Radicalization of the Democratic Party

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So in recent times, the Dems have gone full steam ahead towards "progressiveness" and embraced figures such as Bernie sanders

 

Despite early mocking, there were plenty of Obama to Trump voters.

 

From NYT's Upshot Nate Cohn

 

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/819695439322587136

 

Pennsylvania electorate, final: D 47.4, R 41.3 For comparison, 2012 voters who remain registered are D 48.7, R 41.6

 

Turnout surge probably didn't favor either side much, if at all. In fact, new voters were younger and slightly more D, at D 45.7, R 36.5

 

This means, a lot of Dems voted Trump, and it looks like he may have cracked 40% with Millennials. Putting things like this in context

 

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8660

 

"A National Councilman for the College Democrats of America is jumping ship and considering joining the Republican Party just before President-elect Trump takes the oath of office. Michael J. Hout, a junior at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told Campus Reform that he believes the contemporary Democratic Party is no longer the best place for an ideological moderate like himself, saying the Party is pivoting towards more extremist rhetoric and appealing more to those who often do not even consider themselves Democrats, such as socialists and independents."

 

So the question remains, is blindly (and IMO, stupidly) charging left worth bleeding out voters? 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yes. There should be political representation for the far left, and for the far right. And for centre left, and for for centre right. And for moderates on both sides, and for people in the middle.

 

The political spectrum is gigantic and manifolded, and there should be adequate representation for all those given viewpoints if possible. The issue is, that the American political spectrum right now is narrow as all hell. Because of a heavily reinforced two party system, and in general the heavy partisanship at work on both sides of the spectrum where they'd rather score points over the other side than do there job and govern.

 

The democratic party moving more to the left is a mirroring as to how the Republicans went right after Obama won and swept the moderates. It's probably bad for the party chances of victory, but they have nowhere left to move if Trump has the middle ground.

 

In fairness, in 8 years there will probably be calls for sheet to move left again, because US politics seems to be cyclical like that; the right will be the new 'establishment' and people will probably dislike it, and thus lose.

 

So it's not a bad thing, because in a universe where politics is about representation and governing instead of 'winning' parties shifting viewpoint to adapt to the voterbase is good. The issue is there are only two parties, so when one party captures the centre, there's nowhere else for the opposing party to go than hard left or hard right. It kills the Dem's chances of winning, but again; politics shouldn't be about winning or losing, but about representation and governing.

 

The political system just needs change away from a two party system, and this would be far less of a story and far less of an issue.

[Delibirb]

It's certainly bad for them, if they want to accomplish any of their goals. The same can be said for the far right. Basically, you never want to go full retard, and the far anything is full retard. It's bad for success to be politically radical, because it makes it harder to gather support from non-radicals. There have been exceptions of course, but generally you want to be closer to the middle while still on your team's side of the field, if you want to do well.

 

But as Aerion said, the larger issue is that the political system calls for far sides to exist. There really shouldn't be sides at all, not on blankets of issues. There should be sides for each individual issue, and it should be possible and encouraged to vote on those issues as an individual, not as a party, based on your interests; to vote for a candidate who shares most of your sides, not the blanket side that may cover not even half of the sides you're on.

 

Far right is annoying and despicable, far left is too. And they're ignorant for thinking they'll accomplish anything when they're so blatant. You can have far ideals and still make compromises that benefit your interests.

[Sunshine Jesse]

I think the prospect that the Democratic party is becoming "extremist" on any level is ridiculous.

 

It comes off as gaslighting us to believe that the Republican party's platform is anything close to normal, reasonable, or even functional. It's not.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think the prospect that the Democratic party is becoming "extremist" on any level is ridiculous.

 

It comes off as gaslighting us to believe that the Republican party's platform is anything close to normal, reasonable, or even functional. It's not.

The Pennsylvania election refutes that claim however, there wasn't a surge of Republican, but rather a urge of Trump democrats. There's gaslighting for sure on some fronts.

 

But the bolded is it's own form of extremism is it not? Putting a plan to repeal the hyde amendment in the platform when strong majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents support is seems like a textbook case of extremism for example. Hell, you had everyone from Democrat Senators to Hillary's own running mate be taken aback at that particular sanders push

[Sunshine Jesse]

The Pennsylvania election refutes that claim however, there wasn't a surge of Republican, but rather a urge of Trump democrats. There's gaslighting for sure on some fronts.

