Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 155: The Democratic Senator from Alabama

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/gideonresnick/status/942794370322923521

This seems not good
---

https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/942541519717838848

Trump looking rough yesterday

At least his hat can help remind him which country he is President of
---

HaRRicH posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

decent post

Gonna disagree with you though in that Republicans will find another dealbreaker if it's not for abortion. Say if it's a standard Democrat who's against abortion but the rest is pretty standard...you better believe the south is still going to go hard against this candidate over the 2nd Amendment.

Also, we've seen abortion lies and exaggerations already with Doug and Hillary, accusing them of wanting to legalize late-term abortions like up until birth. There's no way abortion's not getting tied to these candidates in some way, even if it's code like "Pelosi puppets."

I do think it's time Democrats and Republicans meet in the middle about sex education. If they can come to terms about something as simple as a basic uniform course on what nationally needs to be covered in sex education, then that can do a lot of good including lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies. While we're in the height of this #metoo movement too, that could help a lot with consent.

Compromises on abortion ain't about to happen and debates about how young to teach them about sex or genders or whatever will still happen, but this seems like the direction to me for more likely compromises. You just gotta hope that matters to people looking to vote based on life/choice.

Oh, I totally agree. But in my opinion we should just punt on the second amendment in those states as well. Run anti abortion, pro gun candidates throughout the south. Accept the fact they wont vote with you on those issues, and settle with them agreeing with you half than time rather than none of the time.

Essentially, I want Manchin to be the norm for southern candidates rather than the exception. Those states are going to be anti abortion, pro gun regardless if a republican wins. And I think wed have a great shot of actually being competitive across the south if we punted on certain social issues in the south and ensured we got good progressive candidates in states open to that. I know it sucks, but we simply arent converting these states on the issue of abortion any time soon. Its not ideal, obviously, but I think itd give us the best chance from a practical standpoint.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/942541519717838848

Trump looking rough yesterday

At least his hat can help remind him which country he is President of

This looks like a five-year-old drew what they think a President might look like

He looks like hes crashing a funeral for the shrimp

He looks like he wandered off five hours ago and they just found him with a flashlight

This is also the official uniform of holding up the line at a Las Vegas Starbucks

He looks like a kid in age make-up in a school play magically became old for real.

Looks like a guy whos been turned away from the Magicians Union Christmas party because his dues check bounced

This thread is amazing.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Essentially, I want Manchin to be the norm for southern candidates rather than the exception. Those states are going to be anti abortion, pro gun regardless if a republican wins. And I think wed have a great shot of actually being competitive across the south if we punted on certain social issues in the south and ensured we got good progressive candidates in states open to that. I know it sucks, but we simply arent converting these states on the issue of abortion any time soon. Its not ideal, obviously, but I think itd give us the best chance from a practical standpoint.

Does that pick up more voters than you turn off by abandoning those issues? I'm skeptical.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

It's a very bad map and I still would not be surprised if Republicans wound up gaining seats, but it isn't as bad as it could be

How shitty will the gloating be from morons like Trump and his prominent supporters if this happens?
---

That's what I'm thinking, too, especially on the national level. That's a great way to depress turnout of certain populations.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

It's a very bad map and I still would not be surprised if Republicans wound up gaining seats, but it isn't as bad as it could be

How shitty will the gloating be from morons like Trump and his prominent supporters if this happens?

Probably pretty unbearable (despite the fact that they will almost certainly be losing quite a few House seats, even if the Dems fail to take the majority).
---

Obviously the best solution to insurance would be one that is both affordable for everyone but without requiring everyone to buy it. Or just, you know, universal health care. But we are a long way from that and getting rid of one thing that kinda sucks for a lot of people but does more good on the whole via giving people acess to care is a slap in the face. On top of all the other blows via giving more money to corporations that have outright claimed they arent going to use to make more jobs.

At least they seem to have taken out the ridiculous taxing of grad students
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh, I totally agree. But in my opinion we should just punt on the second amendment in those states as well. Run anti abortion, pro gun candidates throughout the south. Accept the fact they wont vote with you on those issues, and settle with them agreeing with you half than time rather than none of the time.

This is what they do in Pennsylvania too to keep republicans from running up the score in the center of the state.

Bob Casey is remarkably conservative on social issues but guess what Congress almost never votes on those.
---

But i forgot, poor people are poor by choice and laziness. If they just tried, they could do just fine. Our system isn't built to keep people down or anything. So why should we support people who choose to be poor???

