Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Nov 25, 2016.
Obama never even campaigned on it. Capability is irrelevant if you refuse to do something.
Wow, that's an interesting take on what I said.
And yet 60% of Americans support medicare for all (vs 23% opposing). The fallacy you make is that Obama or the Democrats ever had any intention of passing medicare for all or tuition-free college instead of lining their own pockets with lobbyist money. There is majority support for medicare for all and tuition-free college amongst Americans, and even amongst Republicans more support than oppose. The main opposition is that both parties are bought by the private healthcare industry and other corporations with an inherent interest in ripping off the American people for profits, and the politicians care more about making themselves rich than actually serving the public.
And your point?
Keeping in mind that the topic of the moment is that Sanders, just like D'ump, was promising pie in the sky with rainbow ice cream. A different rainbow, for sure, but no more likely to actually happen.
Do the majority of Americans want Medicare for all? Sure. Do they want great American manufacturing jobs to fall out of a time machine from the fifties? Sure. Unfortunately, that makes them susceptible to politicians that promise things they cannot deliver.
Maybe that campaigning on and passing policies widely supported by the majority of the populace will get you reelected in a democracy and win crossover votes? It worked for FDR, who by standing up to the corporate elites was re-elected till he died, and his modern-day equivalent in Bernie Sanders is unsurprisingly the single most popular politician in the country, and packed stadiums with his speeches.
On the other hand, Hillary's policy-free campaign couldn't even fill a high school gym, and half the voting population of the US felt no reason to come out to vote in the last election. Obama's immediate betrayal of his base in the handouts to Wall Street and Private Health are what rightfully costed him 1000 seats over his eight years. Obama had the actual power to pass Universal Healthcare with a veto-proof congress in his early years, and deliberately chose not to, instead passing the Republican healthcare plan as Obamacare to please the private health insurers and big pharma.
Question for you: What's stopping these policies from being passed? Nebulous forces from the dark regions of outer space that specifically curse the United States? Because it sure isn't the potential backlash of populace against politicians, seeing that the majority of the populace supports raising taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, single payer healthcare, and free college.
It's the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are completely bought by corporations, and the politicians are afraid to offend their corporate donors for fear of losing their fat paycheck. It's really up to the populace to organize and support candidates who do not take corporate cash. Not exactly rocket science.
But yeah, somehow you cannot hope to win in a democracy by pushing for and passing policies that the majority of the country supports. Gotta love that Hillary logic
Oh yes because the things he’s proposing exist no where else in the world. No where else is there universal healthcare or free college tuition or higher minimum wage. Your right it is going to be very difficult achieve a single payer system or free college tuition, but if you read my post look whose blocking it from ever happening. If people do enough research they can differentiate between politicians that actually back up what they say versus just bull$hyinf people. Clear example would be Hillary and proposing universal healthcare which was just utter nonsense and easy to know that it would never have had happen if she was president.
So are you suggesting that people or current and future politicians think of no “big” ideas or don’t think of any ideas that other nations have achieved because it’s impossible for it to happen here? We just have to maintain the status quo so we don’t feel disappointed when things don’t work out? Look I mean I know that if Bernie was president, he wouldn’t have been able to get anything done because theyd block his ideas at all levels, but why give up on thinking and fighting for that someday; people will actually have a government that actually represents them and intend on making America a better and much for equal place for everyone. The fact that last part sounds Utopian shows how much is wrong with this country
Weren't you asking why Sanders' ideas were fantasies? You just provided the answer. People don't.
We can commiserate about that little fact if you like, but I personally am not willing to just blithely pretend that it doesn't exist.
By the way, if you are going to assign me wild nonsense try not to make it as obvious as you did there. If the strength of your argument can only carry the day by pretending anyone who disagrees with you is somehow unaware that single payer healthcare is quite existent then you need a better argument. What, did you think I was going to say "Oh? Other countries are using single payer? My goodness, thank you for pulling me out from under that rock! You are a genius!!!"
