Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:48 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is online now
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VDCCXVII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

On populists. Thrad.


__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (07-09-2018), JoeP (07-09-2018), Kael (07-09-2018), Sock Puppet (07-09-2018), The Lone Ranger (07-09-2018), The Man (07-09-2018)
  #202  
Old 07-18-2018, 08:51 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is online now
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VDCCXVII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics


__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (07-19-2018), chunksmediocrites (08-28-2018), JoeP (07-18-2018), SR71 (07-31-2018), The Man (07-18-2018), wei yau (07-19-2018), Zehava (07-18-2018)
  #203  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:21 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is online now
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VDCCXVII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Different.

Watch fiery Dems chanting 'USA! USA! USA!' as Republicans vote down election cybersecurity grants
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (07-21-2018), lisarea (07-20-2018), The Man (07-21-2018)
  #204  
Old 07-30-2018, 10:30 PM
Kevlar's Avatar
Kevlar Kevlar is offline
ABV: 15% IBU: 150
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCDLXIV
Images: 15
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

So... the Koch's are starting to back away from the monster they helped create?

Koch network says it isn't backing GOP candidate in key Senate race - CNNPolitics
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (07-31-2018)
  #205  
Old 07-31-2018, 01:34 AM
Sock Puppet's Avatar
Sock Puppet Sock Puppet is offline
Awaiting public amnesia to expurgate the immediacy of my sins
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Down by the Bay
Posts: XMMMDCCXLVIII
Blog Entries: 7
Images: 120
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Funny how the Kochs have kept their distance from Trump, supposedly due to "principles." *snort* I suppose the simplest explanation is that they can't control him effectively, but given that they've kept said distance since before the election, a paranoid person might suspect they've known for awhile that he was already purchased property.
__________________
:sockpuppet:...........
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), JoeP (07-31-2018), Kevlar (08-01-2018), The Man (07-31-2018)
  #206  
Old 07-31-2018, 08:54 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is online now
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VDCCXVII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

This particular resistance has some of the strangest heroes.

Don’t Vote For Virginia Congressional Hopeful Denber Wiggleman Because He Is Full Of Hate, Not Because Bigfoot Makes Him Hard
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), erimir (07-31-2018), lisarea (07-31-2018), The Man (07-31-2018), Zehava (07-31-2018)
  #207  
Old 07-31-2018, 09:53 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is online now
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VDCCXVII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Major pro trade ad buy anti-trump thing paid for by *squints at article* Koch Industries.

Koch network takes on Trump’s tariffs with six-figure ad buy as billionaire admits tensions could boil over
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), JoeP (08-04-2018), lisarea (07-31-2018), The Man (08-01-2018)
  #208  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:30 AM
slimshady2357's Avatar
slimshady2357 slimshady2357 is offline
forever in search of dill pickle doritos
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVCMLI
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 52
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics


__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (08-30-2018), BrotherMan (08-04-2018), chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), Crumb (08-04-2018), Ensign Steve (08-06-2018), JoeP (08-04-2018), Pan Narrans (08-04-2018), Sock Puppet (08-05-2018), SR71 (08-08-2018), The Lone Ranger (08-04-2018), The Man (08-04-2018)
  #209  
Old 08-08-2018, 11:53 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is online now
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VDCCXVII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Here's one thing:
Rashida Tlaib, With Primary Win, Is Poised to Become First Muslim Woman in Congress

And another:
Ohio Special Election Results: 12th Congressional District

__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), Ensign Steve (08-09-2018), The Man (08-09-2018)
  #210  
Old 08-28-2018, 05:54 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLXXXIV
Images: 295
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Here's the letter I sent to the DNC today, after receiving their fund-raising "survey".

