Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

The 25 point plan was proclaimed in 1920. And Hitler was always very keen on being clear that his program was distinct from Socialism, Capitalism and Fascism. Though he did credit the latter for helping them hold off the socialists.

National Socialism isn't necessarily an adequate descriptor because the Soviets also practiced "national socialism" in terms of realizing that Russia needed to be built up first to be the vanguard of the international revolution.

Nazism also added in the racial component in terms of how it defined the "nation" in "national." Something neither fascism in Italy nor the "national socialism" of the USSR did.

The Nazi's actually didn't really call themselves Nazi's though. Maybe it's better to call it Hitlerism or something. We use Leninism and Maoism to denote other sub-branches of Communism/Socialism/Marxism after all.

 

[jorma]

Slight issue with this is how do you describe him? He's obviously a socialist, but socialist by itself doesn't necessarily encompass everything about him. So, anti-globalist, maybe? But everyone knows globalist is code for Jew, so, no, that doesn't work.

Personally, I think your reading of national socialist is both historically accurate, and not quite correct for modern usage. In the 1930s, Nazism wasn't yet a thing, but now that it is, people are more apt to use Nazi/neo-Nazi, or White Nationalist, because they're all recognisable ideologies.

I'm willing to be corrected, though, by people with more knowledge of both Bernie, and the etymology of the words being used here.

He's basically a social democrat. I don't see how he even comes close to being a socialist, since he doesn't want to, you know, transfer ownership of the means of production to the state. Or at least i don't think he does. If he does then he may be a socialist i guess.

And it's strange that you recognise the code for globalist = jew but don't recognise that national socialist = nazi, because the latter is not even in code.

 

[kirblar]

Jfc stop calling populists nationalists.thwy are not the same.

 

[pigeon]

He's basically a social democrat.

Like I just said, social democrats aren't anti-trade

Redistribution through monetary transfers is pretty reliant on the neoliberal manufacturing order to be effective

Bernie's protectionism and nativism are worth noting as distinct

 

[jorma]

Like I just said, social democrats aren't anti-trade

Protectionism isn't pro social democracy and it isn't anti social democracy. There's room for both in our social democratic party and i don't see them as particularly special as far as social democrats go.

They are pro union though. And unions are very much protectionist when it comes to the concerns about workers rights that free trade agreements tend to bring out.

And yes, trying to twist that into "well he is protectionist, that makes him a nationalist and he is obviously a socialist, so that makes him a national socialist, yeah?" is offensive no matter what.

 

[pigeon]

Protectionism isn't pro social democracy and it isn't anti social democracy. There's room for both in our social democratic party and i don't see them as particularly special as far as social democrats go

Respond to the next sentence that's why I wrote it also

 

[jorma]

Respond to the next sentence that's why I wrote it also

I couldn't really parse it so i ignored it.
Social democrats are fine with private ownership, and tend to want to redistribute wealth by taxation instead of straight up owning the means of production. If that's what you meant we agree.

And it's a bit difficult to try to parse european political ideology into US politics, but to me it's pretty obvious that social democrat is what comes closest when it comes to Sanders.

If you think it's worth noting that Sanders is a protectionist and uh.. a nativist, then by all means do so. Just don't do it by calling him a nazi or a white nationalist. Or even a "white" "nationalist".

 

[The Chosen One]

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Hilary campaign but why lately am I hearing some people in the media saying the Hilary campaign was the worst run campaign ever. That's just false.

The Hilary campaign definitely got complacent and played the game of "running out the clock" instead of fighting for the win in the last couple of months. This caused them to ignore the rust belt states, which may have been fatal (I"m not 100% convinced it was the single death blow because the Hilary campaign campaigned heavily in Florida, Ohio, and NC and still lost those states).

