The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

The latter is demonstrably false. Transformation is simply change, and change is almost always negative, all the way down to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Changing in a beneficial way is difficult and/or rare. Liberals always fail to understand this fact.

Fair enough on "transformation," but I think it's pretty clear that I was specifying change forward through time, in a manner that expands upon the past in an effort to rectify social ills.

If we want to bring thermodynamics into the conversation, then let's turn to a scientist--many of whom will tell you that appealing to the laws of physics in arguments about social issues is less a logical component of the argument than it is a rhetorical gesture. It provides the illusion of logic. I'd encourage you to read the chapter on "Progress and Entropy" in Norbert Wiener's The Human Use of Human Beings, specifically this passage:

We are immersed in a life in which the world as a whole obeys the second law of thermodynamics: confusion increases and order decreases. Yet, as we have seen, the second law of thermodynamics, while it may be a valid statement about the whole of a closed system, is definitely not valid concerning a non-isolated part of it. There are local and temporary islands of decreasing entropy in a world in which the entropy as a whole tends to increase, and the existence of these islands enables some of us to assert the existence of progress.

Once again, you're really not providing any argument. At most, you're offering an explanation for why people behave certain ways, or continue to.

 

[Sedition and Pockets]

The Bernie thing was never about his policies (which are within the norm of practice in the rest of global capitalism), their costs (which were manageable), or even the mythos of "electability." The DNC pulled out all the stops to crush the Sanders movement because they were afraid that he was, in fact, eminently "electable," and Bernie Sanders as a sitting Democratic President would have shifted the institutional center-of-gravity of the Democratic Party in a way that would have made it a less useful tool for the ruling class interests that control it.

 

[Sedition and Pockets]

On coherence:

By far the largest and strongest coherent force in American politics at the moment is the cult around Donald Trump, the more so since it has largely captured the institutional Republican Party, Never Trumpers from RINO Congress Critter staffs notwithstanding. It's not even close. The Trumpist movement is politically and socially cohesive, unified in a way that counts for more than just numbers, and they've got plenty of those, too (70 million, it would appear, bare minimum). The opposition to Trump has nothing approaching that level of solidarity. It is a coalition of disparate elements that do not have a long term future together. The discrete elements of that anti-Trump coalition are in some cases more cohesive than that, but none of these can command the numbers to take on Trumpism head-to-head.

Real talk:

If the Trumpist movement had a level of organizational cohesion on par with their social and political cohesion—if they were as fully organized as they are mobilized—we would have fascism in the United States right now. Full stop. Trumpism isn't going anywhere. They are mobilized and likely to remain so. If Joe Biden governs as he promises and Trump doesn't croak, I'd lay better than even odds the Donald Grover Cleveland's his way back to the White House in 2024.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Here our system is a blend of both public and private options, so universal healthcare access with the option to pay more and go private if you want. This is a good article if you want to read how it manifests itself. Personally I like it and have never had any issues with it (yet).

Good point about the polls being pre-COVID, in that sense Bernie got kind of fucked by the timing of the pandemic but not in the way one would expect; The Democratic debates happened just before everything got really bad, right?

Yeah Super Tuesday was before COVID really hit, and by the time of the last Sanders/Biden debate, the lockdowns had just started, but at that point the race was functionally over.

Bernie's plan is probably the most extreme healthcare policy I've ever heard of and this is why referencing polls based on broad or vague questions is problematic. No co-pays, no deductibles, no cost for insurance, full coverage of dental and vision, and then outlawing all supplemental private insurance.

In what sense is MCFA the most extreme? It’s modestly to the left of Canada’s system but certainly to the right of UK’s NHS.

I'm pretty sure these are the details that kill the policy the moment it has to go beyond soundbites at rallies. I mean, didn't Obama have a super-majority and even then his policy got watered down to the ACA?

Edit: This is going down a weird rabbit hole lol.