Seriously though, our entire system is fucked and that leads to a lot of "solutions" that arent ideal like the individual mandate, but are actually capable of getting enacted in the short term. Sweeping reform to fix everything (regardless of what you think those fixes should be) is not just improbable at this point but almost impossible. So until we get to the point where we can do those things, you would rather people suffer and die en masse than inconvenience people that can afford it?

It's worth noting that people that truly cant afford it don't get penalized for not having insurance. I don't know what the limit is but if you don't make a certain amount you don't incur the tax penalty
---

Senate is going to have a vote to overturn the FCC ruling from last week. I dunno if thatll pass but I could see it happening as a shitty peace offering because the tax bill is 100% passing.
---

If it has to be one or the other, I'll take Net Neutrality staying in place.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh, I totally agree. But in my opinion we should just punt on the second amendment in those states as well. Run anti abortion, pro gun candidates throughout the south. Accept the fact they wont vote with you on those issues, and settle with them agreeing with you half than time rather than none of the time.

Essentially, I want Manchin to be the norm for southern candidates rather than the exception. Those states are going to be anti abortion, pro gun regardless if a republican wins. And I think wed have a great shot of actually being competitive across the south if we punted on certain social issues in the south and ensured we got good progressive candidates in states open to that. I know it sucks, but we simply arent converting these states on the issue of abortion any time soon. Its not ideal, obviously, but I think itd give us the best chance from a practical standpoint.

I think if you have to abandon as simple a human rights issue as abortion, you're pretty much done as a respectable political party. This might be a pretty realistic strategy but it's not worth it.
---

Kenri posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh, I totally agree. But in my opinion we should just punt on the second amendment in those states as well. Run anti abortion, pro gun candidates throughout the south. Accept the fact they wont vote with you on those issues, and settle with them agreeing with you half than time rather than none of the time.

Essentially, I want Manchin to be the norm for southern candidates rather than the exception. Those states are going to be anti abortion, pro gun regardless if a republican wins. And I think wed have a great shot of actually being competitive across the south if we punted on certain social issues in the south and ensured we got good progressive candidates in states open to that. I know it sucks, but we simply arent converting these states on the issue of abortion any time soon. Its not ideal, obviously, but I think itd give us the best chance from a practical standpoint.

I think if you have to abandon as simple a human rights issue as abortion, you're pretty much done as a respectable political party. This might be a pretty realistic strategy but it's not worth it.

This no-compromise strategy is how we end up with President Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.
---

Just curious, what are the issues Republicans are strategically bending to Democrats on in order to be regularly viable in liberal states?
---

HaRRicH posted...

Just curious, what are the issues Republicans are strategically bending to Democrats on in order to be regularly viable in liberal states?

They're starting to bend on same sex marriage in some areas.
---

Kenri posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh, I totally agree. But in my opinion we should just punt on the second amendment in those states as well. Run anti abortion, pro gun candidates throughout the south. Accept the fact they wont vote with you on those issues, and settle with them agreeing with you half than time rather than none of the time.

Essentially, I want Manchin to be the norm for southern candidates rather than the exception. Those states are going to be anti abortion, pro gun regardless if a republican wins. And I think wed have a great shot of actually being competitive across the south if we punted on certain social issues in the south and ensured we got good progressive candidates in states open to that. I know it sucks, but we simply arent converting these states on the issue of abortion any time soon. Its not ideal, obviously, but I think itd give us the best chance from a practical standpoint.

I think if you have to abandon as simple a human rights issue as abortion, you're pretty much done as a respectable political party. This might be a pretty realistic strategy but it's not worth it.

I understand, but then the issue is we can sit around feeling morally superior while we get thrashed in senate elections in 10+ states because we refuse to run candidates that would win.

We arent abandoning abortion. We get pro choice candidates through blue and purple states. Nationally, more people in the US support abortion than oppose it but that is absolutely not the case across the south. We just wont win in Mississippi or Alabama with a pro choice candidate considering 50% of the voters there are evangelicals and they wont vote for a pro choice candidate. Practically, it is tantamount to conceding the race before it begins. And I think most democrats would understand from a logical perspective it is better to have someone agree with you 70% of the time instead of 0%.
---

Ashethan posted...

HaRRicH posted...