 

But the bolded is it's own form of extremism is it not? Putting a plan to repeal the hyde amendment in the platform when strong majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents support is seems like a textbook case of extremism for example. Hell, you had everyone from Democrat Senators to Hillary's own running mate be taken aback at that particular sanders push

A surge of Trump democrats doesn't actually prove anything unless you go in with the assumption that it does.

 

People really disliking a prospect doesn't make it extremist. It's not an overhaul of current systems in any way nor does it actually change much of anything. It just leaves a really bad taste in your mouth.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Government funding for abortion after over 30 year of bipartisan support to not do so isn't extreme?

[Sunshine Jesse]

No, it's just in bad taste.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What would you consider an example of extreme(ist) then?

[vla1ne]

radical is a close word, but wouldn't suit the democrats just yet. they are doubling down on their policies, and definitely swinging further left than ever, but they aren't hitting sweden levels of stupid just yet what city leader in their right minds doesn't plow the heavy roads first on a feminist whim?. they are becoming more absurd, but it branches into more than one area for more than a few reasons. big business is sinking its hands deeper into the party, dividing it one way, the illusion of progressiveness (aka social justice) is sinking deeper in as well, cutting it yet another way, those in power and those seeking power in the democrats have tangled up what they stand for, it's akin to watching a person hit from multiple angles with different light filters. the shadows are all cut from the same cloth, but depending on where you look, there could be complete opposites, even on the same side.
 
something similar could be said to go for republicans, but, this is a democrat topic, so i'll leave it at that.
 
EDIT:
 

What would you consider an example of extreme(ist) then?

well, look at some of sweden, germany(basically E.U, in general), and australia's policies. those people are starting to lose their left wing sheet. america, even the democratic party, hasn't gone that far off the deep end just yet.

[Sunshine Jesse]

What would you consider an example of extreme(ist) then?

Something like UBI.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Something like UBI.

That's just bad economics, a living minimum wage is smarter

 

UBI is largely something for nothing, workfare is more effective 

[Aerion Brightflame]

well, look at some of sweden, germany(basically E.U, in general), and australia's policies. those people are starting to lose their left wing s***. america, even the democratic party, hasn't gone that far off the deep end just yet.

 

Care to elaborate on which polices those are?

 

As a European it's interesting to see which policies the US sees are crazy.

[Dad]

Care to elaborate on which polices those are?

 

As a European it's interesting to see which policies the US sees are crazy.

 

Healthcare.

 

That's the one I don't get why people are so against it.  You're paying more taxes, I get it.  But literally the entire country is covered and able to see a doctor when they need to.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Healthcare.

 

That's the one I don't get why people are so against it.  You're paying more taxes, I get it.  But literally the entire country is covered and able to see a doctor when they need to.

The VA is single Payer, how well has that worked out?

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/meet-gop-senator-trying-turn-trump-s-health-care-promises-n708411

 

This is a better alternative 

[Aerion Brightflame]

The VA is single Payer, how well has that worked out?

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/meet-gop-senator-trying-turn-trump-s-health-care-promises-n708411

 

This is a better alternative 

 

Something being single payer doesn't mean it's automatically well funded.

 

The US has been in an active wars for a lot of the past 20 years or more, no shock that that would drives costs up.

 

You can underfund something on a single payer system by simply not collecting enough money, that's no different to any other funding system. The advantage of single payer is that's generally got less hassle and adminstrative costs involved. It cuts out a lot of the middle men, and allows one to drive the costs of procedures down (Because the cost of medical procedures is arbitrary).

[vla1ne]

Care to elaborate on which polices those are?

 

As a European it's interesting to see which policies the US sees are crazy.

as far as sweden goes, the snowplow rule change (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/14/gender-equal-snow-removal-policy/ i know some of you don't like brietbart, but in this case, it's saying just about the same thing as every other site) was not even crazy in the fun way that some bad policies are, it almost literally broke stockholm. 

 

as for germany, merkel is literally both nuts, and in denial. the destruction caused by many immigrants in germany has been ignored, a paper thin deportation plan (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736818/Migrant-crisis-Angela-Merkel-deport-100-000-refugees-failed-asylum-seekers-Germany) is what she's using to cover her ass after the drastic failure correct me if i'm wrong, but there's millions of immigrants in germany, and 100,000 is but a drop in an already full bucket at this point, and unles i'm horribly mistaken, despite enough complaints to hear them all the way over here in america,she has never shown any interest in being even slightly stricter stricter until she got bodied at the polls has virtually no real substance, and is using propoganda on a similar manner as hillary during her election. extreme suits her past immigration stance, especially considering i have zero doubt that she will double down upon it if people are foolish enough to elect her.

