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 April 04 2017 10:51 Plansix wrote: Schumer and Pelosi have both been out there doing work. Just not on camera, because they don't control who points the camera at time. All Bernie has to do to get headlines is say "Clinton" out loud and it will rise to the top.
What the fuck is Pelosi going to do in Southern states? Or Schumer in coal country? That is like sending Mitch McConnell to Massachusetts to try and convince us that Republicans are not that bad.
You just answered you own question Sanders goes down to Mississippi to picket with workers demanding a Union, goes to coal country to pitch job training and even Universal healthcare and workers rights. And then gets rounding applause in Va no less. It is not that hard just don't blow Corporate donors and represent the average citizen.
Yes, that is why they are not house hold names. It has nothing to do with neither of them running for president.
Funny, Republicans seems to use Pelosi in practically every single race across the country. Wonder why they do that?
Oh that's right, she's extremely well known and remarkably unpopular and it has absolutely nothing to with whether she has run for president or not.
The same reason every democrat bashed Paul Ryan. I'm not a huge fan of Pelosi, but i don't get to pick who lead the House Democrats. They voted and she won.
If you think she is a huge problem, you should push your boy Sanders to have her removed. Or Schumer. I would love to see how well that goes for him. Except Sanders wouldn't do it because it is a waste of time to attack Democrats for not photo-oping as much as him. Sanders know why he is the guy doing outreach while they are back in DC.
Oh wow, a Hillary lapdog throwing shade about photo ops. At least Bernie can do useful things like not handing the presidency to a thin-skinned narcissist.
assumptions, more foundation needed. why must people feel so foolishly confident that things would be better if only X? especially when the factual basis for it is so limited?
Probably because they are more comfortable with something that suits there views that could have had a possibility of happening as opposed to something that didn't that has a 0% success rate in hindsight.
Things are getting really fucking interesting now, more Russia connections and apparently there was some serious spying going on, we're living in House of Cards
On April 04 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote: The push to replace didn't get nipped. He didn't get the votes. That is how the House picks leadership.
I don't know if anyone told you this, being in a leadership role in the House and Senate is a full time job. Even Sanders has to go back to the Senate at some point too. And there are no plans to back right now, since they can't introduce bills.
You know, I hear Hillary and Obama were really supportive of replacing Pelosi... Like do you not see yourself right now?
I don't know if anyone has told you this, but HR676 has been in the house for a long ass time.
You said long ass time so I needed to double check that is wasn't introduced in 2015 like I remembered. Remind me again, who controlled the house in 2015?
That is why I have introduced my bill, The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, in every Congress since 2003. It is co-sponsored by more than 50 Members of Congress and support continues to grow.
How many times have the democrats controlled the senate or house since he started introducing that bill? A bill that he can only get 10% of the entire congress, House and Senate, to support? I'll fill in the blank for you, it was 2008-2010. Introducing a bill to the senate floor that you didn't bother to sell to anyone isn't that impressive.
On April 04 2017 10:51 Plansix wrote: Schumer and Pelosi have both been out there doing work. Just not on camera, because they don't control who points the camera at time. All Bernie has to do to get headlines is say "Clinton" out loud and it will rise to the top.
What the fuck is Pelosi going to do in Southern states? Or Schumer in coal country? That is like sending Mitch McConnell to Massachusetts to try and convince us that Republicans are not that bad.
You just answered you own question Sanders goes down to Mississippi to picket with workers demanding a Union, goes to coal country to pitch job training and even Universal healthcare and workers rights. And then gets rounding applause in Va no less. It is not that hard just don't blow Corporate donors and represent the average citizen.
Yes, that is why they are not house hold names. It has nothing to do with neither of them running for president.
Funny, Republicans seems to use Pelosi in practically every single race across the country. Wonder why they do that?
Oh that's right, she's extremely well known and remarkably unpopular and it has absolutely nothing to with whether she has run for president or not.
The same reason every democrat bashed Paul Ryan. I'm not a huge fan of Pelosi, but i don't get to pick who lead the House Democrats. They voted and she won.