But there's been worse run presidential campaigns by far. Just in recent memory, the McCain campaign was an utter disaster. Yes they had the trade winds of George Bush blowing against them but nominating Sarah Palin as VP proved to be one of the biggest failed gambles in political history. It's amazing how people are forgetting just how bad that campaign was. It was to the point where the VP went rogue the final couple of weeks and when they lost she wanted to give a concession speech. And beyond Palin there was the decision to suspend the campaign during the Bank crises where McCain did absolutely nothing but looked bored and confused in the meetings.

The Hilary campaign also had very little drama that spilled out into the public until the Russian hackers aired their dirty laundry. They also raised a ton of money and never came close to running out of money. A very well run Democratic convention. At the end of it, I'd give the Hilary campaign a B- Rating. With a better candidate and less external forces meddling, the campaign was strong enough to win the election. I really think the Democrats misread the political climate and picked the wrong candidate for the nomination, but I think despite some crucial mistakes, the Hilary campaign overall was well run. It wasn't God-Tier like the Obama campaigns but it was adequate and good enough to win in a normal political climate.

 

[Plinko]

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Hilary campaign but why lately am I hearing some people in the media saying the Hilary campaign was the worst run campaign ever. That's just false.

The Hilary campaign definitely got complacent and played the game of "running out the clock" instead of fighting for the win in the last couple of months. This caused them to ignore the rust belt states, which may have been fatal (I"m not 100% convinced it was the single death blow because the Hilary campaign campaigned heavily in Florida, Ohio, and NC and still lost those states).

But there's been worse run presidential campaigns by far. Just in recent memory, the McCain campaign was an utter disaster. Yes they had the trade winds of George Bush blowing against them but nominating Sarah Palin as VP proved to be one of the biggest failed gambles in political history. It's amazing how people are forgetting just how bad that campaign was. It was to the point where the VP went rogue the final couple of weeks and when they lost she wanted to give a concession speech. And beyond Palin there was the decision to suspend the campaign during the Bank crises where McCain did absolutely nothing but looked bored and confused in the meetings.

The Hilary campaign also had very little drama that spilled out into the public until the Russian hackers aired their dirty laundry. They also raised a ton of money and never came close to running out of money. A very well run Democratic convention. At the end of it, I'd give the Hilary campaign a B- Rating. With a better candidate and less external forces meddling, the campaign was strong enough to win the election. I really think the Democrats misread the political climate and picked the wrong candidate for the nomination, but I think despite some crucial mistakes, the Hilary campaign overall was well run. It wasn't God-Tier like the Obama campaigns but it was adequate and good enough to win in a normal political climate.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the "Campaign that blew the biggest opportunity in history."

 

[Crocodile]

I'd still like to know what was going on with the internal data. Pretty much EVERY public poll said those Rust Belt States were on lock and given the way the campaign acted, it was clear its internal data must have said the same thing until like the last week right (when they made that late Michigan push)? Like I'm mad she didn't campaign there more but at the same time, if every data point is telling you that you're good there and you have limited resources, would you campaign in "safe spots"? That won't be a mistake repeated again at least. Also less debate prep too - Clinton DEMOLISHED Trump in every debate but at the end of the day that didn't matter to people so that was days she could have spent campaigning. People had too many days after the last debate to "forget" so to speak :/

 

[Wilsongt]

I wonder if conservatives were in such dispaire when Obama was elected.

"Oh my God! They want to take our money to give healthcare to poor people?!"

Vs

"Oh my God, they want to take our money to pay for tax breaks to rich people?!"

Or it was just general disgust about a black man.

 

[Rebel Leader]

I wonder if conservatives were in such dispaire when Obama was elected.

"Oh my God! They want to take our money to give healthcare to poor people?!"

Vs

"Oh my God, they want to take our money to pay for tax breaks to rich people?!"

Or it was just general disgust about a black man.

The first and last point

 

[Wilsongt]

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Hilary campaign but why lately am I hearing some people in the media saying the Hilary campaign was the worst run campaign ever. That's just false.

