United States Politics Thread 46

[zompist]

It's funny to hear about Nixon, whom I know only through 70s pop culture where he's invariably depicted a borderline fascist. Also, there are two McCarthys? The only one I heard about is Joe.

Yeah, Eugene was the candidate of the antiwar intellectuals and college students in 1968. The riots at the Democratic Convention (including rioting police) was a turnoff for many. Humphrey was the establishment candidate and lost anyway.

Maybe a further subdivision into periods would help; were civil rights even a concept in the 1933s?

Yeah, but not much was done about it. WWII was kind of a crisis point: a million Blacks served in the US armed forces, and it was hard to be fighting for democracy abroad and being treated as 2nd class citizens at home.

the Democrat were less anti-semitic and anti-immigrant.

Mostly because the Democrats controlled most of the big cities. From the 1880s to the 1960s or later was the era of machine politics, often highly corrupt, but the basic idea was "you vote for us and we'll do things for you", whether that was city services or patronage jobs.

[alice]

I remember reading once that it led to a disproportionate number of candidates being elected whose surnames begain with letters earlier in the alphabet.<sup>1

1</sup> Because candidates were listed alphabetically by surname², and lazy people put their cross or whatever against the name at the top³.

No, in the Australian system, you write a number next to a candidate - "1" for your first preference, "2" for your second preference, and so on. The lazy or indifferent people you mean just wrote 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 from the top to the bottom of ballots. Back when candidates were listed alphabetically, this led to some parties nominating a lot of candidates whose surnames started with "A".

This is what advancing age does to one's memory.

[Torco]

an american CEO of a health insurance company, one of the ones that most reject people's insurance claims over there, got gunned down in the middle of a street. apparently three of the shells had the words depose, deny and defend each, which is probably a reference to a book on why insurance companies deny claims, except the book is called deny, not depose, which suggests this is a response to the private insurance company denying all those claims which, as I understand it, is a fancy way to say "you get to pay that out of pocket, pleb". apparently the guy who got shot implemented a business process where an AI could deny people coverage.

wild. and cyberpunk af

[Travis B.]

an american CEO of a health insurance company, one of the ones that most reject people's insurance claims over there, got gunned down in the middle of a street. apparently three of the shells had the words depose, deny and defend each, which is probably a reference to a book on why insurance companies deny claims, except the book is called deny, not depose, which suggests this is a response to the private insurance company denying all those claims which, as I understand it, is a fancy way to say "you get to pay that out of pocket, pleb". apparently the guy who got shot implemented a business process where an AI could deny people coverage.

wild. and cyberpunk af

It's like when Osama bin Laden was killed all over again. Except Osama probably killed fewer Americans.

[Lērisama]

an american CEO of a health insurance company, one of the ones that most reject people's insurance claims over there, got gunned down in the middle of a street. apparently three of the shells had the words depose, deny and defend each, which is probably a reference to a book on why insurance companies deny claims, except the book is called deny, not depose, which suggests this is a response to the private insurance company denying all those claims which, as I understand it, is a fancy way to say "you get to pay that out of pocket, pleb". apparently the guy who got shot implemented a business process where an AI could deny people coverage.

wild. and cyberpunk af

It's like when Osama bin Laden was killed all over again. Except Osama probably killed fewer Americans.

Except for the small difference that one actively orchestrated violent deaths and the other allowed them through bog standard corporate greed and malice. And the fact that it's probably easier¹ to sue someone who is a citizen of your country. Not that killing someone is an especially moral action⁷ under any circumstances, but I don't think you were implying that

¹ Marginally, because wealth buys lawyers, and the screwed-over-by-the-health-industry demographic probably has less overlap with the sue everyone one, but that's a problem with the American legal system²
² And (lack of) health service³
³ Out of interest, what does ‘health service’ mean to an American? To me, it is ‘a system that provides healthcare in a way roughly similar to the NHS⁴, but isn't necessary the NHS’, but that's a rather Anglocentric⁶ definintion
⁴ i.e. no charges⁵ at the point of use
⁵ With a few weird exceptions
⁶ Or UK-centric, but there isn't a satisfying word for that
⁷ I'm not saying it's never justified, just that it isn't ever an actively moral thing to do, rather than the least worst option

[Travis B.]

What I was referring to is that this seems to be the happiest I've seen the Interwebs be about someone's being killed since the death of Osama bin Laden. Even the people who are like "well we shouldn't kill people" still seem to add the proviso "but frankly what happened was predictable considering what he did".

[Travis B.]

My guess is whoever did this either lost a loved one to the actions of UnitedHealthcare or is avoidably going to die thanks to their actions and decided to do this as a final act of revenge against the most prominent person responsible for his coming death.

[Travis B.]

Except for the small difference that one actively orchestrated violent deaths and the other allowed them through bog standard corporate greed and malice.

How is being forced to die a long, lingering death that is to your own very knowledge completely avoidable and solely for the sake of someone else's profit less violent than a sudden, nearly instantaneous death, as in the case of the vast majority of those who died on 9/11? If anything, I would say that it is more violent.

And the fact that it's probably easier¹ to sue someone who is a citizen of your country. Not that killing someone is an especially moral action⁷ under any circumstances, but I don't think you were implying that

Whatever you think about capital punishment, this was not a mere murder ─ this was an execution. It just happens that the judicial and political systems in the United States have utterly failed, and when that happens sometimes people decide that they have to make their own justice.

What is surprising is that, with the ready availability of guns in this country that this had not happened sooner.

[Torco]

Except for the small difference that one actively orchestrated violent deaths and the other allowed them through bog standard corporate greed and malice.

agreed, the difference is small.

