[johnu]

 Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-14, 19:15, said:

I have a question. Are you guys more motivated by policy? Or by party loyalty? I have friends who would vote Democrat if "the party" was headed by O. J. Simpson and Charles Manson.

Strange that you have Democratic friends who would bring up voting for Manson and Simpson. Maybe they have the same mental illness that causes Convicted Felon Trump to be incapable of not talking about Hannibal Lecter.

In real life, MAGAts are the ones predisposed to join cults. Think of all the corrupt and grifting TV evangelists and megachurch leaders and their millions of followers. Which party do most of those cult members favor? And what about other cults like flat earthers, young earthers, creationists who all trend QOP. And of course, the Q in QOP is all about Qonspiracies and their cult leader is Trump.

[hrothgar]

 Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-14, 19:15, said:

I have a question. Are you guys more motivated by policy? Or by party loyalty?

There is no such thing as the Republican "party" any more, so framing things in terms of party loyalty seems pretty meaningless.
The Republican Party doesn't have anything resembling policy proposals, its simply a series of short and long cons, wrapped in hatred for the "other".

Turning towards the Democratic Party:

I have no great loyalty towards the Democrats either on a personal level or at the party level. I do believe that they are orders of magnitude better than almost all of Republicans, so potentially this looks like Party loyalty. I do tend to strongly prefer the Democrats positions in most areas where there are policy differences.

1. Ukraine: Check
2. Abortion: Check
3. Tax policies: Check
4. Environment policies: Check
5. Health Care: Check
6. Voting rights: Check
7. Gun control: Check
8: Civil rights": Check
9. Supreme Court choices: Check

FWIW, one area that I feel quite strongly about is eliminating first past the post voting schemes. I would much rather see ranked choice voting or proportional representation or super districts or any of a number of other reforms. However, I also (strongly) believe that these sorts of reforms need to be enacted from the bottom up. Moreover, a bunch of the folks who are pushing these schemes - like say Andrew Yang - are odious grifters in their own right...

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2024-August-15, 15:04, said:

There is no such thing as the Republican "party" any more, so framing things in terms of party loyalty seems pretty meaningless.
The Republican Party doesn't have anything resembling policy proposals, its simply a series of short and long cons, wrapped in hatred for the "other".

Turning towards the Democratic Party:

I have no great loyalty towards the Democrats either on a personal level or at the party level. I do believe that they are orders of magnitude better than almost all of Republicans, so potentially this looks like Party loyalty. I do tend to strongly prefer the Democrats positions in most areas where there are policy differences.

1. Ukraine: Check
2. Abortion: Check
3. Tax policies: Check
4. Environment policies: Check
5. Health Care: Check
6. Voting rights: Check
7. Gun control: Check
8: Civil rights": Check
9. Supreme Court choices: Check

FWIW, one area that I feel quite strongly about is eliminating first past the post voting schemes. I would much rather see ranked choice voting or proportional representation or super districts or any of a number of other reforms. However, I also (strongly) believe that these sorts of reforms need to be enacted from the bottom up. Moreover, a bunch of the folks who are pushing these schemes - like say Andrew Yang - are odious grifters in their own right...

I think that your items 1-9 could be seen as an agenda for the upcoming Dem convention. Biden wasn't perfect, who is, but he had his accomplishments. It would be helpful to address this. And then, of course, there has to be a discussion of what comes next. And that's not easy. For example, I keep hearing that Harris has a problem with her previous positions on fracking. Ok, but fracking is one of the many things that I have not studied well enough so that I can say I am sure what to do. As I understand it, there are enough environmental problems with fracking so that being against it has merit. But then there are reasons to be against being totally against it. I like to thinkn, cockeyed optimist that I am, people are up for hearing an energetic and intelligent person put forth some serious thoughts about difficult problems.

[kenberg]

I was a little uneasy hearing Harris;s economic plans, but what do I know. Tonight I saw that the WaPo editorial board shares my unease.

https://www.washingt...-plan-gimmicks/


We will see how this goes. I am still with her, and not just because Trump is indescribably awful, but I am uneasy. We shall see.

[shyams]

I am now suspicious that kenberg will
(a) abstain in the Nov '24 presidential race, or
(b) vote Trump.
I say "go for it".

Despite my "suspicion", I am aware that you may well vote vote for Kamala Harris.
* Around 60% of your state's voters vote for the Dem party each time around. It is presumed to be a safe state... make it a bit more scary for your party.
* Before you vote for her, get your family & friends in Maryland to write to the local Dem election team with your demands. If they receive a dozen or two emails with an aligned set of demands, they might take some action (they better!).
* Make them make promises to you. Then vote for them (if their promises are adequate) OR don't (if they take you all for granted)...

