Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:01 pm Post subject:
BILBJH wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
BILBJH wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Pelosi didn't lose. She successfully impeached Trump twice. The second impeachment also peeled off 10 votes from the President's party, which is (sadly) a historic record. Also, we may can predict the 99% most likely outcome of the upcoming Senate trial, but there's still a *slim* chance.
As for political efficacy, Trump lost. His "dead body" wasn't "given life." His last ditch lazy ploy to derail the Biden campaign was to go after Hunter with the re-heated Ukraine nonsense, which didn't become a "but his emailz" nonsense scandal because Trump was already impeached for the same scheme nine months earlier. The first impeachment was politically efficacious in the medium-term along with being the 100% right thing to do.
As for this most recent successful impeachment of arguably the worst president in US history, how in the actual (bleep) do you turn your back on an armed, murderous insurrection on the U.S. Capitol directed to attack by a sitting president?!? If Pelosi and Schumer are "giving [the body] life" why are so many Republican scumbags freaking out about it and threatening violence if Pelosi, Schumer, and Congressional Dems follow through on it? Because they think a second impeachment is good for Trump since Schumer doesn't have 67 Senate votes?
Yeah she so successfully impeached him that he still almost won a Presidential election with 74 million votes.. after he mismanaged a pandemic that killed almost 400 thousand Americans and still counting.
I'm not interested in symbolic displays by Pelosi and Schumer... I'm interested in results. She lost ground in the House after this idiot murdered thousands of fellow citizens.
She is a bright woman and should be respected for her accomplishments... but to barely beat the most horrible President of our time tells me that something in the Democratic leadership is sorely lacking.
What if I told you 74 million Americans (at least) think Trump's done a great job handling the pandemic?
And that's even before getting into issues of incumbency and the counter-majoritarian electoral college.
If you are a party leader... it's still your responsibility to cultivate those votes no matter how misguided those people might be.
Maybe if she worked for Medicare 4 All or providing a free bachelor's degree for that demographic she'd have something other than identity politics to sell them...
But as a centrist that's she really has... so it's no wonder they were underwhelmed.
There we go. The centrist claim against a solid liberal. And the identity politics canard. I’m beginning to wonder which of our virulent Bernie bro troll accounts disappeared around July... _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Pelosi didn't lose. She successfully impeached Trump twice. The second impeachment also peeled off 10 votes from the President's party, which is (sadly) a historic record. Also, we may can predict the 99% most likely outcome of the upcoming Senate trial, but there's still a *slim* chance.
As for political efficacy, Trump lost. His "dead body" wasn't "given life." His last ditch lazy ploy to derail the Biden campaign was to go after Hunter with the re-heated Ukraine nonsense, which didn't become a "but his emailz" nonsense scandal because Trump was already impeached for the same scheme nine months earlier. The first impeachment was politically efficacious in the medium-term along with being the 100% right thing to do.
As for this most recent successful impeachment of arguably the worst president in US history, how in the actual (bleep) do you turn your back on an armed, murderous insurrection on the U.S. Capitol directed to attack by a sitting president?!? If Pelosi and Schumer are "giving [the body] life" why are so many Republican scumbags freaking out about it and threatening violence if Pelosi, Schumer, and Congressional Dems follow through on it? Because they think a second impeachment is good for Trump since Schumer doesn't have 67 Senate votes?
Yeah she so successfully impeached him that he still almost won a Presidential election with 74 million votes.. after he mismanaged a pandemic that killed almost 400 thousand Americans and still counting.
I'm not interested in symbolic displays by Pelosi and Schumer... I'm interested in results. She lost ground in the House after this idiot murdered thousands of fellow citizens.
She is a bright woman and should be respected for her accomplishments... but to barely beat the most horrible President of our time tells me that something in the Democratic leadership is sorely lacking.
What if I told you 74 million Americans (at least) think Trump's done a great job handling the pandemic?
And that's even before getting into issues of incumbency and the counter-majoritarian electoral college.
If you are a party leader... it's still your responsibility to cultivate those votes no matter how misguided those people might be.
Maybe if she worked for Medicare 4 All or providing a free bachelor's degree for that demographic she'd have something other than identity politics to sell them...
But as a centrist that's she really has... so it's no wonder they were underwhelmed.