If you think she is a huge problem, you should push your boy Sanders to have her removed. Or Schumer. I would love to see how well that goes for him. Except Sanders wouldn't do it because it is a waste of time to attack Democrats for not photo-oping as much as him. Sanders know why he is the guy doing outreach while they are back in DC.
Oh wow, a Hillary lapdog throwing shade about photo ops. At least Bernie can do useful things like not handing the presidency to a thin-skinned narcissist.
assumptions, more foundation needed. why must people feel so foolishly confident that things would be better if only X? especially when the factual basis for it is so limited?
Probably because they are more comfortable with something that suits there views that could have had a possibility of happening as opposed to something that didn't that has a 0% success rate in hindsight.
On April 04 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote: The push to replace didn't get nipped. He didn't get the votes. That is how the House picks leadership.
I don't know if anyone told you this, being in a leadership role in the House and Senate is a full time job. Even Sanders has to go back to the Senate at some point too. And there are no plans to back right now, since they can't introduce bills.
You know, I hear Hillary and Obama were really supportive of replacing Pelosi... Like do you not see yourself right now?
I don't know if anyone has told you this, but HR676 has been in the house for a long ass time.
You said long ass time so I needed to double check that is wasn't introduced in 2015 like I remembered. Remind me again, who controlled the house in 2015?
Bruh...
That is why I have introduced my bill, The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, in every Congress since 2003. It is co-sponsored by more than 50 Members of Congress and support continues to grow.
How many times have the democrats controlled the senate or house since he started introducing that bill? A bill that he can only get 10% of the entire congress, House and Senate, to support? I'll fill in the blank for you, it was 2008-2010. Introducing a bill to the senate floor that you didn't bother to sell to anyone isn't that impressive.
What the hell are you even talking about? I'm literally not tracking how you just went from thinking it was introduced in 2015, to what you're saying now. Since we never really covered how Pelosi went from not a household name because she hasn't ran for president, to of course she's a household name but she's busy, I don't think you're on your A-game tonight.
Certainly no kwiz.
How anything you've said has anything to do with why Pelosi, Schumer, DNC, and leaders throughout the party cant be supporting HR676 and a senate equivalent, the tuition free legislation, etc... is beyond me, but I think we're done.
And Sessions now attempts to review local government's efforts to fix their owner police department's efforts for reasons?
And then he starts with the blackest city in the US. Who's police department has so many problems, HBO made a show about it and how reform is hard. For reasons?
Remember, Sessions isn't racist. He just happens to be focusing all of his time on not white people.
On April 04 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote: The push to replace didn't get nipped. He didn't get the votes. That is how the House picks leadership.
I don't know if anyone told you this, being in a leadership role in the House and Senate is a full time job. Even Sanders has to go back to the Senate at some point too. And there are no plans to back right now, since they can't introduce bills.
You know, I hear Hillary and Obama were really supportive of replacing Pelosi... Like do you not see yourself right now?
I don't know if anyone has told you this, but HR676 has been in the house for a long ass time.
You said long ass time so I needed to double check that is wasn't introduced in 2015 like I remembered. Remind me again, who controlled the house in 2015?
Bruh...
That is why I have introduced my bill, The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, in every Congress since 2003. It is co-sponsored by more than 50 Members of Congress and support continues to grow.
How many times have the democrats controlled the senate or house since he started introducing that bill? A bill that he can only get 10% of the entire congress, House and Senate, to support? I'll fill in the blank for you, it was 2008-2010. Introducing a bill to the senate floor that you didn't bother to sell to anyone isn't that impressive.
What the hell are you even talking about? I'm literally not tracking how you just went from thinking it was introduced in 2015, to what you're saying now. Since we never really covered how Pelosi went from not a household name because she hasn't ran for president, to of course she's a household name but she's busy, I don't think you're on your A-game tonight.
Certainly no kwiz.
How anything you've said has anything to do with why Pelosi, Schumer, DNC, and leaders throughout the party cant be supporting HR676 and a senate equivalent, the tuition free legislation, etc... is beyond me, but I think we're done.
I'm still confused why someone introducing a losing bill for over a decade is somehow a winning trait. Yelling "Why won't anyone support my great ideas?" isn't the strongest selling point.
On April 04 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote: The push to replace didn't get nipped. He didn't get the votes. That is how the House picks leadership.
