Texas Republican Party reveals new platform.

[meiam]

But Democratic politicians generally don't talk about defunding the police.

Rashida Tlaib called for an end to policing at one point, but within the Democratic Party she's about the only one.

Exactly that's the problem, the party get pulled to the extreme by the few extremist and it end up dominating the discourse. The rest of the dem have to talk about how "no that's not our platform, but yes that person is our party but she doesn't have control and ...". There's a a few extremist issues that end up doing this, each push by a small number dem, but once you add them all up it suck all the oxygen and make most average voter fell like both party are dominated by the insane (like forgiven student load, ie a massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich, or dismantling ICE).

On top of that, the people on the other side of the spectrum (like Manchin) can then take a big stance against those extremist democrat and reap their own electoral success from that (again, never mind if nothing get accomplish). By eliminating primary and just picking candidate they could drop both the extremist but also the obstinate "no man".

 

[Silvanus]

Exactly that's the problem, the party get pulled to the extreme by the few extremist and it end up dominating the discourse. The rest of the dem have to talk about how "no that's not our platform, but yes that person is our party but she doesn't have control and ...". There's a a few extremist issues that end up doing this, each push by a small number dem, but once you add them all up it suck all the oxygen and make most average voter fell like both party are dominated by the insane (like forgiven student load, ie a massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich, or dismantling ICE).

On top of that, the people on the other side of the spectrum (like Manchin) can then take a big stance against those extremist democrat and reap their own electoral success from that (again, never mind if nothing get accomplish). By eliminating primary and just picking candidate they could drop both the extremist but also the obstinate "no man".

It's not "dominating the discourse" because one Democratic representative said it once. Its "dominating the discourse" because attack ads constantly accuse people of supporting things they never supported in the first place.

 

[dreng3]

Imma push back on college debt forgiveness. There is little to no sense in releasing the debt of exclusively relatively well off people, especially at a moment of high inflation, and the popular support for the idea is an illusion caused by the internet being disproportionately populated by exactly the 20-30 something over-educated bougie class that took out $100k student loans.

The deb forgiveness was more relevant during the pandemic before the clear signs of rising inflation. At this point it still seems attractive as a measure of relief in order to increase spending without having to actually increase national debt or deflate the value of currency.

 

[tstorm823]

1) That would be the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. You're omitting the fact that Republicans voted uniformly against the police reform bill as the Dems introduced it. So if you're condemning the Dems for opposing something when they sponsored something "95% similar", then Republicans are guilty of exactly the same thing.

2) That would be the JUSTICE Act. 95% similar?! Bollocks. The Democrats' bill banned choke-holds and no-knock warrants in drug cases. The Republican bill didn't. The Democrats' bill lessened qualified immunity. The Republican bill didn't. The Republican bill essentially just expanded data collection, and provided funding to reward police departments if they didn't brutalise anyone; it did fuck all to actually prevent the actions that led to the death in the first place.

Yes, 95% similar. The bill addresses choke-holds and no-knock warrants, it just has a different mechanism of enforcement, and one that actually works.

Let me draw you a parallel situation: the federal government has marijuana listed as a controlled substance, recreational usage is banned federally, and yet an increasing number of states are allowing marijuana use and nobody is actually stopping it. The federal government did not ban drinking under the age of 21, but they tied highway funding to states setting the legal age to 21, and every single state did it. If you ban choke-holds with a federal bill, local leadership very well might go "it's the fed's law, let them enforce it" and do nothing, but if you tell them they'll lose their funding if they don't ban it themselves, that puts their skin in the game. It's a better bill.

2.5) Democrats reintroduced their own bill after the Republican one fell through. And Republicans again blocked it.

But that's not how the US legislature operates. Opposing viewpoints are presented, and then they are supposed to deliberate and compromise and find a common ground that a majority can all agree with. Repeatedly proposing a failed bill is just doing nothing with more theatrics. Nancy Pelosi refusing to debate the bill is exactly the same as Mitch McConnell blocking legislation, just without the honesty.

The deb forgiveness was more relevant during the pandemic before the clear signs of rising inflation. At this point it still seems attractive as a measure of relief in order to increase spending without having to actually increase national debt or deflate the value of currency.