You’re right people don’t do enough research, that’s why I said if. You’re welcome, someone had to pull you from under that rock. You still never gave an answer on why you think its pie in the sky to begin with. So I just assumed that you were living under a rock. I mean being disappointed by a politicians failure to deliver is not the end of the world. I and the poster above me said what’s blocking these “big” ideas from being passed. Do I have the solution to get things that people want passed, no. But I sure as hell am not gonna let corrupt politicians, business leaders and forum members tell me what’s impossible when proven it is.
This should get hilarious.,
Will it rally the faithful or be another Roy Moore experience.
The man couldn't even win re-election in a local campaign.
And when he loses he'll blame illegal immigrants and the liberal media elite for his loss. Then trump will make him the new head of the FBI or Homeland Security or something.....
The question is, have the Republicans learned from the Roy Moore experience?
Will they risk the seat by supporting him in the primary, or should they back someone that can win it.
This is a seat they shouldn't lose.
Read the edited version of my post.
Moore wasn't really supported in the primary though, he went through on the support of Steve Bannon, but no one else really supported him back then. Which means it isn't always up to the Republican leadership when it comes to who will make it.
I wouldn't say that it's a seat they shouldn't lose either. Sure, they shouldn't lose it in the sense of "it's bad to lose a senate seat that you have held for the recent past", but it's not like Arizona is a sure-fire Republican state where the margins have always been huge. Flake won 49-46 in 2012, that's not exactly a huge lead. Clinton lost the state by less than 5% as well. With this being a mid-term, which is generally bad for the party that controls the white house, and with Trump having really bad ratings, losing that seat isn't unlikely, even with a solid candidate. It's certainly not a seat they are bound to lose yet, but it's definately not a safe seat that only a truly horrible candidate could lose.
The senate is currently 49/51, so if the Democrats get NV and another seat (AZ here) they get in control (against all odds really). For the republicans, AZ is crucial because all other 2018 red states are too red for the democrats to have a chance
And running a convicted felon really can't help.
Yeah. Like Alabama, for example.
The R incumbents are going to win, except in Nevada. That leaves Tennessee (unlikely, it would take someone as bad as Moore for the republicans to lose) Utah (Romney's going to win) and AZ.
That's why I think a bad candidate is an even bigger risk since Arizona isn't quite as red.
Look, no one has disputed that single payer exists in other countries. That doesn't mean that a US President can wave a magic wand and the same thing will appear in the US. It's all well and good to say "those dastardly insurance companies own the politicians," but an elected president also faces the reality that there are tens of millions of people employed by those companies.
How do you make this transition without throwing millions of people out of their jobs?
There are states where the headquarters of those companies are concentrated, and this transition could have catastrophic impacts on state tax revenues in those states. If you can't make the transition without managing that somehow you will never get support from representatives in those states on either side of the aisle.
"Medicare for all" suddenly quadruples the throughput in every office in the vast administration of Medicare. Do you think they are prepared to handle that? How do you get them prepared?
This list of questions could be made endless if I had the time, but I believe you are smart enough to have gotten the point.
The ACA was a thousand pages of legislation and it still ran directly into places where the brain trust that crafted it said "oh, snap, didn't see that coming." "Medicare for all" is great...as a three word campaign slogan. But when it is being said by someone who doesn't have the political savvy or legislative chops to make it happen it is pie in the sky...no matter how many other countries it is working in.
The R incumbents have to make it to the general election before they can win. Every one of them has to consider the possibility of an insane primary battle with an opponent running a "me or I destroy the GOP" style campaign. It is very hard to unseat an incumbent, but if a quarter of the GOP base follows an angry loser from the primaries into "he's just a swamp creature RINO" territory and just stays home they could lose, even in a deep red state.
Republican leadership understands the significance of having the party in control. The Republican base includes a whole lot of people who are just as contemptuous of a Republican Senator that hasn't declared 'open season on da lib'ruls' as they are of Democrats.
Separate names with a comma.