|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool?
Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course.
|
On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course.
Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise.
|
On March 14 2017 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
Channeling LegalLord, Most Popular Politician Around Bernard Sanders lost the nomination by over 3m votes lol. You know that she got crushed in the primaries that weren't closed. That whole shtick is old hat. Yeah, Democrats like her, Bernie's popularity extends beyond Democratic party loyalists though.
Here we go with another attempt by GH to re-write history. Although Clinton did best in closed primaries, she still actually won more open contests (primaries and caucuses) than Sanders. And if you remove caucuses and only look at open primaries, the trend is even more in her favor, so the idea that "she got crushed in the primaries that weren't closed" is a complete falsehood -- the opposite is true. Here's an excellent analysis by 538 showing how Sanders benefited enormously from caucuses, and how Clinton would have beaten him by roughly the same margin as she did even if every state had had an open primary.
|
On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise.
Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc..
I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better.
It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around.
|
On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. If it was a real argument the Democrats would be saying "This is how we get medicare for all..."
wait, the democratic primary for the democratic nomination for the democratic nominee for the democratic party is for democrats? next thing you'll be telling me that football games include football players wearing football equipment playing by the rules of football in a football stadium using a football.
|
On March 14 2017 08:09 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. If it was a real argument the Democrats would be saying "This is how we get medicare for all..." wait, the democratic primary for the democratic nomination for the democratic nominee for the democratic party is for democrats? next thing you'll be telling me that football games include football players wearing football equipment playing by the rules of football in a football stadium using a football.
In case you haven't noticed Democrats aren't just less popular than Trump, they are less popular than even the GOP. Maybe, just maybe, the insular nature of the party isn't helpful?
|
Not every country has "Medicare for all". Some systems, like in Switzerland, are more similar to the current American system under the ACA.
|
On March 14 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The question, as it always has been, is how Bernie would implement his universal healthcare (or punish banks, or whatever)?
Bernie would be a better President than Trump, because he has a better temperament to setbacks. But unless he can actually say he has a detailed plan in place, I would foresee him walking into the oval office, and then walk out with the same "who knew it would be this hard" excuse when he can't deliver on his promises. I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race? If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR. But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise. Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc.. I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better. It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around.
So yeah, vote for the guy telling the best story then. I don't doubt that he could win, Trump ran and won with the same principle.
|
Hillary's results so far have been pretty abysmal. Her travel ban, the dismantling of the EPA, her treatment of transgender students have all been pretty shit IMO.
Maybe she should have spent less time making sure the primaries were locked down and instead focused on the general election.
|
On March 14 2017 08:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I heard this Hillary person had a plan for universal healthcare before the 16 race?
If that's the problem, then Democrats should be working on the implementation of a medicare for all system, and let Bernie (the most popular politician around) handle the PR.
But that's not the problem. Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise. Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc.. I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better. It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around. So yeah, vote for the guy telling the best story then. I don't doubt that he could win, Trump ran and won with the same principle.
You think Democrats would be able to get more or less done with Bernie as President as opposed to Trump?
Let's say you're right, Bernie's just telling a story, wouldn't it be better to have him in charge so the "results" Democrats could do the leg work of getting a better system passed?
EDIT: But I don't really want to rehash that, my point is why not rally behind him now instead of sitting around with their thumbs in their bums.
|
On March 14 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Well, I guess, at least you're being honest about wanting Bernie because of popularity and not results... The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise. Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc.. I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better. It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around. So yeah, vote for the guy telling the best story then. I don't doubt that he could win, Trump ran and won with the same principle. You think Democrats would be able to get more or less done with Bernie as President as opposed to Trump? Let's say you're right, Bernie's just telling a story, wouldn't it be better to have him in charge so the "results" Democrats could do the leg work of getting a better system passed?
Well, I didn't say Bernie would've won 2016 over Trump, or that he would have won Congress and Senate for the Democrats either.
But, uh, sure, I imagine having Bernie as a figurehead making big promises that actual policymakers have to make reality would be better. Certainly worked out for the Republicans.
|
On March 14 2017 08:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The "results" argument is nonsense. If they wanted "results" then talk to him about how to get them, but that's not the approach they are taking. Because the "results" argument isn't real. It's just a talking point with no substance. ? I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers. I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise. Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc.. I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better. It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around. So yeah, vote for the guy telling the best story then. I don't doubt that he could win, Trump ran and won with the same principle. You think Democrats would be able to get more or less done with Bernie as President as opposed to Trump? Let's say you're right, Bernie's just telling a story, wouldn't it be better to have him in charge so the "results" Democrats could do the leg work of getting a better system passed? Well, I didn't say Bernie would've won 2016 over Trump, or that he would have won Congress and Senate for the Democrats either. But, uh, sure, I imagine having Bernie as a figurehead making big promises that actual policymakers have to make reality would be better. Certainly worked out for the Republicans.
So you're saying that you're glad you voted for Trump to be president.
|
On March 14 2017 08:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
?
I mean, during the election cycle people outright asked him how he would punish banks and what his plans for universal healthcare would be, and he hemmed and hawed with his answers.
I would like to believe that people vote for someone promising those things are voting because they want them to actually happen. Not because they liked the story they're being told. The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare "Mission accomplished" The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise. Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc.. I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better. It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around. So yeah, vote for the guy telling the best story then. I don't doubt that he could win, Trump ran and won with the same principle. You think Democrats would be able to get more or less done with Bernie as President as opposed to Trump? Let's say you're right, Bernie's just telling a story, wouldn't it be better to have him in charge so the "results" Democrats could do the leg work of getting a better system passed? Well, I didn't say Bernie would've won 2016 over Trump, or that he would have won Congress and Senate for the Democrats either. But, uh, sure, I imagine having Bernie as a figurehead making big promises that actual policymakers have to make reality would be better. Certainly worked out for the Republicans. So you're saying that you're glad you voted for Trump to be president.
