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.
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Well the point was, what happens if Sanders wins the next two battles?
My take is that if Sanders can make those races close, let alone win them, then Hillary is in serious trouble.
If somehow Sanders wins both races Hillary is completely boned. In theory she could still do well going into super Tuesday with just Iowa but I would expect her campaign to go into full meltdown mode. Heads will roll, especially if she loses SC.
Pretty confident Sanders will take NV and lose SC though and things will be competitive all the way through late March, mid-April before there's a clear leader.
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Well the point was, what happens if Sanders wins the next two battles?
My take is that if Sanders can make those races close, let alone win them, then Hillary is in serious trouble.
If somehow Sanders wins both races Hillary is completely boned. In theory she could still do well going into super Tuesday with just Iowa but I would expect her campaign to go into full meltdown mode. Heads will roll, especially if she loses SC.
Pretty confident Sanders will take NV and lose SC though and things will be competitive all the way through late March, mid-April before there's a clear leader.
That would be my same opinion if Clinton's campaign wasn't predicated on a big disparity in non-white support. She dismissed what was basically a tie and what was an obvious blowout in NH as being a white liberal thing. That whole narrative would be decimated even with close outcomes in NV and SC. If Hillary loses in SC she's got a tough case to make that she can win anywhere imo.
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Well the point was, what happens if Sanders wins the next two battles?
My take is that if Sanders can make those races close, let alone win them, then Hillary is in serious trouble.
If somehow Sanders wins both races Hillary is completely boned. In theory she could still do well going into super Tuesday with just Iowa but I would expect her campaign to go into full meltdown mode. Heads will roll, especially if she loses SC.
Pretty confident Sanders will take NV and lose SC though and things will be competitive all the way through late March, mid-April before there's a clear leader.
That would be my same opinion if Clinton's campaign wasn't predicated on a big disparity in non-white support. She dismissed what was basically a tie and what was an obvious blowout in NH as being a white liberal thing. That whole narrative would be decimated even with close outcomes in NV and SC. If Hillary loses in SC she's got a tough case to make that she can win anywhere imo.
If she wins both narrowly I still don't think it's in the bag for Sanders. Yeah, it would signal that her lead with minorities isn't as bulletproof as has been framed, but Bernie has to keep his momentum going. Losing with better than expected numbers is still losing. As the underdog, the media has been trying to paint him as the nice ideologue with insufficient support since the beginning and they would finally have some data to back that up. I think there's a lot of people out there who still don't believe his run is possible and losing SC and NV back to back would make it a lot harder to argue against that.
Edit: Not to say that if Bernie manages to lose by slim margins in both states he's done for, just that the road to the nomination will be long and bumpy.
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Well the point was, what happens if Sanders wins the next two battles?
My take is that if Sanders can make those races close, let alone win them, then Hillary is in serious trouble.
If somehow Sanders wins both races Hillary is completely boned. In theory she could still do well going into super Tuesday with just Iowa but I would expect her campaign to go into full meltdown mode. Heads will roll, especially if she loses SC.
Pretty confident Sanders will take NV and lose SC though and things will be competitive all the way through late March, mid-April before there's a clear leader.
That would be my same opinion if Clinton's campaign wasn't predicated on a big disparity in non-white support. She dismissed what was basically a tie and what was an obvious blowout in NH as being a white liberal thing. That whole narrative would be decimated even with close outcomes in NV and SC. If Hillary loses in SC she's got a tough case to make that she can win anywhere imo.
If she wins both narrowly I still don't think it's in the bag for Sanders. Yeah, it would signal that her lead with minorities isn't as bulletproof as has been framed, but Bernie has to keep his momentum going. Losing with better than expected numbers is still losing. As the underdog, the media has been trying to paint him as the nice ideologue with insufficient support since the beginning and they would finally have some data to back that up. I think there's a lot of people out there who still don't believe his run is possible and losing SC and NV back to back would make it a lot harder to argue against that.
