Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5teerPike t1_ivpgm1g wrote

I'm still wondering how Phil Scott got in again, can I ask what the reasoning is here? Other than that he stood up to trump, what's the appeal?

Can you try to answer honestly ?

20

5teerPike t1_ivpke0p wrote

Even with covid, he didn't really do much to make our numbers ok in the beginning pre vaccine; and after the vaccines our cases skyrocketed because he dropped mask mandates.

If the only thing going for a republican is that they criticize trump, that's a horrendously low bar.

9

mojitz OP t1_ivpm8hi wrote

I think a lot of Clinton liberals get off on occasionally voting for a moderate Republican so that they can claim bipartisanship and feel morally superior as a result.

26

Trajikbpm t1_ivpnu13 wrote

He was good with covid so forget housing, min wage, jobs, child care...

He's safe with repubs cause hes not blue and he's safe with dems cause he won't disrupt the wealthy ones lives by helping poors.

Edit* just so theres no confusion I was making fun a dems voting for him even tho he did absolutely fuck all for them other than the bare minimum for covid.

13

kerosene_pickle t1_ivppn3g wrote

It’s been a while since I’ve read it but there’s a section in Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” which speaks about the appeal of conversion of non-believers. So Phil Scott rejecting Trump places him on this pedestal as someone who has seen the light, but in the end he governs like a regular republican

12

mojitz OP t1_ivpsawm wrote

Basically the lowest possible bar, but as much as I think it's misguided to keep voting for him, I think it's fair to say that he governs far more sensibly than most Republicans.

12

5teerPike t1_ivpvo8h wrote

I don't think he was good so much as VT having the second lowest population in the country did a lot of the heavy lifting with a basic mask mandate, which didn't count for much when mask mandates were lifted.

Didn't raise wages for workers like me once, I had to depend on tips as "hazard pay". After the pandemic, I'm never working retail again.

3

headgasketidiot t1_ivpy4nj wrote

I also found this baffling, but after talking to my less plugged in neighbors, I think there are two big factors at play.

First, Vermonters, and Americans in general, culturally value judging an individual based on their own merits. Scott has come out against Trump and doesn't act like the nutso Republicans. I think regular people really respect that even though it's misguided, since his affiliation with all those lunatics is entirely voluntary. People say things like "you can't judge him based on his party," when judging people by the company they choose to keep is actually such commonplace advice it's even a common idiom across several languages ("a man is judged by the company he keeps " in English; "Dime con quien andas y te diré quien eres" in Spanish).

In fact, it's not just voluntary; it's strategic and mutually beneficial. He shares campaigning resources with other Vermont GOP politicians as well as national Republican governors. He attends fundraising events with the Desantis and Abbot. Organizations like the Republican Governor's Association put money into his campaigns because they know Scott can raise funds from donors that would never go near someone like Noem. His very presence at these kinds of fundraisers launders the image of the entire party.

Second, I think he plays into a common American fear. Vermonters know what policies would make our lives better, and we elect legislators who support those things. But every time in all of American history someone has pushed for social progress, businesses tell us that it might force them to lay off workers. They say it'll cost jobs. It's a threat. We've internalized this threat so much that I think we're afraid of progress. We're afraid of it even though we don't need to be. Literally the entire rest of the world has paid family leave, and they're all super happy with it. Every other developed nation has single payer healthcare and much affordable or free higher education. We know what we need to do, but we're too afraid to do it, so we elect Scott. He vetoes paid family leave, higher minimum wage, etc., with his Uncle Phil demeanor and tut-tuts about fiscal responsibility. It plays directly our fear and we absolutely eat up the "bipartisanship" of it all, especially since people see him as someone who has proven himself by rejecting Trump and such.

31

Kixeliz t1_ivpyri2 wrote

Yea, he's a business-first republican, has been from the jump. But he voted for Biden, so please ignore all the deaths and hospitalizations we saw from COVID after he lifted restrictions because businesses were complaining. Dragged his feet on legalizing marijuana, vetoed one bill, delayed appointments to the CCB, cost the state money, but he's so fiscally conservative. He will say whatever to cover his political shenanigans and voters eat it up. Frustrating.