There we go. The centrist claim against a solid liberal. And the identity politics canard. I’m beginning to wonder which of our virulent Bernie bro troll accounts disappeared around July...
You've used the words puerile, virulent, and troll to describe myself or my posts. You've also accused me of making another account.
All I've done is express an opinion differing from yours.
If you think that will convince people to be persuaded by your position... well keep on doing you. Seems counterproductive to attack and insult those who simply have differing opinions.
Pelosi didn't lose. She successfully impeached Trump twice. The second impeachment also peeled off 10 votes from the President's party, which is (sadly) a historic record. Also, we may can predict the 99% most likely outcome of the upcoming Senate trial, but there's still a *slim* chance.
As for political efficacy, Trump lost. His "dead body" wasn't "given life." His last ditch lazy ploy to derail the Biden campaign was to go after Hunter with the re-heated Ukraine nonsense, which didn't become a "but his emailz" nonsense scandal because Trump was already impeached for the same scheme nine months earlier. The first impeachment was politically efficacious in the medium-term along with being the 100% right thing to do.
As for this most recent successful impeachment of arguably the worst president in US history, how in the actual (bleep) do you turn your back on an armed, murderous insurrection on the U.S. Capitol directed to attack by a sitting president?!? If Pelosi and Schumer are "giving [the body] life" why are so many Republican scumbags freaking out about it and threatening violence if Pelosi, Schumer, and Congressional Dems follow through on it? Because they think a second impeachment is good for Trump since Schumer doesn't have 67 Senate votes?
Yeah she so successfully impeached him that he still almost won a Presidential election with 74 million votes.. after he mismanaged a pandemic that killed almost 400 thousand Americans and still counting.
I'm not interested in symbolic displays by Pelosi and Schumer... I'm interested in results. She lost ground in the House after this idiot murdered thousands of fellow citizens.
She is a bright woman and should be respected for her accomplishments... but to barely beat the most horrible President of our time tells me that something in the Democratic leadership is sorely lacking.
What if I told you 74 million Americans (at least) think Trump's done a great job handling the pandemic?
And that's even before getting into issues of incumbency and the counter-majoritarian electoral college.
If you are a party leader... it's still your responsibility to cultivate those votes no matter how misguided those people might be.
Maybe if she worked for Medicare 4 All or providing a free bachelor's degree for that demographic she'd have something other than identity politics to sell them...
But as a centrist that's she really has... so it's no wonder they were underwhelmed.
Nancy Pelosi isn't "party leader." She doesn't run the DNC or DSSC. She's not the party presidential nominee.
"Identity politics." You do realize that voters who make under 50k overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in back to back elections, don't you? You do realize that Trump's base is the exurban white petit bourgeois who often have bachelor's degrees and healthcare plans, don't you?
It's like you've been transported naked and ignorant, a mere babe, from the year 2016. _________________ Under New Management
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:41 pm Post subject:
BILBJH wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
BILBJH wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
BILBJH wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Pelosi didn't lose. She successfully impeached Trump twice. The second impeachment also peeled off 10 votes from the President's party, which is (sadly) a historic record. Also, we may can predict the 99% most likely outcome of the upcoming Senate trial, but there's still a *slim* chance.
As for political efficacy, Trump lost. His "dead body" wasn't "given life." His last ditch lazy ploy to derail the Biden campaign was to go after Hunter with the re-heated Ukraine nonsense, which didn't become a "but his emailz" nonsense scandal because Trump was already impeached for the same scheme nine months earlier. The first impeachment was politically efficacious in the medium-term along with being the 100% right thing to do.
As for this most recent successful impeachment of arguably the worst president in US history, how in the actual (bleep) do you turn your back on an armed, murderous insurrection on the U.S. Capitol directed to attack by a sitting president?!? If Pelosi and Schumer are "giving [the body] life" why are so many Republican scumbags freaking out about it and threatening violence if Pelosi, Schumer, and Congressional Dems follow through on it? Because they think a second impeachment is good for Trump since Schumer doesn't have 67 Senate votes?
Yeah she so successfully impeached him that he still almost won a Presidential election with 74 million votes.. after he mismanaged a pandemic that killed almost 400 thousand Americans and still counting.
I'm not interested in symbolic displays by Pelosi and Schumer... I'm interested in results. She lost ground in the House after this idiot murdered thousands of fellow citizens.
