|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
If so, then let's repeal Obamacare.
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If so, then let's repeal Obamacare. And the crazy thing is you could totally message it like Trump has, pull the wool over people's eyes that "Obamacare is a disaster!" as a distraction and quietly pass a single payer bill. I can only dream...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:i'll cross post this from the other thread The 'problem' is Price is a bad politician who previously ruled that domain, the democrats need to pick up seats in the house and winning his district is a kick to the gut. The nonsense is claiming that no candidate the democrats put up is worth voting for unless they meet an ideological test that boils down to "the candidate should be palatable to historically blue districts despite is district not wanting anything approximating that." The nonsense is suggesting democrats are wrong if they spend money on the contest or don't spend money on it. The nonsense is suggesting that a more moderate candidate winning will not have profound effects on politics prior to the 2018 election. It should go without saying, but apparently it needs to over and over, that in a two party system you will have representatives you don't like from places where your politics are unpalatable but they are needed to advance the agenda. It's also nonsense to say there is no difference between either "white" candidate Shammypants fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
jfood posted:We're not friends but I do absolutely love what you're posting. I sincerely think it's loving amazing. He's not, actually. That's just the Outer Narrative. The Inner Narrative is economic liberalism. Notice how quickly "we need to win at all costs" disappears when it comes to liberal policies like TPP. Nobody asked for it, everyone hates it, that just shows how stupid the public is so ignore the polls, full speed ahead!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Wanting Democrats to pass single payer is good, but demanding that every single candidate campaign on passing single payer is dumb because it will make it harder for the ones in deep red districts to win. I can bend on a lot of issues but single payer isn't one of them. Healthcare in America is a horror show and single payer is a simple, easy to understand, and remarkably effective solution to the problem. Opposition to it can only be interpreted as profound ignorance or outright corruption and I have no use for people who fall under either category in the Democratic party. If this looses us some deep red districts then I'm fine with that. I don't think that will happen though because people (even Republicans) LIKE Medicare and by extension would like single payer if clearly marketed to them as "Medicare for all". Several polls have shown this too.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
It's interesting how back in 2010 Obamacare was marketed as the first step to an eventual single-payer system, but now we can't ever have single payer because we'd have to repeal Obamacare to do it. Hm.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:I agree that your 'secret socialist' strawman is pretty dumb. My claim was that single-payer is more popular among republicans than the ACA is (which it is), which would bring more republicans into the Democratic Party, especially the more poorer ones. And framing the question without it replacing Obamacare is especially dumb because thats not the reality that we live in. So you believe that running on single payer would somehow cause republicans to flip parties and become democrats. But you also think the suggestion that significant numbers of republicans are secret socialists is a strawman. Hmm. As ytlaya suggested, comparing the ACA to single payer gives a false indication of republican support because the ACA has been the target of eight years of republican propaganda whereas single payer has not. It's the height of political naïveté to assume Republican support will hold once the socialized medicine attacks start coming out. readingatwork posted:I can bend on a lot of issues but single payer isn't one of them. Healthcare in America is a horror show and single payer is a simple, easy to understand, and remarkably effective solution to the problem. Opposition to it can only be interpreted as profound ignorance or outright corruption and I have no use for people who fall under either category in the Democratic party. If this looses us some deep red districts then I'm fine with that. I don't think that will happen though because people (even Republicans) LIKE Medicare and by extension would like single payer if clearly marketed to them as "Medicare for all". Several polls have shown this too. You can believe what you like, but let's not pretend you don't have a purity test for democrats on single payer, because that's literally what you're describing here. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 01:44 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
okay that's all good but i was saying that "purity tests" is a problematic dismissal by liberals towards leftists in the same way that conservatives use similar terms like PC or especially virtue signaling (virtue, purity, same thing basically) to dismiss liberal/leftist concerns the best response to someone saying that an overused phrase is problematic isn't a paragraph doubling down on why that phrase is actually good. e: it's okay tho, we all get told from time to time not to use certain problematic phrases. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's interesting how back in 2010 Obamacare was marketed as the first step to an eventual single-payer system, but now we can't ever have single payer because we'd have to repeal Obamacare to do it. It's almost as Obammacare was a clever branding trick to write a blank check to private health insurance companies!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can believe what you like, but let's not pretend you don't have a purity test for democrats on single payer, because that's literally what you're describing here. yes how dare we demand the democrats help 99% of americans by giving them quality healthcare, how dare us. your mental image of future elections is so dire i question why you even care what the democrats do. the republicans are apparently so unbeatable on messaging that winning elections on any aspect of the democratic platform is impossible
