|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 07 2026 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging? It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc: [quote]and/or [quote] + Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance. Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"? The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction. What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare. Is this another misunderstanding? I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala 1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?" 2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests". I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience. 1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates. Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."? Jeffries seems to be a major one, and individual Congressional Dems can feel free to update which of the three groups they currently identify with. I think the portion of Democratic voters represented by group one is pretty small, since different polls seem to show high favorability for Dems wanting M4A (like 80+%). As one of the "major ones", can you give some examples of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option? I would consider Jeffries to be major/prominent because he's been the House Minority Leader and the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus for the past few years + Show Spoiler +[1]. Additionally, his stance on M4A has seemingly gone backwards, which is interesting: from 2013 to 2021, he co-sponsored M4A legislation and spoke highly of M4A, but over the past few years (sadly coinciding with his leadership positions) he's backtracked and has articulated positions against M4A [2] [3]. This Meet The Press exchange on NBC from a few months ago [3] was particularly concerning: Welker (Interviewer): Medicare for All? Do you personally support Medicare for All?
Jeffries: No, i — as you indicated, I haven’t cosponsored the Medicare for All legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people, who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases by up to a thousand dollars a month, that’s not sustainable. And that’s something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people.
Welker: Just be very clear though, as the Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
Jeffries: I think as you’ve indicated in your question to me, it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. No mention of even M4AWWI, sadly. I feel like he's moved from group 2 (mayyyybe group 3) backwards to group 1, which is a problem. Hopefully, he quickly and publicly goes back to at least group 2 (ideally group 3). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/transcripts/meet-press-august-16-2026-rcna592786 So no, you can't provide an example of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option. Do you see the problems with you identifying Jeffries "as [a] currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrat in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option)" when you know he hasn't? How that impacts your argument about the "in-fighting"? It seems you hallucinated a faction in the Democrats' party that is "in-fighting" for "no changes in healthcare are needed" in order to sleight of hand progressives (and 80%+ of Democrats generally) conceding on M4A to establishment/corporate/centrist/dyhb Dems on a public option as an example of where centrists need to concede to progressives. So now that we know the M4A example is another example of where the call for the "in-fighting" to stop is actually just another call for progressives to concede to centrists/establishment/third way/dyhb Democrats, should we try your AIPAC ("genocidal Israel") or NPVIC examples? Or perhaps you can come up with an actual example of "in-fighting" where you believe the centrists/establishment/third way/dyhb Democrats need to concede to progressives to avoid self-sabotaging? Except for the interview example I pasted that you ignored / hid in spoiler tags? He clearly said he just wants to focus on the ACA - which is not a public option - and that he no longer backs M4A ("it's not legislation I support") nor suggested M4AWWI / any sort of public option he'd consider as an alternative to the ACA. That was from this past August, not too long ago. Why does that not count, in your opinion? I feel like you're just attempting to quiz me on facts about politicians that you could easily Google for yourself. Surely you can find Democratic Congresspeople who don't support M4A or a public option / M4AWWI without my help? And besides that group one, you could also find whoever fits into groups two and three?
It doesn't count because it's definitively not explicit opposition to a public option. Typically you and others would describe that as some version of pragmatic advocacy of something he thinks he can do/plays well politically, not explicit opposition to something better (setting aside questions about his integrity).
I'm not quizzing you. When you gave M4A as an example of something establishment/corporate/thirdway/dyhb Dems need to concede to progressives I wasn't expecting you to try to turn around and try to make progressives/80%+ of Democrats conceding on M4A to establishment/corporate/thirdway/dyhb preference for a public option as that.
So I illustrated the absurdity of your imagined "group 1 democrats" and further demonstrate that when people here say variations of "Democrats need to stop in-fighting" what they actually mean is "progressives need to concede their efforts to help voters to the corporate/establishment/thirdway/dyhb Dems insistence on serving their owners donors"
Otherwise you all would be able to actually point to a real "in-fight" where you actually believe the corporate/establishment/thirdway/dyhb Dems need to concede to progressives in order to not self-sabotage and not just things like a public option where progressives are already conceding M4A to the establishment consensus on a public option.
|
On November 07 2026 00:12 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 23:36 Jankisa wrote:
If it was up to Schumer, the candidate in Michigan would have been Haley Stevens. You are just buying into the CNN style analysis of "these 2 genius political operators applied money drops whit surgical precision to key races" when it's pretty obvious that decisions like this get made by hundreds of very smart people looking at maps and polls and suggesting how to allocate these funds.
