politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My man, he didn't mean literal baby steps.
Obviously...
They meant "any progress is better than none"
And I was pointing out that sometimes unless you meet a certain threshold of progress, the effect of doing nothing and doing "baby steps" is essentially the exact same result.
It's been 112 years since universal healthcare was first part of a presidential platform, this election it's not an option from either of the only two viable options.
Do you think Teddy Roosevelt supporters are still alive and waiting patiently?
If they were 18 to vote then, they'd be 130 years old now. Did "baby steps" get them universal healthcare?
Or did the hurricane wipe them out while they shuffled away?
this argument is nonsensical. you're just arguing for the sake of it. baby steps are obviously and inarguably better than nothing. you're saying if you can't fulfill a dream in your lifetime, still doing what you can to lay ground for future generations is the same as not doing anything because as far as you're concerned it only matters if you yourself see the end result.
fuck that. a society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.
Exactly this.
When I was working for U.S. PIRG trying to raise money for global warming, there was a common refrain - "Why should I care? I won't live long enough to see global warming happen."
TBF it was true. I can't imagine a single person who said that to me is still alive today on account of old age. But it's still a horribly selfish view to take.
No. I'm not...
And frankly I'm confused how anyone could possibly interpret my comment that way.
your 130 year old voter and hurricane analogies do exactly that. baby steps is the same as no steps only for those people, not for later generations who will have a starting point further than yours.
I'll still take baby steps over a leap going in the wrong direction any day.
But if the steps are small enough there's no difference, win or lose it's not fast enough to avoid the negative situation.
That's literally my point...
Incremental change works when you never lose sight of the goal and fight at every opportunity to progress towards it, not take one step forward than fall asleep and hope the other guys doesn't take you ten steps back before you wake up.
And that's pretty much as simple as I can make it. If Dem baby steps do not even recover from 4 years of a republican then they're at best stalling the inevitable.
It's easier to get people to fight if there's a chance of winning.
From a healthcare perspective though what damage was done? Those four years resulted in failure to repeal the ACA. If anything it's the other way around - Obama's masterpiece escaped relatively unscathed and is ready to be built on further. So exactly the good scenario you are driving at - with victory within slow reach.
What's the negative situation here? Makes more sense with global warming - at some point, even if we get everyone to agree and work together, it may come too late and we're no longer able to stop it.
But for universal healthcare? What's to stop us from pushing out the deadline, like a project that needs more rework, but comes back late and perfect?
If I have to choose between 1) standing still, 2) running head first into fascism, or 3) jumping off a cliff without safety nets to reach a Utopian pripe dream, I'll choose standing still.
But that's the thing, we aren't standing still. We are making progress. Yes it's slow progress, but it's fundamental progress. Every Demcratic president has spent their entire presidency undoing the damage of the last Republican president. This means we need to keep voting and not get complacent. Get the democrats into control and then push them further left.
Look man. I want a progress country. I want free healthcare. I want free tuition colleges. I want free lunches in school. I want paid family leave.
I want the same utopia you do. The only difference between us is that while you see the promise land, I see the ground work that needs to happen to reach it.
Just because our heads are down doesn't mean we've lost sight of the goal. Our heads are down because we're fighting tooth and nail against a torrent that wants to drag us backwards. We are clawing our way out of this nightmare.
And that's the correct choice.
But think about the last time you were out and about with the general public...
Would you call the average American in 2024 smart?
Do you think it's easier to convince literally 10s of millions of people?
Or the handful of people in leadership positions in the DNC?
If we change 10s of millions of voters minds, we still stand still
If we change the minds of those handful of party leaders, we get the votes and actual progress.
Why not try for the easy path that moves forward instead of the hard one where best case scenario we just get a breakfrom jogging backwards?
Like, this is literally my whole point... Either path can go to victory, but the easier path also gets us what we want and not just avoids what we don't want. So why in the ever loving fuck does the party keep doubling down on the difficult path that doesn't get us what we want, and how long till you realize the problem is a handful of wealthy connected people who run the DNC and not the millions and millions of voters?
Would I call the average American smart? No, but i wouldn't call them dumb either. That's because they're average.
Would i say that the average American is well informed? Absolutely not.
Do i think it's easier to convince millions of people, or the dozens of democratic leaders? I would like to assume that the democratic leadership would be easier to reason with.
But you're suggesting that every democratic leader become immediately progressive, which would be amazing, is never going to happen. There's such a stigma around "progressive" and "social" values that it would be political suicide and would only ignite the Republican base. It's a guaranteed way of making sure we lose elections.
This path that you are calling easier isn't easy. It's risky. It has a high likelihood of failing, and failure means living in the handmaid's tale. I have a family and i can't take that risk.
The only way i see forward that is actually viable is a slow and steady march.
Bad news then.
