bernie sanders: regressive

[Fogdog]

I was talking about universal healthcare.

The Democratic party hasn't walked back on their commitment to universal healthcare coverage. You apparently can't defend your belief that it has. Suggest you think about that and challenge your belief.

 

[Fogdog]

By bullying the major party closest to them. It's how the Tea Party rose to prominence so quickly; it only took one election and after that the Republicans took them very seriously indeed.

The New Left needn't become a majority, just a kingmaker. 'If you can destroy a thing, you can control it'.

This is why Buck and Fog hate the idea of an independent Left party so much; it terrifies them precisely because it's a threat to Democratic Party dominance on the left.

I say it's time to make their worst nightmare come true.

Now you are making up your own history. The Tea Party never stood separate from the GOP. Also bags of money and right wing radio air time was given to it. It's a sham created by the 1%.

What you propose is a third party that is separate from your imagined "corrupt Democratic elites" that is fully funded by small donations from the 90%. And I don't say you shouldn't do it. I say it's about time to get going if this is what you imagine to be the only option. Go forth, be free and shut the door on your way out.

 

[Xcoregamerskillz]

Even if a new party was created, progress would still require majority support to move any of these issues forward. I'm not convinced it's a viable option. We first have to convince the people in our party to support leftist policies. I see willingness to understand these issues in the Democratic party; we have made progress. If we trust in the merit of our ideals, shouldn't they appeal within the party just as well as from a new party? How would a new party help to convince people to support them?

The problem with pushing one party left is that it will push the republicans further right. As long as there are still only 2 parties it's just going to continue cycle of infighting where one party has a majority and the other party just acts as opposition and nothing gets done.

 

[Fogdog]

When the Republican party is as bad as it is, being "better" than that is simply not enough to win elections. I'm sorry you feel that everyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic candidate automatically supports Trump or the Republicans, or is racist/sexist, or is content enough with their own lifestyle - because they're white (of course) - that they don't have to worry about it because of affluence or white privilege or whatever SJW term-of-the-week is on the calendar today.. But since we all know you're such a "facts" guy, I was thinking you should face the fact that there are systemic problems within the Democratic party that if ignored or unchecked will again lead to a humiliating defeat in 2020 against the most beatable opponent in American history.

So please, continue to sit here and push failed policies and failed politicians Republicans have already beat. Maybe they'll win the next time around with the same message they lose with last time..

Yes, I could, but you wouldn't accept them as acts of corruption because they didn't break any laws, which doesn't mean they didn't breach ethics or commit corruption. The US legal code is somewhat vague when it comes to things like that - breaching corruption laws -, I'd expect because those who are traditionally under federal investigation for committing them have the means and ability to fight them.. In court or through the media.

The fuck?

More than 1,000 seats across the country, 2/3 of governorships, the house, the senate, the supreme court, and the presidency

"...but we gained seats, though...!"

rofl

Republican economic policies aren't going to affect a white man who makes less than $30,000/year?

How is the personal opinion of not supporting a corporate Democrat bought and paid for by corporations the same as supporting his/her opponent who supports a harsher immigration policy?

Your position is that if you didn't vote for/support Clinton, then you automatically supported Trump, by proxy, and it was because of you that Trump won!

Right. I'm not accepting public assistance - right now - but I have had to in the past. I support the welfare system 100%. I believe it should be improved and substantially increased. If it were up to me, there would be no homeless on our streets. That's unacceptable in a supposed first world country

To think that because I'm able to provide for myself enough to the point I don't require public assistance anymore that I would think any more or less of those that do need it - especially because I'm fucking white - is... depressing. I thought so much more of you before this point, even after our disagreements. But this drops you to an all time low. That's.. truly, really depressing..

Yeah, obviously it won't affect me personally, so why should I care? Right?

The few years spent - I guess just pretending you were having real conversations with us.. you never really even knew or bothered to actually get to know us.. It was all for show. Because, hey, Republicans are "worse"...

Another round of bolts shot into the air. I'll summarize:
Democrats are corrupt because I say so.
The past predicts the future.
My heart is in the right place and so my positions are righteous.