Can we all stop with blaming Schumer/the democratic establishment for supporting Stevens in the primary? + Show Spoiler +She was a sitting congress member and her voting record was well within the normal expectations of the democratic party. Frankly, it would have been weird if the national party wouldn't have supported her. She also most likely would easily have won the election with a larger margin than El Sayed. Btw: If the DNC didn't feel the need to spend as much on El Sayed as it did, it maybe would have had more money to play freely with in Florida (more likely it would have thrown even more at Texas but...).
Also, the second she lost, the DNC put basically it's full strenght behind Al Sayed including fucking Obama and Harris. Stevens going totally rogue doesn't change that, she got kicked out of the party for it and is now a person non-grata. The DNC isn't at fault for this.
Isn't this a textbook example of how the US system should play out? What exactly are people mad about? The national Parties, be it D or R don't exist do support "out there" candidates, it would be very weird if that was the case.
The bigger issue for me is AIPAC/UDP and their bragging about her heel turn endorsement of the Republican while Jeffries and Schumer continue to stay cozy.
AIPAC effectively spent ~$40,000,000+ to help the Republican team win a crucial Senate seat in MI. Yet Schumer and Jeffries can't concede to the ever growing group of progressives (and just not assholes imo) that are calling to stop collaborating with a group that fights Democrats/helps Republicans like that.
That's what I think of when I think of an example of "self-sabotaging infighting where establishment/centrist/dyhb Dems need to concede to progressives on their left" among Democrats. Not this nonsense about a public option that basically no Democrats (certainly not enough to stop anything after these recent wins) explicitly oppose.
|
On November 07 2026 00:46 Velr wrote:
She was a sitting congress member for the DNC. El-Sayed so far had lost in his one attempt at a political office.
Like it or not, she was the safe choice. I would very much imagine the DNC favoring the safe choices basically every time unless there is a very good reason for not doing so, that wasn't the case.
I'm very happy it was El Sayed in the end but Stevens was no Cuomo or some other obviously vile swamp creature where i think blaming the DNC is prefectly fine, she was just a run of the mill establishment D that allready proved that she could win elections.
Also, I highly doubt "isarel/palestine/aipac" had much of an impact on this election one way or the other and it's not like El-Sayed was flawless on questions about that stuff. Even if Israel has gotten much less popular among democratic voters, american elections are and have pretty much never were won or lost on foreign policy.
Supporting Israel is not just a foreign policy issue, people who can't afford groceries are usually perturbed when USA sends billions to them (which Trump in a desperate attempt to help said they'll stop on the morning of elections), it was a big thing during these elections, especially since one of the top issues was affordability which people connected to Iran war which is clearly very connected to Israel.
The AES message of "I want us to stop sending money to them" is way more popular in USA then "Israel comes to me in my dreams", that's a pretty objective statement given the political circumstances.
|
On November 07 2026 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2026 00:12 Velr wrote:On November 06 2026 23:36 Jankisa wrote:
If it was up to Schumer, the candidate in Michigan would have been Haley Stevens. You are just buying into the CNN style analysis of "these 2 genius political operators applied money drops whit surgical precision to key races" when it's pretty obvious that decisions like this get made by hundreds of very smart people looking at maps and polls and suggesting how to allocate these funds.
Can we all stop with blaming Schumer/the democratic establishment for supporting Stevens in the primary? + Show Spoiler +She was a sitting congress member and her voting record was well within the normal expectations of the democratic party. Frankly, it would have been weird if the national party wouldn't have supported her. She also most likely would easily have won the election with a larger margin than El Sayed. Btw: If the DNC didn't feel the need to spend as much on El Sayed as it did, it maybe would have had more money to play freely with in Florida (more likely it would have thrown even more at Texas but...).