You don't think the elimination of trillions in debt would deflate the currency? It would pull incentives out of the workforce, it would release a bunch of people with suddenly no debt to take on mortgages and further inflate the current housing bubble. And it would increase spending, which causes inflation. More people trying to buy the same amount of goods increases the equilibrium price for those goods. That is supply and demand. When you take out one money sink entirely, the money will flow to the others, increasing the price of everything else: food, clothes, housing, everything would cost more. If the middle class is suddenly debt free and willing to spend less frugally at the grocery store, it takes incentive away from the store to keep the prices down, they'll make more charging more. And the actual lower class who didn't even have the chance to go to college gain nothing at all. It's a bad idea.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you all haven't noticed, tstorm is explicitly not talking about this issue of republican stated intent, but instead trying to talk about platonic republican ideals that don't exist in real life.

 

[meiam]

It's not "dominating the discourse" because one Democratic representative said it once. Its "dominating the discourse" because attack ads constantly accuse people of supporting things they never supported in the first place.

For the public who only sorta pay attention to politic that's the same thing. If they see a clip of a democrat supporting an extreme policy they're not going to go out of their way to verify what the opinion of all hundreds of dem on this topic is. They'll just go "whelp, I guess the democrat are cookie crazy too" and move on.

 

[Bedinsis]

1) Democrats wrote a police reform bill, related to practices involved in George Floyd's death.
2) Republicans wrote a 95% similar bill.

Silvanus already addressed this, but "There are similarities on some issues, lawmakers say, but also vast differences.".

Also: to get a complete picture of the differences between the bills, I found a handy table in this article. To me it seems like 95 % similar require quite a bit of squinting.

EDIT: Typing this took long enough that I missed the follow-up. Sorry about that.

 

[tstorm823]

If you all haven't noticed, tstorm is explicitly not talking about this issue of republican stated intent, but instead trying to talk about platonic republican ideals that don't exist in real life.

You want me to start at the top?

getting rid of CPS

Actually says reform, nobody is eliminating child protection.

repealing the Minimum Wage Act

And have localities determine minimum wage, not that controversial honestly. Federal minimum wage doesn't actually make sense when a living wage varies so much by geography.

teaching kids that life begins at fertilization

It just does.

calling homosexuality "an abnormal lifestyle choice"

It just factually doesn't have that language. The closest you get is "non-traditional" sexual behavior, and the single mention of "lifestyle choice" is in a list of characteristics they oppose identifying voters as, along with race, origin, creed, and sexuality.

repealing the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Because it draws districts based on race. Funny enough, this could actually be an electoral advantage for Democrats nationally, as they sometimes accidentally get packed and cracked by the requirement of having majority minority districts, though in Texas specifically it probably benefits Democrats. That provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been challenged and limited in the Supreme Court, basically everything short of declared unconstitutional, and chances are there will come a day when that provision is axed.

and declaring that Biden didn't legitimately win the 2020 election.

Yeah, they get a little kooky here about the alleged fraud, but their stated intent is "to show up to vote in November of 2022", so I'm not gonna complain about this particular broken clock.

 

[tstorm823]

Silvanus already addressed this, but "There are similarities on some issues, lawmakers say, but also vast differences.".

Also: to get a complete picture of the differences between the bills, I found a handy table in this article. To me it seems like 95 % similar require quite a bit of squinting.

EDIT: Typing this took long enough that I missed the follow-up. Sorry about that.

To the edit: you're good, if I wasn't goofing off at work, I wouldn't have responded yet anyway!

To the post itself: really, the difference is qualified immunity. Democrats want to get rid of qualified immunity. Republicans don't (myself included). It seems just inherently wrong to arm a person and train them to shoot someone and then let people sue them directly for damages while they were following orders. Like, if a restaurant gives someone food poisoning, it hardly makes sense to sue the server that brought the food out. Personally, I would be for some more precise guidelines on when an individual is acting on their own and when they are acting in their capacity as a police officer, as that line is vague and has certainly been abused to avoid personal liability where there should be, but that's the sort of thing that should be hashed out in deliberation between "no qualified immunity" and "no changes to qualified immunity".