I think most people who supported Bernie were realistic that there was a good chance the bill would move to the right before it became law. However, progressives generally believe Democrats should start with maximalist demands when negotiating with Republicans, instead of doing what they do now and negotiating with themselves before they even meet with Republicans. Obama went in with a right wing healthcare plan plus the public option, and at the end of the day negotiated away the public option. At the end of the day, we had a supermajority of Dems and got Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan. As for why he didn’t go further left: he didn’t actually want to. Obama and the corporate Dems are bought by the health insurance industry.

 

[Sophii]

Been seeing a bunch of people on my feed going on about voter fraud and all sorts of other things. There's apparently a bunch of evidence for it, and one friend even sent some article about it.

https://gnews.org/534248/

Thats the only source I have for it so far.

EDIT: Finding some sources to dubunking these claims of voter fraud, dead people voting, other oddities, etc.

 

[rms]

Only thing I've seen is two dead person votes in Nevada

 

[Sophii]

There was apparent voter fraud in Michigan with dead voters, machines changing votes, and other things.

And Trump is crying out that there was voter fraud in Pennsylvania and Georgia.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/election-us-2020-54811410

I'm not very good with sources but thats one I found pretty interesting debunking those fraud claims.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

The DNC pulled out all the stops to crush the Sanders movement because they were afraid that he was, in fact, eminently "electable," and Bernie Sanders as a sitting Democratic President would have shifted the institutional center-of-gravity of the Democratic Party in a way that would have made it a less useful tool for the ruling class interests that control it.

This ^^^ kinda makes it sound like Bernie Sanders being a sitting president would have been awesome for the general public

 

[CiG]

In what sense is MCFA the most extreme? It’s modestly to the left of Canada’s system but certainly to the right of UK’s NHS.

I just explained why (outlawing all supplemental private insurance, no co-pays, full dental and vision, no deductibles etc) and saying it's "modestly to the left" of Canada's system which is ranked the best and most expansive in the world (iirc) is a bit sly lmao. America would be effectively going from 0 to 1000 if it implemented Bernie's plan. In what way is Bernie's plan to the right of the NHS?

As for why he didn’t go further left: he didn’t actually want to. Obama and the corporate Dems are bought by the health insurance industry.

Didn't Obama campaign on "universal healthcare" though? Point taken on the rest of what you said regarding coming to the negotiation table with maximalist plans.

The Bernie thing was never about his policies (which are within the norm of practice in the rest of global capitalism), their costs (which were manageable), or even the mythos of "electability." The DNC pulled out all the stops to crush the Sanders movement because they were afraid that he was, in fact, eminently "electable," and Bernie Sanders as a sitting Democratic President would have shifted the institutional center-of-gravity of the Democratic Party in a way that would have made it a less useful tool for the ruling class interests that control it.

Isn't Bernie's healthcare plan estimated to cost in the area of $40-50 trillion? Slightly more expensive than Warren's iirc. You'd handwave this as "manageable"?

To a degree I agree that "electability" is a meme, but there are some very real elements like coalition building that other candidates just do better than Bernie (this is why many preferred Warren for example, because it's perceived that she's able to work within the system and has friends in the establishment). Being an outsider who shits on the Democratic Party and then runs for POTUS within that party and runs with expensive relatively radical policies necessarily means you will have a harder time building a wide tent because you lose so many party die-hards and moderate/conservative Democratic voters.

This is not all to say that Bernie had no shot and the DNC didn't try to cockblock him, but be realistic because you seem to be doing that #BernieBro thing where you imply that Bernie was the (near-)perfect candidate and would have won if it wasn't for those pesky kids.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

No one really cares about my opinions

But I'm still thinking that Bernie Sanders being president would be kinda awesome

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I just explained why (outlawing all supplemental private insurance, no co-pays, full dental and vision, no deductibles etc) and saying it's "modestly to the left" of Canada's system which is ranked the best and most expansive in the world (iirc) is a bit sly lmao. America would be effectively going from 0 to 1000 if it implemented Bernie's plan. In what way is Bernie's plan to the right of the NHS?