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
the virtue signaling of not voicing support for people who killed and continue to kill people at home and abroad through their destabilizing use of military force and untenable, discriminatory socioeconomic policies
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So you believe that running on single payer would somehow cause republicans to flip parties and become democrats. Based on the polling data that you ignored, I said it would flip enough republicans voters in order to bring the Rust Belt back to the Democrats. Those people are literally rotting out there. The rest of your post is more of your asinine gibberish that you've become known for (which isn't worth responding to). But yeah, keep arguing that centrism works despite the Democrats losing control of literally every aspect of the government by running on it. Your precious Abuela did no wrong, after all!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:your mental image of future elections is so dire i question why you even care what the democrats do he wants to keep his taxes low
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
i don't like it when people i know and love feel like taking their lives because of the uncertainty they face in the future in a precarious system that lacks safeguards against these kinds of things even being a possibility health care companies like cigna obviously weren't satisfied enough with democrats' appeasement strategies, and now propose things that would make friends unable to support hrt and mental health meds
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:okay that's all good but i was saying that "purity tests" is a problematic dismissal by liberals towards leftists in the same way that conservatives use similar terms like PC or especially virtue signaling (virtue, purity, same thing basically) to dismiss liberal/leftist concerns It's not an empty concept I am applying willy nilly. There are people who demand purity even in areas where it's absurd (i.e. GA-06)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:health care companies like cigna obviously weren't satisfied enough with democrats' appeasement strategies, and now propose things that would make friends unable to support hrt and mental health meds This is really the problem with the Democrats' disastrous obsession with "compromise," to the extent it's even a riff in their favorite musical. You can't compromise with people who only want to take more and more while giving as little as inhumanly possible.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You have a reading problem, friend. Promising to oppose Trump's agenda is not nothing, and until we get a new president that's literally all democrats can do. They can promise single payer in the future, but they should only do that if it will help them get elected. And that promise probably will help in blue and purple districts, just not in red ones. Your purity tantrum is boring. The problem is there are many Americans who want positive change. Even if on some level they acknowledge Trump might be worse, if they're going to be in bad shape regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democratic there isn't much motivating them to vote. Making opposition of a bad opponent (in this case Republicans) is only a winning strategy when enough of the public is happy with the status quo and more concerned with preventing bad things from happening than making good things happen. That is growing increasing untrue as more people begin to lose faith in our political system bringing them positive change. While I won't say that it's impossible for Democrats to still manage to eek out a win using this strategy, it's not something we should be encouraging and it's only going to become increasingly untenable as the current situation continues to remain the same (or become worse). Also, there's the fact that several people have mentioned that you have no rational reason to believe that advocating for single payer will in fact rally the GOP base, at least in the current political climate. When you say that sort of thing it is literally no different from when the leftists in this thread blindly claim that leftism is necessary to win elections. It's just a gut feeling you have. XyrlocShammypants posted:It's not an empty concept I am applying willy nilly. There are people who demand purity even in areas where it's absurd (i.e. GA-06) I think it's important to distinguish between whether people are talking about who they will vote for or whether they're talking about their personal views. Like, I strongly dislike mainstream Democrats/liberals, but I will still always vote for them in any election that has the slightest chance of being contested. But this doesn't mean I'm obligated to speak positively of them in discussions like this. Basically, the "purity tests" argument is valid when applied specifically to voting, but not when applied to a person's ideology or criticism of politicians. I completely agree that anyone who voted third party (or god forbid Trump) in a swing state was being dumb, but someone merely expressing leftist views and dissatisfaction with the Democratic status quo in threads like this doesn't imply that. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