Most of the rest is the same issues addressed with the same intended goals through slightly different mechanisms. Like, the Republican version didn't address police militarization, and the Democratic version didn't address other officers intervening, but a compromise bill would likely have provisions for both in it, the qualified immunity part was the only real meaty point of contention.

But like, the issue that killed the discussion is that groups further left than the Democrats dropped support for police reform. Compromising would be seen as siding with Republicans to support the police against the left, and Pelosi isn't interested in any paradigm where Republicans aren't the primary enemy. Hence, that brief moment where Democrats jumped on "defund the police" just to escape that debate in the short term. I don't think Democrats in general ever really wanted to defund the police, but unlike Silvanus' characterization of a one person movement, a lot of Democrats talked about it

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If you all haven't noticed, tstorm is explicitly not talking about this issue of republican stated intent, but instead trying to talk about platonic republican ideals that don't exist in real life.

Yep. We *have* the actual platonic republican ideals, and it's that batshit insane agenda they just voted on

 

[dreng3]

You don't think the elimination of trillions in debt would deflate the currency? It would pull incentives out of the workforce, it would release a bunch of people with suddenly no debt to take on mortgages and further inflate the current housing bubble. And it would increase spending, which causes inflation. More people trying to buy the same amount of goods increases the equilibrium price for those goods. That is supply and demand. When you take out one money sink entirely, the money will flow to the others, increasing the price of everything else: food, clothes, housing, everything would cost more. If the middle class is suddenly debt free and willing to spend less frugally at the grocery store, it takes incentive away from the store to keep the prices down, they'll make more charging more. And the actual lower class who didn't even have the chance to go to college gain nothing at all. It's a bad idea.

1. You will note that unemployment is about a historical low, and that it might actually serve the economy well if some people were able to take positions that paid less but they enjoyed more. Releasing people from student debt might achieve that. It might also go in the other direction, but it seems a pretty universal truth that people want to work.

2. I don't know much about the american housing market, or the lending system, but it seems to me that not having to pay off debt would allow people more choice in terms of housing and would actually make them more financially secure, meaning that they should be able to get better loans? And it seems to me that the housing problem isn't really caused by individuals or families buying homes, but by corporations and landlords buying up homes and raising prices. This would actually help younger generations get housing.

3. The problem in the U.S. doesn't seem to be availability of goods, but rather the pricing and speculation by suppliers of goods, both gas and housing is disproportionally expensive compared to the amount available, but somehow the prices just keep on going up.

4. The middle class might be willing to be less frugal, sure, but store owners could always just not raise prices, that isn't really on the people buying, that's on the people selling.

5.It might not seem like it would directly benefit the lower class, but there is actually a fair number of people with degrees that aren't middle class who'd benefit immensely from debt forgiveness. Furthermore it could give people with degrees the financial freedom to work in a field related to their degree, either by letting them relocate or by letting them take a hit on insurance or pay, potentially allowing those without degrees to take the newly available jobs.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, 95% similar. The bill addresses choke-holds and no-knock warrants, it just has a different mechanism of enforcement, and one that actually works.

It incentivises forces not to use them. That is categorically not a "mechanism of enforcement".

Let me draw you a parallel situation: the federal government has marijuana listed as a controlled substance, recreational usage is banned federally, and yet an increasing number of states are allowing marijuana use and nobody is actually stopping it. The federal government did not ban drinking under the age of 21, but they tied highway funding to states setting the legal age to 21, and every single state did it. If you ban choke-holds with a federal bill, local leadership very well might go "it's the fed's law, let them enforce it" and do nothing, but if you tell them they'll lose their funding if they don't ban it themselves, that puts their skin in the game. It's a better bill.

Oh, please. That's not a parallel situation at all. One involves the criminalisation of an act among the entire population; the other involves the criminalisation of an act among officers. The former requires officers to track down perpetrators; non-enforcement simply involves... not putting in the work. There is no method by which the Federal Government can consider an officer in contravention.

The latter requires officers themselves to refrain from an act. Contravention is known, because it's a positive, provable act, completely unlike the above.