The Hilary campaign definitely got complacent and played the game of "running out the clock" instead of fighting for the win in the last couple of months. This caused them to ignore the rust belt states, which may have been fatal (I"m not 100% convinced it was the single death blow because the Hilary campaign campaigned heavily in Florida, Ohio, and NC and still lost those states).

But there's been worse run presidential campaigns by far. Just in recent memory, the McCain campaign was an utter disaster. Yes they had the trade winds of George Bush blowing against them but nominating Sarah Palin as VP proved to be one of the biggest failed gambles in political history. It's amazing how people are forgetting just how bad that campaign was. It was to the point where the VP went rogue the final couple of weeks and when they lost she wanted to give a concession speech. And beyond Palin there was the decision to suspend the campaign during the Bank crises where McCain did absolutely nothing but looked bored and confused in the meetings.

The Hilary campaign also had very little drama that spilled out into the public until the Russian hackers aired their dirty laundry. They also raised a ton of money and never came close to running out of money. A very well run Democratic convention. At the end of it, I'd give the Hilary campaign a B- Rating. With a better candidate and less external forces meddling, the campaign was strong enough to win the election. I really think the Democrats misread the political climate and picked the wrong candidate for the nomination, but I think despite some crucial mistakes, the Hilary campaign overall was well run. It wasn't God-Tier like the Obama campaigns but it was adequate and good enough to win in a normal political climate.

Have you read GAF lately? Including Poligaf?
Clinton was one of the WORSE CANDIDATES EVER and ran one of the WORST CAMPAIGNS EVER.

 

[thefro]

I wonder if conservatives were in such dispaire when Obama was elected.

"Oh my God! They want to take our money to give healthcare to poor people?!"

Vs

"Oh my God, they want to take our money to pay for tax breaks to rich people?!"

Or it was just general disgust about a black man.

I'm sure some people were, but Obama had a honeymoon until the stimulus bill happened before people started freaking out on the right.

Most Republicans recognized Bush screwed up since the economy was tanking hard, 2 wars, etc.

 

[Plinko]

I'd still like to know what was going on with the internal data. Pretty much EVERY public poll said those Rust Belt States were on lock and given the way the campaign acted, it was clear its internal data must have said the same thing until like the last week right (when they made that late Michigan push)? Like I'm mad she didn't campaign there more but at the same time, if every data point is telling you that you're good there and you have limited resources, would you campaign in "safe spots"? That won't be a mistake repeated again at least. Also less debate prep too - Clinton DEMOLISHED Trump in every debate but at the end of the day that didn't matter to people so that was days she could have spent campaigning. People had too many days after the last debate to "forget" so to speak :/

Polling was wrong, period. The big polling outfits basically unskewed their own data by drastically underestimating white rural turnout.

 

[Veelk]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the "Campaign that blew the biggest opportunity in history."

I feel that it relies heavily on the idea that if Clinton did some things different, the inevitable result would have been that she'd won.

The hardest thing for me to swallow in this election is that a great number of people genuinely want a narcissistic, misogynistic, corrupt, lying, swindling, degenerate idiot in the white house...but it seems that is exactly the case.

The thing about elections is that there is nothing that any candidate can do to actually 'make' a person go vote. Regardless of anything else, the reason Trump got elected was directly because of people themselves. And yeah, electoral college can also be a bitch, but when you get down to it, America chose this.

 

[Plinko]

I feel that it relies heavily on the idea that if Clinton did some things different, the inevitable result would have been that she'd won.

The hardest thing for me to swallow in this election is that a great number of people genuinely want a narcissistic, misogynistic, corrupt, lying, swindling, degenerate idiot in the white house...but it seems that is exactly the case.

The thing about elections is that there is nothing that any candidate can do to actually 'make' a person go vote. Regardless of anything else, the reason Trump got elected was directly because of people themselves. And yeah, electoral college can also be a bitch, but when you get down to it, America chose this.