 

as for austrailia, banning, just type in australia bans, and you get lists of the dumbest possible things you can ban, and that doesn't even get into the real laws that need shouting out, such as the further destruction of free speech (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/24/aust-j24.html) australia is literally headed towards 1984, it is not even a joke at this point.

 

not to say everything's bad about the countries, but there are clearly some extreme, and extremely stupid, policies that have been enacted, and doubled down upon, in the past few years. (again, i could, say something for the right wing as well, but this is a left wing discussion.)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Something being single payer doesn't mean it's automatically well funded.

 

The US has been in an active wars for a lot of the past 20 years or more, no shock that that would drives costs up.

 

You can underfund something on a single payer system by simply not collecting enough money, that's no different to any other funding system. The advantage of single payer is that's generally got less hassle and adminstrative costs involved. It cuts out a lot of the middle men, and allows one to drive the costs of procedures down (Because the cost of medical procedures is arbitrary).

And is that how you justify horror stories about the NHS? Underfunding? If England cannot manage it, how do you expect a larger nation like America to do so?

[Aerion Brightflame]

And is that how you justify horror stories about the NHS? Underfunding? If England cannot manage it, how do you expect a larger nation like America to do so?

Yes. Ignoring the elements of hyperbole involved currently in some of the 'horror stories'.

 

It's a fairly common idea here that the NHS is underfunded, because of the actions of I believe the previous Labour government, and it's been perpetuated by the Tories, in an attempt to eventually sell it off for assests and move to a system akin the US system (Not out of merits of the system, but because the MP's have connections to the people who'd profit from the sale). It's actually worse than strict underfunding, because there was a period of time where the funding went solely to administrative positions and beaucrocracy rather than doctors and critical roles.

 

It's pretty simple; NHS lacks funds. Thus cannot hire adequate staff. Thus, because the workload of the NHS remains 'constant' regardless of the number of workers involved, the staff has to work longer hours to compensate. Thus they become overworked, tired and stressed. Thus they make mistakes and patient quality goes down somewhat. Thus people go 'the NHS is failing', and reduce it's funding because it can be used elsewhere, and thus the cycle repeats until the NHS cannot cope.

 

Even like pay is an issue; A junior doctor in the UK makes something like £22,000 fresh from graduating (IIRC it may have gone up since 2015), with it going up to around 28,000 after a year. That's the median wage in the UK (22,000 i mean. Might actually be a little lower). Obviously it rises as you work for a long time till it actually becomes a lot of money, but it's pennies relative to the amount of work they do. It's also more for specialists. There have been a lot of strikes about these wages in the past few years, and about MP's plans to cut slaries and cut available overtime, and thus let them earn less.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34475955 - Compare it to other professions like investment banking and such.

 

To me, if the NHS has funding issues, you don't go 'well I'm going to cut your wages and budgets, and you can make do' you try and give it more money. Even if it still runs at a loss, because it's an amazing public service and a gigantic employer (The fifth largest in the world iirc, behind like wallmart and 3 different armed forces including the Chinese military). If that means raising taxes, so be it. We still pay less on average than the US does, and arguably getting higher quality emergency care. (The US ranks pretty poorly in terms of medical care irrc. The UK isn't that great, but it is higher).  

 

@V1alne - I can agree to most of those being dumb choices. I'm not that well versed in German politics, but from what I've read of second hand sources the only party that's really given Merkel blowback on the migrant issue is her own party. Even the opposition agrees with her for the most party. Likewise, things in Germany aren't that worse from what I recall; I.e. the crime rate has increased, but no more than one would expect from a sudden influc of a million people. Sorry I've not replied in more detail to your post, but I was expecting other things than the examples you gave.