The former requires the Fed to prove a negative. The latter requires the Fed to prove a positive. They're incomparable in terms of the mechanisms at the Fed's disposal.]

But that's not how the US legislature operates. Opposing viewpoints are presented, and then they are supposed to deliberate and compromise and find a common ground that a majority can all agree with. Repeatedly proposing a failed bill is just doing nothing with more theatrics. Nancy Pelosi refusing to debate the bill is exactly the same as Mitch McConnell blocking legislation, just without the honesty.

Those theatrics presented the only opportunity for negotiation, because talks did resume. Republicans then refused to budge, because they insisted on maintaining immunity for officers guilty of misconduct.

BTW, if your argument is that Democrats should've agreed to the Republican bill because it's "95% the same", how come that same argument doesn't apply to the Republicans refusing the Democrats' bill?

 

[Silvanus]

For the public who only sorta pay attention to politic that's the same thing. If they see a clip of a democrat supporting an extreme policy they're not going to go out of their way to verify what the opinion of all hundreds of dem on this topic is. They'll just go "whelp, I guess the democrat are cookie crazy too" and move on.

Then it's not actually the Democrats pushing the discourse in that direction at all. It's the shoddy critical thinking of the public.

 

[BrawlMan]

If you all haven't noticed, tstorm is explicitly not talking about this issue of republican stated intent, but instead trying to talk about platonic republican ideals that don't exist in real life.

So goal posting as always. Nothing new here. He don't stand for shit. Only cowards and abusers in power.

 

[tstorm823]

1. You will note that unemployment is about a historical low, and that it might actually serve the economy well if some people were able to take positions that paid less but they enjoyed more. Releasing people from student debt might achieve that. It might also go in the other direction, but it seems a pretty universal truth that people want to work.

"Unemployment" is the measure of people looking for work that cannot find a job. The historically low unemployment rate is a combination of both job seekers finding jobs and people deciding not to even seek employment.

2. I don't know much about the american housing market, or the lending system, but it seems to me that not having to pay off debt would allow people more choice in terms of housing and would actually make them more financially secure, meaning that they should be able to get better loans? And it seems to me that the housing problem isn't really caused by individuals or families buying homes, but by corporations and landlords buying up homes and raising prices. This would actually help younger generations get housing.

Right, loan forgiveness would help people buy houses. Specifically, it would help 20 something middle-class college grads outcompete older but poorer people in acquiring financing and winning bids. I personally don't think this is a good thing.

3. The problem in the U.S. doesn't seem to be availability of goods, but rather the pricing and speculation by suppliers of goods, both gas and housing is disproportionally expensive compared to the amount available, but somehow the prices just keep on going up.

Exactly, because the limiting factor putting downward pressure on pricing is the availability of money in the hands of consumers. Sellers can't price too high or they miss out on too many sales so as to make less profit as a result. If you unleash the finances of one subset of people and they are willing to pay double, then the store can safely sell half as many things at double the price while making more money. This is one of the issues of inequality. I don't personally see equality as a virtue in and of itself, but it is a practical foundation for avoiding neglect for half the populace. The people with piles of student loans are not the lower class in America, giving them more buying power diminishes the value of catering to the poor.

4. The middle class might be willing to be less frugal, sure, but store owners could always just not raise prices, that isn't really on the people buying, that's on the people selling.

That's not how economics works. If prices stay below the natural equilibrium, things sell out, and then the producers have to react, which likely involves them raising prices, and then the stores are squished in the middle and have to raise prices.

5.It might not seem like it would directly benefit the lower class, but there is actually a fair number of people with degrees that aren't middle class who'd benefit immensely from debt forgiveness. Furthermore it could give people with degrees the financial freedom to work in a field related to their degree, either by letting them relocate or by letting them take a hit on insurance or pay, potentially allowing those without degrees to take the newly available jobs.

I don't think you appreciate that in order to take out giant student loans, one must first have the financial security to not have a job for somewhere between a few years and a decade. You're not actually lower class if you have parents that can support you for 5 years into adulthood, regardless of the state of your personal finances. The "poorest" people aren't actually poor, because you have to have money first to acquire large amounts of debt.

