looking at half the problem.

Have you got a break down of the reasons though? Why do the other 46% of Republicans not support nuclear, it can beyond the misunderstanding of nuclear.

 

[The_Assimilator]

And thinking the problem is only restricted to Republicans and climate change is only looking at half the problem.

https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really

That editorial is dishonest, and you're being disingenuous by linking to it. The study to which it actually links states:

Since April 2009, there has been a 30-point decline in the percentage of Republicans and Republican leaners supporting more federal funding for research into alternative energy technologies. Currently, 53% favor this policy, down from 82% in April 2009. There has been little change in opinions among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Currently, 83% of Democrats favor increased funding for research into alternative energy technologies.

This is gonna blow your mind, but it is entirely possible to be against both coal and nuclear, while being for other clean forms of power generation such as solar and wind. Shocker!

And considering you like to claim you're fiscally conservative, you really shouldn't be supporting incredibly expensive nuclear builds.

 

[konfab]

Have you got a break down of the reasons though? Why do the other 46% of Republicans not support nuclear, it can beyond the misunderstanding of nuclear.

I would bet it is due to irrational fear. Heck, it even caused the Germans to shut down their nuclear program.

More Americans continue to oppose (53%) than favor (39%) promoting the increased use of nuclear power. Support for increased use of nuclear power has not recovered following the nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant. Opinion about increased nuclear power had been divided prior to the Japan disaster. (For more, see “Opposition to Nuclear Power Rises Amid Japanese Crisis,” March 21, 2011).

 

[rietrot]

That editorial is dishonest, and you're being disingenuous by linking to it. The study to which it actually links states:



This is gonna blow your mind, but it is entirely possible to be against both coal and nuclear, while being for other clean forms of power generation such as solar and wind. Shocker!

No it's not unless you're uneducated. You need a consistent baseload supply.

 

[Cray]

That editorial is dishonest, and you're being disingenuous by linking to it. The study to which it actually links states:

This is gonna blow your mind, but it is entirely possible to be against both coal and nuclear, while being for other clean forms of power generation such as solar and wind. Shocker!

And considering you like to claim you're fiscally conservative, you really shouldn't be supporting incredibly expensive nuclear builds.

Not to mention the problem with nuclear waste disposal and that Nuclear is still just another non-renewable resource.

 

[The_Assimilator]

No it's not unless you're uneducated. You need a consistent baseload supply.

I would like to introduce you to the advanced technology called "batteries". You know, the things we use in appliances, cars, and Australia's power grid for... baseload supply.