To the Democratic National Committee:
I won’t ever send you money, and it is unlikely I will support most of your national candidates. Here’s why:
Your strategy of focusing on what your rich donors want while shitting on actual working people, women, and minorities is clear.
Your party is more than happy to continue the War on Terror.
Your party leaders voted for the Iraq war.
Your party leaders voted for the AUMF.
Your party leaders said single payer is, “off the table.”
Your party leaders suppressed progressive voices to rig the candidacy process.
Your party leaders support Apartheid Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and vote to fund Israel over and over.
Your party leaders have no vision, and mostly work to gather votes on the premise that the other party is worse. Your party leaders offer “compromise” at every opportunity, even (especially) when Obama was elected into office and had a majority in the House and Senate.
Your party leaders are only too happy to throw civil rights under the bus when you are in power; it only matters as a talking point when you’re not in power- window dressing in the same way the RNC claims to be, “fiscally conservative.”
Your party leaders punish whistleblowers and were only too happy to deport millions more people during Obama’s term than Bush’s term.
Your party leaders still think Bill Clinton’s centrist strategy is a win, instead of a cautionary tale on how to become a center-right party and allow the entire discussion to be moved to the right. The Republican platform under Nixon and Eisenhower was more progressive than you are today.
Your party leaders were only too happy to institute “welfare reform”, and were a hair’s breadth from privatizing Social Security.
Your party leaders rewarded banks for being, “too big to fail,” then refused to hold them accountable or regulate the industry.
Your party leaders refused to prosecute torturers, or even call it torture.
Your party will let Guantanamo stay open.
Your party leaders were just fine killing people with drones- including civilians- women and children, including wedding parties, funerals, first responders; including US citizens.
Your party will continue to fund the military without question, continue to support a massive prison state, continue the War on Drugs.
Your party leaders are just furthering the interests of Neo-liberal global markets and capitalism, and give no fucks about people.
You don’t stand for the working class, you don’t stand for people of color or immigrants, you don’t stand for LGBTQ communities, you will wring your hands and let the right take away abortion rights.
You don’t stand for anything but the status quo.
I’ll vote for someone who represents me, much further to the left.
Goodbye, dinosaurs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (08-29-2018), Crumb (08-28-2018), Ensign Steve (08-28-2018), JoeP (08-28-2018), Kamilah Hauptmann (08-28-2018), Pan Narrans (08-29-2018), slimshady2357 (08-28-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018), The Lone Ranger (08-28-2018)
  #211  
Old 08-28-2018, 07:27 PM
JoeP's Avatar
JoeP JoeP is offline
Wielder of the secret flame of spamhammer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England/Miisaland
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMVCMXCIV
Images: 18
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
I’ll vote for someone who represents me, much further to the centre.
:fixed:

At least as the terms right, centre and left apply in Yuurp.
__________________

:roadrun:
Free thought! Please take one!

:unitedkingdom:   :southafrica:   :unitedkingdom::finland:       :eur:       :m&ms::m&ms::twix::twix: (rotated 180°):m&ms::m&ms:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-28-2018), Kamilah Hauptmann (08-28-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018), The Lone Ranger (08-28-2018)
  #212  
Old 08-28-2018, 10:28 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMDCCCLXXIX
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

I also recently rejected a DNC request for money. I wrote

Dear Democratic National Committee:

-Please do not make any attempts to try to win me over. You should instead focus your efforts on persuadable voters, even if that means that you will look to more moderate swing voters instead of me.
-I require that you alienate more voters than you'd win before I will support you.
-If you previously did bad things, I will not take yes for an answer if you subsequently adopt policies closer to my preferences.
-In fact, I will not support you unless most long-time members resign en masse, throwing away all incumbency advantages and making it impossible to win control of Congress.
-I require that certain approaches be prioritized even if they are politically very difficult, and I will consider any efforts to make me understand the variety of approaches used in other countries to be neoliberalism.
-Healthcare is only affordable in the UK, Canada and Taiwan. Healthcare in countries without full single payer, like Germany, France and Japan, is only affordable to a small minority.
-Even though not a single Democrat defected on Social Security when Bush tried to privatize it, I think you are a hair's breadth away from privatizing it. I know that secretly Nancy Pelosi longs to destroy Social Security, and blocking Bush's efforts and campaigning on the notion that Trump's GOP wants to gut Medicare and Social Security are just parts of her 11-dimensional long game to do so.
-I don't know very much about Nixon or Eisenhower. I do know that Rehnquist and other Nixon appointees surely reflect a more progressive presidency than Obama or Clinton with their appointments of Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
-While I consider your efforts to placate me to be mere lip service, it is impossible that Nixon or Eisenhower may have offered lip service to New Deal ideals because they thought it was politically necessary coming off a 20-year run of Democratic presidential success and facing Democratic majorities in Congress.
-I also don't know what your presidential hopefuls are saying about criminal justice, drug policy, healthcare, job guarantees, immigration, or a number of other issues. I assume it is all bad.
-I am upset that you are not standing up for marginalized communities or women enough. I stand up for them by saying that Trump and the GOP aren't that bad compared to you and considering it not worth the effort to try to end their control. Indeed, Eisenhower and Nixon's platform on those issues was more progressive than yours.
-I will blame you for the Supreme Court ending Roe v Wade, since you have a strong 49 vote majority to block any anti-abortion judge. The GOP having the White House, majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court doesn't mean it's not primarily your fault. That the four Democratic-appointed justices on the Supreme Court consistently vote in favor of reproductive rights and your last presidential candidate campaigned on defending Roe v Wade and repealing the Hyde Amendment and partial birth abortion bans is no defense.