Right, and the best GOTV operation ever can't overcome people driven by hate.

 

[sphagnum]

I'm surprised that sphagnum hasn't turned up by now to note that protectionism is actually a mainstream part of the socialist (as opposed to social democratic) platform and so doesn't technically need to be qualified at all

Admittedly there are no longer any major political parties in the world advancing the socialist platform but hey

I'm in Star Wars mode for about another week or so, expect me to get distracted about once a year.

 

[Wilsongt]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is opposed to forming a select committee to investigate reports that Russia meddled in the U.S. Election.

In an interview with Kentucky Educational Television that was flagged by the Huffington Post, McConnell said that it was "a matter of genuine concern and it needs to be investigated," but he argued the investigation would be best handled through the existing committee structure.

McConnell said in the interview he was confident that the Senate Intelligence Committee led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) was "fully capable" of handling the investigation.

Or course not.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I feel that it relies heavily on the idea that if Clinton did some things different, the inevitable result would have been that she'd won.

The hardest thing for me to swallow in this election is that a great number of people genuinely want a narcissistic, misogynistic, corrupt, lying, swindling, degenerate idiot in the white house...but it seems that is exactly the case.

The thing about elections is that there is nothing that any candidate can do to actually 'make' a person go vote. Regardless of anything else, the reason Trump got elected was directly because of people themselves. And yeah, electoral college can also be a bitch, but when you get down to it, America chose this.

Donald Trump himself is a symbol of every bad American quality - the man has made that image his life, because he knows Americans eat it up. It works so well because Americans are willfully ignorant of Trump's failures, his incompetent behavior. He is the symbol for what many people think is the American Dream.

If America has a tombstone, Trump's golden T would be on it.

To be honest, this only confirms what a lot of people - particularly minorities - have known their whole lives. In a certain sense, at least it's out in the open now. It's not that America is necessarily beyond saving. But the problem is worse than a lot of progressives, particularly white, middle-class democrats, have ever been able to understand. Many liberals really do think all these bad things are just abstract ideas, that the pleasant world they typically see around themselves represents the normal of America. Whenever America does something ugly, what do educated, often young, liberals say? They quip "Seriously, it's 2016. We got iPhones and robots on Mars. How absurd!" The blame is placed on a few weird, freak degenerates who must have crawled out from under a rock. Or at best, a hand is waved towards the image of the "shitty south, like Alabama, ha ha, those hicks."

Yes, it is 2016. And Donald Trump represents what is normal for a lot of America.

 

[PantherLotus]

Theory: not normalizing Trump was the Clinton campaign's secret biggest mistake. Should've just treated him exactly like Romney.

 

[dramatis]

How a Pandemic Might Play Out Under Trump

Infectious diseases are emerging faster than ever before. By encroaching into the territories of wild animals, we provide the sparks for new epidemics. By living in increasingly crowded urban areas, we provide the tinder. And by criss-crossing the skies in countless planes, we transform small fires into global conflagrations.

Obama had a good track record of responding to these threats, and channeling funds into fighting outbreaks around the world—as did his predecessor George W. Bush. As Donald Trump prepares to become America’s 45th President in January 2017, the question isn’t whether he’ll face a deadly outbreak during his presidency, but when? And more importantly, how will he cope?

I want to laugh honestly but at the same time it's probably going to be a real problem

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Or course not.

He wants to do this to prevent the most damning things that would undermine trump from being publically know.

Leak them if they prevent that. The american people and not just the intelligence committee deserves to know.

They're constitutionally protected unless they really want a member on treason charges for revealing a foreign power helped a president get elected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

 

[Box of Kittens]

I can see that poligaf is back to being "completely" "unhinged" again.

One person = PoliGAF now?

This is how we end up with posts in OT saying "PoliGAF is full of people literally calling Bernie a Nazi."