Edit: Not to say that if Bernie manages to lose by slim margins in both states he's done for, just that the road to the nomination will be long and bumpy.
Well nothing is in the bag, as blatant as they have been so far (removing the ban on lobbyist money at the DNC most recently) I wouldn't be surprised to see them fiddling with delegates right down to the convention.
I guess I mean the whole campaign is based off of Bernie not having a chance, if he beats her in every demo other than rich old people I don't see how she wins anywhere with very little argument left.
Most importantly she isn't going to swing millennials the crowd she's losing 9-1 isn't going to switch to supporting her. It's pretty clear people are moving from Hillary to Bernie or undecided to both but practically no one is going from Bernie to Hillary. That being the case all Bernie has to do to win is drive up turnout.
This comes after the DNC overturned Obama's order to ban Federal lobbyists from contributing to campaigns etc.
In addition, the Democratic National Committee announced that it had rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.
Both actions offer the potential for financial benefit for Clinton. But both also could backfire.
Barack Obama declared the largest single land monument of his presidency on Friday – the same week that federal officials aggressively targeted rightwing activists who have rebelled against what they characterize as “land grabs”.
Obama nearly doubled the amount of public land he has protected as national monuments with a move to conserve nearly 1.8m acres (0.7m hectares) of the California desert. The executive action came one day after federal authorities arrested and charged the unofficial leader of the anti-government movement in the west and successfully ended a militia standoff in Oregon inspired by these kinds of national conservation policies.
With the unraveling of the anti-government protests and Obama’s large-scale land preservation efforts in California, it has been something of a watershed week in the fight to protect public wilderness against attacks from conservative activists, experts noted.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who led a 2014 standoff with the government over his refusal to pay grazing fees, was taken into custody in Portland on Wednesday night and charged with six federal crimes. He had been on his way to the armed occupation led by his sons of a federally protected wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon. The final four occupiers surrendered on Thursday, and a total of 25 people are facing charges in a federal conspiracy case.
Even with the aggressive prosecutions, conservative critics may still be fired up to organize against Obama’s latest land initiative.
“The anti-government movement is going to see these designations as the actions of a tyrannical force,” said Ryan Lenz, a senior writer with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit that has closely tracked rightwing groups and militia efforts inspired by the Bundys. “They’re going to see this as further proof that these lands are being taken from American citizens. How this manifests is the question.”
Obama, who has protected more land and water than any of his predecessors, designated three new national monuments in southern California on Friday, called the Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow and Castle Mountains.
Just perspective, people will choose to believe what they do. And thats my problem with Sanders and people who support him. The naivety involved in trying to tear down systems so radically is mind boggling. I love the guy but hes just saying things we all like, there is no realistic way to do it. The math doesnt work, the logic doesnt work. Its socialist Trump banter. Taking money from the 1 percent or cutting millitary spending et al will not pay for these things.
Sanders is the Millennial generation finding it's political voice. As others have said you have to start somewhere and seeing how the Millennial generation now outnumbers the baby boomers and hence the establishments of both parties have to take notice but don't want to as they are firmly established in Regulatory Controls, and Private Industry calling the shots.
HAVANA (AP) — The United States and Cuba will sign an agreement next week to resume commercial air traffic for the first time in five decades, starting the clock on dozens of new flights operating daily by next fall, U.S. officials said Friday.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is scheduled to fly to Havana on Tuesday to cement the deal. Barring other major announcements, it would be the most significant development in U.S.-Cuba trade since Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro announced in late 2014 that they would begin normalizing ties after a half-century of Cold War opposition.
The Obama administration is eager to make rapid progress on building trade and diplomatic ties with Cuba before the president leaves office. The coming weeks are seen as particularly crucial to building momentum ahead of a trip he hopes to make to Havana by the end of March.
"This (agreement) provides for a very important, sizeable increase in travel between the two countries, and that reinforces the president's objective" of building ties, said Thomas Engle, deputy assistant secretary of state for transportation affairs.