You've rolled up a self righteous joint and are smoking it. Enjoy it. Except it's not MJ, it's just some shit you found growing in the ditches. You want to discuss the fake shit you get from the young turks (sponsored by your local republican moneybags)? Sorry, I'll stick to facts.

Your belief doesn't make it a fact. You confuse dirty politics with corruption. There is a reason people are held to legal standards when charged with corruption. Can you guess why?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Another round of bolts shot into the air. I'll summarize:
Democrats are corrupt because I say so.
The past predicts the future.
My heart is in the right place and so my positions are righteous.

You've rolled up a self righteous joint and are smoking it. Enjoy it. Except it's not MJ, it's just some shit you found growing in the ditches. You want to discuss the fake shit you get from the young turks (sponsored by your local republican moneybags)? Sorry, I'll stick to facts.

Your belief doesn't make it a fact. You confuse dirty politics with corruption. There is a reason people are held to legal standards when charged with corruption. Can you guess why?

That post was full of substance but you chose to ignore it because you can't refute it

Typical.

 

[Padawanbater2]

We first have to convince the people in our party to support leftist policies. I see willingness to understand these issues in the Democratic party; we have made progress. If we trust in the merit of our ideals, shouldn't they appeal within the party just as well as from a new party?

Shouldn't the people in the Democratic party already support leftist policies? Why are they Democrats if they don't?

"I see willingness to understand these issues" - what does that mean? If they're willing to understand these issues, why are they unwilling to act on them in congress when it comes down to a vote? Why don't they propose these issues they're seemingly so concerned about when they hold total control of the government, like Republicans do?

How would a new party help to convince people to support them?

I'm not fully on board with the idea of forming a new political party yet, simply because of the inherent problems in the system it involves, but I think if that happened, the best option for success would be to simply counter the current Democratic party and propose something similar to the UK Labour party's manifesto. Show a blatant and strong shift to the left, let people decide, and watch the numbers of registered Democrats fall accordingly because they don't actually represent progressive policies.

The Democratic party hasn't walked back on their commitment to universal healthcare coverage.

“If single-payer health care is going to mean complete takeover by the government of all health care, I am not there.” -Dianne Feinstein

A week later, Feinstein was even further from there, benefitting from a fundraising event at the Washington, D.C., office of Avenue Solutions, a lobbying firm that represents major health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the primary trade association for doctors. The industries have historically opposed efforts to create a universal, government-run health care system — an idea supported by 58 percent of U.S. adults. Feinstein supporters at the event were expected to kick in $1,000 to $5,000 for her re-election bid."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

At a press conference the day of the House’s 217-to-213 vote to pass AHCA, a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if she thinks single payer health insurance should be in the Democrats’ 2018 party platform. The House Minority Leader demurred:

“No, I don’t. I was carrying around single payer signs probably before you were born. So, you know, I understand that aspiration. But when we passed our bill, while we didn’t get a public option … we won it in the House, we couldn’t get it in the Senate…

So I say to people, if you want that, do it in your States. States are laboratories. It can work out. It is the least expensive, least administrative way to go about this, but the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet. It doesn’t mean it couldn’t be. States are a good place to start.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

No denying the Democratic Party Platform is progressive. That's not the argument. The argument is that Democratic politicians, who are beholden to their donors, do not actually support or enact progressive healthcare policy when they hold power. They simply say they support it when they have no chance of actually enacting it - when Republicans hold power. It is, as @ttystikk said, simply lip service. What actual evidence supports the idea that any corporate Democrat who has accepted money from the pharmaceutical industry actually supports enacting a system of universal healthcare? Does their voting record in congress show that?

your imagined "corrupt Democratic elites"

Define what you believe is government corruption, a list a few examples

 

[Fogdog]

That post was full of substance but you chose to ignore it because you can't refute it

Typical.

I did refute it. Your post was really long and rather than post each point with a rebuttal, I summarized it. Was the summary wrong?

Shouldn't the people in the Democratic party already support leftist policies? Why are they Democrats if they don't?