In the NHS, the government owns the hospitals and I believe (this part I might be wrong on) the doctors are contracted by the government through 3rd parties. Medicare for All does not go that far left.

Didn't Obama campaign on "universal healthcare" though? Point taken on the rest of what you said regarding coming to the negotiation table with maximalist plans.

Yes, but he's a con-artist bullshitter, just like Trump.

Isn't Bernie's healthcare plan estimated to cost in the area of $40-50 trillion? Slightly more expensive than Warren's iirc. You'd handwave this as "manageable"?

We're hemorrhaging from the current system, but the establishment politicians don't want to deal with it because they're funded by the health insurance industry. It really is that simple.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

The status quo always seems to kinda suck

Political campaigns depend upon the appearance of the status quo looking bad

If either party succeeds in making America awesome, the other party won't be able to get into office anymore

 

[CiG]

In the NHS, the government owns the hospitals and I believe (this part I might be wrong on) the doctors are contracted by the government through 3rd parties. Medicare for All does not go that far left.

Not all hospitals but the majority of them yes. There are still private hospitals and private providers, roughly 10% of the UK population has private insurance. That's one factor though, that alone does not make it left of Bernie's policy imo.

Edit: As an aside, I support the US adopting a universal healthcare system, I'm just interested in political pragmatism and the best steps to take for the US to eventually get there; whether that's a radical approach like Bernie's or incrementalism via moderates etc.

 

[Dak]

Fair enough on "transformation," but I think it's pretty clear that I was specifying change forward through time, in a manner that expands upon the past in an effort to rectify social ills.

If we want to bring thermodynamics into the conversation, then let's turn to a scientist--many of whom will tell you that appealing to the laws of physics in arguments about social issues is less a logical component of the argument than it is a rhetorical gesture. It provides the illusion of logic. I'd encourage you to read the chapter on "Progress and Entropy" in Norbert Wiener's The Human Use of Human Beings, specifically this passage:

Once again, you're really not providing any argument. At most, you're offering an explanation for why people behave certain ways, or continue to.

It only appears as rhetorical if one thinks that human behavior isn't constricted by material factors, and of course there are periods of improvement of the human condition. But, there have been many periods of improvement before, followed by collapse due to making the same sorts of blunders the progressives continue to champion. "Moving forward in time" doesn't make sense, as time move forwards regardless; this is teleological "arc of history" nonsense that is deeply baked in the protestant/progressive dogma.

"Rectifying social ills" is reasonable by itself as a vague goal, but insisting that "expanding on the past" as the only approach is where the blindspot is. Economically, the "leveler" instinct is very old. Progressives aren't any less retreads than conservatives, they just like retreading the things that fail.

Edit: I do see this book appears to be available via pdf, so I'll add it to the stack I have.

Edit2: Lol, in the Appendix he furnishes what was probably a significant influence on Yarvin: "America is a Communist Country". Should be good!

 

[Einherjar86]

It only appears as rhetorical if one thinks that human behavior isn't constricted by material factors, and of course there are periods of improvement of the human condition. But, there have been many periods of improvement before, followed by collapse due to making the same sorts of blunders the progressives continue to champion. "Moving forward in time" doesn't make sense, as time move forwards regardless; this is teleological "arc of history" nonsense that is deeply baked in the protestant/progressive dogma.

Much of this is untrue or misleading. Not all “material factors” are the same, and you can’t make blanket parallels between entropy and material factors like poverty, race, gender, etc. It is rhetorical when you assume there’s no figurative mediation happening.

My comments were neither nonsense nor teleological. I’m not saying everything gets objectively better or that there’s an end goal toward which we’re working; but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to make things contextually better. You have to be able to distinguish those things.

"Rectifying social ills" is reasonable by itself as a vague goal, but insisting that "expanding on the past" as the only approach is where the blindspot is. Economically, the "leveler" instinct is very old. Progressives aren't any less retreads than conservatives, they just like retreading the things that fail.

Not really true. Conservatives value the past and present simply because it’s past and present—they’re conservative about making any changes.

