bernie sanders: regressive

[Fogdog]

Right, I agree with you. They say they support it, but what actual evidence can you point to that shows they support it?

You know, like sponsoring an actual bill or putting their name down cosponsoring one

The ACA was the compromise that passed. Without Republican support. The ACA was progress towards universal coverage. Progressive doesn't "mean want all right now when what want can't have", it means supporting progress toward an objective..

I know of at least three bills for universal health care that have been entered in the last 20 years. Probably more. The Democratic Party was trounced the last time it got serious about a single payer system. Too many voters are afraid of government control of health care. Too many seem to think it would cost too much. Too many are just plain ornery. Not saying shouldn't be an objective but am saying no chance in hell of passing any time soon. On this, Democratic Party leadership has it right.

 

[Fogdog]

I said support him. Why do so many Americans support him?

Why would you guess?

What does support him mean? Does it mean they will vote for people he supports? There is evidence to the contrary that they will.

 

[ttystikk]

That's not true at all. Sanders was not well known in early 2015. But ahead of the primaries he was getting plenty of press and his favorablility ratings were very good. Can I interpret what you are saying is that unlike the rest of the country, black voters in the south don't read the news?

Yes it is true; my primary was March 1, and you had to be registered as a Democrat before Christmas the previous year.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What does support him mean? Does it mean they will vote for people he supports? There is evidence to the contrary that they will.

If we lived in a world without outside influences in politics, like lobbyists, corporate contributions, etc., the progressive would win every single election because the American people largely support progressive issues, outside of capital punishment and the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the overwhelming majority of politicians, both left and right, are bought by special interests. They do not represent their constituents who put them into office.

 

[ttystikk]

If we lived in a world without outside influences in politics, like lobbyists, corporate contributions, etc., the progressive would win every single election because the American people largely support progressive issues, outside of capital punishment and the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the overwhelming majority of politicians, both left and right, are bought by special interests. They do not represent their constituents who put them into office.

What amazes me is how hard otherwise intelligent people will work to insulate themselves from that fact and its implications.

 

[ttystikk]

https://www.thenation.com/article/britain-also-feeling-bern/

If Democrats in America want credibility, they would do far worse than to follow Jeremy Corbyn's example.

 

[Padawanbater2]

ROFL

 

[Padawanbater2]

What amazes me is how hard otherwise intelligent people will work to insulate themselves from that fact and its implications.

I agree

This is why Trump won

 

[ttystikk]

I agree

This is why Trump won

No less a Democratic Party stalwart than Bill Curry on why the party needs a civil war, before it's too late;

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/18/yes-democrats-need-a-civil-war-believe-it-or-not-its-the-only-real-path-back-to-power/

He says what we've been saying for years now.

We can expect the rabid conformist wing if the Democratic Party to strenuously complain but if their way was ever going to work, it would have in 2016.

 

[SneekyNinja]

https://www.thenation.com/article/britain-also-feeling-bern/

If Democrats in America want credibility, they would do far worse than to follow Jeremy Corbyn's example.

Again like I've told you, Corbyn campaigned on protecting the services they already have.

You don't know anything about the UK, stop acting like you've ever been further than Canada/Mexico.

 

[schuylaar]

Introducing a universal healthcare bill into the Republican Senate or House is a waste of time. I don't want my representatives to waste their time. I want them to focus on stopping the repeal of the ACA, which looks like they might not be able to do.

Do you want a symbolic act? How about the symbolic act of stopping the Republicans from literally killing elderly who depend on Medicare and Medicaid? But that's real and not symbolic. So you don't care about that.

You now have another fake reason to hate Democrats. Go start your third party already.

you still don't get it. universal health proposal are things they COULD be doing as an example of which direction the party should take.

we are hopelessly deadlock between republicans and the democratic elites, neither of which care about YOU OR ME.

a proposal would be commensurate to a pulse, albeit weak..but a pulse.

at no point did @Padawanbater2 indicate it would move forward.

What's wrong with us, that we expect those salaries we pay, benefit us? Shame on them.

What's wrong with us, that we allow them to ride roughshod over us? Shame on us.