She is a bright woman and should be respected for her accomplishments... but to barely beat the most horrible President of our time tells me that something in the Democratic leadership is sorely lacking.
What if I told you 74 million Americans (at least) think Trump's done a great job handling the pandemic?
And that's even before getting into issues of incumbency and the counter-majoritarian electoral college.
If you are a party leader... it's still your responsibility to cultivate those votes no matter how misguided those people might be.
Maybe if she worked for Medicare 4 All or providing a free bachelor's degree for that demographic she'd have something other than identity politics to sell them...
But as a centrist that's she really has... so it's no wonder they were underwhelmed.
There we go. The centrist claim against a solid liberal. And the identity politics canard. I’m beginning to wonder which of our virulent Bernie bro troll accounts disappeared around July...
You've used the words puerile, virulent, and troll to describe myself or my posts. You've also accused me of making another account.
All I've done is express an opinion differing from yours.
If you think that will convince people to be persuaded by your position... well keep on doing you. Seems counterproductive to attack and insult those who simply have differing opinions.
Well perhaps if you didn’t regurgitate the same tired arguments we’ve dealt with for much longer than your account has been here, replete with ad hominem and then cry ad hominem, you wouldn’t get this reaction. I didnt open with this as you eased into where you were going, merely when you dropped the niceties and went straight to the agitprop. You’re not blazing new ground or disagreeing with much substance. Just the word for word Bernie stuff.
I’m not really trying to convince you, learned that lesson a while back. I’m just not going to play along. Your argument is based on completely incorrect assumptions that many have gone into great detail on, has failed spectacularly with the very people you claim should be reached out to, and has won nothing competitive against the GOP, quite the opposite. So the you’re doing it wrong, stop talking about race and attack the rich and dump the “centrists” because they’re lousy just isn’t going to get a warm, oh, how interesting, my good friend greenfrog used to say that exactly. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
It would be great if the proletariat - white, black, progressive, conservative, Christian, atheist, etc. - would unite and rise up and defeat their capitalist oppressors. Politics is the art of the possible, but that coalition is just not possible. And any familiarity with our political culture would lead to that conclusion. You won't convince a confederate flag waving, conspiracy theory believing nut, even if he's technically part of the industrial proletariat who lives paycheck to paycheck, to join you by talking about M4A and free college. It doesn't work that way. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:11 pm Post subject:
The proletariat never defeats the 1%. At best they just change who it is. The politburo and the connected to leadership are the 1% even in a communist state. And that system collapses economically.
So we are stuck with capitalism and the rich. So we need regulation and taxation designed to keep money flowing and the safety net funded for those who don’t win the life lottery, and maybe some consistent incentives to bring opportunity to more. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:18 pm Post subject:
What if we strengthened Obamacare (and didn’t disappear in the mid terms because it didn’t go far enough and leave it to be gutted for a decade)and created a public option so that all those who want public health care can have it? What if we lowered the Medicare age? We could do these things and they wouldn’t make Medicare for all (a bad concept really because the system would collapse if we just put everyone on Medicare without an enormous, as in stupendously enormous tax increase across the board) conceptually or actually impossible, and would in fact make them more possible. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Pelosi didn't lose. She successfully impeached Trump twice. The second impeachment also peeled off 10 votes from the President's party, which is (sadly) a historic record. Also, we may can predict the 99% most likely outcome of the upcoming Senate trial, but there's still a *slim* chance.
As for political efficacy, Trump lost. His "dead body" wasn't "given life." His last ditch lazy ploy to derail the Biden campaign was to go after Hunter with the re-heated Ukraine nonsense, which didn't become a "but his emailz" nonsense scandal because Trump was already impeached for the same scheme nine months earlier. The first impeachment was politically efficacious in the medium-term along with being the 100% right thing to do.
As for this most recent successful impeachment of arguably the worst president in US history, how in the actual (bleep) do you turn your back on an armed, murderous insurrection on the U.S. Capitol directed to attack by a sitting president?!? If Pelosi and Schumer are "giving [the body] life" why are so many Republican scumbags freaking out about it and threatening violence if Pelosi, Schumer, and Congressional Dems follow through on it? Because they think a second impeachment is good for Trump since Schumer doesn't have 67 Senate votes?
Yeah she so successfully impeached him that he still almost won a Presidential election with 74 million votes.. after he mismanaged a pandemic that killed almost 400 thousand Americans and still counting.
