PseudoSABR

Brett Kavanaugh it is. "Having observed the weighty issues that can consume a president, Kavanaugh wrote, the nation’s chief executive should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.” Source.

Here's an article that addresses some the arguments I was trying to make: Democrats ignore the left at their peril. Midwesterners aren't scared of socialism — they're hungry for it. It's thin on real policy, but I think the article makes a credible argument for how left-leaning politics are viable in the American middle.

I do think the Democrats need to run on what is "right." Practical, bridge-like policy isn't any way to motivate people to turn out. I think its fine to say you are going to raise taxes. I don't think Bernie or liberals in general are under some belief or trying to cast some spell that we can have everything for free, raising taxes has always been the implication. (That's the carictaure created by the opposition) And look, I just don't think there's much political fallout from the Democrats being too aspirational. Again, this isn't going to make practical people suddenly look at the GOP and say well these guys sure know what they are doing. When the actual policy gets put into place, of course, Democrats will have to face political and practical realities. But we shouldn't concede them during the campaign (which has largely been the Democrats gameplan for decades). And I'm fine with something like Mike's plan being step 1, but the other steps need to be formulated as a matter of law, before I'm willing to get behind step 1--otherwise, step 1 is all we get.

It's not as if they didn't sign, what, their top 23 selections this year...

My post posed a series of questions (mostly about what counts as catastrophe), and then I substantiated why I asked the questions. And I don't mean to be heated (glad you responded even if by phone), but whether intentionally or not, you did take the politically viable argument angle before addressing the merit and morality of the point I was making. (I'll continue to echo that Democrats lose when they get too politically clever; they will seem inauthentic and motivate few to turn out.) I agree we need a transition, but you don't lead with that. Yes, your plan is step further than Obamacare, but Obamacare too was posited as a necessary step; indeed, it was bridging with what was a for-profit system to a somewhat less for-profit system, and it did so at the outset; Obama never made any kind of argument for universal healthcare--he started negotiation at the halfway point, and ended up giving his opponent Romneycare. We can't forget the politics of the situation, whatever the plan, no matter how reasonable, the opposition party will decry that it is socialized medicine. They won't concede our capacity to bridge the now to the goal. So let's set the goal, and we can perhaps implement something like your plan in the interim, but I think it's totally foolhardy to run on that. The sooner we get to universal healthcare, the better it will be for all of us. There will be a transition, but the goal should be firm, before we concede what the transition looks like. I think universal health care is totally politically viable. The ruling class, corporations, have burned their good will with Trump. We don't need to cow to them. Universal health care will drive people to the polls, and the Democrats could have a mandate. One they can't enact without the president, but the longer the critique of for-profit medicine is in mind of the public, the less for-profit medicine will get support.

What is catastrophic coverage? Does it include non-trauma? Cancer? Diabetes? A cold? Mental illness? Or are those things taken care of by the HSA account? Part of the appeal of universal health care is the model is more adept at providing preventive health care. Especially in terms of mental illness, people often don't realize they are suffering from something treatable. If we continue to require people to have to pay a copay to see their PCP for a yearly exam, they are going to skip the exam, and end up waiting until any underlying issues turn into a catastrophe. Part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is that hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc. can pass costs on to consumers ad nauseum. The more that such institutions can be made non-profit, without costing innovation (which is an argument I don't necessarily buy), the better.

I haven't been paying attention to how the right has been framing it, but they were always going to paint Dems as being for open borders. Look, I do agree that Abolish ICE is unnecessarily incendiary, but I also think Dems need some rallying cries, even if the message itself isn't a sure winner. I am just really wary of risk-adverse politics, and that's been the Dems playbook for so long.

Again, I think it will play well in certain regions, and it does not need to be the party platform. I also don't think people really understand what ICE is at this point; the more they learn, the less supportive of the agency I believe they will be. (thanks for the link; I'll look over it).

The rhetoric on the right is wholly hyperbolic, and they aren't worried about offending any one rational. I don't see how the Dems really could offend someone to the point that they'd suddenly vote for the Republicans, if it's hyperbole that person is truly concerned about (more likely is that such a person was never really in the middle and was always waiting for an excuse to go back with their tribe--Dems can't craft policy for such people). The Family separation may lose a lot of steam by the time the election comes around, as seemingly Trump's conceded the policy. (Though the issue of reunification still lingers). Abolish ICE will motivate people, especially tons of American Hispanics, who may otherwise sit out an election. Cowing to some aggrieved conservative independents will not. I think we just genuinely disagree about how to win the next election. I think "abolish ICE" is only a loser for middle aged white men.

Here's a helpful article talking about the role of ICE and its history. I think this paragraph is key: IMO, I really don't like the idea of a police-force enforcing immigration laws with the supposed veneer of national security. I'd much rather have a civil agency overseeing asylum and deportation, whom upon need, could call for local and federal police powers. Whether or not we would need to abolish ICE in order to make such changes misses the point (and largely, I think that we would need to build a new agency from the ground up as ICE mission and focus on national security has influenced its structures and personnel). Abolish ICE is something of a hyperbole, but its also a simple slogan that people can rally around--even though the actual solution is more nuanced ("Restructure ICE doesn't have the same ring to it"). I think Democrats need to be bold in order to get turn out. I think the Democrats should be less worried about supposedly pushing some people in the middle to Trump and the Republicans; it's risk-aversion that gives you Hillary Clinton. Again, I think turn out is so much more important than trying to persuade the middle; Republicans aren't trying to persuade the middle at all. I don't think the Dems should make this a national policy, but I think in certain regions "abolish ICE" will play well (such as Ocasio-Cortez' district), and in other regions, the Dems should definitely take a more nuanced approach.

Why is this the first time I'm seeing this? Did you make it? Can I see Bernie Sanders as Bilbo?

He's trying to butter Trump up for a SCOTUS nomination.

The guy likely to replace him is a fossil fuel lobbyist, so it won't improve on that front. But I am glad to see there at least seems to be some limit on the amount of corruption that is politically viable for this administration.

Pruitt out. Good.

And that it's not grammatical to use capitalization as emphasis.

There needs to be an arbitration system to govern the first six years (if not more) of a basketball players career. Given the age that players come into the league, a four year rookie contract is a bit absurd, and the resources spent developing, often does so for another team.

Right, the mid-level/trade exceptions, bird rights, etc. etc. I am a bit surprised the phenomenon of stars joining together hasn't come to fruition in other sports. Perhaps part of it is, that the NBA has only five starters/players-on-the-court, so each star has arguably close to one-fifth leverage, while in the NFL and MLB, it's no where near that close. Though one could imagine where a bunch of free agent MLB starters came to be free agents at the same time, and all formed the same rotation...

If you/we can't manage shock, I think it is important that you/we feel disgust.

It's shocking, in a way, that it's not shocking. We're being conditioned to accept his villainy as normality.

Agreed. I was just about to post something along similar lines. Though I'm not sure what the solution is.

Trump refuses to lower flag for Capital Gazette shooting victims.

He looked pretty competent in the playoffs. The Twolves need a bench.

Oh boy, the range of that outfield!

I think some films are better a signalling "come with us for the ride, and shut off your cynicism"

As soon as I'm challenged to suspend disbelief, my mind goes "challenge accepted" and I can't help but look for all the reasons why I shouldn't suspend disbelief. What's wrong with me? Do others have this problem?