Under the deal U.S. airlines can start bidding on routes for as many as 110 U.S.-Cuba flights a day — more than five times the current number. All flights operating today are charters.
Officials hope to parcel the routes out among carriers by this summer, allowing flights to begin by the time Obama leaves office.
The agreement allows 20 regular daily U.S. flights to Havana, in addition to the current 10-15 charter flights a day. The rest would be to other Cuban airports, most of which have far less demand than the capital.
On February 14 2016 01:47 Deathstar wrote: If you're going to call Sanders' message "socialist Trump banter" you're not going to be taken seriously.
That was a pretty obvious exaggeration, no one is as bad as Republicans at misrepresenting things.. And I dont think you got what I meant..either way being taken seriously by you is like the least of my problems. The article stands on its own without me saying anything. Its not gospel its just perspective.
On February 14 2016 01:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Sanders is the Millennial generation finding it's political voice. As others have said you have to start somewhere and seeing how the Millennial generation now outnumbers the baby boomers and hence the establishments of both parties have to take notice but don't want to as they are firmly established in Regulatory Controls, and Private Industry calling the shots.
Heres the problem.. excerpting here.
"As rightly intentioned as Bernie Sanders might be, his presidency could cause near fatal damage to the progressive cause. Should he bumble his way through Washington with nothing but rhetoric, fantasies, unworkable plans, and impossible promises, he could make a pathetic joke of everything we’re fighting for. The idea of democratic socialism will be solidified in the American consciousness as unworkable and foolish."
Just perspective, people will choose to believe what they do. And thats my problem with Sanders and people who support him. The naivety involved in trying to tear down systems so radically is mind boggling. I love the guy but hes just saying things we all like, there is no realistic way to do it. The math doesnt work, the logic doesnt work. Its socialist Trump banter. Taking money from the 1 percent or cutting millitary spending et al will not pay for these things.
Thanks for sharing that, it's a really good piece.
I don't think Sanders is doing a great job connecting with black voters though. He pretty much all-lives-mattered right there.
"It seems like every time you talk about black people, and us getting something for the systematic oppression and exploitation of our people, we have to include every other person of color," said Felicia Perry.
There was more applause. When it died down, Sanders did not change his answer. "You and I may disagree on this," he said. "It's not just black. It is Latino. There are areas of America, in poorer rural America where it's white. So, I believe that in a country that has more income and wealth inequality than any other country, then yes, the time is overdue to invest."
Say black! yelled someone in the crowd. Say black!
"I said black 50 times!" Sanders said. "That's the 51st time... what I want, and what I believe we should do, is to invest most heavily in those communities most in need." He rattled off the unemployment numbers in black communities, and there was no more murmuring.
Also, this is gonna be a long read, but this is a thought experiment I did on how implementing single payer would look like. I don't mention costs or anything like that, though I may try that in another post. I did this more or less on the fly and may be playing loosely with some facts.
I think single payor is a viable system, just not one that translates well to the US. It would require nationalizing a vast portion the healthcare industry, and while there would be some cost savings and improvements in access and quality (maybe), it's not a practical way to realize them.
First, the medical education system. It's different from, say, the UK where you don't have undergrad and take 2 years classroom, 3 years in a teaching hospital, then a ~2 year residency. You save maybe 4 years AND the government pays your tuition. (Brb, moving to the UK.)
So what if we wanted to pay for medical school for everyone? I suppose it's possible, but only in the sense the government offers scholarship to every single doctor. The medical schools and AMA are in a lucrative and prestigious position, and they will want to be kept whole. I grabbed 20K as the number of matriculants per year, and assuming 4 years for 80K students in med school at a given time, the pricetag on this is $5.6 billion a year. Okay, not too bad, a drop in the bucket for the 3T healthcare industry.