Also, the second she lost, the DNC put basically it's full strenght behind Al Sayed including fucking Obama and Harris. Stevens going totally rogue doesn't change that, she got kicked out of the party for it and is now a person non-grata. The DNC isn't at fault for this.
Isn't this a textbook example of how the US system should play out? What exactly are people mad about? The national Parties, be it D or R don't exist do support "out there" candidates, it would be very weird if that was the case. The bigger issue for me is AIPAC/UDP and their bragging about her heel turn endorsement of the Republican while Jeffries and Schumer continue to stay cozy. AIPAC effectively spent ~$40,000,000+ to help the Republican team win a crucial Senate seat in MI. Yet Schumer and Jeffries can't concede to the ever growing group of progressives (and just not assholes imo) that are calling to stop collaborating with a group that fights Democrats/helps Republicans like that. That's what I think of when I think of an example of "self-sabotaging infighting where establishment/centrist/dyhb Dems need to concede to progressives on their left" among Democrats. Not this nonsense about a public option that basically no Democrats (certainly not enough to stop anything after these recent wins) explicitly oppose.
Are they not a bipartisan donator who donates based on what candidates support their interests better in individual races?
|
On November 07 2026 00:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2026 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare. Is this another misunderstanding? I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala 1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?" 2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests". I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience. 1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates. Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."? Jeffries seems to be a major one, and individual Congressional Dems can feel free to update which of the three groups they currently identify with. I think the portion of Democratic voters represented by group one is pretty small, since different polls seem to show high favorability for Dems wanting M4A (like 80+%). As one of the "major ones", can you give some examples of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option? I would consider Jeffries to be major/prominent because he's been the House Minority Leader and the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus for the past few years + Show Spoiler +[1]. Additionally, his stance on M4A has seemingly gone backwards, which is interesting: from 2013 to 2021, he co-sponsored M4A legislation and spoke highly of M4A, but over the past few years (sadly coinciding with his leadership positions) he's backtracked and has articulated positions against M4A [2] [3]. This Meet The Press exchange on NBC from a few months ago [3] was particularly concerning: Welker (Interviewer): Medicare for All? Do you personally support Medicare for All?
Jeffries: No, i — as you indicated, I haven’t cosponsored the Medicare for All legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people, who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases by up to a thousand dollars a month, that’s not sustainable. And that’s something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people.
Welker: Just be very clear though, as the Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
Jeffries: I think as you’ve indicated in your question to me, it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. No mention of even M4AWWI, sadly. I feel like he's moved from group 2 (mayyyybe group 3) backwards to group 1, which is a problem. Hopefully, he quickly and publicly goes back to at least group 2 (ideally group 3). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/transcripts/meet-press-august-16-2026-rcna592786 So no, you can't provide an example of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option. Except for the interview example I pasted that you ignored / hid in spoiler tags? He clearly said he just wants to focus on the ACA - which is not a public option - and that he no longer backs M4A ("it's not legislation I support") nor suggested M4AWWI / any sort of public option he'd consider as an alternative to the ACA. That was from this past August, not too long ago. Why does that not count, in your opinion? I feel like you're just attempting to quiz me on facts about politicians that you could easily Google for yourself. Surely you can find Democratic Congresspeople who don't support M4A or a public option / M4AWWI without my help? And besides that group one, you could also find whoever fits into groups two and three? DPB, my friend. Your breath is wasted.
Sometimes I find my conversations with GH to be beneficial and helpful and worth the engagement. I think GH and I are kind of stuck in a rut with this specific topic though.
On November 07 2026 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2026 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare. Is this another misunderstanding? I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala 1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?" 2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests". I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience. 1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates. Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."? Jeffries seems to be a major one, and individual Congressional Dems can feel free to update which of the three groups they currently identify with. I think the portion of Democratic voters represented by group one is pretty small, since different polls seem to show high favorability for Dems wanting M4A (like 80+%). As one of the "major ones", can you give some examples of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option? I would consider Jeffries to be major/prominent because he's been the House Minority Leader and the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus for the past few years + Show Spoiler +[1]. Additionally, his stance on M4A has seemingly gone backwards, which is interesting: from 2013 to 2021, he co-sponsored M4A legislation and spoke highly of M4A, but over the past few years (sadly coinciding with his leadership positions) he's backtracked and has articulated positions against M4A [2] [3]. This Meet The Press exchange on NBC from a few months ago [3] was particularly concerning: Welker (Interviewer): Medicare for All? Do you personally support Medicare for All?