if you'd like to know why people may be a little miffed, it's because we were told to put our concerns aside for the time being in order to advance a vision turned out did not include any concerns for fixing things for us long-term (and allowed for future catastrophes). we were told to trust our leaders; everything was in the bag and things would turn out all right. we did everything we were asked; things did not turn out all right. now people are suffering as a result while also feeling like their trust was betrayed. anyone handing out apologia should know that it comes off as denial of, and is insulting to, real people's suffering. if these people at the head of progress really tried their best, their best was not good enough. if they now want to rebuild the trust they once had, they will have to take a drastic departure from their old mode of operating (with at least one grand flashy program proposal to get people's attention) in order to prove they have changed, believe affirmatively (instead of reactively) in a clear direction to take society, and are generally capable of better things. we're still waiting for the first spark of something new to go along with, and until that happens, people are going to stew in resentment of old mistakes. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Re-2020 chat: https://twitter.com/IAStartingLine/status/861006199499534336
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
He's a redhead, won't win anything (even if he is great or not)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Based on the polling data that you ignored, I said it would flip enough republicans voters in order to bring the Rust Belt back to the Democrats. Those people are literally rotting out there. The rest of your post is more of your asinine gibberish that you've become known for (which isn't worth responding to). But yeah, keep arguing that centrism works despite the Democrats losing control of literally every aspect of the government by running on it. Your precious Abuela did no wrong, after all! You are ignoring the multiple posts I've made where I say democrats in purple and blue districts would likely benefit from advocating single payer. JeffersonClay posted:Single payer should be part of democratic campaigns in purple and blue districts, but it won't help in red ones. Single payer will energize both the democratic and republican base, that's only a good thing in districts where the latter doesn't dwarf the former. I'm not real confident you've got a good conception of my position, here. Ytlaya posted:The problem is there are many Americans who want positive change. Even if on some level they acknowledge Trump might be worse, if they're going to be in bad shape regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democratic there isn't much motivating them to vote. The AHCA is incredibly unpopular. Hanging it around the necks of republicans who voted for it will work really well. I think running against Trump and the Republicans will work great in 2018, but Democrats will need to articulate a positive vision for change in 2020. Midterms and presidential elections aren't the same. quote:Also, there's the fact that several people have mentioned that you have no rational reason to believe that advocating for single payer will in fact rally the GOP base, at least in the current political climate. When you say that sort of thing it is literally no different from when the leftists in this thread blindly claim that leftism is necessary to win elections. It's just a gut feeling you have. There's no rational reason to believe that republicans will rally behind opposition to socialism? Don't be naive. I'm not quibbling with assertions that moving left would energize leftists. But the suggestion that moving left would energize leftists but have no effect whatsoever on the republicans' motivation to oppose us is frankly absurd. It's obviously going to do both, and so whether or not moving left would help or hurt us in elections depends on the magnitude of those reactions generally, and on the composition of individual districts specifically. I'm happy to concede that single payer will help us in blue districts, and even in purple ones, but in deep red districts? Please.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
there is this weird idea that conservatives don't actually exist
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Medicare for all is more popular than the ACA. The ACA is viewed as socialized medicine by the idiots you'd try courting in purple/red districts. Running on either will have the effect you describe, except the ACA actually does suck so you lose leftists and the brainwashed horde, and (maybe?) continue to elect baddems who refuse to accept the popularity of medicare for all, effectively stymieing the future passage of it. You are a waste.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's no rational reason to believe that republicans will rally behind opposition to socialism? Don't be naive. I'm not quibbling with assertions that moving left would energize leftists. But the suggestion that moving left would energize leftists but have no effect whatsoever on the republicans' motivation to oppose us is frankly absurd. It's obviously going to do both, and so whether or not moving left would help or hurt us in elections depends on the magnitude of those reactions generally, and on the composition of individual districts specifically. I'm happy to concede that single payer will help us in blue districts, and even in purple ones, but in deep red districts? Please. Did you miss the past six years where the Republicans went insane over a terrible half-measure like the ACA and used it to galvanize their base? Or the fact that most of those people against ACA have a legitimate beef towards it since it either a) didn't help them and their premiums skyrocketed b) fined them if they didn't have private health insurance c) could have helped them but they had no idea they qualified for subsidies or what the program actually was d) gave them access to medicaid but their area is so hosed up that they were willing to trade that for the chance of getting a job that comes with health insurance e) they live in a state where their governor refused the federal funding to expand medicaid access (In case you're curious, I'm E) Or like I posted in the left wing thread the last time you were going on about this. Call Me Charlie posted:If your argument is that we can't support progressive economic policies because it will scare away the (naturally racist) whites or radicalize them further...are we just suppose to never fight for better economic policies? And how is social justice/identity politics immune from that same line of logic? You'd think that the same group that thinks minorities get a super secret form of welfare from MAH TAXMONEY would also be repelled by those things you think we should exclusively focus on. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