So let's say that medical school is now cheap (well, we can consider "eliminating undergrad" and drastically retooling the medical curriculum with the tenuous approval of the AMA...wonder what kind of concessions you'd have to make to that). That doesn't mean prices can go down, because we now head to the problem of current doctors and the to-be doctors.
Physicians are compensated through many different ways: they may be fee for service, draw a salary from a hospital, some combo of both, so forth. No matter the methodology, a truth of single payor is that physicians will be paid less-- that's how it is other countries. Current doctors are not going to like a 40% paycut, and current students, while happy with a greatly reduced cost of education, are going to be horrified that their earning curve got bent like a car hitting a tree. Yes, medical school is expensive, but being a physician is also financially rewarding-- you can pay off that 300K debt in a couple years. Going debt free in exchange for millions in life time earnings is a real shitty tradeoff. Of course physicians are in it for more than the money, but the equivalent of negative winning the lottery (instead of gaining millions you're losing those millions) sucks.
Okay, so now we’ve successfully nationalized the medical education system. Sort of. At the core, single payor would require the nationalization of all existing health insurance companies. This includes the big 3: UnitedHealth Group, Aetna(plus Humana) and then Anthem (plus Cigna). These are companies with 10’s of billions of dollars in revenue, 10’s of thousands of employees. The most straightforward way (and really the only one) to nationalize them is to buy them outright. A quick bit of math: Aetna is acquiring Humana for about $37 billion, approximately a 60% premium over its current market cap of $23 billion. If we assume the US government has to offer a similar premium to existing shareholders, the pricetag of “buying” these companies out of business would be in the high hundreds of billions to perhaps a couple trillion (for reference, UHG has a market cap of $100 billion today).
A slight aside for more math: an estimate pegs health insurance revenue at about 900 billion. If we apply a very conservative 1.1x revenue multiple (basically market cap/ revs) across the industry, we see where the trillion dollar pricetag comes from. Then you add in the premium on purchasing the entire company. Another way to value is based of EBITDA (earnings)-- I'm unsure of how this particular calculation works out, but you get the idea.
Adding to this complexity, many of these insurers do a lot of different things—for example, UHG owns OptumHealth which does a ton of random healthcare stuff not related to insurance.
A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid?
Okay, so now we’ve successfully nationalized the insurance business. Sort of. Like, George W Bush Mission Accomplished sort of.
Let’s say the US government now has all these companies in a big holding company called InsuranceCo. Here, each former company is effectively operating as an independent subsidiary. Nothing has really changed, except for ownership. Now comes the fun part— the US is going to have to look at all these divisions in all these subsidiaries and figure how it’s going to streamline, consolidate and deduplicate functions. That’s a euphemism for firing tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of people. The US is going to boil these companies down like crazy. It might be over the course of several years (maybe even decades) but the walls between the former insurance companies are going to slowly fall as different functions get consolidated. Then again, if it takes decades, why not do something easier and perhaps more effective? First it’s back office stuff like HR, finance, tech, etc., but eventually the insurance company logos will vanish.
I'm trying to focus on the easiest ways I see to get single payer to happen here. There are alternatives, like passing legislation or something to shut down the insurers and/or somehow expand CMS services to cover every American and have them transition over. The logistics and legality of shutting down an entire industry with no compensation whatsoever to replace it with a government service is very questionable. It also makes sense to build infrastructure from scratch within the CMS when you have all these insurance companies with trained employees, relationships, etc. though nationalization will require a lot of rejiggering of how those work.
As this happens, the government is renegotiating millions of contracts that these providers have with vendors and physicians. Basically, the government wants to pay them less (this is where the reimbursements come in). It’s not pretty, but eventually the government manages to reduce some prices. On the other hand, some physicians go tell the government to stick a hotdog in their butt and go find their own emergency room. We end up with a bunch of physician groups that offer services outside the new US system. Or something.
