The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Averroes used to annoy me but the man is simply killing it on the 2020 board. He is playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers (except for SirWoodbury who is picking his nose).

But then if Beto ends up being nominated, or Sanders, that narrative goes poof.

Not at all. Republicans have been eager to connect every Democratic candidate with the intersectional left, or whatever you prefer to call it. That approach will be the same regardless of the nominee's race, background, or platform.

This is why the conversation around reparations is so worrying. It's analagous to the sort of conservative purity politics in which Mitt Romney got tangled during the 2012 primaries that he couldn't de-emphasize during the general.

The trailing candidates will have every incentive to roast the frontrunners for insufficient wokeness throughout the primaries, whether it's Sanders, Biden, Beto or anyone else. All that Republicans need to do is amplify these attacks, and, more importantly, whatever accommodations these spats cow the eventual Democratic nominee into making.

White identity politics will be the GOP's chief appeal to swing voters in 2020. Democrats must manage a coalition that spans numerous groups, including native-born whites. Republicans don't need to concern themselves with that. They understand that their electoral odds depend on maximizing the salience of how the political interests of white people differ from those everyone else.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

can't believe I'm about to do this but this maybe the best post I've seen on this site all year

The problem is that when people ARE willing to work, they are often put in the position where they no longer qualify for Medicaid, but have either (A) no health insurance, or (B) health insurance with such a high deductable that they can't afford to go to the doctor, or maybe (C) where they can go to the doctor, but they can't afford the medication prescribed.  People tell working uninsured people to "show up at the ER", but when they do, they often get minimal care and a "referral" to their "family doctor" or "a specialist" who often won't see them unless they come up with hundreds of dollars for the exam.  The only help these working uninsured can hope for is by begging whatever "charity" is available to them and hope it will work.  The reward for these people is to, sometimes, fill out pages of forms, only to be told that they don't qualify for their "charity".  That's a bitter pill for people who work. 

I've know a family who have two daughters with asthma, serious enough to need daily medicine.  They know single mothers who have kids with asthma whose meds are free; they have to pay both the doctor and the pharmacy for the inhalers, and while they go to a provider that uses a "sliding scale", it's still a lot of money.  (The kids' Dad took a second job and now has to pay more on the "sliding scale".)  As asthma is a chronic condition, these girls will have to go to the doctor regularly to keep up the prescription.  They don't live high on the hog; they live paycheck to paycheck.   Dad has a bad knee; he lives with it because he can't afford the surgery to correct the problem.  Dad and Mom both have painful molars, but all they can afford is for the bad teeth to be extracted, and they have to save up for that.

I can't tell you how many WORKING people go through life with bad backs, painful teeth, kids with chronic conditions that are not optimally managed, and other situations such as this.  It's a lot.  Now I think that a stable society is built on marital families, and not single parents with social service benefits (in the aggregate).  But individuals don't make decisions based upon what's reality in the aggregate; they make decision based on what's best for their families.  If a mother does the math and considers that a child's housing and medical needs are more easily met by safety net subsidies and staying unmarried (even if there is a significant other in the picture providing financial support) as opposed to getting married and losing healthcare, it's hard on certain levels to find fault. 

There is something wrong with a nation and a people where we're fine in telling people to get of their butt and work, but we don't care if their kids can go to a doctor, or if their own chronic conditions can receive meaningful treatment.  There is something wrong with people suffering unnecessarily.  I don't believe that death is a preventable accident, but a good deal of healthcare is more than keeping people alive; it's keeping people's daily discomfort, and even suffering, at a minimum so they can function, and function more fully.

I mean holy  I am floored. Almost every sentence is empathetic, kind, and jarringly accurate. It's beautiful.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

Much edge!  Very chad!

Some of these folks are selfish, sure.  On the other hand, the God Complex of several of the Governors and Mayors here is more than a little scary.  Constitutional Rights don't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; they apply ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  (I'm paraphrasing Mr. Justice Sutherland here.)  And people who have poured their life savings into a business (as some of these people have) are not wrong in questioning measures to close businesses that are occurring (A) in states and localities where the incidence of the disease is minimal (B) after the "curve" has been "flattened". 

I get that, but you can restart a business and/or get federal assistance to tide you over before businesses reopen. I can't get my parents back if they get sick and die though.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shame your Ireland flag avatar is gone now, HCP.

Why did he do that?