|
The donor class would be. And since they're the reason Democrats would never support an NHS, it's doubtful Democrats would cross them to pass a public option just as we saw in 2009 when Democrats took industry bribes not to pass a public option. Anyway even if their intentions are pure, the filibuster guarantees it won't happen. The last time Dems had 60 votes was the 1970s, it took 30 years to get 60 Senators again, and even if they somehow got it right away you only have to bribe a couple senators to keep a public option from happening. You think that "well they tried" will be good enough for the public: it wasn't and it won't be.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The donor class would be. And since they're the reason Democrats would never support an NHS, it's doubtful Democrats would cross them to pass a public option Poor Illuminati, they spent all that money and they couldn’t even keep universal health care and public option out of their party platform. At least they got to include “actually we just included that as a joke” in letters only this guy can see with is true and unwavering power of faith that democrats are bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
My superpower: remembering what happened 9 years ago, understanding how our political system makes that outcome a near certainty
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Poor Illuminati, they spent all that money and they couldn’t even keep universal health care and public option out of their party platform. At least they got to include “actually we just included that as a joke” in letters only this guy can see with is true and unwavering power of faith that democrats are bad. The next step is you declaring that we already have a public option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
By what I hesitantly call oocc's logic, what does constantly parroting Republican talking points against the left and the need for universal healthcare mean for their true political views?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
The phrase "lesser of two evils" implies that one side is less evil. False. Both sides are equally evil and toxic. We owe them nothing. Bye bye, Republicans. Bye bye, Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The next step is you declaring that we already have a public option. The next step is you declaring we had universal health care until Hillary Clinton took it away by running on providing a public option
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The next step is you declaring we had universal health care until Hillary Clinton took it away by running on providing a public option lolwut? You fuckin cray cray man, you clonkers2bonkers
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Why don't you have a word with the fine Democratic senators who allowed drug and insurance lobbyists to literally write the bill that was ostensibly created to regulate them? And while you're at it, ask them why their focus-group-created talking point of the ACA being "the first step to single-payer" back in 2010 morphed into the trope that single-payer will never, ever happen. The rest of the post is good but this point here. This is literally what happened with the Dreamers. "Trust us we'll help you, even though we HAD the power to solve this whole problem a few years ago but didn't have the will to actually do it then but totally will in the future." Then Trump gets elected and it's months of "oh we will totally help you but now is not the right time give us a month" repeated three times and then suddenly the message is "look the Dreamers were totally always screwed and we had no hand in creating this situation and also the best we can do is to campaign on pictures of them being deported so anything more than that is amazing. But when we get back in to power we will absolutely for sure no lie help them." That was over the course of a few loving months and you can see posters in the Trump thread that were angry at people who correctly called out the shut down as a failure four weeks ago now saying exactly the opposite that there was never anything that could have been done. I will never ever believe a Democrat that comes at me with the promise of good things in the future but we need these small steps right now because he or she is totally lying. Their track record is very clear that what they are offering is what they absolutely are willing to bargain for. Lesser evilism is bad because just less evil enough to be technically "the lesser evil" is the goal of these people and aggressively stand in the way of anyone less evil than them getting a foothold. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I have a hard time looking at the pre-Citizens United and post-Citizens United expenditure levels and thinking that the case did not have a major impact. The levels of spending, especially by opaque non-party organizations, jumped crazily after 2006. Sure, but the Citizens United ruling happened in 2010. While that certainly sped the rate of increase, it was already well on its way up by then, as you observed. The GOP weren't the only ones who spent the mid-00s reshaping their party around fundraising and building an vast web of unaccountable dark money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure, but the Citizens United ruling happened in 2010. While that certainly sped the rate of increase, it was already well on its way up by then, as you observed. The GOP weren't the only ones who spent the mid-00s reshaping their party around fundraising and building an vast web of unaccountable dark money. 2006 is about the time the Supreme Court started chipping away at state and federal campaign contribution limit laws. The Supreme Court ruled Vermont's strict caps on campaign contributions unconstitutional in Randall v. Sorrell, saying it violated the First Amendment. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, saying that limits on electioneering spending by nonprofits were unconstitutional. Citizens United in 2010 basically sealed the deal by taking away the limits put on unions and corporations. In any case, I think there's definitely an arms race dynamic going on here, where no party is going to want to go in with a major fundraising disadvantage. The more the law is eroded, the more politicians on all sides are going to feel pressed to raise as much cash as possible. If you can get voters to vote for your side consistently and effectively despite all that, that's going to be an essential part of changing the dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The next step is you declaring we had universal health care until Hillary Clinton took it away by running on providing a public option it's been a while since we had a good corncobbin' quote:Lesser evilism is bad because just less evil enough to be technically "the lesser evil" is the goal of these people and aggressively stand in the way of anyone less evil than them getting a foothold. Pretty much. That's the point of the Ultimatum Game; if you act on the short term 'logical' choice, the dealer will work to maximize their share and minimize yours, whereas refusing fair deals that would benefit you in the short term leads to fairer deals in the long term and starves unfair dealers. 'Lesser evilism' as a tactic is faulty at its very conception because it clearly announces that you are willing too accept as little gain as possible, so long as it's something. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:The rest of the post is good but this point here. This is literally what happened with the Dreamers. "Trust us we'll help you, even though we HAD the power to solve this whole problem a few years ago but didn't have the will to actually do it then but totally will in the future." This is what I mean about people that just absorb fox news narrative. This weird alternate history of the democrats playing a trick instead of the actual thing that happened. In the actual world the democrats pushed immigration reform in 2013, they wrote a bill, passed it in the senate and then got all the votes to pass it in the house, then the republicans used procedural tricks to delay the vote until it died as a bill. The obama said "well, bill died, but we are doing this part anyway" and just declared daca as a thing through presidential order. And like, if you had told the story like, oh well, the democrats could have tried harder, if they had played X magic card it could have enacted an untested gambit that I assume would have totally worked to beat the republicans. And fine, that, whatever, maybe. But then it moves past that to "also democrats planned this, also they didn't even try to pass legislation, also they got paid to make republicans win, etc' and that is just crazy rewriting of history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
I'm talking about 2010 when they had a majority in both houses in Congress and the presidency and enough votes to actually pass it if they went nuclear in the Senate but then lost the House a month before the Senate vote in December. Writing a bill in 2013 was never going to pass because the House was in Republican control and they will always use bullshit just like they stole a SCOTUS seat and there will always be an excuse. Getting past the filibuster isn't a magic card, it's the nuclear option and if the Democrats aren't willing to use it the Dreamers will never get amnesty outside of some poo poo deal like 12 year waiting time (during which there are many ways they can easily be hosed by bad actors).
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:they will always use bullshit just like they stole a SCOTUS seat and there will always be an excuse. Yeah, they should have learned that lesson in 2016 then sent a terminator back in time so they could apply that lesson to an event that happened pervious to the event you are using as proof they should have known.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, they should have learned that lesson in 2016 then sent a terminator back in time so they could apply that lesson to an event that happened pervious to the event you are using as proof they should have known. I'm glad our overbribed officials needed to learn "the people against your agenda wont work with you no matter how many episodes of West Wing plays in the background" despite that centrists are supposed to be the smart pragmatic bunch that dont need a flippin' high school special to figure things out. A coming of age story, 40+ years in the making. Alternatively, they are not secret leftists. And you are not defending secret leftism by attacking leftists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
If the Democrats didn't know in 2010 let alone 2016 that the Republicans were full of poo poo, cheat, break the law, and don't bargain in good faith after what they pulled from 2000 starting with stealing an election via the SCOTUS to getting us into Iraq on lies to name a few, not to forget Reagan and Nixon in the more distant past, then they are not even someone we can count on as the lesser of two evils because they are absolutely not up to the task. The fact that even now they are still trying to craft bipartisan legislation like that trait is inherently a positive is not a mark in their favor as a competent opposition and voting based entirely on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
I don't understand why leftists don't like Hillary Clinton?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s_dp2AEUjM What's there not to like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This is what I mean about people that just absorb fox news narrative. This weird alternate history of the democrats playing a trick instead of the actual thing that happened. Considering that you are using the argument that we're all operating off of some fox news narrative, you seem to still be holding onto the idea that anyone claiming to be on your left is a actually a Republican trying to gaslight you. Plus you know, you've argued that HRC had supported single payer while accusing others of crazy rewrites of history. That's pretty loving hilarious. Galaxy Brain: Anyone that disagrees with me from the left is secretly a Republican. Universe Brain: Anyone that disagrees with me from the left is secretly an AI programed by Russian Scientists and Vladimir Putin. Trans-dimensional Multi-Universe Brain: Anyone that disagrees with me from the left is secretly a psychic manifestation of Xenu attempting to infect me with Thetans, corrupt my male essence, and hide the truth of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days. Get on my level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
The best way to fight republicans is to vote for D. The best way to fight democrats is to primary them, get involves in the process, and oust them. If that fails, try again next year. Not voting helps no one but the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Plus you know, you've argued that HRC had supported single payer Universal healthcare and single payer aren't synonyms. Lots of countries provide universal healthcare that isn't single payer, lots of countries provide extremely world class universal healthcare through a system of mandatory insurance, a public option and a system to get it to people that can't pay. If you think we shouldn't have a system like luxembourg has (the best system on the earth) because they "only" have public option subsidized insurance universal health care instead of pure ideologically perfect pure single payer then gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:is a actually a Republican trying to gaslight you. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964512164865363968
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
A politician who won't support single payer will not support universal healthcare
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:A politician who won't support single payer will not support universal healthcare There is three countries on earth that use pure single payers, canada, tawiain and south korea. Like 78 countries or something have universal health care and like 30 have meaningful free health care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Universal healthcare and single payer aren't synonyms. Lots of countries provide universal healthcare that isn't single payer, lots of countries provide extremely world class universal healthcare through a system of mandatory insurance, a public option and a system to get it to people that can't pay. You will continue to support people who will give you none of those things and attack those who do. You are a gaslight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This is what I mean about people that just absorb fox news narrative. This weird alternate history of the democrats playing a trick instead of the actual thing that happened. Dude when the DREAM Act was introduced in March 2009, Democrats had 60 votes in the senate and could have passed it on party lines. When they finally did get around to voting on it they had 59 votes plus 3 Republicans voting for it, why did it fail? Because 5 Democrats voted against it, 2 of whom are still in the Senate. Oh and none of them were Lieberman, he cosponsored it, it was all party members who conspired to kill it. The 2013 bill was loving political theatre from the party that shot down their own bipartisan bill in 2010 to appeal to racists. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The 2013 bill was loving political theatre from the party that shot down their own bipartisan bill in 2010 to appeal to racists. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964512164865363968