Important to mention is that a lot of hospitals are actually part of large networks called health systems. The largest is Community Health systems with 200-something hospitals, and HCA is the second largest with 163 hospitals + a bunch of outpatient centers for surgery and other things (IIRC). HCA routinely boasts it provides about 5% of all in patient care in the US, and from that we can induce that these health systems, collectively, do a lot of stuff. These represent another group of industry stakeholders with hundreds of billions in revenue, hundreds of thousands of employees, etc. that will have to be integrated and satisfied with new reimbursement levels.
In this process, the US is going to have to reconcile all the actuarial risk models, different coding and financial systems into a new whole while minimizing disruption for the covered lives. This is an important bit. Somehow, we have to buy, burn down, and rebuild the house with the people still inside.
Is one or even a few of these changes possible? Yes, I think so. However, in isolation one or a few changes would not be efficient to change the US health system- it's big and complex, and full of linked, moving parts. If you assume each "major change" mentioned has an arbitrary probability, multiple those out to get the probability of single payer passing, it's a pretty low number as well.
Now, Hillary’s plan has 3 major initiatives. They are reducing deductibles, moving to value based care, and controlling prescription prices. Oh, and 100% coverage. I think the first 3 are concrete, very achievable and also significant enough to be called Obamacare 2.0 or Hillarycare 2.0. I'm not so sure how we’re getting to 100% coverage, but I think a few strong enrollment pushes will get us close. It doesn’t call for any major disruption in service and keeps everyone whole.
Beyond that, I support a public option. I think that Hillary’s plan sets the stage for that to come by demonstrating greater government control over what healthcare should look like. Eventually, I hope we move to a Swiss-style system where basic care is provided by the government through vouchers that can be used to pay for insurance through private companies, and then individuals are free to buy supplemental insurance.
To me, the three components of healthcare are cost, quality and access. Single payor is able to reduce costs (eventually), but will likely be incredibly complex and also result in a disruption of service as we shift from the existing model. Hillary's plan has clear cost reduction methods with minimal disruption while allowing the increased coverage trend to proceed.
On February 14 2016 03:00 ticklishmusic wrote: I don't think Sanders is doing a great job connecting with black voters though. He pretty much all-lives-mattered right there.
"It seems like every time you talk about black people, and us getting something for the systematic oppression and exploitation of our people, we have to include every other person of color," said Felicia Perry.
There was more applause. When it died down, Sanders did not change his answer. "You and I may disagree on this," he said. "It's not just black. It is Latino. There are areas of America, in poorer rural America where it's white. So, I believe that in a country that has more income and wealth inequality than any other country, then yes, the time is overdue to invest."
Say black! yelled someone in the crowd. Say black!
"I said black 50 times!" Sanders said. "That's the 51st time... what I want, and what I believe we should do, is to invest most heavily in those communities most in need." He rattled off the unemployment numbers in black communities, and there was no more murmuring.
On February 13 2016 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Starting the clock now, (could of started a while ago), we'll see how long it takes.
That took a while.
That group of people isn't voting for Hillary, she didn't even bother to show up. That Hillary's camp is trying to use that event to make the point you're trying to make is more evidence of how disconnected y'all are.
There's a reason Hillary billed her Flint event as a community meeting and then just filmed people for a commercial and spoke at them without taking any questions.
That Hillary and co tries to play the victim and at the same time is doing stuff like this is one of several things that makes her campaign so disgusting.
It was a event sponsored by Keith Ellison, one of two members of the CBC that's endorsed him (and the one who complained the CBC wasn't consulted when their PAC endorsed Hillary) meant to specifically help Bernie with black voters. Hillary wasn't at the event because she wasn't invited.
I like how you felt the need to push back with unflattering and false comments about Hillary. We're talking about Bernie here. Objectively, he didn't do so hot.
I also posted what I thought was the most generous article about the event. Politico and CNN were far less kind to Bernie.