Jeffries: No, i — as you indicated, I haven’t cosponsored the Medicare for All legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people, who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases by up to a thousand dollars a month, that’s not sustainable. And that’s something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people.
Welker: Just be very clear though, as the Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
Jeffries: I think as you’ve indicated in your question to me, it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. No mention of even M4AWWI, sadly. I feel like he's moved from group 2 (mayyyybe group 3) backwards to group 1, which is a problem. Hopefully, he quickly and publicly goes back to at least group 2 (ideally group 3). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/transcripts/meet-press-august-16-2026-rcna592786 So no, you can't provide an example of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option. Do you see the problems with you identifying Jeffries "as [a] currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrat in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option)" when you know he hasn't? How that impacts your argument about the "in-fighting"? It seems you hallucinated a faction in the Democrats' party that is "in-fighting" for "no changes in healthcare are needed" in order to sleight of hand progressives (and 80%+ of Democrats generally) conceding on M4A to establishment/corporate/centrist/dyhb Dems on a public option as an example of where centrists need to concede to progressives. So now that we know the M4A example is another example of where the call for the "in-fighting" to stop is actually just another call for progressives to concede to centrists/establishment/third way/dyhb Democrats, should we try your AIPAC ("genocidal Israel") or NPVIC examples? Or perhaps you can come up with an actual example of "in-fighting" where you believe the centrists/establishment/third way/dyhb Democrats need to concede to progressives to avoid self-sabotaging? Except for the interview example I pasted that you ignored / hid in spoiler tags? He clearly said he just wants to focus on the ACA - which is not a public option - and that he no longer backs M4A ("it's not legislation I support") nor suggested M4AWWI / any sort of public option he'd consider as an alternative to the ACA. That was from this past August, not too long ago. Why does that not count, in your opinion? I feel like you're just attempting to quiz me on facts about politicians that you could easily Google for yourself. Surely you can find Democratic Congresspeople who don't support M4A or a public option / M4AWWI without my help? And besides that group one, you could also find whoever fits into groups two and three? It doesn't count because it's definitively not explicit opposition to a public option. Typically you and others would describe that as some version of pragmatic advocacy of something he thinks he can do/plays well politically, not explicit opposition to something better (setting aside questions about his integrity).
Jeffries saying that he's only considering a non-public option (ACA) is the same thing as him saying he's not considering a public option. If he had said that he thinks strengthening the ACA is the most practical and realistic way to improve healthcare but that he's also open to other ideas including public options, then I'd agree with your second sentence here, but he explicitly said he was anti-M4A and that he was only considering the ACA. I'm not interested in going additional rounds with you on this attempt to split hairs, when my original thesis was that I think anyone in group one should concede to groups two and three; if you don't think Jeffries is in group one, then okay, fine... it doesn't change my stance on which group needs to give in the most on the subject of healthcare.
|
Ultimately, the problem with Schumer and others is that they are seen as out of touch and having poor judgment about the character of people and what people view as important. They keep supporting the wrong candidates and positions. Even if they immediately turned on their heels, their history on issues is too much. If a person bought into Trump's rhetoric, they obviously get questioned about their judgment. These people are not Trump, but they appear repeatedly and share characteristics. Poor judgment has become an optics issue. If you want to change optics, you need to show visible change.
|
On November 07 2026 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2026 00:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 07 2026 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is this another misunderstanding?
I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala
1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?"
2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests".
I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience.
1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates. Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."? Jeffries seems to be a major one, and individual Congressional Dems can feel free to update which of the three groups they currently identify with. I think the portion of Democratic voters represented by group one is pretty small, since different polls seem to show high favorability for Dems wanting M4A (like 80+%). As one of the "major ones", can you give some examples of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option? I would consider Jeffries to be major/prominent because he's been the House Minority Leader and the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus for the past few years + Show Spoiler +[1]. Additionally, his stance on M4A has seemingly gone backwards, which is interesting: from 2013 to 2021, he co-sponsored M4A legislation and spoke highly of M4A, but over the past few years (sadly coinciding with his leadership positions) he's backtracked and has articulated positions against M4A [2] [3]. This Meet The Press exchange on NBC from a few months ago [3] was particularly concerning: Welker (Interviewer): Medicare for All? Do you personally support Medicare for All?