"I see willingness to understand these issues" - what does that mean? If they're willing to understand these issues, why are they unwilling to act on them in congress when it comes down to a vote? Why don't they propose these issues they're seemingly so concerned about when they hold total control of the government, like Republicans do?

I'm not fully on board with the idea of forming a new political party yet, simply because of the inherent problems in the system it involves, but I think if that happened, the best option for success would be to simply counter the current Democratic party and propose something similar to the UK Labour party's manifesto. Show a blatant and strong shift to the left, let people decide, and watch the numbers of registered Democrats fall accordingly because they don't actually represent progressive policies.

“If single-payer health care is going to mean complete takeover by the government of all health care, I am not there.” -Dianne Feinstein

A week later, Feinstein was even further from there, benefitting from a fundraising event at the Washington, D.C., office of Avenue Solutions, a lobbying firm that represents major health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the primary trade association for doctors. The industries have historically opposed efforts to create a universal, government-run health care system — an idea supported by 58 percent of U.S. adults. Feinstein supporters at the event were expected to kick in $1,000 to $5,000 for her re-election bid."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

At a press conference the day of the House’s 217-to-213 vote to pass AHCA, a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if she thinks single payer health insurance should be in the Democrats’ 2018 party platform. The House Minority Leader demurred:

“No, I don’t. I was carrying around single payer signs probably before you were born. So, you know, I understand that aspiration. But when we passed our bill, while we didn’t get a public option … we won it in the House, we couldn’t get it in the Senate…

So I say to people, if you want that, do it in your States. States are laboratories. It can work out. It is the least expensive, least administrative way to go about this, but the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet. It doesn’t mean it couldn’t be. States are a good place to start.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

No denying the Democratic Party Platform is progressive. That's not the argument. The argument is that Democratic politicians, who are beholden to their donors, do not actually support or enact progressive healthcare policy when they hold power. They simply say they support it when they have no chance of actually enacting it - when Republicans hold power. It is, as @ttystikk said, simply lip service. What actual evidence supports the idea that any corporate Democrat who has accepted money from the pharmaceutical industry actually supports enacting a system of universal healthcare? Does their voting record in congress show that?

Define what you believe is government corruption, a list a few examples

You fail to show that Feinstein is "walking back" on universal healthcare coverage. She says she thinks that the private sector should have a role.

Pelosi states the obvious. The people of the United States at this time are not voting to support single payer health care. They didn't in 1993 too. When Clinton and the Democratic congress tried to lead by proposing and fighting for government provided health care they lost control of congress and that ended the struggle. She learned from this. You did not. Again, you fail to show the Democratic party has walked back from universal healthcare coverage. Universal healthcare coverage does not necessarily mean "government provided". It means Universal healthcare coverage.

You didn't answer my question. I'll answer yours when you answer mine.

There is a reason people are held to legal standards when charged with corruption. Can you guess why?

 

[schuylaar]

Bernie's been training for the presidency all his life.

 

[ttystikk]

Even if a new party was created, progress would still require majority support to move any of these issues forward. I'm not convinced it's a viable option. We first have to convince the people in our party to support leftist policies. I see willingness to understand these issues in the Democratic party; we have made progress. If we trust in the merit of our ideals, shouldn't they appeal within the party just as well as from a new party? How would a new party help to convince people to support them?

You'd think so but past experience has shown they'd much rather follow the neoliberal agenda. Fuck what the people want- Donor cash is King!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Was the summary wrong?

Yes

You fail to show that Feinstein is "walking back" on universal healthcare coverage. She says she thinks that the private sector should have a role.

She "is not there yet" when it comes to universal healthcare

She was booed out of a room of Democratic supporters for supporting that position..

Buckle up, you're in for a bumpy ride the next few years

 

[ttystikk]

Yes

She "is not there yet" when it comes to universal healthcare

She was booed out of a room of Democratic supporters for supporting that position..

Buckle up, you're in for a bumpy ride the next few years

They're nitpicking. They don't see the big picture- or worse, they're in denial.