 

[Fogdog]

you still don't get it. universal health proposal are things they COULD be doing as an example of which direction the party should take.

we are hopelessly deadlock between republicans and the democratic elites, neither of which care about YOU OR ME.

a proposal would be commensurate to a pulse, albeit weak..but a pulse.

at no point did @Padawanbater2 indicate it would move forward.

What's wrong with us, that we expect those salaries we pay, benefit us? Shame on them.

What's wrong with us, that we allow them to ride roughshod over us? Shame on us.

A bill to cover everybody would go nowhere in Congress. At best it would be a symbolic act but mostly it would be waste of time for Democrats to spend time on it. A waste of time for busy people. People who have the job of stopping the Republican bill to literally kill millions of elderly who depend on Medicaid. It's not clear that they will be able to accomplish even this. If they fail at stopping the Republican bill, I want to know they didn't fritter away the chance to stop it by spending time on a symbolic act.

What's wrong with Florida that it won't pass a living minimum wage for full time workers? Why do Florida voters vote for people who are against health care access to all? Fix your local problem and the national one will start to crumble. State electorates are conservative for the most part. The fact is, voters in most states oppose universal healthcare coverage. I say this not because some opinion poll said it but because the people they voted for oppose it. And you want the Democratic caucus in Congress to just march on down the valley into those guns. Symbolism shmibalism. What's real is what voters are willing to support.

 

[srh88]

A bill to cover everybody would go nowhere in Congress. At best it would be a symbolic act but mostly it would be waste of time for Democrats to spend time on it. A waste of time for busy people. People who have the job of stopping the Republican bill to literally kill millions of elderly who depend on Medicaid. It's not clear that they will be able to accomplish even this. If they fail at stopping the Republican bill, I want to know they didn't fritter away the chance to stop it by spending time on a symbolic act.

What's wrong with Florida that it won't pass a living minimum wage for full time workers? Why do Florida voters vote for people who are against health care access to all? Fix your local problem and the national one will start to crumble. State electorates are conservative for the most part. The fact is, voters in most states oppose universal healthcare coverage. I say this not because some opinion poll said it but because the people they voted for oppose it. And you want the Democratic caucus in Congress to just march on down the valley into those guns. Symbolism shmibalism. What's real is what voters are willing to support.

But dude.. the symbolism!

 

[SneekyNinja]

A bill to cover everybody would go nowhere in Congress. At best it would be a symbolic act but mostly it would be waste of time for Democrats to spend time on it. A waste of time for busy people. People who have the job of stopping the Republican bill to literally kill millions of elderly who depend on Medicaid. It's not clear that they will be able to accomplish even this. If they fail at stopping the Republican bill, I want to know they didn't fritter away the chance to stop it by spending time on a symbolic act.

What's wrong with Florida that it won't pass a living minimum wage for full time workers? Why do Florida voters vote for people who are against health care access to all? Fix your local problem and the national one will start to crumble. State electorates are conservative for the most part. The fact is, voters in most states oppose universal healthcare coverage. I say this not because some opinion poll said it but because the people they voted for oppose it. And you want the Democratic caucus in Congress to just march on down the valley into those guns. Symbolism shmibalism. What's real is what voters are willing to support.

I've said it more times than I can count; they're stuck in an echo chamber or a "jerk circle".

This is a real, recorded psychological phenomenon whereby they only listen to people who believe exactly what they believe, therefore they believe "everyone supports this"...

And then their candidates lose (continuously) and they say "system is rigged, big money, etc".

It's why I never understood the point of political rallies, you're preaching to the already converted.

 

[schuylaar]

I've said it more times than I can count; they're stuck in an echo chamber or a "jerk circle".

This is a real, recorded psychological phenomenon whereby they only listen to people who believe exactly what they believe, therefore they believe "everyone supports this"...

And then their candidates lose (continuously) and they say "system is rigged, big money, etc".

It's why I never understood the point of political rallies, you're preaching to the already converted.

You don't think there is something wrong with documented cheating and special interests?

 

[SneekyNinja]

You don't think there is something wrong with documented cheating and special interests?