Jeffries: No, i — as you indicated, I haven’t cosponsored the Medicare for All legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people, who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases by up to a thousand dollars a month, that’s not sustainable. And that’s something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people.
Welker: Just be very clear though, as the Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
Jeffries: I think as you’ve indicated in your question to me, it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. No mention of even M4AWWI, sadly. I feel like he's moved from group 2 (mayyyybe group 3) backwards to group 1, which is a problem. Hopefully, he quickly and publicly goes back to at least group 2 (ideally group 3). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/transcripts/meet-press-august-16-2026-rcna592786 So no, you can't provide an example of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option. Except for the interview example I pasted that you ignored / hid in spoiler tags? He clearly said he just wants to focus on the ACA - which is not a public option - and that he no longer backs M4A ("it's not legislation I support") nor suggested M4AWWI / any sort of public option he'd consider as an alternative to the ACA. That was from this past August, not too long ago. Why does that not count, in your opinion? I feel like you're just attempting to quiz me on facts about politicians that you could easily Google for yourself. Surely you can find Democratic Congresspeople who don't support M4A or a public option / M4AWWI without my help? And besides that group one, you could also find whoever fits into groups two and three? DPB, my friend. Your breath is wasted. Sometimes I find my conversations with GH to be beneficial and helpful and worth the engagement. I think GH and I are kind of stuck in a rut with this specific topic though. Show nested quote +On November 07 2026 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2026 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 05:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is this another misunderstanding?
I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala
1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?"
2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests".
I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience.
1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A). + Show Spoiler +2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates. Who do you identify as currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrats in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option) and what portion of Democrat voters/the party do you believe they represent with that view/ the view that "no changes in healthcare are needed."? Jeffries seems to be a major one, and individual Congressional Dems can feel free to update which of the three groups they currently identify with. I think the portion of Democratic voters represented by group one is pretty small, since different polls seem to show high favorability for Dems wanting M4A (like 80+%). As one of the "major ones", can you give some examples of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option? I would consider Jeffries to be major/prominent because he's been the House Minority Leader and the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus for the past few years + Show Spoiler +[1]. Additionally, his stance on M4A has seemingly gone backwards, which is interesting: from 2013 to 2021, he co-sponsored M4A legislation and spoke highly of M4A, but over the past few years (sadly coinciding with his leadership positions) he's backtracked and has articulated positions against M4A [2] [3]. This Meet The Press exchange on NBC from a few months ago [3] was particularly concerning: Welker (Interviewer): Medicare for All? Do you personally support Medicare for All?
Jeffries: No, i — as you indicated, I haven’t cosponsored the Medicare for All legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done. Now, that will include doing things like extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits so that more than 20 million people, who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, in some cases by up to a thousand dollars a month, that’s not sustainable. And that’s something that Donald Trump and Republicans have visited upon the American people.