On February 14 2016 05:04 ticklishmusic wrote: It was a event sponsored by Keith Ellison, one of two members of the CBC that's endorsed him (and the one who complained the CBC wasn't consulted when their PAC endorsed Hillary) meant to specifically help Bernie with black voters. Hillary wasn't at the event because she wasn't invited.
I like how you felt the need to push back with unflattering and false comments about Hillary. We're talking about Bernie here. Objectively, he didn't do so hot.
She was invited. The event was held by NOC. Nothing I said was false, you, on the other hand...
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined our invitation to participate.
I like how you took a story from something you didn't see and clearly don't know much about. The people that are disappointed with Bernie's response aren't voting for Hillary. They like Hillary much, much, much, less. The reason they are giving Bernie more static than Hillary is because it's acknowledged that there isn't a point as she is even less interested in the conversation than Bernie (displayed by her lack of engagement).
This isn't the first Black forum she skipped either. Not to mention anyone who actually watched the event knows the most significant part was the very end. But as Hillary isn't worried about Native American voters you don't see anything about it from her camp or her media minions.
You're about 12 hours late to the conversation about this so clearly you missed how this got hashed out.
okay, i was wrong about hillary not attending/being invited. sorry. maybe she couldn't attend and we shouln't read too much into that? both candidates get invited to a lot of events, they turn them down for a myriad of reasons. you have your narrative, i have mine as always.
the point i want to make is, bernie had a chance to make his case to african americans, he didnt do a great job. he came off as kinda tone deaf. i didn't mention hillary at all, but you felt the need to bring her up nonetheless.
anyways, see this reddit post for what hillary has done for civil rights.
On February 14 2016 06:06 ticklishmusic wrote: okay, i was wrong about hillary not attending/being invited. sorry. maybe she couldn't attend and we shouln't read too much into that? both candidates get invited to a lot of events, they turn them down for a myriad of reasons. you have your narrative, i have mine as always.
the point i want to make is, bernie had a chance to make his case to african americans, he didnt do a great job. he came off as kinda tone deaf. i didn't mention hillary at all, but you felt the need to bring her up nonetheless.
anyways, see this reddit post for what hillary has done for civil rights.
I don't need an apology, acknowledging what actually happened would be satisfactory.
Taking your point for what you claim it to be, he could of pandered more absolutely. What he did instead is listen to how they see things and explained how he sees things. I think both sides have several points and some weaknesses in their arguments. I'm particularly disappointed with how it ended and think that's actually the more interesting conversation. But Native Americans aren't a large voting bloc so that's not the conversation Hillary & supporters are interested in.
I think Bernie makes a strong point about how he wants to get things done but he could improve on understanding the language surrounding the issues. He's right though that looking to elected officials, even himself, to fix things isn't going to work. That communities need to stand up together and demand the government work for them by engaging in the political process beyond every 4 years. It's not what people want to hear but it's the truth, the system is corrupt and there's too much money in it to just expect people to do the right thing.
Racism is an important issue, needs to be addressed, and Bernie can do better. But it's empty propaganda to present it as you have. I find that far more repugnant than anything Bernie said at that forum.
At the very least you could put it in the context of how tone deaf Hillary is by comparison.
"And you know what, if you look at the numbers, there are actually as many, if not more, white communities that are truly being left behind and left out. So yes, I do think if would be a terrible oversight not to address the very real problems that white Americans, particularly those without a lot of education, whose jobs have no longer provided them or even no longer present in their communities. Because we have to focus where the real hurt is."-Hillary at the PBS debate
That you would be oblivious to what the event was and what mattered about what was said but hop on the opportunity to try to score political points by passing along that crap, and defending it as not being as crappy as other crap, is Hillary's campaign in a nutshell.
It's campaign season so it's not really surprising, but at least come off the victim tower next time something cutting comes Hillary's way if you're going to spread this kind of garbage. Or better yet, actually pay attention to the substance of events like that for the substance, instead of just feigning interest in order to score political points. Posting it how you did is just gross.
EPT