I don't know if anyone told you this, being in a leadership role in the House and Senate is a full time job. Even Sanders has to go back to the Senate at some point too. And there are no plans to back right now, since they can't introduce bills.
You know, I hear Hillary and Obama were really supportive of replacing Pelosi... Like do you not see yourself right now?
I don't know if anyone has told you this, but HR676 has been in the house for a long ass time.
You said long ass time so I needed to double check that is wasn't introduced in 2015 like I remembered. Remind me again, who controlled the house in 2015?
Bruh...
That is why I have introduced my bill, The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, in every Congress since 2003. It is co-sponsored by more than 50 Members of Congress and support continues to grow.
How many times have the democrats controlled the senate or house since he started introducing that bill? A bill that he can only get 10% of the entire congress, House and Senate, to support? I'll fill in the blank for you, it was 2008-2010. Introducing a bill to the senate floor that you didn't bother to sell to anyone isn't that impressive.
What the hell are you even talking about? I'm literally not tracking how you just went from thinking it was introduced in 2015, to what you're saying now. Since we never really covered how Pelosi went from not a household name because she hasn't ran for president, to of course she's a household name but she's busy, I don't think you're on your A-game tonight.
Certainly no kwiz.
How anything you've said has anything to do with why Pelosi, Schumer, DNC, and leaders throughout the party cant be supporting HR676 and a senate equivalent, the tuition free legislation, etc... is beyond me, but I think we're done.
I'm still confused why someone introducing a losing bill for over a decade is somehow a winning trait. Yelling "Why won't anyone support my great ideas?" isn't the strongest selling point.
I'm not surprised you're confused. You may be blocking out the recent past, for reasons.
Pointing out how little support the Democratic party has had for single payer for more than a decade isn't exactly a great argument either.
Sad that Trump and no one, on say CNN or in DNC leadership, would ask this question.
So that is why it didn't pass in 2016. So what about all those other times? Why wasn't he able to get the 60 votes he needed to pass the bill? Did Clinton kill single payer all those times too?
I guess we could also praise Ted Cruz for introducing a losing bill on term limits. Every losing bill is now a winning bill because it was a good idea.
Wait, receiving the answers? Not the debate questions ahead of time but the debate answers? What? Trump thinks CNN secretly gave Hillary a list of her own policies before the debate?
And does anyone believe that his former campaign manger didn't slip Trumps camp some of the questions for the debate since the guy literally worked for CNN at the time?
On April 04 2017 13:06 KwarK wrote: Wait, receiving the answers? Not the debate questions ahead of time but the debate answers? What? Trump thinks CNN secretly gave Hillary a list of her own policies before the debate?
lol I didn't even notice he said answers. But I mean she does seem like she thinks she's never going to have to directly address any of that stuff and she'll be welcomed back out of the woods.
On April 04 2017 13:02 Plansix wrote: So that is why it didn't pass in 2016. So what about all those other times? Why wasn't he able to get the 60 votes he needed to pass the bill? Did Clinton kill single payer all those times too?
I guess we could also praise Ted Cruz for introducing a losing bill on term limits. Every losing bill is now a winning bill because it was a good idea.
You've gotta just be messing with me at this point. 60 votes? Pelosi needs 60 votes in the senate to support something ~80% of democrats have supported for a long ass time? Total coincidence that after Hillary (got) shut up (by Trump) about it "never ever happening" it is more popular than it's ever been.
Another complete coincidence the same people skeptical of supporting it now, that the voters are showing a growing majority of support of it, also supported Mrs. "It's NEVER EVER going to happen!".
You are right. You caught us. Clinton mind controlled the everyone to lol single payer. She has lost control now and people love it. 6 years of the ACA proving access to healthcare didmt change minds at all.
On April 04 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote: You are right. You caught us. Clinton mind controlled the everyone to lol single payer. She has lost control now and people love it. 6 years of the ACA proving access to healthcare didmt change minds at all.
You know what really killed Single Payer in for center-lefts and Liberals? The Tax Policy Center paper on Bernie's medicare expansion plan. These numbers have gone effectively unchallenged (maybe Robert Reich pushed back?). The lefty econosphere took these numbers as fact and none of them will stick up for single payer anymore. I am hearing some pushback from the hard left saying that the center left are cowards and neoliberal traitors, but I am not hearing anyone say "those numbers are wrong".