Welker: Just be very clear though, as the Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
Jeffries: I think as you’ve indicated in your question to me, it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support. No mention of even M4AWWI, sadly. I feel like he's moved from group 2 (mayyyybe group 3) backwards to group 1, which is a problem. Hopefully, he quickly and publicly goes back to at least group 2 (ideally group 3). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/transcripts/meet-press-august-16-2026-rcna592786 So no, you can't provide an example of Jeffries explicitly opposing a public option. Do you see the problems with you identifying Jeffries "as [a] currently (as of Jan 2027) prominent elected Democrat in the first group that explicitly opposes the second (a public option)" when you know he hasn't? How that impacts your argument about the "in-fighting"? It seems you hallucinated a faction in the Democrats' party that is "in-fighting" for "no changes in healthcare are needed" in order to sleight of hand progressives (and 80%+ of Democrats generally) conceding on M4A to establishment/corporate/centrist/dyhb Dems on a public option as an example of where centrists need to concede to progressives. So now that we know the M4A example is another example of where the call for the "in-fighting" to stop is actually just another call for progressives to concede to centrists/establishment/third way/dyhb Democrats, should we try your AIPAC ("genocidal Israel") or NPVIC examples? Or perhaps you can come up with an actual example of "in-fighting" where you believe the centrists/establishment/third way/dyhb Democrats need to concede to progressives to avoid self-sabotaging? Except for the interview example I pasted that you ignored / hid in spoiler tags? He clearly said he just wants to focus on the ACA - which is not a public option - and that he no longer backs M4A ("it's not legislation I support") nor suggested M4AWWI / any sort of public option he'd consider as an alternative to the ACA. That was from this past August, not too long ago. Why does that not count, in your opinion? I feel like you're just attempting to quiz me on facts about politicians that you could easily Google for yourself. Surely you can find Democratic Congresspeople who don't support M4A or a public option / M4AWWI without my help? And besides that group one, you could also find whoever fits into groups two and three? It doesn't count because it's definitively not explicit opposition to a public option. Typically you and others would describe that as some version of pragmatic advocacy of something he thinks he can do/plays well politically, not explicit opposition to something better (setting aside questions about his integrity). Jeffries saying that he's only considering a non-public option (ACA) is the same thing as him saying he's not considering a public option. If he had said that he thinks strengthening the ACA is the most practical and realistic way to improve healthcare but that he's also open to other ideas including public options, then I'd agree with your second sentence here, but he explicitly said he was anti-M4A and that he was only considering the ACA. I'm not interested in going additional rounds with you on this attempt to split hairs, when my original thesis was that I think anyone in group one should concede to groups two and three; if you don't think Jeffries is in group one, then okay, fine... it doesn't change my stance on which group needs to give in the most on the subject of healthcare.
Unlike the AIPAC/UDP example, it's just not an actual "in-fight" that's happening. The "in-fight" between establishment/corporate/centrist/thirdway/dyhb Dems and progressives is between M4A and a public option and progressives have already conceded to them for a public option.
When you all say you want the infighting to stop, you're objectively/functionally exclusively referring to progressives conceding to establishment/corporate/thirdway/dyhb Dems.
|
This election is fantastic news for the US, especially the GOP. If they lose Texas, they are screwed in every presidential election for decades to come. They need to find a new platform, and actually be a real political party. It will be really interresting to see how they go about it.
For the Democrats, I feel pretty certain they will mostly squander this win in 4 years, turning to infighting and failing to get rid of their own love for coorporate money.
I am also very interrested in who the will run for president next time. Candidates on the top of my head:
DEM:
Jon Ossoff
Gavin Newsom
James Talarico
GOP:
JD Vance
Marc Rubio
Ron DeSantis
I can't see how the republicans could win in 2028. The current favourite Vance should be sqashed by his complete lack of integrity and principals. Trump has at least been conisistent about his belief in "America First" and using tariffs.
|
On November 07 2026 02:51 Slydie wrote:
This election is fantastic news for the US, especially the GOP. If they lose Texas, they are screwed in every presidential election for decades to come. They need to find a new platform, and actually be a real political party. It will be really interresting to see how they go about it.
California was a red state from 1952 to 1994. Governor Pete Wilson crippled the Republican Party in his own state by pushing Proposition 187, "to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California". It's been a hard blue state since 1994.
Texas Republicans voted to give ICE over $100b to terrorize their neighbors and it might have the same longterm consequences as Proposition 187. California in 1994 had the same population as Texas now but less immigrants than Texas does now.
|
On November 07 2026 02:51 Slydie wrote:
This election is fantastic news for the US, especially the GOP. If they lose Texas, they are screwed in every presidential election for decades to come. They need to find a new platform, and actually be a real political party. It will be really interresting to see how they go about it.
For the Democrats, I feel pretty certain they will mostly squander this win in 4 years, turning to infighting and failing to get rid of their own love for coorporate money.
I am also very interrested in who the will run for president next time. Candidates on the top of my head:
DEM:
Jon Ossoff
Gavin Newsom
James Talarico
GOP:
JD Vance
Marc Rubio
Ron DeSantis
I can't see how the republicans could win in 2028. The current favourite Vance should be squashed by his complete lack of integrity and principals. Trump has at least been conisistent about his belief in "America First" and using tariffs.