To change the system you need to have power first.

Play the game and then change the rules after you win, that's how it works...

Why can't you people be pragmatic?

If you lose the dogma, lack of realism and finger pointing (and racism too) you'd have 10x more supporters.

 

[Fogdog]

To change the system you need to have power first.

Play the game and then change the rules after you win, that's how it works...

Why can't you people be pragmatic?

If you lose the dogma, lack of realism and finger pointing (and racism too) you'd have 10x more supporters.

True, this.

Politics aren't a game. Sanders had to win the nomination and he did not. He didn't start soon enough, he didn't really have an answer for issues with racial bias by government and he simply didn't garner enough votes.

The DNC's own rules were broken and there is justifiable anger by Sanders supporters over this. Yet also naivete.

And delusions. Such as @Padawanbater2 's belief that the DNC under the leadership of Deborah Wasserman Schultz conducted a smear campaign against Sanders. There was no such campaign mounted by the DNC. The smear campaign never happened. Yet it is in the memory of Bernie's babies that there was.

Naive, deluded powerless ideologic chatter on the part of Bernie's babies isn't very convincing.

Then again, maybe Bernie is a bot.

 

[SneekyNinja]

True, this.

Politics aren't a game. Sanders had to win the nomination and he did not. He didn't start soon enough, he didn't really have an answer for issues with racial bias by government and he simply didn't garner enough votes.

The DNC's own rules were broken and there is justifiable anger by Sanders supporters over this. Yet also naivete.

And delusions. Such as @Padawanbater2 's belief that the DNC under the leadership of Deborah Wasserman Schultz conducted a smear campaign against Sanders. There was no such campaign mounted by the DNC. The smear campaign never happened. Yet it is in the memory of Bernie's babies that there was.

Naive, deluded powerless ideologic chatter on the part of Bernie's babies isn't very convincing.

Then again, maybe Bernie is a bot.

I was only using the "play the game" as an analogy for "work within the system" because they took exception to that wording last time and launched into a "corrupt system" tirade.

The DNC leadership naturally backed the long time party member with a huge majority of the support. They're not supposed to officially back anyone, but they are strategists and normal citizens aswell.

That said, they didn't even do anything to support her over Sanders, underlings expressed an opinion and "EMAILS! RIGGED!" was the Bernie Baby overreaction.

 

[ttystikk]

True, this.

Politics aren't a game. Sanders had to win the nomination and he did not. He didn't start soon enough, he didn't really have an answer for issues with racial bias by government and he simply didn't garner enough votes.

The DNC's own rules were broken and there is justifiable anger by Sanders supporters over this. Yet also naivete.

And delusions. Such as @Padawanbater2 's belief that the DNC under the leadership of Deborah Wasserman Schultz conducted a smear campaign against Sanders. There was no such campaign mounted by the DNC. The smear campaign never happened. Yet it is in the memory of Bernie's babies that there was.

Naive, deluded powerless ideologic chatter on the part of Bernie's babies isn't very convincing.

Then again, maybe Bernie is a bot.

Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/07/its-my-party/

 

[Fogdog]

Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/07/its-my-party/

are you debating again?

How about some facts.

Did you know that the Democratic party supports universal healthcare coverage?

Did you know that every Democratic Party Senator voted to support Sanders' bill to repeal Citizen's United? Did you know that the Republican Party was handed a huge win in the Senate after they killed Sander's bill to repeal Citizen's United?

Did you know that the Republican party is on the cusp of literally killing millions of elderly by denying them access to healthcare coverage?

Did you know that Sanders is advocating Democratic Party Senators divert time and effort away from stopping the Republicans from killing the elderly?

Did you know that Sanders is accepting zero responsibility for the loss of the Senate in 2014?

Doesn't this whole bit about symbolic support for a healthcare bill sponsored by Sanders that has no chance of passage sound like wishful thinking with echoes of vote in 2014 to repeal CU and therefore unhinged from reality?

Ty, it's not your party nor is it Independent Sanders'. You want a third party. All you ever do is spread lies about Democrats. So go party, dude.