I am convinced that they will see the error of their ways and do what is necessary to win me over. Which is resigning.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ensign Steve (08-29-2018), Kamilah Hauptmann (08-28-2018), mickthinks (08-28-2018), slimshady2357 (08-29-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018), The Lone Ranger (08-28-2018), The Man (08-28-2018)
  #213  
Old 08-28-2018, 11:57 PM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
weird citrus golem
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDXXXIII
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Y'know erimir, I get your frustrations with purist leftists who won't hold their noses and vote, but I find you commentary on this stuff to be increasingly in bad faith. To pick just one example, to describe France as not having single payer healthcare just doesn't seem to match a bit of cursory internet research. e.g.

French Health: Overview of health system in France

Quote:
Health care in France is funded by a dual system of health insurance comprising:

A State controlled health insurance social security system, called l’assurance maladie and;
A separate voluntary health insurance system called assurance complémentaire provided through mutual organisations and private insurers.
Whilst the social security system picks up most of your health costs, you will need to take out voluntary health insurance to cover those medical costs that will not be picked up by the State, although it is not compulsory to do so.

We will review voluntary ('top-up') insurance in later pages but, for now, we just consider the State funded part of the system.

Accordingly, in order to obtain access to the health service in France, and obtain reimbursement of costs, you need to be registered with l’assurance maladie.

Historically, l’assurance maladie comprised a number of private or mutual insurance bodies who collected insurance premiums from their clients, which were then used to pay for the costs of health care.

They developed after the Second World War as a series of mutual schemes between employers and employees, and the present arrangements still bear the hallmarks of this approach.

Although the insurance funds continue to be ostensibly ‘private’ organisations they now operate under the supervision of the government, who have ultimate financial responsibility.

Accordingly, the funds are now effectively a branch of the state social security system.
__________________
the new self :euterpe:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (08-29-2018), chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), Kamilah Hauptmann (08-29-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018)
  #214  
Old 08-29-2018, 01:48 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCV
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Oh yeah, it's erimir's award-winning sarcasm again.

:yawn:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-30-2018)
  #215  
Old 08-29-2018, 02:04 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMDCCCLXXIX
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

France doesn't have a full single payer system, which is what I said, and which is accurate.

Health care in France - Wikipedia

"Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies."
"85% of French people benefit from complementary private health insurance."

In other words, 23% of costs are covered by non-government payers, and the majority of French people have some level of private health insurance. The French system has much more extensive public health expenditures than the US, sure, but since the government is not the sole source of payments (a "single payer", if you will) it is not technically single payer.

Germany has a multi-payer system with 130 "sickness funds" as well as private insurance. Japan uses employer-based insurance for most of the population.

Privately-run funds which are so heavily-regulated that they might as well be government agencies... is still not technically single payer. And it is not what has been proposed by single payer advocates in the US, as far as I know. Many of them seem to want the satisfaction of reducing Blue Cross/Blue Shield to rubble. We could basically turn companies like BCBS and Aetna into funds like they use in France or Germany using the framework already provided by the ACA - requiring even more comprehensive coverage, lower co-pay and deductibles, instead of the current medical loss ratio requirements, the amount of profit they are allowed to make could be gradually lowered until they are forced to be non-profits. This is not what people mean when they say they want single payer, as far as I know. (Primarily because, you know... it isn't single payer.)

