This is how I know you don't care. How is the ACA the "status quo" when it just got put in place, and is being challenged as we speak? Fuck out of here. Yea its the status quo that I can now afford a fucking dentist.
TPM: Vitriol from Sanders' campaign coming from the top
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
This is how I know you don't care. How is the ACA the "status quo" when it just got put in place, and is being challenged as we speak? Fuck out of here. Yea its the status quo that I can now afford a fucking dentist.
there's not enough redistribution in there for the far left. there's some, but a plan that was originally put forth by congressional republicans could never satisfy progressives.
as for me? I believe it was smart of the administration to take what amounts to baby steps toward government-led healthcare. and I believe they took this route because they knew a law with more redistribution would not survive Roberts' court.
I get it. The Democratic Path is the only True Path to salvation and anyone who dares dissent is effectively sending all Mexicans/Muslims/homosexuals to the gulags.
If you think self righteous indignation is a trait exclusive to Bernie Sanders supporters, I'd invite you to reread your post. I swear this thread reminds me of the water cooler discussions amongst my co-workers at my last job. Of course, they were adamant that it was Obama and the Democrats who were bringing about the death of all that is freedom, but I can't tell the difference tonally. Prickery is prickery.
Nobody on the left is advocating for the removal of the ACA without replacing it with a more comprehensive alternative. That's a pretty egregious distortion that you seem to be implying.
With an embattled congress that barely passed the ACA, you really think we can just drop one plan and go with another? This isn't a game where you can choose what you want, we are trying to save people's lives, and folks turning down any compromise until they get what they want would kill more people in the mean time.
Punchy4486
Banned
I'm not sure what you're saying. Everything I listed is something they have directly done or stated in the past year. Sure they might not accomplish all of those things, but they have stated that intent and/or followed through on it. They have literally declared a State of Emergency over the trans bathroom issue in Oklahoma today, etc.
And the effects of a President Trump choosing 1-3 Supreme Court Justices would have a profound and lasting effect on our country.
And as for self-righteous indignation, if Bernie had beaten Hillary (particularly since I voted for him) I'd be saying the same thing to "Hillary or Bust" people. I wouldn't take my ball and go home.
It's called practicality. Making the most with what you've got. Not picking a side in the end isn't progressive. It's regressive.
I didn't have a problem with the implementation of the ACA. Nobody is advocating flat out dropping the ACA without a replacement. If that's a battle we lose, then that's a battle we lose. I'd just rather the losing battle be over expansion of what came before than the retraction of our previous compromise. Every Republican who has ran for president since 2012 has wanted to repeal the ACA and I don't know if we can bank on too many more consecutive terms with Democrats in the White House. Might as well work on moving forward before we Paula Abdul
Oklahoma shout-out on GAF! It's always great to see my home state in the news making me nauseous.
Social Conservatives suck. I know this. I'm just not too keen on the Democratic party using "social Conservatives suck" as their platform. I'm also immensely irritated by all the pre-cooked excuses for a potential Democratic loss, particularly the one about the old, unknown senator from Vermont being the reason the Democrats lost to 4Chan's candidate because he had the audacity to get liberals excited. If the Democrats lose because of their inability to move voters, that's on them and they should be the ones held accountable.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate because the tone in here irks me. If you come across a person who says they're considering voting for Trump and you respond with the general tone that we've seen in this thread, you've done nothing but secure a vote for Trump.
What's really funny is this is the only page I see going for Hillary. Every other online group I read is gunning for Bernie and lots of people I know in real life are going for Bernie or Trump.
Anecdotes and all that, but the Hillary cult chamber here is just silly
Fenderputty
Banned
Hillary has more primary votes than both trump and sanders. Your anecdotes are just that. They mean nothing.
Punchy4486
Banned
I understand.
Sorry if I got a little "Doomsayer"... I just hate the low voter turnout and apathy in our country.
The system is far from perfect but I think it's a voters responsibility to make the most of it within the confines of that system. And sometimes that means the lesser of two evils.
I'm just trying to stress that to people, I guess. That, almost always, a "compromised" vote is better than no vote.
excelsiorlef
Member
I mean, I don't think that Bernie is going to succeed at disrupting the party. I can like look at a news article and see that he won't.
The poster I'm responding to is making a claim that Bernie's goal is to disrupt the party. I see no other way of reading that then that he thinks Bernie wants to make the Democrats less capable of contesting elections. It seems pretty obvious to me that that would move the country to the right.
I am not the one who made that claim about Bernie! I'm just trying to identify the logical endpoint.
Cool cool. I agree with the general gist of the argument. Despite what my snarky ramblings say about the current state of the Democratic party, I don't want no Trump. Living in an uber conservative state like Oklahoma makes me feel like I'm in an angry Republican echo chamber at times. Going on the internet and seeing the opposite, but tonally equivalent discourse kinda bums me out.
I'm also definitely prone to the same sort of condescension and smugness that I'm complaining about now. Hell, I'm sure I've been all over the place with it today.
Ah, ok. I took his point as Bernie was wanting to "disrupt the party" by forcing the likely inevitable candidate to run a bit more to the left than she would have otherwise which I don't think is all that nefarious. The assertion (which I misunderstood) that a more liberal candidate sticking his nose in to the race at all was tantamount to handing the Republicans the White House was what I took issue with. Fair enough.
IrishNinja
Member
Prototype Viktor
Member
Of course it is. Bernie is as if the internet took Trump and made a sexier version probably a internet rule for it
Frozenprince
Banned
And this, children, explains why ideology without practicality is stupid.
D.Lo
Member
Because the 'chair throwing' appears to be fictional, made up by one guy and continually reported on and repeated by almost all media and DWS because it plays into nice their nice juicy page-click generating 'Bernie Bro' narrative.
http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention/
I've seen many people start to call Sanders supporters 'chair throwers' now on Facebook. And this makes them more pissed, it's an unproven (probably false) claim and now they're having their position tarred with a rumour. When the NY Times reports on there having been violence without any evidence, people start to believe in the nonsense conspiracy they are feeling (when it reality it's just lazy clickbait journalism).
You guys keep arguing with a strawman and I don't know why I keep coming back to repeat myself. This is the kind of stubborn brand-loyalty that causes people to flock away from the party. If you think the ACA is the pinnacle of governmental healthcare policy, that's fine.
I thought people on the left - Obama, Clinton, SANDERS included agreed, when it was passed, that it was a step in the right direction but, ultimately, a compromise. I'm confused. I didn't think the debate was over. A lot of people are still concerned with the cost of healthcare in America. Are we just content to sit on it permanently because we're proud our team "won" something?
"Shame on you, Barack Obama. Since when do Democrats attack each other on universal healthcare?" Core Democratic values and all that.
I agree with you that the media should have never used the "chairs thrown" headline, but that doesn't change the fact that some of the supporters were on the cusp of doing something similar. The fact that a chair never actually went flying across the room doesn't excuse what happened at the convention or what happened afterwards one iota.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
I don't think many people interpret the ACA as being the answer to problematic healthcare coverage in the USA. Its intentions are great and it served my wife well in between jobs. But its a Band-Aid placed over a gunshot wound.
Because a lot of people have their election blinders on. ACA is, and always will be, an improvement on an absolutely horrendous system.
Watch Obama's Howard university speech to see why incremental progress is important.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
It is absolutely important, no doubt. Doesn't mean there's not still kinks in the system and a million naysayers against progress.
- Status