That's what I'm reading there too. But he's Canadian, so just of that line of thinking.
|
On March 14 2017 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 08:28 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2017 08:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2017 07:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 14 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The bank thing was a situation where he didn't mention the same thing he had mentioned several times before. The healthcare bit is particularly funny. Hillary said we couldn't do it because we didn't need another fight on healthcare
"Mission accomplished"
The fairy tale was that Hillary won, and accomplished anything as president. Cool. Don't see what Hillary has to do with Bernie being able to deliver on his promises, but cool? Because the supposition is that she would deliver, she didn't. So Bernie not delivering would be par for the course. Well, that's a stunning endorsement then. Vote for Bernie because he's as bad a candidate as the one you despise. Except he's not telling us healthcare isn't a right, that children escaping peril should be sent back to send a message to their parents, Honduras, taking 10's of millions from Wall Street, etc.. I don't accept your argument that he wouldn't get results, but my point is that even if that were the case, he's still better. It's not like there's some alternative "results oriented" Democrat out there that they should instead be rallying around. So yeah, vote for the guy telling the best story then. I don't doubt that he could win, Trump ran and won with the same principle. You think Democrats would be able to get more or less done with Bernie as President as opposed to Trump? Let's say you're right, Bernie's just telling a story, wouldn't it be better to have him in charge so the "results" Democrats could do the leg work of getting a better system passed? Well, I didn't say Bernie would've won 2016 over Trump, or that he would have won Congress and Senate for the Democrats either. But, uh, sure, I imagine having Bernie as a figurehead making big promises that actual policymakers have to make reality would be better. Certainly worked out for the Republicans. So you're saying that you're glad you voted for Trump to be president. That's what I'm reading there too. But he's Canadian, so just of that line of thinking.
I read it as either complete sarcasm, or an observation that the Republicans are getting some of what they want by putting Trump at their head to make the promises that they can ignore or (perhaps partially) enact at their leisure. Neither of those implies an actual endorsement of Trump or the Republicans' policies.
|
Why do people keep placing opinions on others in this strange manner?
Anyway, I don't see why having a politician promise things that can't be granted is a reason not to vote for them. Did Obama deliver on his promises? Is Guantanamo Bay closed? Are there no more US soldiers fighting in Iraq/the Middle East? Was health care resolved in a satisfying manner without complications (could you keep your doctor and plan)? As if only Republicans make promises that can't be kept.
Voting on politicians is more about character and vision as far as I'm concerned. I'd sooner vote on someone who can represent me and my views of society and its problems, rather than on someone who has the best political skills and adjusts their views as the views of certain demographics change. And in terms of feasibility, plans presented in a campaign speech or ad will always differ from what is implemented due to the reality of negotiations and thoroughness of actually writing out the laws, so that's hardly a worry.
|
Bernie as president would have at least been functional and he'd nominate people to all the positions. Certainly would have been less exciting until he started proposing policies
as shown through stats. Most presidents fulfill most of their promises.its like 73 percent.
|
On March 14 2017 09:02 a_flayer wrote:
Why do people keep placing opinions on others in this strange manner?
Anyway, I don't see why having a politician promise things that can't be granted is a reason not to vote for them. Did Obama deliver on his promises? Is Guantanamo Bay closed? Are there no more US soldiers fighting in Iraq/the Middle East? Was health care resolved in a satisfying manner without complications (could you keep your doctor and plan)? As if only Republicans make promises that can't be kept.
Voting on politicians is more about character and vision as far as I'm concerned. I'd sooner vote on someone who can represent me and my views of society and its problems, rather than on someone who has the best political skills and adjusts their views as the views of certain demographics change. And in terms of feasibility, plans presented in a campaign speech or ad will always differ from what is implemented due to the reality of negotiations and thoroughness of actually writing out the laws, so that's hardly a worry.
there are many plausible ways to decide how to place a vote. and of course there'es no requirement that you even have a reasonable system.
Personally, I dislike promising things that are unachievable, as it feels dishonest.
I dislike the idea of someone who's just parroting my ideas of what's wrong, because I want them to be thorough and methodical and make sure things actually ARE problems, and not just errant perceptions.
there's a difference between promising the unachievable, and promising the difficult but plausible.
|
Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is in West Virginia showing Trump voters agree with the idea that healthcare is a right. Now if only Democrats could be as brave as the Trump delegate and say it out loud.
EDIT: Though they're more likely to watch that and think "Hmm, maybe if we grew rat tails..."
|
Sanders has done more for the Dems in 4 months, than they have for themselves in four years.
The Justice Department is requesting more time to respond to a congressional inquiry into President Donald Trump's unproven assertion that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.
The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
But spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores says in a statement Monday that the department has asked for more time to "review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine what if any responsive documents may exist."
Trump tweeted earlier this month that President Barack Obama had ordered him to be wiretapped. He presented no evidence, and the former intelligence director said last week that the claim was false.
Source
|
On March 14 2017 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is in West Virginia showing Trump voters agree with the idea that healthcare is a right. Now if only Democrats could be as brave as the Trump delegate and say it out loud.
EDIT: Though they're more likely to watch that and think "Hmm, maybe if we grew rat tails..."
interestingly Mark Cuban was in SXSW arguing that there should be a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that healthcare is a right. I'm an idiot. thought it was on diff channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