The hope that if we campaign on the ACA, Republicans will just forget to call us commie socialists, or will suddenly develop a respect for good faith arguments and tell the voters to appreciate the nuances and give us points for not advocating socialized medicine is, at best, charmingly naive.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Also worth pointing out that one major party candidate did run on an explicit promise to bring us socialized health care last year, and he is the President now lol
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's no rational reason to believe that republicans will rally behind opposition to socialism? Don't be naive. I'm not quibbling with assertions that moving left would energize leftists. But the suggestion that moving left would energize leftists but have no effect whatsoever on the republicans' motivation to oppose us is frankly absurd. It's obviously going to do both, and so whether or not moving left would help or hurt us in elections depends on the magnitude of those reactions generally, and on the composition of individual districts specifically. I'm happy to concede that single payer will help us in blue districts, and even in purple ones, but in deep red districts? Please. what are some policy planks you think the national party should adopt that can appease voters in all districts? what I'm hearing here is you want 50 democratic parties, each with their own agenda and goals and only able to agree collectively on the notion that the letter R won't be after their names if elected
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can believe what you like, but let's not pretend you don't have a purity test for democrats on single payer, because that's literally what you're describing here. In this case yes you're right. So what? Purity tests aren't always a bad thing. Being willing to reject people under certain circumstances is a sign of having principles, which voters sorely crave right now. Yes, this means we'll loose a few right-leaning districts in the short term but in exchange the party as a whole gains credibility, which in turn energizes large swaths of the base and can result in more wins overall. On the other hand if you reject nothing you communicate to people that you stand for nothing, which inevitably makes people disengaged and cynical. Which, as we've seen ultimately results in key demographics checking out all together and your coalition collapsing. Which is exactly what's happening right now.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's no rational reason to believe that republicans will rally behind opposition to socialism? Don't be naive. I'm not quibbling with assertions that moving left would energize leftists. But the suggestion that moving left would energize leftists but have no effect whatsoever on the republicans' motivation to oppose us is frankly absurd. It's obviously going to do both, and so whether or not moving left would help or hurt us in elections depends on the magnitude of those reactions generally, and on the composition of individual districts specifically. I'm happy to concede that single payer will help us in blue districts, and even in purple ones, but in deep red districts? Please. Republicans already think Democrats are socialists. It's not like there are many Republicans who think "man, those Democrats are reasonable and not-socialist right now, but if they fought for single payer it would be too much!" Republicans already fought viciously against the ACA and thought it was literally universal healthcare or whatever. edit: If anything, the idea that Democrats will gain more support from moving to the left has more supporting it than your idea that supporting universal healthcare will rally Republicans. We already have a bunch of Democrats who explicitly want the party to move to the left, and I find it doubtful that very many moderate/centrist Democrats will stop voting as a result of moving to the left, even if they don't agree with it. So while I still don't feel comfortable making the assertion that moving to the left would definitely help, the hypothesis that it would at least makes sense on paper. But the idea that there are a bunch of Republicans who aren't voting but would vote if Democrats moved more to the left is not particularly likely. I don't think Republicans would respond any differently to actual universal healthcare than they would to the ACA; either way their media sources will be telling them it's socialism. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:12 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Republicans already think Democrats are socialists. It's not like there are many Republicans who think "man, those Democrats are reasonable and not-socialist right now, but if they fought for single payer it would be too much!" Republicans already fought viciously against the ACA and thought it was literally universal healthcare or whatever. Exactly. The notion that this would somehow fire up the Republican base even more doesn't really comport with reality. They don't need an excuse to get fired up. It's absurd to suggest that they would get more fired up against a single payer proposal than they did against Hillary Clinton or Obamacare. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:34 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