[vla1ne]

@V1alne - I can agree to most of those being dumb choices. I'm not that well versed in German politics, but from what I've read of second hand sources the only party that's really given Merkel blowback on the migrant issue is her own party. Even the opposition agrees with her for the most party. Likewise, things in Germany aren't that worse from what I recall; I.e. the crime rate has increased, but no more than one would expect from a sudden influc of a million people. Sorry I've not replied in more detail to your post, but I was expecting other things than the examples you gave.

wouldn't expect a large response, the snowplow speaks for itself, australia bans speech for itself, and i don't have enough time to get into other parts of sweden slowly screwing itself, though much of it is less legal action and more the people being far to tolerant of those who would clearly harm them,

 

merkel's taken shots from other sides (http://www.npr.org/2016/12/24/506817226/amid-reelection-angela-merkel-faces-criticism-for-germanys-open-door-migrant-pol, ect) as well as her own, there's quite a few germans upset with her actions as well, and those who aren't at least somewhat against her policies, are often cut from the same cloth as these people (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675154/Left-wing-German-politician-raped-migrants-admits-LIED-police-attackers-nationality-did-not-want-encourage-racism.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3528236/Male-Norwegian-politician-raped-asylum-seeker-says-feels-GUILTY-attacker-deported-man-suffer-Somalia.html ). the sudden influx isn't the only problem, the difference in values, the foolish acceptance of even those clearly harmful to the country, and the overlooking of damages, is what's doing the most harm to germany, the immigration policy isn't called foolish or extreme (at least by me) because of the sheer numbers, but because it ignores the consequences of said numbers, and pushes the damage under the rug, in favor of the altruism. akin to donating your stomach while still alive, the sheer level of altruism here is an easy way to kill yourself with kindness.

[VCR_CAT]

Yes. Ignoring the elements of hyperbole involved currently in some of the 'horror stories'.

 

It's a fairly common idea here that the NHS is underfunded, because of the actions of I believe the previous Labour government, and it's been perpetuated by the Tories, in an attempt to eventually sell it off for assests and move to a system akin the US system (Not out of merits of the system, but because the MP's have connections to the people who'd profit from the sale). It's actually worse than strict underfunding, because there was a period of time where the funding went solely to administrative positions and beaucrocracy rather than doctors and critical roles.

 

It's pretty simple; NHS lacks funds. Thus cannot hire adequate staff. Thus, because the workload of the NHS remains 'constant' regardless of the number of workers involved, the staff has to work longer hours to compensate. Thus they become overworked, tired and stressed. Thus they make mistakes and patient quality goes down somewhat. Thus people go 'the NHS is failing', and reduce it's funding because it can be used elsewhere, and thus the cycle repeats until the NHS cannot cope.

 

Even like pay is an issue; A junior doctor in the UK makes something like £22,000 fresh from graduating (IIRC it may have gone up since 2015), with it going up to around 28,000 after a year. That's the median wage in the UK (22,000 i mean. Might actually be a little lower). Obviously it rises as you work for a long time till it actually becomes a lot of money, but it's pennies relative to the amount of work they do. It's also more for specialists. There have been a lot of strikes about these wages in the past few years, and about MP's plans to cut slaries and cut available overtime, and thus let them earn less.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34475955 - Compare it to other professions like investment banking and such.

 

To me, if the NHS has funding issues, you don't go 'well I'm going to cut your wages and budgets, and you can make do' you try and give it more money. Even if it still runs at a loss, because it's an amazing public service and a gigantic employer (The fifth largest in the world iirc, behind like wallmart and 3 different armed forces including the Chinese military). If that means raising taxes, so be it. We still pay less on average than the US does, and arguably getting higher quality emergency care. (The US ranks pretty poorly in terms of medical care irrc. The UK isn't that great, but it is higher).  

 

Canada is another example of publicly funded healthcare, and a pretty good example to cite as to what the US could be doing right now. A quick summary: General healthcare and hospitals are publicly funded through tax dollars, while more niche services such as prescription drugs, dentistry, and optometry, are privately funded (getting my wisdom teeth removed was a cool $1500). Of course, the system isn't perfect and Canada has above-average wait times on specialist treatment, some very long ones too. This, of course, is part in due because specialist treatment is determined by severity of the case, so those who are in more danger are prioritized over minor cases.

 

Right now, the most recent surveys I can find done are from like, 2009, so take that with a grain of salt towards this modern day of 2017, but back then Nanos found that 86.2% of Canadians strongly supported public healthcare, and 91% strongly favored our healthcare in comparison to America's healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Public_opinion

 

As well, our average life expectancy is 82.2 years (compared to the US's 79.3; also UK's at 81.2).