I've been watching the Democratic Party fail the average American citizen for most of my life and like millions of others, I've given up on them. What else explains the fact that Independents outnumber party affiliates of both sides put together?

 

[Fogdog]

Yes

She "is not there yet" when it comes to universal healthcare

She was booed out of a room of Democratic supporters for supporting that position..

Buckle up, you're in for a bumpy ride the next few years

Ok, then, let's discuss your tirade about "if I say it's corruption then it's corruption. Am I wrong that that is your position?

Your list of "corrupt" politicians wasn't. Nobody is accused of corruption anywhere other than your posts.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Ok, then, let's discuss your tirade about "if I say it's corruption then it's corruption. Am I wrong that that is your position?

Your list of "corrupt" politicians wasn't. Nobody is accused of corruption anywhere other than your posts.

You and I hold different standards for what we believe is corruption. I think that's because you know your side is dirty while my side isn't (which is why I support them). If any Republican did the exact same thing as any of those people I listed, you would take issue with it because it hurts your team and is outside of the realm of fair. Since your side does it, it's just "dirty politics", not corruption, and so you support it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Buckle up, you're in for a bumpy ride the next few years

your unfounded confidence is hilarious, please do not stop dispensing with it.

 

[UncleBuck]

You and I hold different standards for what we believe is corruption.

yep, fogdog has reasonable standards and you think getting paid to write a book is the worst thing in the history of the world because you are retarded.

 

[ttystikk]

yep, fogdog has reasonable standards and you think getting paid to write a book is the worst thing in the history of the world because you are retarded.

Funny how you latch onto that but never utter a peep about using millions of dollars to influence political campaigns and then getting a tax deduction for it.

That is, letting the American taxpayer subsidize the donor class' manipulation of our democracy.

What do you have to say to that? 'it's legal, therefore it isn't corruption'?! Give us a break.

 

[Fogdog]

You and I hold different standards for what we believe is corruption. I think that's because you know your side is dirty while my side isn't (which is why I support them). If any Republican did the exact same thing as any of those people I listed, you would take issue with it because it hurts your team and is outside of the realm of fair. Since your side does it, it's just "dirty politics", not corruption, and so you support it.

So, which election has Bernie's support tipped the scales in any election other than his own?

Every party everywhere conducts it's behavior to the limit of the law and maybe beyond when they think they can get away with it. Tell me, didn't Bernie's organization conduct some heinous acts? I seem to remember something about taking advantage of a vulnerability to scoop up donor contact information. Then again, Bernie lost by about 30% difference in votes, so I hope he wasn't trying so hard as to do something unseemly. Cheating AND losing by a wide margin would have looked really bad.

As far as the people on your list are concerned, they are seasoned campaigners and will be around. Debbie Wasserman Schultz for example, her district liked her enough to send her back to Washington. What exactly did she do that is corrupt?

 

[UncleBuck]

So, which election has Bernie's support tipped the scales in any election other than his own?

Every party everywhere conducts it's behavior to the limit of the law and maybe beyond when they think they can get away with it. Tell me, didn't Bernie's organization conduct some heinous acts? I seem to remember something about taking advantage of a vulnerability to scoop up donor contact information. Then again, Bernie lost by about 30% difference in votes, so I hope he wasn't trying so hard as to do something unseemly. Cheating AND losing by a wide margin would have looked really bad.

As far as the people on your list are concerned, they are seasoned campaigners and will be around. Debbie Wasserman Schultz for example, her district liked her enough to send her back to Washington. What exactly did she do that is corrupt?

check out the tim canova fellow (bernie endorsed) that she ran against. the guy embodies the fecal-smeared, fact free, retarded paranoia of the bernouts:

 

[londonfog]

Bernie's been training for the presidency all his life.

Bernie has always really wanted to be part of the 1 % He has finally accomplished that. Congratulations Bernard !!!!

 

[Padawanbater2]

What exactly did she do that is corrupt?

Perfect example

You don't think DWS is corrupt, I do

She didn't resign in shame for nothing only to be rehired - on the same day she was fired - to Clinton's campaign