There aren't jobs related to everyone's degrees. There just aren't. As you said, we are at low unemployment, which doesn't necessarily mean people are all working, but it does means employers are having difficulty filling spots. If you can't get into your field now, it means there's just not enough room for everyone who wants to be there. Period.

 

[dreng3]

Right, loan forgiveness would help people buy houses. Specifically, it would help 20 something middle-class college grads outcompete older but poorer people in acquiring financing and winning bids. I personally don't think this is a good thing.

You mean the people who have been in the job market for longer and have had time to accumulate wealth that could the be used to purchase property, which have increased immensely in value in the last decade or so?

I'm not saying that older people can get bent, but if a 20 something year old with a college degree can outcompete you for housing you might have made some really poor decisions. Or lived in america and had a medical emergency.

That's not how economics works. If prices stay below the natural equilibrium, things sell out, and then the producers have to react, which likely involves them raising prices, and then the stores are squished in the middle and have to raise prices.

It might be unique to american culture, but overconsumption of goods isn't really that common in most of the western world, people don't tend to buy duplicates and triplicates of things they already have. Since there is enough of the product to meet demand, and some to spare, in the current situation it seems unlikely that debt forgiveness would cause stores to empty.

There aren't jobs related to everyone's degrees. There just aren't. As you said, we are at low unemployment, which doesn't necessarily mean people are all working, but it does means employers are having difficulty filling spots. If you can't get into your field now, it means there's just not enough room for everyone who wants to be there. Period.

Or it means that the incentives are different. If you can't afford to move to the next town over where the job applicable to your degree is you're screwed and might as well just take whatever unskilled labour is available, especially since you have to pay off a loan.
But if the guy with the college degree can move into that slightly more expensive place closer to his job he
A) Won't consume as much fuel, thus lowering demand.
B) Won't be occupying a lower priced home that could be used by someone with lower income.
C) Won't be taking up an unskilled position, meaning that the person without a higher education can find a job with greater ease.

 

[tstorm823]

You mean the people who have been in the job market for longer and have had time to accumulate wealth that could the be used to purchase property, which have increased immensely in value in the last decade or so?

I'm not saying that older people can get bent, but if a 20 something year old with a college degree can outcompete you for housing you might have made some really poor decisions. Or lived in america and had a medical emergency.

It might be unique to american culture, but overconsumption of goods isn't really that common in most of the western world, people don't tend to buy duplicates and triplicates of things they already have. Since there is enough of the product to meet demand, and some to spare, in the current situation it seems unlikely that debt forgiveness would cause stores to empty.

Or it means that the incentives are different. If you can't afford to move to the next town over where the job applicable to your degree is you're screwed and might as well just take whatever unskilled labour is available, especially since you have to pay off a loan.
But if the guy with the college degree can move into that slightly more expensive place closer to his job he
A) Won't consume as much fuel, thus lowering demand.
B) Won't be occupying a lower priced home that could be used by someone with lower income.
C) Won't be taking up an unskilled position, meaning that the person without a higher education can find a job with greater ease.

So you've taken the position that poor people might deserve it, you don't understand why fewer people might choose to buy things as they get more expensive, and you believe that enabling semi-well off people to more easily leave a poorer area is good for the people left behind.

Ok then.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You want me to start at the top?

Actually says reform, nobody is eliminating child protection.

95. We call for the eventual abolishment of CPS.

I don't think you read this.

And have localities determine minimum wage, not that controversial honestly. Federal minimum wage doesn't actually make sense when a living wage varies so much by geography.

You can't even hire people right now on the Texas minimum wage, let along the federal minimum. If republicans want to go even lower they'll have to break out coercion tactics that we've seen they're all too happy to pull out to force people into an underclass. I'm sure you're happy about that.

It just does.

Hard disagree since I know what the reason behind this is.

It just factually doesn't have that language. The closest you get is "non-traditional" sexual behavior, and the single mention of "lifestyle choice" is in a list of characteristics they oppose identifying voters as, along with race, origin, creed, and sexuality.

