"I don't support universal healthcare because we don't have the support in congress.."

[Padawanbater2]

I'd find acceptable a candidate who accepts corporate donations at present but supports the repeal of Citizen's United decision.

Can you name a candidate who accepts corporate donations and also supports the repeal of Citizens United?

 

[ttystikk]

I hope you're wrong.


I would hope YOU hope you're wrong too.

There's enough suffering here right now. The richest country on earth. But we don't share well.

I most certainly do hope I'm wrong.

That said, I've seen the handwriting on the wall, and the same story I saw leading up to 2008;

1. Huge income inequality, getting worse
2. Huge wealth inequality, getting worse
3. Systemic problems that caused the last crash unresolved
4. Unnaturally low interest rates increasing debt overhang
5. Stubborn unemployment
6. Stubbornly low economic growth
7. Nearly 1/3 of all Americans live below the poverty line

It's just a matter of time, especially since the Republicans now in power want to keep on borrowing from the future while lowering taxes and thus not paying their way.

Wildcards include a coming real estate crash in Canada, multiple nations in the Eurozone have debt overhangs like ours and strains on our military requiring more money without forcing higher taxes or mass employment (conscription, volunteering for war, call it what you like).

 

[ttystikk]

The Democratic Party is losing in states where voters prefer right wing officials to represent them. Your guess is based upon preconceptions and not evidence or facts.

Democratic voters outnumbered right wing voters last election. We haven't lost the majority. We lost middle america, where voters prefer more right wing candidates. To be successful, the Democratic party must be more accepting of good but more conservative candidates in states that prefer conservative policies. I'm not talking about full on fascist racist richy riches as candidates. I'm talking about socially progressive, thoughtful people who don't agree 100% with liberal left policies.

For example: Repeal of Citizen's United is an important issue to me. I'd find acceptable a candidate who accepts corporate donations at present but supports the repeal of Citizen's United decision. Also, I didn't find Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iraq war in 2002 or 2003 very much of an issue, nor was her accepting money from Wall Street individuals a big deal. I still think Hillary Clinton was well prepared and ready to be a good president as I think Obama was.

This sounds reasonable.

I just don't think Americans are in a reasonable mood anymore.

I think there's a lot of poverty, anger and desperation and that's a volatile and unpredictable mix.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Can you name a candidate who accepts corporate donations and also supports the repeal of Citizens United?

Didn't all Congressional Democrats vote for it's repeal...?

 

[UncleBuck]

Can you name a candidate who accepts corporate donations and also supports the repeal of Citizens United?

hillary clinton.

 

[UncleBuck]

Didn't all Congressional Democrats vote for it's repeal...?

yes.

 

[schuylaar]

i am not going to be polite to anyone who runs roughshod over the facts anymore. no more kid gloves for the far left. hillary did that to bernie and it didn't work. so i won't do it either.

they need to grow up and face reality. the GOP only hurt themselves by primarying their moderates. the same would hold true for the democrats.

You've officially gone over the edge, Buck..

 

[schuylaar]

ColoradoCare was proposed to be funded by a 1/3 increase in payroll tax by employees

You're comparing the failure of Amendment 69 in Colorado with nationwide, medicare for all. Americans support a system of medicare for all because there is no 1/3 increase in their payroll taxes. How goddamn dishonest of you to suggest they're at all comparable. Holy fuck.

I hope people reading along are paying attention to what this slimy fuck just tried to do. He tried to make the claim that people in Colorado, a traditionally progressive state, opposed universal healthcare on the basis that they didn't support it, because they don't want it. In reality, they opposed an increase in their taxes to pay for it. If we enacted a system of universal healthcare, the same kind of tax on poor/middle-class people would not exist to fund it. Which is why nearly 60% of Americans, including half of Republicans, support it.

FTW..

 

[schuylaar]

C'mon, man....sure, the 'far left' ('padbaiter' guy, lol!) nonsense is oftentimes cringeworthy and detrimental to the actual cause, but you shouldn't speak to @ttystikk this way. Doesn't he deserve a bit more e-respect than a desert georgie or an ANALEXCESS?

You'd be wise to listen/understand what 'padbaiter' is saying, he's our future. Why cringeworthy and detrimental?

What is the 'actual' cause you are referring?

Why would you think his take on Colorado is any less of an answer, than say, your memes of animals defecating?

 

[Rob Roy]

And yet people still want universal healthcare.

The problem with that statement is it implies that a majority can somehow aggregate something nonexistent, the "right" to impose on another, into existence.

Individuals have a right to make their own choices, but they don't have the right to make others choices for them.
So, "Universal Healthcare" is systemically flawed and relies on violating others rights. Why do you like to violate others rights?

 

[Big_Lou]

You'd be wise to listen/understand what 'padbaiter' is saying

Whaaaaa? Have you finally cracked, Sky?

he's our future.

Like hell! If "the future" means angry, emaciated, porn-addicted racist white nerds, clueless to reality while fancying themselves as suburbanite Che Guevaras, then dig my fucking grave right now!
I refuse to believe that the 'evolution' of humankind will derive from the sexless ramblings of spineless keyboard warriors that've never even gotten their tender hands dirty.