 

Finally, to reiterate what Aerion is talking about, funding is a very significant factor in public healthcare. Canada, as of 2014, spent 18.8% of government revenue on healthcare, and as of 2015, 10.1% of our GDP went towards healthcare. To compare to the UK, they were at 16.5% and 9.8% respectably. Our per-capita spending on healthcare in 2015 (USD-PPP; whatever that means) was 4,608 while the UK was at 4,003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Comparison_to_other_countries As well, "In the World Health Organization's rankings of healthcare system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd." But, their methodologies for making these ranks are under a lot of debate and criticism, so take this with a grain of salt as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_healthcare_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

 

So, in conclusion, funding has a significant factor in the overall quality of healthcare, but even if a privatized system might guarantee more money towards healthcare, that doesn't mean it's better. A lot of these numbers actually suggest that Canada's system is objectively better than the US system, while the UK system does fall short in the funding department.

[~~~~]

as for austrailia, banning, just type in australia bans, and you get lists of the dumbest possible things you can ban, and that doesn't even get into the real laws that need shouting out, such as the further destruction of free speech (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/24/aust-j24.html) australia is literally headed towards 1984, it is not even a joke at this point.

About the bans, are you talking about the ban on importing certain things? It's to protect the environment since Australia has been separated from the rest of the world for a lot of its evolutionary history.

[vla1ne]

About the bans, are you talking about the ban on importing certain things? It's to protect the environment since Australia has been separated from the rest of the world for a lot of its evolutionary history.

nah, those i understand, floridas's got a problem of the same vein, i can't imagine how bad it'd get in australia, where animals either die or become godless killing machines.

 

i mean the ban on media, like games, movies, discourse, ect. may be wrong since i don't live in australia, but from what i've seen and heard, australian laws are rather tough on foreign media that doesn't meet it's wholesome standards (i believe they have movies and games banned from shelves across australia, creating an artificial demand, and making importing that much more important, and expensive). the speech limit speaks for itself though.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Yes. Ignoring the elements of hyperbole involved currently in some of the 'horror stories'.

 

It's a fairly common idea here that the NHS is underfunded, because of the actions of I believe the previous Labour government, and it's been perpetuated by the Tories, in an attempt to eventually sell it off for assests and move to a system akin the US system (Not out of merits of the system, but because the MP's have connections to the people who'd profit from the sale). It's actually worse than strict underfunding, because there was a period of time where the funding went solely to administrative positions and beaucrocracy rather than doctors and critical roles.

 

It's pretty simple; NHS lacks funds. Thus cannot hire adequate staff. Thus, because the workload of the NHS remains 'constant' regardless of the number of workers involved, the staff has to work longer hours to compensate. Thus they become overworked, tired and stressed. Thus they make mistakes and patient quality goes down somewhat. Thus people go 'the NHS is failing', and reduce it's funding because it can be used elsewhere, and thus the cycle repeats until the NHS cannot cope.

 

Even like pay is an issue; A junior doctor in the UK makes something like £22,000 fresh from graduating (IIRC it may have gone up since 2015), with it going up to around 28,000 after a year. That's the median wage in the UK (22,000 i mean. Might actually be a little lower). Obviously it rises as you work for a long time till it actually becomes a lot of money, but it's pennies relative to the amount of work they do. It's also more for specialists. There have been a lot of strikes about these wages in the past few years, and about MP's plans to cut slaries and cut available overtime, and thus let them earn less.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34475955 - Compare it to other professions like investment banking and such.

 

To me, if the NHS has funding issues, you don't go 'well I'm going to cut your wages and budgets, and you can make do' you try and give it more money. Even if it still runs at a loss, because it's an amazing public service and a gigantic employer (The fifth largest in the world iirc, behind like wallmart and 3 different armed forces including the Chinese military). If that means raising taxes, so be it. We still pay less on average than the US does, and arguably getting higher quality emergency care. (The US ranks pretty poorly in terms of medical care irrc. The UK isn't that great, but it is higher).

 

@V1alne - I can agree to most of those being dumb choices. I'm not that well versed in German politics, but from what I've read of second hand sources the only party that's really given Merkel blowback on the migrant issue is her own party. Even the opposition agrees with her for the most party. Likewise, things in Germany aren't that worse from what I recall; I.e. the crime rate has increased, but no more than one would expect from a sudden influc of a million people. Sorry I've not replied in more detail to your post, but I was expecting other things than the examples you gave.

So basically they're doing the same thing republicans do where they underfund or purposefully cause something to underperform to claim it doesn't work?

 

Conservativism never changes I guess