9

dordemartinovic t1_ivq7nx5 wrote

No competitive opposition, he’s broadly popular, so serious potential opponents are just waiting and saving their political capital for later, when they think they’d have a chance

6

Vermonter623 t1_ivqeogp wrote

Now is the part of the story where you all find out how despite a majority, nothing will change in a measurable way. Like when they tried the paid sick time law but wouldn’t exempt small businesses so it would get vetoed intentionally and they would come back with no other legislation that would at least help SOME of the people

38

ASpicyAltAcc t1_ivqicr9 wrote

As someone who voted for Scott and for Ds for every other election, I feel like Scott works like a filter, I don't want every single fashionable idea on Twitter to become government policy. Rent control is a terrible idea, Scott was right to veto it. Making heating more expensive during a fuel shortage is a bad idea. Letting a cleaver wielding murdering psychopath go free was a bad idea. How does someone walking through downtown not see Burlington as its own entity, it's not the rest of Vermont.

6

Generic_Commenter-X t1_ivr3mqm wrote

European Socialist/Progressive here. I feel your pain, but it's probably better that a progressive legislature doesn't just steamroll a Republican governor. Vermonters knew that when they were voting for Scott, they were voting for someone who wouldn't always agree with the legislature. That's his mandate, in a sense. If the legislature doesn't, to some degree, respect that (even though they too have a collective mandate) my fear is that it will backfire on them. If I were to speculate, I would say that Vermonters want a progressive state and legislature because we're largely (the majority) socially liberal, environmentally aware, determinedly secular and feel that the state is in better hands with Democrats and Progressives as regards those issues. We know we don't want the inane, race-baiting and big-government church & state Republicanism (and tax give-aways) that's poisoning the rest of the country; but that doesn't mean Vermonters want social programs without an awareness of their cost. And so we elect Scott as governor. We want a progressive Mommy with a fiscally conservative Daddy (as George Lakoff might put it). If the legislature is going to overrule Scott, it should be carefully considered and with a mind toward the mandate given to Scott.

9

Sparrows_Shadow t1_ivr3osf wrote

While I do want many of these progressive things, they still cost money. A lot of money that we simply don't have in this state with the amount of people + the cost of living.

Get more people to move here, build, and then lets have a convo on those progressive ideas.

−1

MrYouKnowThe t1_ivr7r1n wrote

Because he’s the best choice. Usually if he vetoed something he had a good reason for it. He is a Vermonter and continues to try and keep those Vermont values that he believes in. 🤷🏻‍♂️. It seems to me that he will listen to both sides of the aisle. What’s wrong with him? He’s not a republican? Come on really? Maybe some of you should be a little more open minded like him. Let’s work together and find some common ground.

−6

headgasketidiot t1_ivr979h wrote

I happen to know cyprus just expanded its parental leave last month and has less than a million people.

https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/10/04/eight-weeks-paid-parental-leave-to-be-paid-for-all-parents/#:~:text=Parents%20with%20children%20up%20to,Kyriacos%20Koushos%20said%20on%20Tuesday.

That's off the top of my head because i happen to have a friend there. It's every single country. I guarantee you i can find you more if you're still not satisfied.

It's not data. It's fear. You made up data that isn't real to rationalize your fear.

8

Eagle_Arm t1_ivreows wrote

Saying he hasn't accomplished anything is disingenuous and just sticking head in sand.

Could slap "Phil Scott Accomplishments" in the old Google machine and it'd churn out some answers for you. Or just go to the governor's office website and see what they've done.

Don't need to like the guy, but saying did nothing is just lying.

0

contrary-contrarian t1_ivrhzhb wrote

Vermonters elect Scott because the Dems refuse to put up a reasonable candidate which will bite them SO HARD in the ass when Welch retires and Scott takes his seat and fucks up the senate.

The dems have zero backbone (as is tradition) and for some reason have rolled over to allow Scott to veto any helpful thing that might actually be passed.

Hopefully they grow one and use the super majority properly... but I'm not holding my breath.

10

[deleted] t1_ivt4q4t wrote

You make a good point about the company you keep. However, I disagree because I think we should value the individual over the party. I say this because I don’t 100% agree with the standard Dem or GOP party line. I want a politician to represent me that has supports policies from both sides of the aisle. If you meet those needs, I don’t care if it says republican or democrat besides your name.