I'm not interested in symbolic displays by Pelosi and Schumer... I'm interested in results. She lost ground in the House after this idiot murdered thousands of fellow citizens.
She is a bright woman and should be respected for her accomplishments... but to barely beat the most horrible President of our time tells me that something in the Democratic leadership is sorely lacking.
What if I told you 74 million Americans (at least) think Trump's done a great job handling the pandemic?
And that's even before getting into issues of incumbency and the counter-majoritarian electoral college.
If you are a party leader... it's still your responsibility to cultivate those votes no matter how misguided those people might be.
Maybe if she worked for Medicare 4 All or providing a free bachelor's degree for that demographic she'd have something other than identity politics to sell them...
But as a centrist that's she really has... so it's no wonder they were underwhelmed.
There we go. The centrist claim against a solid liberal. And the identity politics canard. I’m beginning to wonder which of our virulent Bernie bro troll accounts disappeared around July...
You've used the words puerile, virulent, and troll to describe myself or my posts. You've also accused me of making another account.
All I've done is express an opinion differing from yours.
If you think that will convince people to be persuaded by your position... well keep on doing you. Seems counterproductive to attack and insult those who simply have differing opinions.
Well perhaps if you didn’t regurgitate the same tired arguments we’ve dealt with for much longer than your account has been here, replete with ad hominem and then cry ad hominem, you wouldn’t get this reaction. I didnt open with this as you eased into where you were going, merely when you dropped the niceties and went straight to the agitprop. You’re not blazing new ground or disagreeing with much substance. Just the word for word Bernie stuff.
I’m not really trying to convince you, learned that lesson a while back. I’m just not going to play along. Your argument is based on completely incorrect assumptions that many have gone into great detail on, has failed spectacularly with the very people you claim should be reached out to, and has won nothing competitive against the GOP, quite the opposite. So the you’re doing it wrong, stop talking about race and attack the rich and dump the “centrists” because they’re lousy just isn’t going to get a warm, oh, how interesting, my good friend greenfrog used to say that exactly.
I get that I'm a newcomer, and I haven't read the thread more than a week.
So it's natural if I repeat points that may have already been made.
I like to read most of the opinions even if I am further left than most of you here.
I simply believe we can do better than a marriage of convenience between moderate Dems and Republicans as an endgame strategy.
Was it necessary to vote for Biden this election? Absolutely.
I voted for Stein last time because I couldn't stand the idea of HRC being our first woman President. If she were the second woman President I would have held my nose and voted. Or maybe if I lived somewhere like Florida.
But I dutifully voted for Biden even though I was disappointed how the mainstream media and Clyburn sold Sanders down the river and crafted the narrative how he was an "extreme" candidate.
Bernie's a totally decent guy. He hasn't flipped flopped on gay marriage, for profit prisons, anti imperialist wars. Most of his supporters are perfectly average, normal polite people. It's no accident that rude people from all sides suddenly appeared out of nowhere, trolling and aggravating everyone in sight. It's way easier to piss people off than it is to convince them of a political vision. When someone Republican or Democrat... Centrist... or Liberal starts attacking you... ask yourself if this person might be an operative for someone. There's no reason to be uncivil when you are trying to win people to your cause... my guess is that many of the rudest trolls are people from the other side trying to destroy them from within.
The only ad hominems I launched were against Trump. I don't really care for Pelosi, but I actually tried to say diplomatic things when I discussed her because I could tell some really admired her.
As far as Bernie goes... he was the best of flawed field imo... I didn't like the way he repeated himself over and over (might be a function of his age) I didn't like his inability to build support within the party... and I remember some inconsistencies he had about the 2nd amendment. My point being that I'm far from a Bernie zealot... I just felt he was a decent guy that had a long track record of being consistent with his politics.
I liked Warren originally more than any of them, but she kept moving to the center and in my opinion her ambition began to outshine her principles.
I still would have voted for her... but she broke my heart when she backed Hillary over Bernie and then again did it this year with Biden.
I also like some of Yang's ideas, although he also has some inconsistencies that didn't make him top of my list.
There's no reason why we need to continue to fund endless war and military expenditures and forego healthcare and education.
People can say we can't afford it... but we continue to find ways to cut the wealthy's taxes and provide corporate welfare.