They need to woo you, not the other way around.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-August-16, 18:05, said:

I was a little uneasy hearing Harris;s economic plans, but what do I know. Tonight I saw that the WaPo editorial board shares my unease.

https://www.washingt...-plan-gimmicks/

We will see how this goes. I am still with her, and not just because Trump is indescribably awful, but I am uneasy. We shall see.

You are uneasy becasue the Harris wants to drag us kicking and screaming into the same world other industialized countiries have been living in for years?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2024-August-16, 20:24, said:

You are uneasy becasue the Harris wants to drag us kicking and screaming into the same world other industialized countiries have been living in for years?

Yeah, Harris's plans sound quite normal from a European (or even New Zealand) viewpoint. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are good ideas.

I agree with most of what the WP article says. The child benefits sounds fine, but subsidies for housing, especially house ownership, is in general a terrible idea. As WP hints at, mortgage interest deduction is a very expensive way to achieve .... nothing, really, other than increased net income inequality. But OK, mortgage interest deduction is not something which Harris wants to introduce, it is already in place and very difficult to get rid of, especially in a political climate where future administrations can't be assumed to carry on with the long-term that are set in motion now.

As for price gouging, it is not my area of expertise. I believe it has created some inflation in some sectors such as oil. As for groceries, WP is probably right that it isn't much of an issue and in any case it would lead to a bureaucratic nightmare to try to address it.

As for the child benefits: WP says "Assuming it’s designed with appropriate work incentives". I am not sure about what this refers to. If it's about making child daycare affordable then fine, but often this "Work incentitive" talk is about the wicked idea that shortage of labour is caused by poor people who are too lazy to work. But I don't know enough about the American context to comment on this so maybe I shouldn't.

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-August-16, 19:44, said:

Despite my "suspicion", I am aware that you may well vote vote for Kamala Harris.
* Around 60% of your state's voters vote for the Dem party each time around. It is presumed to be a safe state... make it a bit more scary for your party.
* Before you vote for her, get your family & friends in Maryland to write to the local Dem election team with your demands. If they receive a dozen or two emails with an aligned set of demands, they might take some action (they better!).
* Make them make promises to you. Then vote for them (if their promises are adequate) OR don't (if they take you all for granted)...

They need to woo you, not the other way around.

Folks on this thread are, no doubt aware that I am very dismissive of Shyams and label him as a loathsome accelerationist f#ckwit...

This post is a classic example why...

Anyone with half a brain knows that electoral politics is about building coalitions rather than ripping them apart. So, when I see folks advocating that

1. Folks break up into small groups
2. Decide on a few core demands that are of crucial importance to them
3. Then punish the Democratic Party if it refuses to cater to their whims...

My natural reaction is that the isn't someone who is actually interested in anything other that whipping folks into a dysfunctional frenzy...

Shayms does a much better job trying to hide this then others we see around here today or in the past, but the pattern is pretty damn obvious

[shyams]

hrothgar, on 2024-August-17, 04:21, said:

shyams, on 2024-August-16, 19:44, said:

I am now suspicious that kenberg will (a) abstain in the Nov '24 presidential race, or (b) vote Trump.I say "go for it". Despite my "suspicion", I am aware that you may well vote vote for Kamala Harris. * Around 60% of your state's voters vote for the Dem party each time around. It is presumed to be a safe state... make it a bit more scary for your party. * Before you vote for her, get your family & friends in Maryland to write to the local Dem election team with your demands. If they receive a dozen or two emails with an aligned set of demands, they might take some action (they better!).* Make them make promises to you. Then vote for them (if their promises are adequate) OR don't (if they take you all for granted)... They need to woo you, not the other way around.

Folks on this thread are, no doubt aware that I am very dismissive of Shyams and label him as a loathsome accelerationist f#ckwit...This post is a classic example why...Anyone with half a brain knows that electoral politics is about building coalitions rather than ripping them apart. So, when I see folks advocating that1. Folks break up into small groups2. Decide on a few core demands that are of crucial importance to them3. Then punish the Democratic Party if it refuses to cater to their whims...My natural reaction is that the isn't someone who is actually interested in anything other that whipping folks into a dysfunctional frenzy...Shayms does a much better job trying to hide this then others we see around here today or in the past, but the pattern is pretty damn obvious

I thought your post three steps above mine was the ridiculous / disingenuous one. The one where you write...

hrothgar, on 2024-August-15, 15:04, said:

Turning towards the Democratic Party:I have no great loyalty towards the Democrats either on a personal level or at the party level. I do believe that they are orders of magnitude better than almost all of Republicans, so potentially this looks like Party loyalty.