TPC finds the new government benefits would more than offset new taxes for 95% of households but the combined tax and transfer plan would increase federal budget deficits by more than $18 trillion over the next decade.
And Sessions now attempts to review local government's efforts to fix their owner police department's efforts for reasons?
And then he starts with the blackest city in the US. Who's police department has so many problems, HBO made a show about it and how reform is hard. For reasons?
The "civil rights agreement" represents a past attempt by the Department of Justice to interfere with the local government's police department because it had so many problems.
Despite the agreement, the Baltimore police department still has the problems.
In that light, trying to review this particular agreement seems like a good idea.
On April 04 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote: You are right. You caught us. Clinton mind controlled the everyone to lol single payer. She has lost control now and people love it. 6 years of the ACA proving access to healthcare didmt change minds at all.
Well when you completely change what I'm saying to that... it still sounds less ridiculous than what you're trying to play off.
On April 04 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote: You are right. You caught us. Clinton mind controlled the everyone to lol single payer. She has lost control now and people love it. 6 years of the ACA proving access to healthcare didmt change minds at all.
You know what really killed Single Payer in for center-lefts and Liberals? The Tax Policy Center paper on Bernie's medicare expansion plan. These numbers have gone effectively unchallenged (maybe Robert Reich pushed back?). The lefty econosphere took these numbers as fact and none of them will stick up for single payer anymore. I am hearing some pushback from the hard left saying that the center left are cowards and neoliberal traitors, but I am not hearing anyone say "those numbers are wrong".
TPC finds the new government benefits would more than offset new taxes for 95% of households but the combined tax and transfer plan would increase federal budget deficits by more than $18 trillion over the next decade.
people will see their incomes go up through Bernie’s universal health care plan – which is what we have been saying throughout this campaign.
The bad news is that the Tax Policy Center wildly overestimates the cost of Senator Sanders’ health care plan.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care with worse health outcomes than any major country on earth. And, unlike every major country on earth, over 28 million of our people are still uninsured.
In 2013, the U.S. spent about three times as much per capita on health care than Britain and about twice as much as Canada and France. If every other major country can spend less on health care and insure all of their people, so can the U.S.
Here is where the Tax Policy Center is wrong:
First, it assumes that state and local governments will dump all of their health care obligations onto the federal government at a cost of $4.1 trillion over the next decade. That is categorically false. Bernie’s plan requires state and local governments to maintain their current levels of health care spending – a maintenance of effort that has been upheld by the courts.
Secondly, this study significantly underestimates the savings in administration, paperwork, and prescription drug prices that every major country on earth has successfully achieved by adopting a universal health care program.
The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) has estimated that we could save nearly $500 billion annually on paperwork and administration alone – enough savings not only to provide universal coverage to the uninsured, but also to eliminate deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance for everyone in America. Hospitals currently spend over 25 percent on administrative costs in this country, but just 12.4 percent in Canada.
Third, the authors of this report estimate that the cost of our plan would be about $8 trillion more than even the highest cost estimates to date — estimates that have already been debunked by the experts at Physicians for a National Health Program.
The talking point is for shock value. We're already paying more per capita for crappier care, redirecting that spending from private insurers to a public system makes the governments nominal pricetag higher, but overall we're paying less per citizen.
On April 04 2017 12:32 plasmidghost wrote: Things are getting really fucking interesting now, more Russia connections and apparently there was some serious spying going on, we're living in House of Cards
Except that it's a version of House of Cards where everybody involved is stupid. Removes a bit of the dramatic tension somewhat.
On April 04 2017 13:06 KwarK wrote: Wait, receiving the answers? Not the debate questions ahead of time but the debate answers? What? Trump thinks CNN secretly gave Hillary a list of her own policies before the debate?
Trump doesn't realize that the candidates were allowed to practice and do research ahead of time... No wonder he just winged it and never made any sense; maybe he thought that was the rule? Trump really thinks she was sat down by news reporters and told to say "Hillary good; Trump bad"?
EPT