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not blaming him for the lack of cohesion or saying that his choice was without meaning. I respect his conviction to duty on behalf of the sixteen souls he feels responsible to. It's as good a political motivation as any, and better than most. But I don't think that this answers the question that I asked. Symbolism is a specific thing. What does his vote, as expressed in the system of the electoral college, communicate in the language of that system?

That electoral college votes are largely arbitrary and that the premises of the electoral college system are nonsensical?

 

[Retromelon]

Ted Cruz predicts Democrats will become “obstructionists at a level we’ve never seen”

Speaking on Monday at a conservative student organization event in Palm Beach, Florida, Sen. Ted Cruz warned that Democrats will become “obstructionists at a level we’ve never seen” under a Donald Trump administration.

Cruz warned that Democrats have been “radicalized” by the election of a man whose sole policy agenda seems to be “build a wall so Mexicans can’t get in” and “keep scary Muslims away from me.”

Ted Cruz ‘deeply disturbed’ by Clarence Thomas omission from African American history museum

Sen. Ted Cruz has called on the Smithsonian Institution to recognize Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas‘ “incredible contributions to the country,” saying he was “deeply disturbed” to learn that the black conservative does not have a prominent display at the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

“I became deeply disturbed upon learning that Justice Thomas’s moving story and incredible contributions to the country are not even mentioned, much less discussed in detail in the museum,” the Texas Republican wrote. “Making matters worse, the only reference to Justice Thomas is in regard to a single individual’s controversial accusation against him at his Senate confirmation hearing twenty-five years ago.”

“I am concerned that millions of Americans, of all ages, races, religions, and walks of life, one passing through this museum, will be subjected to a singular and distorted view of Justice Thomas, an African-American who survived segregation, defeated discrimination, and ascended all the way to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Cruz wrote.

The senator said he wasn’t interested in rewriting history.

“To be clear, I am not petitioning for a partisan hagiography of Justice Thomas, nor am I asking that everything critical of him be excluded,” he wrote. “I am simply requesting that a fair and accurate portrayal of his powerful story be included, for the great benefit of millions of future museum-goers.”

All the news about Ted Cruz on today's issues you might like to peruse

 

[Plinko]

Ted Cruz predicts Democrats will become “obstructionists at a level we’ve never seen”

Yeah, that's not even possible.

 

[studyguy]

I'd be impressed if we somehow managed to obstruct much being on the backfoot at basically every level of federal government.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

To be fair, Ted Cruz actually is right about Clarence Thomas. Like it or not (and believe me, very much not in my case), Thomas is probably one of the top ten most politically influential black men in the history of the United States. He should merit a relatively prominent place in any museum that has coverage of recent black American political history

Spoiler

if only as a warning

.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

To be fair, Ted Cruz actually is right about Clarence Thomas. Like it or not (and believe me, very much not in my case), Thomas is probably one of the top ten most politically influential black men in the history of the United States. He should merit a relatively prominent place in any museum that has coverage of recent black American political history

Spoiler

if only as a warning

.

Would Obama be #1? Or MLK? Fredrick Douglass?

Just curious. I have a hard time picking the most influential African American men in our history.

 

[alternade]

To be fair, Ted Cruz actually is right about Clarence Thomas. Like it or not (and believe me, very much not in my case), Thomas is probably one of the top ten most politically influential black men in the history of the United States. He should merit a relatively prominent place in any museum that has coverage of recent black American political history

Spoiler

if only as a warning

.

Nah, I'm black and everyone of color ive talked to about him came to the same conclusion: He's a disgrace to the community.

We don't want, for lack of a better word, and "uncle tom" to be something black youth aspire to be. Rather highlight the MLKs, Obamas, Douglas' and Angleous of the world.

 

[And_Gignac]

Individual politicians are over, every single senate race went the same way that the presidential race did in that state for the first time in decades

in 2020 we can basically just run 33 cabbages next to jesse jackson or whoever we put up for president and it'll be fine

Thanks for contributing to the theory that Senate races with a Sanders friendly message were lost thanks to Clinton being in the upper ticket.