The one thing I would like to see on the fed and state level though, is an end to the preference given to seniority, majority, and party. Like the chair/ranking member system for committees incentives party unity which isn’t actually good for Americans in general (I think).

1

headgasketidiot t1_ivt6b9y wrote

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in your analysis of voting for the individual, I ask that you take into account the full picture.

Being part of a party is a lot more than the letter besides your name. Like I said in my comment, Scott participates in Republican fundraising. He is part of fundraising organizations with some of the worst politicians in the US. This organization has an annual operating budget of almost $100 million, which they deployed to help flip Virginia on a bullshit CRT panic just last year:

>In 2021, we sent shockwaves across the country when we helped flip Virginia blue to red.

He's also happy to take their money:

> ... the Republican Governors Association, which has spent millions of dollars on super PAC ads backing Scott's candidacy.

Scott might use his words to criticize the national rise of the MAGA movement, but he collaborates with it and supports it with his actions. If you take that into account and still decide Scott is your man, by all means, but don't let him and others pretend like being a Republican is just a letter next to your name. That's a trick they're playing to keep your attention away from the huge fundraising machinery the party operates in the shadows.

edit: typo

4

Vermonter623 t1_ivt96dg wrote

If you check his record, he signs almost EVERY https://governor.vermont.gov/governor-scotts-blog/action-taken-governor-scott-bills-during-2022-legislative-session#block-system-main-menu bill that comes across his desk. The ones that get vetoed like paid sick leave are done so because they wouldn’t exempt small businesses. Oddly enough they didn’t rewrite the bill to exclude small businesses. Hmmmm.

−1

headgasketidiot t1_ivtagu2 wrote

Omg!!! No one ever knows about him and i don't know why! He's so fucking good!! His illustrations too.

Did you read Mr Pye too? So different from gormenghast and yet so clearly from the same strange and wonderful mind.

2

VThillbilly t1_ivtm2oz wrote

Quite frankly I'm still wondering why anyone could in good conscience could be a democrat? Republicans are Not good ether but no where near as batshit crazy as democrats. Scott is mainly a Democrat he really should just switch sides. I think that is why he gets elected he's a yes man but has just a sliver of decency and will not go along with some of the more outrageous crap Dems come up with. I think they let him win so it will keep the real people in the country pacified cause he's got a R but he also keeps the city folk pacified cause he's mainly a dem.

−4

Harmacc t1_ivxm9ng wrote

Listed to a recent interview and he talked about being surprised at the poverty he saw when traveling around. Like motherfucker, you’ve been governor for how many years now?

1

[deleted] t1_ix5ekyj wrote

First off, thank you for having a meaningful and civil political debate. It’s is appreciated even though we disagree.

While I think you are right, that the letter next to someone’s name is more than just that, it’s also not the ONLY thing that characterizes them or what they represent. As a voter, especially in a gubernatorial race, I feel better served voting for someone that most closely represents me rather then doing so because they are a republican or democrat. If memory serves I’ve split every ballot I’ve ever voted on.

1

headgasketidiot t1_ix5hjkz wrote

There's a really good book by Milton Mayer called "They Thought They Were Free." He was a Jewish journalist that moved to Germany shortly after WW2, where he befriended former Nazi party members and wrote about them. It's been a long time since I read it, but it really affected me, and what I got out of it was that regular people supported the nazis and the holocaust without really actually meaning to. They didn't even seem to have particular animosity towards Jews.

One of the people Mayer details in the book is a banker who joined the party late in its rise and was honesty pretty clearly never really super into it. This is what he told his long-time Jewish friend about his joining the party:

>With men like me in the party, things will be better. You'll see.

Days after that conversation, kristallnacht happened.

It's a bit of a theme in that person's story; the idea that good people in the party thought their membership in it was harmless, or could even help moderate it. Obviously, they didn't. In fact, that same person talks about how deeply he regretted his decision to join. He says the moderates who joined the party ended up making the extremism of the party possible.

Scott sits down, breaks bread, and actively collaborates with Abbott, DeSantis, Noem, and other actual fascists. That's a serious lack of judgement for even a regular person, but it's unacceptable to me in a person in a position of power. When I think about the lessons of history, I just can't forgive that.

1