Just curious, what are the issues Republicans are strategically bending to Democrats on in order to be regularly viable in liberal states?

They're starting to bend on same sex marriage in some areas.

^

Gay rights have absolutely started swinging towards the dems over the past decade.

Abortion has remained relatively stagnant for quite some time, unfortunately.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I understand, but then the issue is we can sit around feeling morally superior while we get thrashed in senate elections in 10+ states because we refuse to run candidates that would win.

A better solution is *coughmorepartiescough*
---

The problem with Democrats abandoning social issues like abortion and gun control is that those issues have become the main thing the party is identified with. Without them they come off like just a less pro-business version of the GOP. Right now the Dems don't seem to have much of an overall plan for governing other than to oppose the far-right. That might be enough to win for now, but long-term they really need to come up with better ideas and/or messaging for economic issues.
---

12/15/2017
TWITTER - Seth Abramson (

If you have even ONE follower who says there was no Trump-Russia collusion, please share this with them.

Signs of Collusion (1-24): (link: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/941120497823215616) twitter.com/SethAbramson/s?
Signs of Collusion (25-47): (link: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/941376110381731841) twitter.com/SethAbramson/s?

It's all there?BLACK AND WHITE?and it's just 10% of what Mueller has.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/941784145969238027?s=17

Stacking up.....
---

Xeybozn posted...

Right now the Dems don't seem to have much of an overall plan for governing other than to oppose the far-right.

literally what
---

HaRRicH posted...

Just curious, what are the issues Republicans are strategically bending to Democrats on in order to be regularly viable in liberal states?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Mark_Kirk_Abortion.htm

This was Illinois Republican senator before Duckworth. 100% rating by NARAL.

And thats how they got a republican senator in Obamas old seat. I feel like we should be doing the same, and running candidates that can actually win in every state. Punt on abortion and 2nd amendment in the south, but run up numbers in blue and purple states so that isnt even an issue.
---

Ashethan posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I understand, but then the issue is we can sit around feeling morally superior while we get thrashed in senate elections in 10+ states because we refuse to run candidates that would win.

A better solution is *coughmorepartiescough*

I mean this would be my ideal world tbqh, but for now we need to play within the confines of the system we work with.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

This no-compromise strategy is how we end up with President Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.

Are you kidding? We ran Hillary Clinton. That's as compromise-y as it gets and she was still vilified as super leftist somehow. My whole point is that we should STOP running people that are basically republicans to try to court a right-independent/conservative vote that never materializes.

Suprak the Stud posted...

I understand, but then the issue is we can sit around feeling morally superior while we get thrashed in senate elections in 10+ states because we refuse to run candidates that would win.

We arent abandoning abortion. We get pro choice candidates through blue and purple states. Nationally, more people in the US support abortion than oppose it but that is absolutely not the case across the south. We just wont win in Mississippi or Alabama with a pro choice candidate considering 50% of the voters there are evangelicals and they wont vote for a pro choice candidate. Practically, it is tantamount to conceding the race before it begins. And I think most democrats would understand from a logical perspective it is better to have someone agree with you 70% of the time instead of 0%.

I'd be ecstatic with someone who agrees with me 70% of the time but tbh democratic politicians are already way to the right of the average democratic voter and even further to the right of me. We're already doing the compromise strategy and it's not working. If you say "give up on abortion and guns" what I hear is just "let's all be republicans it's easier that way" since there's not a whole lot of difference between the parties to begin with.
---

Xeybozn posted...

The problem with Democrats abandoning social issues like abortion and gun control is that those issues have become the main thing the party is identified with. Without them they come off like just a less pro-business version of the GOP. Right now the Dems don't seem to have much of an overall plan for governing other than to oppose the far-right. That might be enough to win for now, but long-term they really need to come up with better ideas and/or messaging for economic issues.

This is my take as well. Hit them on economic issues if you want to win.

But that's never gonna happen because the very rich are at the head of both parties.
---

It's worth considering the elections we've seen since the #metoo movement began have been much more in Democrats' favor than usual. If you expect that to be a trend and think it can affect other topics that are directly women's issues, then maybe this is the ideal time to support pro-choice candidates. Women are voting and they are pissed. Why stop supporting them now if you think they're important?
---

I think Suprak's onto something, but if that means we start nominating a bunch of Jim Webb's then I don't know how excited I am for that.
---

Kenri posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

This no-compromise strategy is how we end up with President Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.