His platform was literally trying to appeal to white people.

Sticking those two words together was probably a bit sensationalist, but those are the two main things I don't like about him. 1: His white working class people first platform. 2: His anti globalism stance.

I wasn't saying he was a "white nationalist". I was saying he was a "white" "nationalist". But you know, clearly my message was horribly tone deaf to the connotations of that.

At least I didn't call him a nationalist socialist, because you know, he is.

But he isn't a Nazi. And I sure as shit wouldn't call him one.

And maybe it's horrible of me to not like the idea of two white guys battling it out for the presidency in the wake of Obama, but I still don't like that idea.

When has Sanders put WHITE workers first? When, how, where?. Please show us a single statement by him that reflects that.
Is this a parody post?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Would Obama be #1? Or MLK? Fredrick Douglass?

Just curious. I have a hard time picking the most influential African American men in our history.

It'd depend what metrics you considered most important, I guess. My intuition is actually Booker T. Washington for setting up the institutional and ideological basis from which the black America political struggle evolved - at least to me, it seems that an enormous period of black American history is basically composed of how different groups reacted to the idea of the Atlanta Compromise, right up until the Civil Rights era.

 

[Wilsongt]

Thanks for contributing to the theory that Senate races with a Sanders friendly message were lost thanks to Clinton being in the upper ticket.



When has Sanders put WHITE workers first? When, how, where?. Please show us a single statement by him that reflects that.
Is this a parody post?

Reallt, it's time to let Sanders go and stop thinking about what couple of been had he won the primary.

The biggest problem with stans is that they don't know when to back down and quit, even after their favs get a more than appropriate dragging and scalping.

 

[FLEABttn]

Ted Cruz predicts Democrats will become “obstructionists at a level we’ve never seen”

No, you'll recognize this work.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Nah, I'm black and everyone of color ive talked to about him came to the same conclusion: He's a disgrace to the community.

We don't want, for lack of a better word, and "uncle tom" to be something black youth aspire to be. Rather highlight the MLKs, Obamas, Douglas' and Angleous of the world.

That's not what history is about, though. You don't only stick the people you like in museums, you stick all the important players in the history of the times, of which Thomas is undoubtedly one. If there's a choice between just ignoring him, or having a section dedicated to him and explaining why he is perceived so lowly among many modern black Americans, I'd rather have the latter.

 

[AndyD]

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf

Anyone reads this, yet? It is an analysis of the impact of his economic proposals. Three likely scenarios from getting what he wants to compromising on some of his plans; recession to stagnation.

Four basic conclusions, but interesting article:
" 1) they will result in a less global U.S. economy; 2) they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; 3) they will largely benefit very high-income households; and 4) they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment."

I wonder if conservatives were in such dispaire when Obama was elected.

"Oh my God! They want to take our money to give healthcare to poor people?!"

Vs

"Oh my God, they want to take our money to pay for tax breaks to rich people?!"

Or it was just general disgust about a black man.

First was a real thing. And last. Do you forget the "declare constitution void and make himself emperor for life" crap?

How a Pandemic Might Play Out Under Trump

I want to laugh honestly but at the same time it's probably going to be a real problem

It will be. And with Trump's "make them pay more for it" approach I can see him cutting off research and medicine funds for foreign countries on the idea that "it's over there" and a total lack of awareness that these things travel so easily. Essentially the movie Outbreak can really happen.

 

[Odrion]

Have you read GAF lately? Including Poligaf?
Clinton was one of the WORSE CANDIDATES EVER and ran one of the WORST CAMPAIGNS EVER.

she lost to a jack-o-lantern with turrets

 

[balladofwindfishes]

First was a real thing. And last. Do you forget the "declare constitution void and make himself emperor for life" crap?