I've resigned myself that this will be the way it is for the rest of my life (I'm in my fifties) but it sure would be nice if the younger generation might aspire to more than the current status quo.
The son of millionaire business owners of Kulas Maids stormed the Capitol on 1/6 due to economic anxiety and in support of M4A. _________________ Under New Management
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:44 pm Post subject:
“I voted for stein because I couldn’t stand the idea of HRC becoming the first woman President”, is exactly what I’m getting at. That’s so indefensible on any rational moral or political level as to obviate pretty much any dressing around it. It’s what made the trump administration, something that is many orders of magnitude worse than the worst fever dreams of a Hillary administration, a reality. It’s a level of ignorance or denial of political and human reality that is hard to overstate. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Me, a normal Trump voter: Nancy Pelosi eats baby parts with her Whole Foods ice cream.
Nancy Pelosi: Medicare 4 All!
Me, a normal Trump voter: Nancy Pelosi eats baby parts with her Whole Foods ice cream.
Well, when half your brain is eaten out by Q-Anon rubbish...
You know, I've never delved down that path other than superficially. I wonder if you go full bore if it's like "The Ring" where something nasty pops out of your Computer screen and rather than sucking your blood dry and leaving you as a rotting carcass, instead it just sucks your brain out and leeches in some mind control bug similar to "Wrath of Kahn."
I voted for Stein last time because I couldn't stand the idea of HRC being our first woman President. If she were the second woman President I would have held my nose and voted. Or maybe if I lived somewhere like Florida.
What exactly was wrong with Hillary? How far did you fact check the amount of inane rumors that surrounded her?
“I voted for stein because I couldn’t stand the idea of HRC becoming the first woman President”, is exactly what I’m getting at. That’s so indefensible on any rational moral or political level as to obviate pretty much any dressing around it. It’s what made the trump administration, something that is many orders of magnitude worse than the worst fever dreams of a Hillary administration, a reality. It’s a level of ignorance or denial of political and human reality that is hard to overstate.
In retrospect it was a poor decision, but I don't think it was wrong for me to want the first female President to be a person I admired.
No one could have known just how horrible Trump would have been and it was natural for progressive Democrats to be frustrated and disillusioned with dirty tricks from the DNC.
I could have voted for Warren, I could have voted for Gillibrand in spite of what she did to Franken... I could have voted for Harris... but I can't believe you can bring up phrases like morally defensible when scolding me about not wanting to vote for HRC. For me the first woman President should be someone admirable... not someone so cynical. There are plenty of qualified, brilliant, decent women in our country... Sue me for wanting one of those instead.
“I voted for stein because I couldn’t stand the idea of HRC becoming the first woman President”, is exactly what I’m getting at. That’s so indefensible on any rational moral or political level as to obviate pretty much any dressing around it. It’s what made the trump administration, something that is many orders of magnitude worse than the worst fever dreams of a Hillary administration, a reality. It’s a level of ignorance or denial of political and human reality that is hard to overstate.
In retrospect it was a poor decision, but I don't think it was wrong for me to want the first female President to be a person I admired.
No one could have known just how horrible Trump would have been and it was natural for progressive Democrats to be frustrated and disillusioned with dirty tricks from the DNC.
I could have voted for Warren, I could have voted for Gillibrand in spite of what she did to Franken... I could have voted for Harris... but I can't believe you can bring up phrases like morally defensible when scolding me about not wanting to vote for HRC. For me the first woman President should be someone admirable... not someone so cynical. There are plenty of qualified, brilliant, decent women in our country... Sue me for wanting one of those instead.
Well, actually...
Every fiber of my being told me "NO, JUST NO" to him. I feared this very outcome but tried to convince myself I was just being paranoid. So, I can say, many folks I know were extremely concerned he would go down this path based on his rhetoric, how he treated people, his general disrespect towards honoring agreements (he sues everyone for anything, right or wrong), his track record with women, his prior racists actions, his bogus claims against Obama, his admiration for power, the fact he ZERO experience in being a public servant...
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:42 pm Post subject:
BILBJH wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
“I voted for stein because I couldn’t stand the idea of HRC becoming the first woman President”, is exactly what I’m getting at. That’s so indefensible on any rational moral or political level as to obviate pretty much any dressing around it. It’s what made the trump administration, something that is many orders of magnitude worse than the worst fever dreams of a Hillary administration, a reality. It’s a level of ignorance or denial of political and human reality that is hard to overstate.
