|
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 June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable.
Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary.
Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer (and he's rich).
On June 02 2017 00:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I just don't understand why people seem to think a person couldn't take advantage of existing campaign finance laws and still have a major plank of their position be removing the negative components of the current system.
Heck, this understanding that ideological purity can be trumped by short-term pragmatism is the only way to see Sanders' position towards superdelegates over the course of the campaign as anything but out and out hypocrisy. Eventually he shifted towards a pragmatic view of them to facilitate a long-term change in them.
Mostly because we aren't children who still fall for the "Do as I say, not as I do" form of politics.
|
On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I just don't understand why people seem to think a person couldn't take advantage of existing campaign finance laws and still have a major plank of their position be removing the negative components of the current system.
Heck, this understanding that ideological purity can be trumped by short-term pragmatism is the only way to see Sanders' position towards superdelegates over the course of the campaign as anything but out and out hypocrisy. Eventually he shifted towards a pragmatic view of them to facilitate a long-term change in them. Mostly because we aren't children who still fall for the "Do as I say, not as I do" form of politics.
Ah. But if it's Sanders soliciting superdelegate support, it's okay.
It isn't as though the FEC and the Federal Election Campaign Act was created exclusively by voting only for people who built the entire infrastructure to disclose and limit all of their campaign contributions or multiple bills for spending limits created by people without spending limits have been killed by partisanship. But fuck history
|
On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer.
GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit.
|
On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit.
rofl, how was ACA going to get updated?
|
On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated?
Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot.
|
On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated?
You're saying there is a scenario where the ACA is denied, but the Bernie healthcare plan is approved?
|
On June 01 2017 20:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ruse and shine America!
It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me.
|
On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot.
Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy.
|
On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated?
There are so many ways you can improve the ACA. Increase subsidies, increase income-caps for those subsidies, regulations on policies that companies can provide.
It was designed to be compartmental. A "three-legged stool" as it's often been called. It can easily be expanded or constricted in a lot of ways.
|
On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy.
What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is.
|
On June 02 2017 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? You're saying there is a scenario where the ACA is denied, but the Bernie healthcare plan is approved?
There is one yeah. There is the scenario when you energize your base because you have a good plan, and when people start opposing it for the bad reasons that they'll find, they get voted out of office. You can make the case that it's gonna be much harder to do with a weaksauce and flawed ACA. It's a little more long term but not that much.
|
On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy.
I went through the first fight to reform healthcare. I'm not into magical thinking that the second will be easier.
|
On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Tell me about it...
You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is.
Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward.
|
On June 02 2017 00:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:
I love it when a_flayer comes in and decides to tell us all things we already knew about our country, but thinks we don’t know it because we do not publicly displace as much anger as him. Its always nice when people that have zero skin in the game come in and tell us we are not meeting the standards they set for us. Tell me about it... You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? You're saying there is a scenario where the ACA is denied, but the Bernie healthcare plan is approved? There is one yeah. There is the scenario when you energize your base because you have a good plan, and when people start opposing it for the bad reasons that they'll find, they get voted out of office. You can make the case that it's gonna be much harder to do with a weaksauce and flawed ACA. It's a little more long term but not that much.
I can't believe how stubborn they are about this. The Democratic party is a flaming dumpster fire, but they really are the best we can hope for according to these guys.
On June 02 2017 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is. Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward.
Yup.
|
On June 02 2017 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Tell me about it...
You really should show more concern, but I would hardly call that anger. I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? You're saying there is a scenario where the ACA is denied, but the Bernie healthcare plan is approved? There is one yeah. There is the scenario when you energize your base because you have a good plan, and when people start opposing it for the bad reasons that they'll find, they get voted out of office. You can make the case that it's gonna be much harder to do with a weaksauce and flawed ACA. It's a little more long term but not that much. I can't believe how stubborn they are about this. The Democratic party is a flaming dumpster fire, but they really are the best we can hope for according to these guys. Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is. Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward. Yup.
I’ve seen the Bernie supporters, Green party and Naders of the world. You might need to accept that all political parties are dumpster fires, including the one you would make.
|
Well, if bernie would have gotten the minorities behind him, we would probably talk diffrently right now.
|
Al Franken, I have to say, gives a very compelling argument in his new book about why ACA is actually necessary to get anywhere close to Universal Healthcare.