Heh

Liberals were expecting (and wanted) him to do that on Friday

 

[Rebel Leader]

Ted Cruz predicts Democrats will become “obstructionists at a level we’ve never seen”


Ted Cruz ‘deeply disturbed’ by Clarence Thomas omission from African American history museum



All the news about Ted Cruz on today's issues you might like to peruse

Fuck off ted

 

[dramatis]

If Not Obamacare, Then What?

She trusts Trump to dream up something better. “He’s a business person, that’s why we all voted for him,” Kaiser said. “He's been successful all on his own. We need to run this country like a business.”

The financial pinch she’s feeling is compounded by her sense that other people are getting health care for free. “If I close my doors, being single, I could make more money than working here, with all the stuff they’ll give me” she said. “They have their health care, their food stamps, their iPhones ... They got it made!”

She, too, said she doesn’t mind if high earners are made to spend more on health care— “but everybody's gotta get out there and get a job to help pay for it.”

Near the bookstore, I met Willie Standley, the owner of the New Hub Shop, which sells men’s clothes and performs alterations. Standley’s the owner, and he’s also the rare African-American Trump voter. He doesn’t like the Affordable Care Act either; he thinks it costs too much for something a healthy man like him barely uses. (He’s a teetotalling vegan.) He is also worried about what he considers to be a culture of entitlement. In this, Standley’s not an outlier: In October, 66 percent of Trump supporters said the economy is rigged for people who receive government assistance.

Unlike some of the others I met, Starry has relied on her insurance. In the middle of the summer, she woke up bleeding and with terrible stomach cramps, and she ended up needing a colonoscopy. She’s had swollen lymph nodes biopsied and a mammogram that cost $300. (Some, but not all, mammograms are covered without a deductible on Obamacare.) She’s still paying two hospitals back in installments for $2,300 in medical bills.

“When Obamacare came along, I thought, it's going to be signed in, I'm going to take advantage of it,” she said, tearing up. “And I’m no further ahead going into the fourth year than I was at the beginning. I haven't gotten what I hoped for.”

She doesn’t want health insurance to go back to how it was a decade ago. “If they just let it go out the window, without something to structurally hold it up until they figure it out, I won’t be able to afford insurance again. I'll be back to square one,” she said. “I think there's a way they can fix it and make it work better.”

She suggested, at one point, that maybe there could be a separate insurance plan that’s managed by the government for people like her. It’s an idea similar to the public option that Hillary Clinton had at one point proposed. But Starry didn’t trust Clinton enough to vote for her. “She scares me,” she said.

Health care, for all its tediousness, is extremely emotional. Sickness brings out our most vulnerable selves. When the system built to keep you alive lets you down, the urge to start afresh can be irresistible.

“I hope that Mr. Trump is working with someone as we speak on this,” Starry said. “Figure it out, guys. That’s what we hired you to do.”

 

[balladofwindfishes]

She suggested, at one point, that maybe there could be a separate insurance plan that’s managed by the government for people like her. It’s an idea similar to the public option that Hillary Clinton had at one point proposed. But Starry didn’t trust Clinton enough to vote for her. “She scares me,” she said.

Sigh

She's going to get harmed and abused by the GOP.

 

[Plinko]

If Not Obamacare, Then What?

Prediction:

1. Health care is destroyed.
2. This woman is hurt even worse.
3. In 2020, she still votes Trump because right-wing media convinced her the democratic candidate was "scary."

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You also have to deal with people who know they're being duped but are too embarrassed to admit they were tricked, so they just keep getting duped.

People really don't like to admit they're wrong or that they fell for a trick.

 

[metalslimer]

It's going to be hell working in the Healthcare industry in the coming years.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's going to be hell working in the Healthcare industry in the coming years.

Pretty much the entire economy of where I live is like 60% healthcare jobs, with the rest being technology and engineering...

Normally my area generally handles downward turns alright, but if healthcare tanks that's going to directly harm my area.