And they've ran out the gay republicans. Just straight (heh) run them out of the conference, so you're fooling nobody here. Not to mention they want to ban gay marriage again.

Because it draws districts based on race. Funny enough, this could actually be an electoral advantage for Democrats nationally, as they sometimes accidentally get packed and cracked by the requirement of having majority minority districts, though in Texas specifically it probably benefits Democrats. That provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been challenged and limited in the Supreme Court, basically everything short of declared unconstitutional, and chances are there will come a day when that provision is axed.

We can once again look to Texas republicans for context on what they aim to do with this,

A GOP power grab shatters 30 years of political progress for Black voters in Galveston County

Republicans dismantled the only Galveston County commissioners precinct in which voters of color held political clout. It’s a major blow for Black and Hispanic voters who had been building political momentum.

www.texastribune.org

And you're once again fooling nobody.

Yeah, they get a little kooky here about the alleged fraud, but their stated intent is "to show up to vote in November of 2022", so I'm not gonna complain about this particular broken clock.

They have literally been relitigating the election loss for a year and a half now, making it a cornerstone of the party is a pretty big yikes.

And I note no objection to other lunacy in the platform, like repealing the 17th amendment so people can't vote on senators anymore, overturning any municipal laws the state doesn't like, removing ethanol from fuel (which will crank the price up even higher at the pump), removing licensing laws, repealing car safety inspections, eliminating the income tax entirely, carrying guns into liquor stores and bars (in fact, gun legislation entirely), drafting grandfathers to war if conscription comes up, abolishing the department of education, banning sex education entirely, throwing away all their principles on not legislating guns, taxes, licenses, etc based on voter registration cards, abolishing welfare, opposing all vaccines (not just COVID, all), NO MORE FLOURIDATED DRINKING WATER (read in general Ripper voice), no contact tracing in a pandemic situation, "pornography crisis", getting rid of no-fault divorces, along with a general disdain of popular governance (as in literal, they don't want people to vote on things).

 

[tstorm823]

95. We call for the eventual abolishment of CPS.

I don't think you read this.

I did not, it's not in the document at the top of the thread.

You can't even hire people right now on the Texas minimum wage, let along the federal minimum. If republicans want to go even lower they'll have to break out coercion tactics that we've seen they're all too happy to pull out to force people into an underclass. I'm sure you're happy about that.

It's not about what the minimum is set to, it's about who is setting it. Smalls towns in remote places do not generate the same amount of traffic as the same businesses would in cities. A hardware store in a midwestern hamlet can't afford the same payroll as the same store would in LA. A $15 minimum wage is totally unlivable in most major cities and untenable for many small towns, which is why the propose doing it by locality only.

Hard disagree since I know what the reason behind this is.

I appreciate your honesty, admitting that you only disagree to make a political stance independent of truth.

We can once again look to Texas republicans for context on what they aim to do with this,

A GOP power grab shatters 30 years of political progress for Black voters in Galveston County

Republicans dismantled the only Galveston County commissioners precinct in which voters of color held political clout. It’s a major blow for Black and Hispanic voters who had been building political momentum.

www.texastribune.org

And you're once again fooling nobody.

You mean they de-gerrymandered the map. The map had previously been cut up into this shape: https://static.texastribune.org/med...67.806828974.1655896994-2075738854.1655896994

Which packed as many racial minorities as possible into a single district, giving them a single county representative and no voice at all in the other 4 precincts. That article talks about electing a black mayor as though that will go away, but that has nothing to do with county board districts. The city will still elect its mayor exactly the same. The article talks about the districts having a higher percentage of white voters than the overall population, as though that's the result of districting, but that's just pointing out that there are a lot of non-white, non-voters who live there.

Just, like, imagine if they were previously on the current map, and then they passed the old map packing all the minorities into one district. Would you not be upset at that?

 

[dreng3]

So you've taken the position that poor people might deserve it, you don't understand why fewer people might choose to buy things as they get more expensive, and you believe that enabling semi-well off people to more easily leave a poorer area is good for the people left behind.

Ok then.

Thank you for so obviously misrepresenting my points, makes it quite clear the value found in debating you.