In retrospect it was a poor decision, but I don't think it was wrong for me to want the first female President to be a person I admired.
No one could have known just how horrible Trump would have been and it was natural for progressive Democrats to be frustrated and disillusioned with dirty tricks from the DNC.
I could have voted for Warren, I could have voted for Gillibrand in spite of what she did to Franken... I could have voted for Harris... but I can't believe you can bring up phrases like morally defensible when scolding me about not wanting to vote for HRC. For me the first woman President should be someone admirable... not someone so cynical. There are plenty of qualified, brilliant, decent women in our country... Sue me for wanting one of those instead.
Everyone could and should have known how bad Trump would be. It was about as obvious as knowing that pain sucks. To be honest, he could have been worse if he had the slightest discipline. But I get the hard on for Hillary. Thirty years of GOP propaganda with a big dose of Russian amplification and suddenly left wing people were acting like the q anon folk with their wild hatred of a fairly decent and certainly capable person. Probably comes from getting their propaganda from the same comrades.
And again, there’s no universe where the worst things you think about Hillary weren’t multiples better than your best case Trump scenario. And that’s why I don’t waste time with convincing. Reason isn’t the common currency. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
“I voted for stein because I couldn’t stand the idea of HRC becoming the first woman President”, is exactly what I’m getting at. That’s so indefensible on any rational moral or political level as to obviate pretty much any dressing around it. It’s what made the trump administration, something that is many orders of magnitude worse than the worst fever dreams of a Hillary administration, a reality. It’s a level of ignorance or denial of political and human reality that is hard to overstate.
In retrospect it was a poor decision, but I don't think it was wrong for me to want the first female President to be a person I admired.
No one could have known just how horrible Trump would have been and it was natural for progressive Democrats to be frustrated and disillusioned with dirty tricks from the DNC.
I could have voted for Warren, I could have voted for Gillibrand in spite of what she did to Franken... I could have voted for Harris... but I can't believe you can bring up phrases like morally defensible when scolding me about not wanting to vote for HRC. For me the first woman President should be someone admirable... not someone so cynical. There are plenty of qualified, brilliant, decent women in our country... Sue me for wanting one of those instead.
Well, actually...
Every fiber of my being told me "NO, JUST NO" to him. I feared this very outcome but tried to convince myself I was just being paranoid. So, I can say, many folks I know were extremely concerned he would go down this path based on his rhetoric, how he treated people, his general disrespect towards honoring agreements (he sues everyone for anything, right or wrong), his track record with women, his prior racists actions, his bogus claims against Obama, his admiration for power, the fact he ZERO experience in being a public servant...
I agree... I hated how he made fun of the disabled reporter... his grab them by the (bleep) comment... he already was a disgusting person.
But the progressives were fed up with some of HRC's BS also.
Again, I admit I was wrong in retrospect, which is why I voted for the troubling Biden... but it was a lesser of evils situation for me.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29286 Location: La La Land
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:43 pm Post subject:
Don't really care if it's called Medicare for all, single payer, or whatever. Don't care if we expand our current Medicare and Medicaid systems or create a brand new one. Affordable and universal healthcare coverage without private insurances as a middle man is a no brainer.
Leaving all morality to the side. It's just cheaper. With our current system, hospitals can't turn away people who will die without their assistance. Even if the patient can't pay and has no insurance.
Per individual, most health care costs come from people in the last year of their life. And when a person does eventually die, those costs don't evaporate into thin air. They are passed to everyone across the board via healthcare fees.
I'm not even going to get into the cost reduction and efficiency that can come from a universal system and the incentives that could be utilized to further preventative medicine with a universal system (hands down the best way to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes in the long term).
I think the vast majority of Democrats agree with everything I just said. The debate is just what is the fastest way to get there from where we are right now (a woefully inefficient, and unhealthy by most metrics, system). _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:08 am; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:45 pm Post subject:
Politics is like a bus station. We want a bus that will take us to the exact location we want to go. But if there isn’t one, we take the one that will get us closer. We don’t decide that close isn’t good enough and take a bus in the opposite direction out of spite. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:49 pm Post subject:
Since it apparently needs to be said again, hillary and the DNC didn’t cheat Bernie out of the nomination. The voters did, same way they cheated Trump. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:49 pm Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
Don't really care if it's called Medicare for all, single payer, or whatever. Don't care if we expand our current Medicare and Medicaid systems or create a brand new one. Affordable and universal healthcare coverage without private insurances as a middle man is a no brainer.