But we voted for Hillary (and have voted blue for basically ever), so why would the GOP care.

 

[plagiarize]

Seriously guys. I didn't call Bernie a Nazi. I said he wasn't.

I didn't call him a national socialist. Or even a "national" "socialist".

And I was joking about the reaction to the way I called him a white guy who has nationalist tendencies made people think I was calling him a skin head, when I wasn't attempting to do that at all.

I said 'At least I didn't call him a nationalist socialist, which he arguably is, but he's clearly not a nazi''.

Nazi isn't a contraction for nationalist socialist.

And Bernie *continues* to conflate 'working class' with 'white working class', and it's nothing new. Bernie openly went after white working class voters, and continues to talk about them as *the* group we need to appeal to.

I don't find that offensive, or a sign of racism or anything like that. But I do think we should be moving beyond putting those voters first. What did Bernie offer poor black voters in the south?

Look, I get that we need to come to terms with why Clinton lost, because we absolutely do.

But people also need to come to terms with why Bernie lost, and it's because he pretty much ignored the specific needs of minorities, while offering loads of stuff that just so happened to appeal to white young people.

Free college education is great. But that doesn't change the fact that white high school drop outs on average make more than black kids that graduate college.

If your policy tries to be agnostic to the people without privilege, it fails to help them.

If you can't see why Sanders performed badly in more diverse states when compared to how he did in very white states, then you are as guilty of taking the black vote for granted as Clinton was of taking the white working class vote for granted in the rust belt.

Neither helps us move forwards.

We can't reach out to the white working class *at the expense* of the minorities that are already supporting us, just as we can't do the opposite.

We also lost, in part, because we lost some of those black voters. Sanders would have lost *more* of them and that's no good either.

What's good for minorities is good for everyone. That's the platform I want the democrats to run on. Not, 'how do we win over all these white people'.

I'm quite probably being overly harsh towards Bernie, who I don't think badly of for living in a massively white state and not quite understanding why 'Can't we just try to help all the poor people the same way' sounds to a lot of us like 'lets make sure we make the white working class happy, and take the black vote for granted'. But that's what I hear, when he continues 'lamenting' the loss of the white working class voter.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Hilary campaign but why lately am I hearing some people in the media saying the Hilary campaign was the worst run campaign ever. That's just false.

Pretty much every losing campaign is declared a terrible campaign. It's actually the same problem that sports fans tend to have in evaluating their favorite team's performance; they forget that there's another side that's also trying to win and only one can succeed. Conventional wisdom is that John Kerry ran a dreadful campaign, when in reality it was perfectly competent. He made some mistakes (particularly in response to the Swift boat attacks) but also did a number of things well (for example, the debates) and in the end he basically did as well as you would expect given the fundamentals of that election.

Not that I don't think we should evaluate what Clinton did wrong, but "worst. campaign. ever." gets said after every presidential election.

 

[PBY]

Pretty much every losing campaign is declared a terrible campaign. It's actually the same problem that sports fans tend to have in evaluating their favorite team's performance; they forget that there's another side that's also trying to win and only one can succeed. Conventional wisdom is that John Kerry ran a dreadful campaign, when in reality it was perfectly competent. He made some mistakes (particularly in response to the Swift boat attacks) but also did a number of things well (for example, the debates) and in the end he basically did as well as you would expect given the fundamentals of that election.

Not that I don't think we should evaluate what Clinton did wrong, but "worst. campaign. ever." gets said after every presidential election.

Its definitely a process vs result discussion; there are readily identifiable process issues though, we were shouting at some of those during the campaign (and got a ton of shit for it, CC Plinko)

 

[whyamihere]

The Washington State and Hawaii Democratic Parties really fucked up!

@mikememoli
David Mulinix, Hawaii elector who voted for Sanders, said Clinton wasn't qualified. Also said @POTUS wasn't progressive, but "conservative"