Because running moderates mean sometimes Republicans win.
So it won't be slow and steady
At absolute best your path is fast jerks back and forth over and over while you pray you over time move in the direction you want.
Which hasn't happened in the last 30+ years since Bill Clinton started this whole "neo liberal" thing.
We're worse off in a lot of ways than when we started your path. Do we give it another 30 years and hope it starts working for some random reason?
Or are you just fully committed to never trying anything else no matter how bad it gets.
Clue Bus time: on 20 January 2025, one of two people will take the Oath of Office to be the 47th President of the United States.
Kamala Harris will represent a moderate, maybe even Centre-Right option, who will take baby steps along the path, pissing off liberals but reassuring moderates and even a few right-wing people that she's a safe, comfortable answer for POTUS.
Donald Trump will represent a hard-right, likely even Fascist option, who will make leaps and bounds AWAY from the liberal goal, pissing off Liberals, worrying Moderates, and enabling some of the most authoritarian, xenophobic jerks in the country.
This list is exhaustive. Why?
And most importantly of all, in the past 5 elections, do you know the total number of Electoral Votes any person without an R or D has won? Wait for it. Wait for it!
TWO. And they were both faithless electors.
Let's extend that back. How many EVs have been won by someone not in the Republican or Democratic party during my lifetime (starting in '76)?
TWO (Plus one abstension and two non-main ticket Dems and one non-main ticket Rep). Despite Ross Perot taking 18.91%, the largest Third Party take in my life, he wasn't able to manage a single EV. Over almost 50 years, only five electoral votes didn't go to the winner and the runner up, and each third place or worse finisher only got a single one at a time.
This should tell the 'Deny Harris the Presidency' people something. Denying Harris the Presidency means one thing and one thing only. The person who takes that Oath of Office in January will not be anyone else except Donald J. Trump.
I suspect this is what theCannonball means when they say that Harris is better than the alternative. Because if she doesn't win, Trump will. There is no division over on the Right. They're all in for Trump. While we have a few Right-Wing voices speaking from our coalition, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the MAGAts that are infesting the corpse of their zombie party now. And Trump has fucking PLANS for what he's going to do to the country, and it won't be with lube, a reach around, a kiss, or dinner.
These few right-wingers also get a few things on their mind. They've known this truth all along and counted on our stupidity before, expecially in 2000, 2010, and 2014. They have a saying over there. "Vote for the Conservative in the Primary and the Republican in the general." They have this saying because they know the truth in the adage that politics is not like marriage, but like public transit. You don't wait for the perfect option. You take the bus that gets you closest to your destination. They know that if they want to get something done, they need somebody that they can browbeat and cajole into going their direction. Democratic politicians are seen as out of reach, but even the most RINO of Republicans can be threatened with primaries and withholding funding. And now that a naked Fascist without a shred of common decency is taking over their party, the few good Republicans are realising that a vote for the Third Party isn't good enough, and they're trying to say this exact same thing to their voters so the few million or so that voted Jo Gorgensen in 2020 come over here to replace the damn fools that go over and vote Third Party from our coalition.
I hear the people saying 'a pox on both their houses', for sure. I'm sick of the Dems using Rep bad behaviour to cover for their own. That's why I'm voting for RCV in this election for Colorado. If it passes and is implemented, I'll be a bit more discerning in who I vote for for State offices and Reps and Senators. But as long as we have FPTP and the Electoral College, I'm not voting anything but Blue unless and until I can tolerate a Republican being in office.
TL;DR; The choice is between Harris and Trump. If you don't want Trump in office, vote Harris. What I've been saying for years. Otherwise, be ready for a Trump presidency to be shoved sideways up the back entrance.-
Again missing the point, that "baby steps" can lead to bigger steps. You have to learn to walk before you can run, and you have to learn to crawl before you can walk.
And it was again in 2012, or just a mere 12 years ago.
The oldest person ever known only lived to 122, so, no.
But also no, because,
I mean, maybe not universal, but maybe some of them got healthcare in the end? It's plausible one or two lived to 116 and then benefitted from the ACA.
I'd argue that a big reason why it's not covered today - the ACA is really good. It works really well and even the GOP has given up on (saying that they will) overturn it. It's still not universal because the Supreme Court let States ignore the donut hole, so some folks who can't afford even the ACA premiums still make too much for Medicare/Medicaid (otherwise, we'd have universal healthcare already, albeit on a Netherlands like private system instead of a Canada like single payer system).
In other words, baby steps have almost gotten us fully there.
Ah, yes, back in the days before penicillin or insulin were discovered. Do tell us more about what forms of 1912-era healthcare are not largely accessible to the 2024 masses.
I think his plan to offer health insurance to the working-class poor (and their dependents) sounds a lot more like Medicaid than universal healthcare. You know, baby steps.