... where you proudly proclaim "no great loyalty". You'd drive across the entire country, simply to vote for your "favourite candidate". The definition of "favourite candidate" is "whoever is running as a Democrat".

I suspect it has been so for ages, and it will remain like that for ages to come. But, hey, why not shower greatness upon oneself by pretending neutrality and openness, no?

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-August-17, 06:44, said:

I thought your post three steps above mine was the ridiculous / disingenuous one. The one where you write...
... where you proudly proclaim "no great loyalty". You'd drive across the entire country, simply to vote for your "favourite candidate". The definition of "favourite candidate" is "whoever is running as a Democrat".

Its refreshing that Shayms is honest enough not to try to make any kind of a denial, preferring instead to make a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate claims

I readily admit, that it is rare that I will vote for a Republican than a Democrat, however, there have absolutely been cases where this is true

The earliest occasion I recall doing so was supporting Lowell Weiker versus Joe Lieberman for Senate back when I was in college.
I supported Bill Weld versus John Silber when he ran for governor here in MA.

I have supported and contributed money to several Green Party candidates here in MA, but that was before they went nuts...

But go on, please continue to explain my voting history to me...

[kenberg]

As tomatching policies of other industrialized countries, if I were up for that I would suggest the approach of the Scandinavian countries. I am not sure we are up for that, but they do seem to make it work.

The idea of going after grocery price gouging is, I think, being widely rejected (and maybe ridiculed).

As to a $25,000 down payment assistance, such a plan at least needs some serious details. The WaPo editorial mentions one thing that I immediately thought of, namely it could lead to a substantial increase in demand and thus an increase in prices. An increase of more than 25K in price seems likely. Increasing the supply of housing is a good idea, probably a very good idea if done well, but still there are things to think about.

In the late 60s I was renting and housing prices were going up fast, a good deal faster than my salary. By 1970 I had paid off my student loans and I decided to buy a townhouse. I could afford a townhouse. The mortgage rate was 8%, with an extra 2% because my down payment was only 10% of the price rather than the expected 20%. Still, I later sold it and bought a house that was not attached to anything.

Ok that was 1970, this is 2024 and of course things have changed. Still, it can be useful to look back. I moved from a townhouse to a house but not everyone did. It was a nice neighborhood, there was a nearby school (my daughter was still pre-K) . Moving to a house was nice, but if we had to stay in the townhouse that would have gone well. The point is, we need to ask just what housing we want to construct. There were condominium apartments near my townhouse. Apartment living isn't great, but it's not awful either, or at least it need not be.

And, for me at least, proposals such as Harris made really should include some indication of where the money will be coming from.

The Dem convention starts Monday, maybe we will hear more details.


Oh. Maybe I will be voting for Trump? NO. No. No. Trump's most recent foray into total idiocy was his comments about Medal of Honor winners. In early 1916 I was only beginning to form a view of Trump but I thought he was awful. He has far exceeded even my expectations for awfulness. Politicians may not be my favorite people but they come in different flavors. Trump is poisonous. Not distasteful, poisonous.

I have been thinking for a while that harris will have to come to grips with matters of policy. She is riding a wave of enthusiasm. I think people are really really glad to see someone who can finish a sentence and is not totally repulsive. I share this enthusiasm. But she will have to deal with policy and her recent speech made be uneasy. Not terrified. Uneasy. Needs work.

[shyams]

hrothgar, on 2024-August-17, 07:06, said:

Its refreshing that Shayms is honest enough not to try to make any kind of a denial, preferring instead to make a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate claim

What denial? Of your wild extrapolation?
That seems to have been written because you got "triggered" by some implications within?

If you believe your democracy is best served by blindly voting Democrats, so be it. What I wrote is consistent with what a normal voter in a normal democracy would do. I have visited my Member of Parliament's "surgery" twice in my life. How often have you met, called or written to your Senator or Congressperson?

Plus, that a random post on a specialised message board (BBF) by some random chap (me) could contribute to your PRECIOUS party losing even 1 electoral college vote is laughable.

But it triggers you anyways. I suppose that is an added bonus.

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-August-17, 07:32, said:

But it triggers you anyways. I suppose that is an added bonus.

Occasionally, new folks wander into threads like this one...

I simply consider it a useful investment of time to point out that individuals like yourself are not engaging in good faith discussion and that their actual motivations see much different that what they normally pretend.

Idiots like Al Phalpha are fairly transparent
You're a little better, but what you're up to is still quite obvious...