That's literally the way to win the Republican nomination lol.
|
I think from that list, from Dem side, I don't see Talarico running, he's a bit on the too young side, plus risking the Texas senate seat in special election just to try and potentially fail to win the nomination doesn't make sense, he has plenty of time.
Ossoff, while just 2 years older is coming from a safer seat so I think him being one of the front runners is pretty much a guarantee now that GA has a Dem governor to appoint his replacement, given his margins this time around, I'm pretty sure that election wouldn't really be as risky as Texas if he hand picks his successor.
Newsom is, at least in my opinion, way too slimy and has way too many scandals that can sink his nomination let alone presidential run to be a serious front runner, he has the name recognition but also has to own a lot of the things that he failed to do in California, just way too much baggage and I think he's way too much of a "politician" to be a good candidate in this atmosphere.
Similarly to him, Vance is a slimy weasel with plenty of bad things on his resume already, I'm sure that the delusions of grandeur rubbed off from Trump on him but all the Musk and techbro money in the world can't buy you charisma, he's just a weird little dude who is extremely unrelatable, plus, he has an Indian wife and children so even his position with the racist base would be questionable.
DeSantis will try and will, as it usually goes crash and burn sooner or later, honestly I don't even want to waste time explaining why.
Rubio is the most likely candidate, not only to run as he's already signaling but also to win the primary, he's been sycophantic enough with Trump that he might be seen as worthy successor by at least parts of his cult, he is not a bad speaker and he at least has a modicum of charisma and relatability as compared to the first 2.
I think he'll absolutely lose to any good Democratic candidate because he's tied to Iran and Trump's idiotic agenda too much, but they have to field someone, so I think he'll be the guy.
|
That's literally the way to win the Republican nomination lol.
I have no idea what they will look for now, but he is still the betting favourite to win. At least he probably did a good move to blame this loss on the Iran war, and indirectly, Trump.
|
Republicans don't need to reinvent anything.
The only reason the loss is this big is because Trump started a trade war with the entire world and then cut of a quarter of the worlds oil by going to war with Iran.
|
On November 07 2026 03:17 Slydie wrote:I have no idea what they will look for now, but he is still the betting favourite to win. At least he probably did a good move to blame this loss on the Iran war, and indirectly, Trump.
If it keeps going as bad as it has been, a dumped “rino” / never Trumper, could reappear. If they were to run on an anti corruption platform and focus on bringing the Republicans back to classic conservative values, jumping away from the culture war’s shenanigans it could be huge. But it would be a big risk because the MAGA brains who haven’t noticed his massive personal wealth growth, more stock trades than all of congress combined, side deals with dictators are not going to come along for the ride. So they would need to pull with them enough of right leaning Dems.
Where as any person living in reality can’t vote for anyone who pretended Trump was smart and working for the people. Long term it is probably better to punt on leading for 2028 and plan for 2032.
That being said with the news cycling being like 4 hours, wtf knows what people will think a month from now let alone 2 years.
|
Stephen Miller is now WH Chief of Staff. The chances of Texas turning red again in 2028 is dwindling faster than the light in Mitch McConnell's eyes.
|
On November 07 2026 04:11 LightSpectra wrote:
Stephen Miller is now WH Chief of Staff. The chances of Texas turning red again in 2028 is dwindling faster than the light in Mitch McConnell's eyes.
Oh boy, we are entering late stage Trumpism.
Firing the person who by all accounts helped moderate his insanity around 2024 in order to trick swing voters he's not as insane as he actually is and replacing her with the most extreme fucker in his cadre is certainly a choice.
The least surprising thing with this news is that he decided to scapegoat a woman, so far, the only high(er) profile guy he fired is Mike Waltz, ostensibly due to Signalgate (fuck man that would have been a Watergate level shit in any other admin but I bet ya most of you forgot about it already just as I did), the rest of the 5 high profile firings are all ladies.
He really is the embodiment of American Baby boomer, just a sexist, racist stupid piece of selfish shit who blames women and minority for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