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Yeah, the first part is true, the second is a lie. Do you have anything to say besides Orwellian arguments that the sky must be green because Emmanuel Goldstein said it is blue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Partisanship is a hell of a drug. 1. Five Democrats racistly vote to deport a million people who came here as children and America is all they've ever known, to break up families and destroy a million lives for the crime of being Hispanic. Somehow they don't lose their plum committee assignments or lose support from the party because apparently being a racist rear end in a top hat is still okay as long as you wear the team colors. 2. A Republican points out that this happened. 3. In the minds of partisans, it now did not happen because a Republican said it did, and anyone who says that what happened happened must be a secret Republican because truth is the enemy of Team Blue and must be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The next step is you declaring we had universal health care until Hillary Clinton took it away by running on providing a public option Dude, you're too far gone to talk to anymore. I asked "what public option?" to try to make you realize that Obama failed in his promise to deliver one, but just like Charlie Brown and the football, you thought that Hillary would manage to deliver. But why are we relitigating the primary anyway? 2016 is over, let's focus on the future, how are you gonna get the country to vote for Dems? By yelling at them and throwing out anyone who dares criticize The Party as a conservative traitor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
If you want to keep supporting people that will happily sell you out in the name of bipartisanship, your more than welcome to, but stop pretending your doing it because you care about women and minorities, because you clearly don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:If you want to keep supporting people that will happily sell you out in the name of bipartisanship, your more than welcome to, but stop pretending your doing it because you care about women and minorities, because you clearly don't. Who do you vote for to support women and minorities? Republicans? Imaginary people you made up that didn't run?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
It's pretty hosed up how neither these forums nor it's posters are real and we're all just fragments of Donald Trump's dying brain arguing with themselves as he tries to remember which button on his desk orders a diet Coke and which one launches the nukes. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who do you vote for to support women and minorities? Republicans? Imaginary people you made up that didn't run? Speaking of imaginary people, your version of HRC should totally be President. Universal health care is pretty good. Granted her position on mandatory marjiuna comsumption under America's new official Rastifari religion is a bit divisive and her promises on executive signing statements allowing the Raging King to walk the Earth is a net negative and probably would mean we'd all be posting from the Sumerian underworld right now but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:2006 is about the time the Supreme Court started chipping away at state and federal campaign contribution limit laws. The Supreme Court ruled Vermont's strict caps on campaign contributions unconstitutional in Randall v. Sorrell, saying it violated the First Amendment. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, saying that limits on electioneering spending by nonprofits were unconstitutional. Citizens United in 2010 basically sealed the deal by taking away the limits put on unions and corporations. As Willa Rogers pointed out, Obama was the first president to fully reject public election financing since the system was established back in the 70s. McCain was willing to take it (and the spending caps that went along with it), but Obama thought he could substantially outraise McCain if he wasn't subject to the caps, so he broke his campaign's commitment to use the public system and relied entirely on private fundraising instead. As for the importance of that spending? Well, according to that link you posted, the Dems outspent outspent the GOP in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. And so far, all they have to show for it is a pile of debt, reluctant donors not interested in contributing any more, and an absolutely furious base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Fake leftists are the guy in the trump thread posting "If kids are going to die like this, it should be his kids. Let him feel that pain. Let that be his medicine." because they found out of the the florida kid's has a dad who might be republican.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
This talk about 'fake leftists' is starting to sound like 'fake geek girls'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Fake leftists are the guy in the trump thread posting "If kids are going to die like this, it should be his kids. Let him feel that pain. Let that be his medicine." because they found out of the the florida kid's has a dad who might be republican. So go yell at him! What the gently caress is this post? "I've created a boogy boogy bad guy in my head called 'fake leftists' and boy I'm sure loving mad at them!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:As for the importance of that spending? Well, according to that link you posted, the Dems outspent outspent the GOP in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. And so far, all they have to show for it is a pile of debt, reluctant donors not interested in contributing any more, and an absolutely furious base. *And lucrative six-figure speaking gigs and sinecures from the white-collar criminals they coddled while in office
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The 2013 bill was loving political theatre from the party that shot down their own bipartisan bill in 2010 to appeal to racists. It sounds like you should be mad at the three people that voted against it and working to primary them instead of just constantly being mad on the internet at a lot of people who supported it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
the way the people who "supported daca" "would never abandon dreamers", that kind of support, yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:25
|
|