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-August-17, 07:32, said:

If you believe your democracy is best served by blindly voting Democrats, so be it.
What I wrote is consistent with what a normal voter in a normal democracy would do.

Bull***** *****

As I mentioned in my original reply, elections are won by addition rather than subtraction.

There is nothing wrong with advocating for a position.
You went far beyond this, suggesting that people fracture into small groups, identify positions that their little cell cares about, and the punish mainstream parties that don't follow your demands.

This is a recipe for depressing voter turn out

There are any number of policy positions where I strong disagree with the Democrats, but, for the moment I am supporting them with my money, my voice, and my votes because they are a damn site better than the alternative and preventing Trump from retuning to office and the Republicans from running the legislature is a categorial imperative.

> How often have you met, called or written to your Senator or Congressperson?

Don't really bother with this.
As I said, I give money

But, in the past I have had dinner with Ayanna Pressley, by which I mean sitting down a small table and having dinner with her / talking with her
I've done the same with Bob and Liddy Dole and a few others over the years

Sadly, my social circles doesn't extent to Elizabeth Warren, who I have enormous respect for and would love to (really) meet

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2024-August-17, 07:06, said:

Its refreshing that Shayms is honest enough not to try to make any kind of a denial, preferring instead to make a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate claims

Back when the Washington Post was still a newspaper, their reporters called this a non-denial denial.

[awm]

There isn't really very much that the federal government can do to reduce prices; if we had a better approach we wouldn't fight inflation by just raising the federal reserve interest rate (thereby risking a recession). And of course, even if we stop inflation that doesn't mean prices go down. Not to mention that deflation is actually bad, and we're pretty close to the fed's 2% inflation target today.

However, voters want to see prices go down. Trump has promised he will make this happen, despite having policies that are much more likely to make prices go up (deporting our cheap labour supply, raising tariffs sky high on imported goods).

If Kamala Harris just says "we aren't going to do anything about inflation" (which might well be accurate) this is a good way to lose the election. So she has to propose some popular policies to address high prices. It's true that these policies aren't great from an economic standpoint and/or won't do much to reduce prices. But in order to win the election she really has to propose something. Most likely some of them won't happen and others will happen in some modified form (helping first-time homebuyers in principle isn't a terrible idea, but would have to be handled carefully so as not to raise home prices more).

But I wouldn't read too much into the proposals; they are really just politics.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2024-August-17, 11:17, said:

There isn't really very much that the federal government can do to reduce prices; if we had a better approach we wouldn't fight inflation by just raising the federal reserve interest rate (thereby risking a recession). And of course, even if we stop inflation that doesn't mean prices go down. Not to mention that deflation is actually bad, and we're pretty close to the fed's 2% inflation target today.

However, voters want to see prices go down. Trump has promised he will make this happen, despite having policies that are much more likely to make prices go up (deporting our cheap labour supply, raising tariffs sky high on imported goods).

If Kamala Harris just says "we aren't going to do anything about inflation" (which might well be accurate) this is a good way to lose the election. So she has to propose some popular policies to address high prices. It's true that these policies aren't great from an economic standpoint and/or won't do much to reduce prices. But in order to win the election she really has to propose something. Most likely some of them won't happen and others will happen in some modified form (helping first-time homebuyers in principle isn't a terrible idea, but would have to be handled carefully so as not to raise home prices more).

But I wouldn't read too much into the proposals; they are really just politics.

Well, yes. Just politics. I keep hoping for better.

It's a tricky business. Economics is a complex subject and many people, often including me, tune out after a while. Still, I am not so sure that spouting a bunch of stuff with the idea that we should not take it seriously since it is just politics is a good idea eiither. We will see.

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2024-August-17, 11:47, said:

Well, yes. Just politics. I keep hoping for better.

Ha-ha that was how I used to think when I was young and idealistic, too

[kenberg]

 helene_t, on 2024-August-18, 00:51, said:

Ha-ha that was how I used to think when I was young and idealistic, too

Realism is just such drudgery!

[Al Phalpha]

In a probably vain attempt to inject a little humour to the conversation I offer the following: #s 11 and 12 are my favorites.


The Washington Post asked readers to take any word
from the dictionary... alter it by adding,
subtracting, or changing one
letter... and supply a new definition!

1) Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund,
which lasts until you realize it was your money
to start with.
2) Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a
hillbilly.
3) Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself
for the purpose of getting laid.
4) Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very
high.
5) Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic
wit and the person who doesn't get it.
6) Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you
are running late.
7) Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
8) Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (this one
got extra credit)
9) Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending
off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like,
the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
10) Glibido: All talk and no action.
11) Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to
seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
12) Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an
asshole.