If we want to look at whether Republicans will graciously give up an effective attack just because Democrats surrendered, let's look at welfare reform. Did throwing the poor out on the street get Republicans to applaud and give Clinton credit for moving to the center? Of course not, they didn't let up one iota on welfare queens for even one day. Most people don't even know it happened. Democrats got no credit; they gave away a pillar of the Great Society for nothing. The idea that if we stick with the ACA, Republicans will wake up on the right side of the bed after eight years and finally say "okay America, our bad, we were wrong for eight years and PPACA isn't socialism because the nation's health care system remains entirely in private hands, now let's all be fair to each other this time around" is some political made-for-TV-drama fantasy. By the way, who are these voters who are so apathetic they don't know/care an election is happening, but so partisan that they'll rush out to vote if socialized medicine is on the ballot, but so engaged in policy minutiae that they can determine the Republicans are lying that the ACA is socialism, yet misinformed enough to think the ACA is better than socialism... I have my doubts that there's this reserve pool of Republican voters who can explain the difference between PPACA and socialism, but don't know when elections are. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:52 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So you believe that running on single payer would somehow cause republicans to flip parties and become democrats. But you also think the suggestion that significant numbers of republicans are secret socialists is a strawman. Hmm. As ytlaya suggested, comparing the ACA to single payer gives a false indication of republican support because the ACA has been the target of eight years of republican propaganda whereas single payer has not. It's the height of political naïveté to assume Republican support will hold once the socialized medicine attacks start coming out. Bernie would have won.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Actually, there are shitloads of socialists and pseudo-socialists out there. See: the election of Donald J. Trump and literally every opinion poll done in the last decade on single-payer health care.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
jfc you can't talk about how every other country had single payer, capitalism is ruining the world, and then call single payer socialist
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:jfc you can't talk about how every other country had single payer, capitalism is ruining the world, and then call single payer socialist ...what? Why not? Some countries having socialist (or more accurately social democratic) policies is not somehow mutually exclusive with capitalism causing a lot of harm (especially given how we've been seeing such policies be eroded in recent decades). A society/government can have such elements will still remaining fundamentally capitalist. I mean, you could argue about whether there are any better alternatives to regulated capitalism, and maybe there aren't (though I think it's far too soon to decide that), but that's a complete separate argument. There's nothing hypocritical or strange about thinking capitalism is generally causing harm throughout the world while also thinking that countries' governments have managed to pass some beneficial social democratic policies.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:jfc you can't talk about how every other country had single payer, capitalism is ruining the world, and then call single payer socialist Why not? Because a complex world confuses people like you?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:jfc you can't talk about how every other country had single payer, capitalism is ruining the world, and then call single payer socialist are you still acting like you're socialist wj?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You made the claim that increased turnout will always benefit democrats. This is not true in deep red districts. The democrat being too leftist is not the only way to increase turnout among republicans in deep red districts. But it is one the democrats have control over. Adopting single payer in the national platform doesnt have any effect on the democrats in purple and blue districts who already put single payer in their personal platform, it only affects the most marginal candidates in deep red districts who have determined they won't benefit from advocating that platform, so it hurts them by energizing GOP opposition, or forces them to disavow the national platform. Neither is a good outcome. That's why pelosi is against making it a part of the national platform despite personally advocating for single payer for decades.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:jfc you can't talk about how every other country had single payer, capitalism is ruining the world, and then call single payer socialist There are active pressures with various degrees of recent success in these other countries'to dismantle these public healthcare systems so these aren't incompatible ideas. In case you haven't noticed this last decade has been particularly bad when it comes to capitalism's performance.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:...what? Why not? Some countries having socialist (or more accurately social democratic) policies is not somehow mutually exclusive with capitalism causing a lot of harm (especially given how we've been seeing such policies be eroded in recent decades). A society/government can have such elements will still remaining fundamentally capitalist. I agree, capitalism with social democracy is better than capitalism without, but at the end of the day, this is what you sound like: https://twitter.com/joyannreid/status/861310557307236352 Fados posted:There are active pressures with various degrees of recent success in these other countries'to dismantle these public healthcare systems so these aren't incompatible ideas. In case you haven't noticed this last decade has been particularly bad when it comes to capitalism's performance. Oh, word?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:40
|
|