Are you kidding? We ran Hillary Clinton. That's as compromise-y as it gets and she was still vilified as super leftist somehow. My whole point is that we should STOP running people that are basically republicans to try to court a right-independent/conservative vote that never materializes.

Suprak the Stud posted...

I understand, but then the issue is we can sit around feeling morally superior while we get thrashed in senate elections in 10+ states because we refuse to run candidates that would win.

We arent abandoning abortion. We get pro choice candidates through blue and purple states. Nationally, more people in the US support abortion than oppose it but that is absolutely not the case across the south. We just wont win in Mississippi or Alabama with a pro choice candidate considering 50% of the voters there are evangelicals and they wont vote for a pro choice candidate. Practically, it is tantamount to conceding the race before it begins. And I think most democrats would understand from a logical perspective it is better to have someone agree with you 70% of the time instead of 0%.

I'd be ecstatic with someone who agrees with me 70% of the time but tbh democratic politicians are already way to the right of the average democratic voter and even further to the right of me. We're already doing the compromise strategy and it's not working. If you say "give up on abortion and guns" what I hear is just "let's all be republicans it's easier that way" since there's not a whole lot of difference between the parties to begin with.

Thats the thing though, I dont want to give up on abortion. We can win that nationally and get plenty of good pro choice candidates in 25+ states. We can win that debate nationally. But there is no reason to give up on Alabama and Mississippi or West Virginia.

Manchin won in WV by being pro gun and anti abortion. And yet hes voted with dems on almost every Obamacare/tax bill/important piece of legislation. We could have a handful of people like that, and its so much better than having super conservative Republicans in literally every southern state. Push the median left.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

Why should you be forced to get health insurance if you do not want it? To make it cheaper for people who do want it? Think about that.

that's the business model of insurance, yes

Also, you asked for a "legit" reason someone might oppose this bill. I provided you one. Or is it not a legitimate reason if you disagree with it?

It is called a retort. Why should you be forced to get health insurance?
---

xp1337 posted...

Explain auto insurance then?

(Also, that's kind of ancillary given I believe we should provide universal healthcare)

Auto insurance is not required. Cars are required to be insured to be operated. A person is not required to have car insurance. I do not need car insurance to drive a car nor do I have to drive a car if I wish to. A car needs to be insured to be driven. Nothing more.
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Explain auto insurance then?

(Also, that's kind of ancillary given I believe we should provide universal healthcare)

Auto insurance is not required. Cars are required to be insured to be operated. A person is not required to have car insurance. I do not need car insurance to drive a car nor do I have to drive a car if I wish to. A car needs to be insured to be driven. Nothing more.

If you agree that auto insurance is needed to drive a car, then you would you say health insurance should be required to see a doctor?
---

You can't punt on the abortion issue. You either are for or against it. Conservatives will force that answer out of you before they vote for you in most cases.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Explain auto insurance then?

(Also, that's kind of ancillary given I believe we should provide universal healthcare)

Auto insurance is not required. Cars are required to be insured to be operated. A person is not required to have car insurance. I do not need car insurance to drive a car nor do I have to drive a car if I wish to. A car needs to be insured to be driven. Nothing more.

If you agree that auto insurance is needed to drive a car, then you would you say health insurance should be required to see a doctor?

A person does not need auto insurance to drive a car. A car that a person is driving needs to be insured to be driven. There is a huge difference there.

Some people also do not choose to use doctors also oddly enough.
---

Corrik posted...

You can't punt on the abortion issue.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fc/69/bd/fc69bdea0513854dae098f113145fa10--gene-baby.jpg
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Explain auto insurance then?

(Also, that's kind of ancillary given I believe we should provide universal healthcare)

Auto insurance is not required. Cars are required to be insured to be operated. A person is not required to have car insurance. I do not need car insurance to drive a car nor do I have to drive a car if I wish to. A car needs to be insured to be driven. Nothing more.

If you agree that auto insurance is needed to drive a car, then you would you say health insurance should be required to see a doctor?

A person does not need auto insurance to drive a car. A car that a person is driving needs to be insured to be driven. There is a huge difference there.

Some people also do not choose to use doctors also oddly enough.

You dont need insurance to drive, you just need the car you're driving to be insured in order to drive it.