Leaving all morality to the side. It's just cheaper. With our current system, hospitals can't turn away people who will die without their assistance. Even if the patient can't pay and has no insurance.
Per individual, most health care costs come from people in the last year of their life. And when a person does eventually die, those costs don't evaporate into thin air. They are passed to everyone across the board via healthcare fees.
I'm not even going to get into the cost reduction and efficiency that can come from a universal system and the incentives that could be utilized to further preventative medicine with a universal system (hands down the best way to reduce costs in the long term).
I think the vast majority of Democrats agree with everything I just said. The debate is just what is the fastest way to get there from where we are right now (a woefully inefficient, and unhealthy by most metrics, system).
Yup. How is almost always more important than what. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
The European union doesn't exist in a parallel universe where universal healthcare works yet somehow it cannot work in the Western hemisphere.
I get that we provide much of their defense, but there still is no excuse that we cannot come up with an answer for something that works in every other developed nation.
The other argument I see all the time is that we have the best healthcare in the world. It's true we have the best for the wealthy... but we rank 36th in life expectancy, while the so called socialist nations all have longer life expectancy in spite of what some people claim is a better system.
Watch cable news advertisements... watch network news advertisements... endless ads for insurance and pharmaceutical companies. CNN doesn't want a national healthcare system where all that money is removed from their ecosystem.
If every other developed nation can come up with a solution to provide universal healthcare... then it's not beyond our grasp.
How do they calculate that astronomical cost anyway? Using the actual price of insulin or an epipen... or using the inflated prices that make it seem impossible.
If Scandinavia, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany can come up with universal healthcare... if Israel who we give millions in aid to every year can provide universal healthcare... then so should we find a way.
Those countries, especially EU countries, didn't have to transform their private insurance systems into state run healthcare systems. They started from 0 after the most destructive conflict in human history and wanted their populations to have a strong social safety net.
We'd have to do it 80 years later with a system already in place and tens of millions of people involved within that system. It's a lot more complicated than "let's get rid of the private healthcare system except for plastic surgeries." While it might work in the long run, it would be disastrous in the short term.
That's why a public option is the better way to go, both practically and politically speaking. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:21 am Post subject:
BILBJH wrote:
The European union doesn't exist in a parallel universe where universal healthcare works yet somehow it cannot work in the Western hemisphere.
I get that we provide much of their defense, but there still is no excuse that we cannot come up with an answer for something that works in every other developed nation.
The other argument I see all the time is that we have the best healthcare in the world. It's true we have the best for the wealthy... but we rank 36th in life expectancy, while the so called socialist nations all have longer life expectancy in spite of what some people claim is a better system.
Watch cable news advertisements... watch network news advertisements... endless ads for insurance and pharmaceutical companies. CNN doesn't want a national healthcare system where all that money is removed from their ecosystem.
If every other developed nation can come up with a solution to provide universal healthcare... then it's not beyond our grasp.
How do they calculate that astronomical cost anyway? Using the actual price of insulin or an epipen... or using the inflated prices that make it seem impossible.
If Scandinavia, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany can come up with universal healthcare... if Israel who we give millions in aid to every year can provide universal healthcare... then so should we find a way.
We agree here. There’s the complication of unwinding our current system and getting people to move toward the better system. Remember, we can’t get about 15 percent of our population to get vaccinated and about 45% to wear masks to save their own lives. So it’s not a wave your hand and presto. And that’s before you ge to the logistical underpinnings. So the question is do you want to move forward or just scream and watch it to the other way? (That’s not specifically to you). There are ways we can improve and move in the right direction. You don’t turn down improvement that doesn’t preclude what you want because it’s not all of what you want. Obamacare has done a lot for a lot of people who would t have healthcare otherwise. And that’s with ten years of a party in power trying to kill it. We got like one year of Obamacare and then the GOP took over. Next week is the first time the Dems have power in 11 years. Maybe let’s see if we can get going on making things better, and if we can get to single payer, we are happy. If we only make things a lot better, that’s better than where we are. It’s a march my friend. One step In front of the other. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