 

[Grandpapy]

The problem with that statement is it implies that a majority can somehow aggregate something nonexistent, the "right" to impose on another, into existence.

Individuals have a right to make their own choices, but they don't have the right to make others choices for them.
So, "Universal Healthcare" is systemically flawed and relies on violating others rights. Why do you like to violate others rights?

$40 billion in subsides to Exxon...
We hold an industry-leading inventory of resources and are one of the world’s largest integrated refiners, marketers of petroleum products and chemical manufacturers.

The problem with your statement is it doesn't require a majority to violate my rights.
Just a Corporation operated by foreign countries.

 

[schuylaar]

There's enough suffering here right now. The richest country on earth. But we don't share well.

It's the mean spirited, mine all mine mentality of the right not Americans in general.

IMHO experience cheapskates are most often the conservative rightie..every sale I make those that give me hardest time over price is the old white fart male.

 

[schuylaar]

I think there's a massive crash coming and people are getting increasingly desperate.

Who caused it will be less important than who gets stuck with the blame.

History repeats...

It's like a never ending full moon out there..people have their backs against the wall with no end in sight.

One step forward equals two steps back and people can only take so much.

Everyone cutting back, work and customers..everything costing more or taking longer which ends up costing more..anxiety, tempers flare and general craziness like I've not seen..strangers willing to fight each other over the littlest thing. Road rage, too.

 

[Fogdog]

Can you name a candidate who accepts corporate donations and also supports the repeal of Citizens United?

What a ridiculous question you asked. ignorant too..

Every Democratic Senator in 2014 voted for the amendment to repeal Citizen's United. Incredible that you would even have to ask.

OK, easy. Just looking at securities and investment sector donations and picking a couple of names, how about Al Franken.

Closer to home for Ty, Michael Bennet took almost 2 million
For California liberals, Diane Feinstein took about 300k and
For Oregon, Ron Wyden took almost 1 million

I'd vote for every one of them over a republican.

Plenty more. You can look them up yourself at this site:

http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator?sort=asc&order=Chamber&search=&state=&chamber[House]=House&chamber[Senate]=Senate&party[D]=D&party[R]=R&party=I&session[115]=115&search=

This is what I mean about you and Ty working from the wrong end of reasoning. You start with a preconception then look for facts or fake news to back it up. Or just listen to people who confirm you bias and shout down people who actually know more than you do.

This is shit simple stuff. If you had started off with the question: "Do Senators accept corporate donations and do they vote for bills to stop corporate donations?" You'd come up with the answer: "Yes they do vote for bills to stop corporate donations that are now allowed by CU ruling." You'd also look like less of an idiot.

 

[schuylaar]

I most certainly do hope I'm wrong.

That said, I've seen the handwriting on the wall, and the same story I saw leading up to 2008;

1. Huge income inequality, getting worse
2. Huge wealth inequality, getting worse
3. Systemic problems that caused the last crash unresolved
4. Unnaturally low interest rates increasing debt overhang
5. Stubborn unemployment
6. Stubbornly low economic growth
7. Nearly 1/3 of all Americans live below the poverty line

It's just a matter of time, especially since the Republicans now in power want to keep on borrowing from the future while lowering taxes and thus not paying their way.

Wildcards include a coming real estate crash in Canada, multiple nations in the Eurozone have debt overhangs like ours and strains on our military requiring more money without forcing higher taxes or mass employment (conscription, volunteering for war, call it what you like).

From 1980 to present GDP kept rising yet 100% of the growth went to top 10%

90% of Americans have received NOTHING 0% for their contribution to this country- that's 37 years!!!

 

[Fogdog]

From 1980 to present GDP kept rising yet 100% of the growth went to top 10%

90% of Americans have received NOTHING 0% for their contribution to this country- that's 37 years!!!

can't say 90% received NOTHING. Some families got this:

 

[Fogdog]

This sounds reasonable.

I just don't think Americans are in a reasonable mood anymore.

I think there's a lot of poverty, anger and desperation and that's a volatile and unpredictable mix.

I hope you are wrong about this. Good policy or legislation aren't made on belief of falsehoods.

 

[ttystikk]

I hope you are wrong about this. Good policy or legislation aren't made on belief of falsehoods.

This is what's wrong with our politics.

 

[Rob Roy]

$40 billion in subsides to Exxon...
We hold an industry-leading inventory of resources and are one of the world’s largest integrated refiners, marketers of petroleum products and chemical manufacturers.

The problem with your statement is it doesn't require a majority to violate my rights.
Just a Corporation operated by foreign countries.

I understand. I agree with you that it doesn't take a majority to violate your rights, it was a built in "side dish" assumption of my post.

If an individual doesn't have a right to do X, then you can't amass a sum of individuals, all of whom have no right to do X and somehow erroneously create a right from it simply because a bunch of people all agree to something which none of them as an individual has a right to do. Bet you thought you had me there, eh ?