What is surprising is that, with the ready availability of guns in this country that this had not happened sooner.

shootings of CEOs ? yeah. I was surprised it didn't start when the story was that guy... something like skrelli ? the guy who made some drug 600x more expensive just because he could.

[Lērisama]

How is being forced to die a long, lingering death that is to your own very knowledge completely avoidable and solely for the sake of someone else's profit less violent than a sudden, nearly instantaneous death, as in the case of the vast majority of those who died on 9/11? If anything, I would say that it is more violent.

The amount that the perpetrator can distance themself from what's happening? For one, the deaths are an active part of the plan, for the other, they are a consequence of maximising profit. They are both horrible human beings, but pretending not to see a difference is a party trick that doesn't help counter either.

Whatever you think about capital punishment, this was not a mere murder ─ this was an execution. It just happens that the judicial and political systems in the United States have utterly failed, and when that happens sometimes people decide that they have to make their own justice.

Yes, this would be true if I recognised a meaningful moral difference between the two¹

What is surprising is that, with the ready availability of guns in this country that this had not happened sooner.

Yes, this isn't surprising. Which is sad in so many ways.

¹ Yes, I do believe capital punishment is murder

[Ares Land]

There is a very real possibility the perpetrator is a random far-right conspiracy nut who decided to shoot the guy for conspiracy nut reasons.

[Linguoboy]

What I was referring to is that this seems to be the happiest I've seen the Interwebs be about someone's being killed since the death of Osama bin Laden.

I'm not sure "happiness" is the mot juste. To quote Mike Falkstrom, "This isn't happiness you're seeing. This is a fury at a system that has turned health, turned people, into a commodity." I'm not happy the guy is dead, but chiefly because I know that some equally venal turd will step into the role and the system will continue to operate as before.

What is really striking to me is how completely out of sync MSM coverage is with the mood on the street. They can't ignore the reaction, but they've been doing their best to paint it as extreme and marginal when actually it appears to be quite widespread. Unusually, there doesn't seem to be a big left/right divide and friends of mine report that they're even seeing shouldershrugging from Midwest suburban moms (who are ordinarily the world's biggest cheerleaders for respectability politics).

If there's anything potentially positive coming out of this, it's that it's exposed just how common and how vehement USAmerican's dislike of their healthcare system is, which is the first step in actually changing how it operates.

[jcb]

But I mean, no matter what Sahra Wagenknecht used to believe when she was younger, I don't see how the BSW can be anything other than far right.

What makes you say this?

What is really striking to me is how completely out of sync MSM coverage is with the mood on the street. They can't ignore the reaction, but they've been doing their best to paint it as extreme and marginal when actually it appears to be quite widespread.

As I said before, MSM people are cowardly sycophants, beholden to their billionaire overlords.

Unusually, there doesn't seem to be a big left/right divide and friends of mine report that they're even seeing shouldershrugging from Midwest suburban moms (who are ordinarily the world's biggest cheerleaders for respectability politics).

More proof that there's an appetite for real populism out there.

[Ares Land]

But I mean, no matter what Sahra Wagenknecht used to believe when she was younger, I don't see how the BSW can be anything other than far right.

What makes you say this?

The anti-immigration stance is a big hint; they're also, in favor of cheap gas when it comes to the climate, they have a backwards stance on gender, defend 'traditional family values' and feel the AfD is unfairly treated.
They do support welfare and redistribution and anti-markets -- but that sort of talk isn't unknown of on the far right. (And usually is quietly jettisoned whenever convenient.)

[Raphael]

As I said before, MSM people are cowardly sycophants, beholden to their billionaire overlords.

If that was completely true, there wouldn't be some among them who routinely write things that piss off right-wingers. With right-wingers being who they are, pissing them off is not an act of cowardice.

[Dune]

What is really striking to me is how completely out of sync MSM coverage is with the mood on the street. They can't ignore the reaction, but they've been doing their best to paint it as extreme and marginal when actually it appears to be quite widespread.

Examples of the MSM portraying it as a marginal, fringe reaction? Most of the coverage I've seen (from the print media, anyway) has, even when it's condemned the response on social media, been quite clear that it's been very widespread and obviously reflects large-scale public anger at the US health insurance system. I don't think I've read any pieces (news or opinion) claiming that the reaction just came from a handful of fringe actors.

[Raphael]

From someone named Ryan Broderick on Bluesky:

After years of talking to Trump supporters my view of them has become very simple: They want socialist, even sometimes progressive reforms but they want them from someone who makes those reforms feel powerful and masculine and they want to make sure the people they don't like don't benefit from them

(https://bsky.app/profile/ryanhatesthis. ... xijilqpk2e)

Thoughts?

[Raphael]

Trump has literally called for the Purge, and then he got elected. All we hear about that are excuses. It's only when someone powerful gets it that the intellectuals lay a thick load of morality on our faces.

Who are those "the intellectuals"?

[rotting bones]

Who are those "the intellectuals"?

Wankers. I haven't seen one mainstream news anchor who was as outraged that Trump got elected after calling for the Purge.

[Ares Land]

From someone named Ryan Broderick on Bluesky:

After years of talking to Trump supporters my view of them has become very simple: They want socialist, even sometimes progressive reforms but they want them from someone who makes those reforms feel powerful and masculine and they want to make sure the people they don't like don't benefit from them

(https://bsky.app/profile/ryanhatesthis. ... xijilqpk2e)

Thoughts?

That seems unconvincing. 'Running the country like a business' isn't a very socialist take

The idea that Trump will somehow fix healthcare sounds delusional, but that's par for the course.