The problem with single-payer Universal Healthcare is that we currently have 4-5 different healthcare systems as it is -- and a lot of them operate at a state-by-state level. You have to take things one step at a time. There's never been a functional UHC plan for this country. Regulating insurance companies, mandating people have insurance, and subsidies for people who can't afford it, is the only real logical first step towards UHC.
You could later introduce a public-option, or expand Medicare over subsidies for people who're really poor. These things would force insurance companies to drive down prices, or the public-option will become so popular that UHC will become a lot easier to implement.
ACA was/is necessary progress. It's maybe the only way you CAN get to something like UHC.
|
On June 02 2017 00:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:50 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? You're saying there is a scenario where the ACA is denied, but the Bernie healthcare plan is approved? There is one yeah. There is the scenario when you energize your base because you have a good plan, and when people start opposing it for the bad reasons that they'll find, they get voted out of office. You can make the case that it's gonna be much harder to do with a weaksauce and flawed ACA. It's a little more long term but not that much. I can't believe how stubborn they are about this. The Democratic party is a flaming dumpster fire, but they really are the best we can hope for according to these guys. On June 02 2017 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is. Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward. Yup. I’ve seen the Bernie supporters, Green party and Naders of the world. You might need to accept that all political parties are dumpster fires, including the one you would make.
I wager some parties around the world are able to keep it to a mild barrel fire.
On June 02 2017 00:59 Velr wrote:
Well, if bernie would have gotten the minorities behind him, we would probably talk diffrently right now.
You wont see me shy away from Bernie's failures in reaching out to Black people in general, especially in the South.
Outside the narrative I'm sure you heard, among young (under 30) Black people, Bernie beat her.
|
On June 02 2017 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:28 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I have said over and over the election reform is an issue I care about and it impacts my vote. But I’m also aware that the office of the President isn’t where that change is going to take place. Both my senators support election reform and limiting money in politics. Don’t confuse me being aware of the scope of the problem and difficulties in addressing it with lack of concern. You supported the worst (possibly second if you want to make the case for Trump being worse with significantly less money) abuser of campaign finance in history. You don't see how that's problematic? Of course I see it as problematic. But I am not a single issue voter and Bernie didn’t sell me on his healthcare plan being viable. Viable how? It's more popular than the ACA or ACHA? He's also more popular than any other active politician, so what wasn't viable was Hillary. Also lol @ Woods probably getting off for being passed out high on the road because they gave him a breathalyzer. GH, I give zero shits about how something polls in a vacuum. I pay attention to people when they say how much something will cost and if it will pass as a law. I did not want another 2 years knock down drag out over a law I was not confident would pass. I wanted the ACA updated and to move on to other shit. rofl, how was ACA going to get updated? Given the stance of the GOP, I don’t know. I hoped the moderates like Olympia Snowe and others gain enough traction to work with the Democrats. But if we can’t pass an update to the ACA, single payer would never happen either so the point is moot. Unless of course we had someone who ran on it, won the presidency, then helped take the house and senate on a policy that's popular with nurses from California to coal miners in West Virginia. Also the guy who wanted to clean up campaign finance (and was raising money at a competitive clip to Hillary off of small donations) which also happens to be an extremely popular policy. What value do you see in these silly little "what if" scenarios? This is another example of a post that is practically copied and pasted from 1, 2, 3, and 4 months ago. So let's say everyone says "GH, you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", what then? It is clearly what you are going for, but I don't see where that takes us or what the purpose is. Well next time around the same question will be asked in the democratic primary, and GH hopes you'll find a different answer, which you certainly will if everyone says "GH you are right. Bernie should have been the nominee", that one seems pretty straightforward.
A lot of us supported Bernie until he was mathematically eliminated. Speaking personally, when I hopped on the Hilary train, the Bernie train had already fallen off a cliff. How many posters here still defend the DNC? How many people still think Clinton ran a good campaign? It's an empty argument because no one is even disputing it.
The only issue people are actually disagreeing with is this fabled Bernie revolution. It is remarkably pointless to discuss because it is like some horrendously worse version of theorycrafting. Moreover, it is utterly pointless.
|
I am with Franken on this one, that we need to slow roll to single payer and get all the states on board. It could take a decade or longer, but the ACA is the first step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