Big difference

Man, and the right wing loves to accuse the left of "mental gymnastics"
---

ITT, people still trying to argue with Corrik.
---

Corrik posted...

You can't punt on the abortion issue. You either are for or against it. Conservatives will force that answer out of you before they vote for you in most cases.

I dont think you quite understand my point.

I mean get Democratic candidates that are anti abortion in states like Mississippi and Alabama. Not to refuse to answer.
---

Real answer is auto insurance shouldn't be required either
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

Why should you be forced to get health insurance if you do not want it? To make it cheaper for people who do want it? Think about that.

that's the business model of insurance, yes

Also, you asked for a "legit" reason someone might oppose this bill. I provided you one. Or is it not a legitimate reason if you disagree with it?

It is called a retort. Why should you be forced to get health insurance?

It is called moving the goalposts. You asked for something and I provided it. Unless you wish to assert that what I provided is not a legitimate reason.

That said, I'll gladly answer your question once you answer mine - Is the CBO scoring that 13 million people will lose health insurance under this bill a legitimate reason to not support it or not?

~~~

As a sidenote, I will grant that the car insurance point was not a good argument from me. However, as I noted at the time it wasn't relevant to my beliefs on the issue so to me it's not important to the discussion.
---

I like that corrick ignored my posts about insurance.

It's cool. We already know where he stands on mass scale suffering!
---

pxlated posted...

It's worth noting that people that truly cant afford it don't get penalized for not having insurance. I don't know what the limit is but if you don't make a certain amount you don't incur the tax penalty

This limit is undertuned btw. I know plenty of people who realistically can't afford it, but are still above the limit.

It's a good idea but yeah in practice it doesn't work
---

Lopen posted...

Real answer is auto insurance shouldn't be required either

Eh, I disagree with this

Somebody you hit shouldn't be screwed just because you don't have insurance
---

It's better than the alternative of 13million people losing health care.
---

I'm all for a better solution. We absolutely need one because youre right, this didn't work as well as it should have. But it did work to an extent, there's plenty of evidence to that. And what im not in favor of is removing it without any kind of alternate in place.

There's not even a bad alternate! There's just nothing. Except suffering.

But i always forget, poor people aren't actually people. Silly me.
---

Not necessarily. It's difficult to measure the exact impact of people being gouged by having to pay insurance they can't afford-- not easily placed into cute factoids to make people outraged, but I wouldn't be surprised if the negative effects on those people outweigh the positive effects on those 13 million people.

This isn't even necessarily limited to healthy people either-- keep in mind that with the bare minimum health insurance many poor people are going to need to take because it's all they can afford even with the so called affordable care, your coverage is basically worthless because the deductible is high enough that you're only being protected from disasters, basically. So you're basically paying for "health care" that can't really improve your quality of living since you can't afford to actually use your health insurance. Like yeah, if you have an emergency you're better off, but you're also more prone to emergencies because you're sacrificing things like proper food, heating, etc because you need to budget for health insurance.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Right now the Dems don't seem to have much of an overall plan for governing other than to appease the far-right.

ftfy
---

I'm well aware of that fact. I *live* that fact. I'm eating the penalty this year because i couldn't afford insurance. I've gone without my desperately needed medicine this year because the plans I was offered wouldn't cover it. But i still think it was better than nothing. I know a number of people who would have had to go into bankruptcy or worse if not for the aca. It's not good health coverage, no. And forcing people to buy into it sucks. But from my perspective it's better than nothing. And my perspective is that of someone who is being screwed by it.

I used to hate it too! Until i looked into it more. And until i heard the stories of the people it's helped and compared them to my own struggle.

I would be interested to see some legit comparisons between the amount of people who would lose their coverage vs the suffering of people like me getting screwed by it, but i realize that's hard to quantify. Lacking that, from what i see it's better than nothing
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Somebody you hit shouldn't be screwed just because you don't have insurance

IMO auto insurance should all be insuring yourself, and fully optional, and if you don't want to be screwed by getting hit by someone else you should insure yourself. With the exception of people with accidents they caused on their record, dwi on their record, etc etc. Maybe force people with less than X years of driving experience on record to get it too. Basically if you're a risk, you should be forced to get liability, but otherwise you should be able to just not get anything.

Also keep in mind a lot of accidents are avoidable by either party, even if you're not technically at fault-- my grandpa used to always say "in a car accident it's always the other guy" and it's kinda true in a lot of ways.
---