Progressives look to change the present based on the assessment of, yes, social ills. For progressives, the present state isn’t good just because it’s present.

I don’t think women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, or gay marriage were “retreads.”

 

[Sedition and Pockets]

Isn't Bernie's healthcare plan estimated to cost in the area of $40-50 trillion? Slightly more expensive than Warren's iirc. You'd handwave this as "manageable"?

Warren's version claimed to be roughly $20 trillion over 10 years, and Bernie's had estimated total costs of about $30 trillion, but in both cases the costs are frontloaded and would fall, relatively speaking, over time. Compare with an estimated $50+ billion in total healthcare expenditures over the same time frame for staying pat with what we've got. The US has an annual GDP north of $20 trillion. Those costs are totally manageable, especially if we were to also defund our war machine and stop pursuing world domination as our basic foreign policy position. This country absolutely can afford to meet all the needs of its people. The resources are there; our ruling class and political leadership simply choose not to use those resources in that fashion.

To a degree I agree that "electability" is a meme, but there are some very real elements like coalition building that other candidates just do better than Bernie (this is why many preferred Warren for example, because it's perceived that she's able to work within the system and has friends in the establishment).

Well, she didn't ever actually manage to build an electoral coalition. She was basically a candidate exclusively for college educated white women. That's not a winning base for a Democrat. She is a mediocre retail politician at best.

Being an outsider who shits on the Democratic Party and then runs for POTUS within that party and runs with expensive relatively radical policies necessarily means you will have a harder time building a wide tent because you lose so many party die-hards and moderate/conservative Democratic voters.

Bernie assembled by far the broadest voter coalition among the Dem candidates during this cycle, so I'm not sure that applies, either.

This is not all to say that Bernie had no shot and the DNC didn't try to cockblock him, but be realistic because you seem to be doing that #BernieBro thing where you imply that Bernie was the (near-)perfect candidate and would have won if it wasn't for those pesky kids.

I think pretty much any Democrat was going to win once the 'rona hit and Trump was left holding that bag. Sanders was far from a "perfect" candidate, and I'm still not certain he was ever seriously trying to be President. Personally, I'm a communist, so Bernie was about the best I could have ever hoped to be spat out by one of the bourgeois parties; but I was always going to vote for our candidate Gloria La Riva in any case.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

@Sedition and Pockets

I can't really just jump on the bandwagon of saying that Bernie Sanders is the best person in the world for being the American president...
But I can say that he was the best person out of the people who actually got a chance at being able to become president

 

[Sedition and Pockets]

I wouldn't say that either, but he was the best candidate we've had in decades who possessed a viable path to the White House.

 

[no country for old wainds]

i get all my news from this channel now

 

[Dak]

Much of this is untrue or misleading. Not all “material factors” are the same, and you can’t make blanket parallels between entropy and material factors like poverty, race, gender, etc. It is rhetorical when you assume there’s no figurative mediation happening.

My comments were neither nonsense nor teleological. I’m not saying everything gets objectively better or that there’s an end goal toward which we’re working; but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to make things contextually better. You have to be able to distinguish those things.

Not really true. Conservatives value the past and present simply because it’s past and present—they’re conservative about making any changes.

Progressives look to change the present based on the assessment of, yes, social ills. For progressives, the present state isn’t good just because it’s present.

I don’t think women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, or gay marriage were “retreads.”

I apologize for not having space to meaningfully and specifically being able to reply to all of these measured replies in reasonable time.

I respectfully disagree all the same. There are certainly cases where persons calling themselves progressives have reasonable concerns about outcomes. There are also certainly cases where your average self-identifying conservative cannot reasonably provide insight into mechanisms or a workable solution. That doesn't mean that self-identifying progressives have any insight into either mechanisms or solutions. In fact I specifically argue that progressive models exacerbate the outcomes that they lament because they understand nothing but outcomes.

Edit: More generally speaking, the average conservative is a deontologist, and the average liberal is a consequentialist. Both get lots of things wrong.