Hillary Fundraiser Offers Thoughts On Her Upcoming Book Tour: "Shut The F**k Up And Go Away!"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MMJ Dreaming 99, Sep 7, 2017.


    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    I was never under any such illusions, but I've noticed your need to project before.

    I've been saying he was a centrist for years now.

    Remember the conversation about the Overton Window?
    schuylaar likes this.

    Fogdog Well-Known Member

    In 2015, he was talking as if ACA was some sort of anathema that blocked Universal Access to Healthcare. Now, it's "I'm OK if you don't want to support my bill". Democrats have been supportive of Single Payer Healthcare or some insurance-based Universal Healthcare Coverage for about 80 years. The people who have been blocking it is Republicans. A handful of Blue Dog Democrats too but they weren't the force that stopped it.

    I heard what Sanders said and your summary was accurate. This is less than what you have been saying until now. I see you've been sheepdogged into the fold. Maybe you came there before now but not what you were saying just months ago. Actually, what Sanders and now you are saying is what I said months ago: "some districts are more conservative and representatives from these districts will reflect their choices, not what a California liberal would want." Welcome to my position on this issue. Here, have a cupcake. I'm glad that we can now agree on this issue.

    It's still up to the electorate for each Senator to drive his choice. We'll see if the tide has turned. I'm still not convinced it has. We haven't seen the bill or the price tag yet. That's when the fat hits the fire. By the way, you do realize that not co-sponsoring a bill is not the same as not supporting the bill when it reaches a vote, don't you?

    My guess is, this doesn't make it to a floor vote. Just like the Citizens United Amendment that failed in 2014. If there are any votes on it, I'm willing to bet that only Manchin stands against it from the Democratic Caucus.

    This doesn't go anywhere because Republicans stop it. After it fails, you will rage on about how Democrats didn't support it, when in fact practically all will. I have no hope for you.

    Fogdog Well-Known Member

    Oh gawd. Countless times you have said Democrats don't support Universal Healthcare. Are you claiming you never said that?
    dagwood45431 likes this.

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    I'll believe it once Bernie is dragging them kicking and screaming to the table.

    I've seen too many well worn sets of kneepads kept handy for entertaining the lobbyists.
    schuylaar likes this.

    Padawanbater2 Well-Known Member

    Sanders said during his entire campaign that the ACA was a step in the right direction, but didn't go far enough, and that single payer was the system of healthcare he supported. Now it's "I'm OK if you don't want to support my bill, but good fucking luck winning reelection if you don't.". You seem to conveniently leave that part out..
    Democratic senators will oppose it and justify it with right wing talking points as they have in the past. They'll say it's too expensive, while leaving out the fact that what we pay for healthcare now is actually more expensive than adopting a single payer system. Or they'll claim their constituents don't want it, while polls show ~80% of registered Democrats support it. Or that we have to protect the ACA and we can only do one at a time for some reason. etc. The same old things we've heard before. And you will accept it.
    That's not what Sanders is saying at all. He's challenging members of the Democratic Senate to oppose his bill, see what happens. That's an open threat to anyone dumb enough to do it. People like Manchin and McCaskill have to do it, neither of them have presidential aspirations and both of them are beholden to their industry donors. It's a clever way for Sanders to highlight the division within the Democratic party in a very public way. Proposing medicare for all is going to gain a lot of media attention, a lot of people are going to see it, and support it. The politicians that don't are going to be singled out, since, as you claim, they've supported it for 80 years... It's also a way to highlight the contrast between Trump and the Republicans healthcare plan that would have stripped access from millions of Americans and Sanders and the Democrats who want to give access to everyone, thus further advancing a progressive agenda and helping the Democratic party by focusing on policy issues.

    Sanders, Justice Democrats, and my position on this issue has remained consistent throughout the campaign and to today; Vote however you want to vote, see what happens. We're going to primary you. You're welcome to do whatever you want, but if you're not actually progressive while you're supposed to be representing progressives, we don't think you should be there. That's been the threat all along, and it's been working.

    What would be a justifiable reason in your opinion for a Democratic Senator not to co-sponsor Sanders medicare for all bill, especially during a Republican administration and congress when it has no chance of passing?
    Is there any reason you would accept that shows a Democratic Senator who doesn't cosponsor it doesn't actually support universal healthcare?
    schuylaar and ttystikk like this.

    Fogdog Well-Known Member


    Democrats aren't going to stop this bill. Republicans will. You keep talking as if Democrats are the problem.

    As a voter in Oregon, I get to make up my own mind about the importance of Wyden not co-sponsoring this bill and to me, it's insignificant. Today isn't a deadline for that anyway.

    LOL. Welcome to where I've been all along. Today's a good day. We agree. I'm going to enjoy watching this play out.

    In the past 20 years, this has been a touchstone issue that has creamed Democrats and put Republicans in charge. Perhaps we will see the same happen again.

    Since Sanders launched his presidential campaign in May 2015, public support for universal healthcare has climbed. Where 46% of the public supported such a system in 2008 and 2009, a recent Kaiser poll found 53% now support the idea.

    But that same survey found that when respondents were told that a universal healthcare plan might give the government “too much control,” or that it might increases taxes, opposition spiked from 43% to 62% and 60% respectively – perhaps a sign of the major political and policy fights that lie ahead.


    Now, don't argue with me about the false perception people have about cost and government control. I don't buy that argument and never have. Just saying that's what we are up against. This is how Republicans are going to fight this bill and it's been an effective strategy. Over the next few years, we will see if it still is.

    Of course, there is this glaring and irresponible omission in the bill. It doesn't have any provisions on how to pay for it. A rather important detail, isn't it?
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
    srh88 and dagwood45431 like this.

    SneekyNinja Well-Known Member

    "I don't sign my name on stuff that's going to be thrown in the trash anyway".

    Fogdog Well-Known Member

    Sandernistas love symbolism. This bill is a symbolic act. It's what they've been spoiling for and the party is going to concede to their demands. It's an off-election year so now is as good a time as any to see if this will fly.

    I think releasing his plan without the means to pay for it is irresponsible but Bernie isn't my Senator. I'm going to contact my own Senators about this issue. Wyden isn't a co-sponsor and I'm going to ask "why not?". Merkely is a co-sponsor and I'm going to rebuke him for signing on as co-sponsor for a bill that doesn't have a funding plan.

    Personally, I think it's a good campaign issue for next year in moderate and left leaning states and isn't such a big risk. The bill that finally does get passed, probably ten years from now, isn't going to be this one anyway.

    st0wandgrow Well-Known Member

    The Citizens United ruling was argued in 2009, and released in 2010. I'm no math major, but how have the dems opposed a ruling for 20 years that was just released in 2010??
    ttystikk and schuylaar like this.

    Fogdog Well-Known Member

    Campaign finance reform has been a Democratic issue and value for the past 20 years, actually longer given that some reforms were enacted after Nixon's depredations. CU ruling invalidated earlier reforms. I lumped campaign finance reform and CU repeal together because they are now inextricably linked.
    Justin-case and dagwood45431 like this.

Share This Page