Anyway, all three countries have far better healthcare systems than the US. I would take the German or Japanese system over the American system with little hesitation, and the French system is one of the best in the world (but again, technically still not single payer). Viewing it as a horrible betrayal to think that we should have some hybrid, with some public payer elements like Medicaid and some private but highly-regulated insurers, is ridiculous and ignores the significant issues that might come with selling single payer to the American people, some of which would be due to the large disruptions it would cause to the current system and/or high price tag that would come with trying to minimize those disruptions. Doctors are very well-compensated in the US compared to other countries, yet they are not unpopular for this. A single payer system would be fought by doctors and hospitals pointing out how Democrats want to cut their compensation severely. There are approaches that would not require so directly confronting the doctors' lobby.

The route I would favor as politically more feasible, for example, would involve further expanding Medicaid, lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, increasing subsidies for the ACA exchanges and offering the ability for both individuals and businesses to buy into Medicaid (it would probably be called "Medicare", since that program is more popular, but Medicaid actually offers more comprehensive coverage and is a better basis for a public option). Most people would end up on public insurance in this scenario. But this wouldn't be "single payer", therefore it would be a betrayal, I suppose.

But anyway, if you're going to make the fucking phrase "single payer" your litmus test, you should probably know what it means and know that it is not synonymous with universal, comprehensive, affordable healthcare. You should also probably have some idea of how other systems arrived at the point they did, and consider whether pursuing an ideal outcome with a lower chance of success to be worth giving up the chance for a messier model with more parts, but with a higher chance of success.

And if you don't consider the distinction between the French system and "single payer" to be notable, then could the approach I suggested also be considered "single payer"? If so, what's the point of getting so hung up on that label?

If what you really mean is "universal healthcare" you should just use that term. But if you used that term... you might have to acknowledge that the Democratic Party hasn't said that "universal healthcare" is "off the table". In fact, the Democratic Party platform says the universal healthcare is their goal, and that the Democratic Party believes that healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.

In fact, I'm not quite sure where the idea is that the Party has said even "single payer" is off the table, I know Hillary Clinton dismissed the notion that it would ever happen in the US. But you know, she's not running for president again, she is not the only party leader, and that still doesn't amount to a commitment to opposing single payer.

I would also note that plans with the label "Medicare For All" have been endorsed by a large portion of the likely Democratic presidential primary contenders. Aside from Sanders, of course, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren all signed onto the Senate Medicare For All bill in 2017. The earlier House bill has over 120 cosponsors in that body. "Medicare For All" is, of course, vague and could be plausibly applied to a plan based around a public option, rather than single payer. But either way, this seems like a pretty good turn of events for team universal healthcare.

But meh, not enough to get me to try to kick out the deranged Trump GOP, right? Millions of people getting health insurance isn't that much better than millions of people losing health insurance, they're basically to the right of Nixon. That's the good faith argument, as opposed to the bad faith argument being made by me which is that single payer has a specific meaning and France's system doesn't fit that specific definition. (Never mind what I said about countries other than France, which have systems significantly less similar to single payer and still have much better systems than the US.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Oh yeah, it's erimir's award-winning sarcasm again.
Sorry you can't actually come up with any good arguments and must limit yourself to evidence-free bitterness :shrug:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-29-2018), The Man (08-29-2018)
  #216  
Old 08-29-2018, 02:13 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCV
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
In fact, the Democratic Party platform says the universal healthcare is their goal, and that the Democratic Party believes that healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.
:aww:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-29-2018)
  #217  
Old 08-29-2018, 02:40 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCV
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Sorry you can't actually come up with any good arguments

You first.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-29-2018)
  #218  
Old 08-29-2018, 03:22 AM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
weird citrus golem
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDXXXIII
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
France doesn't have a full single payer system, which is what I said, and which is accurate.
This is exactly the sort of hair-splitting that is why you are arguing in bad faith. Do you really think that when chunks referred to single-payer he only meant a system in which nobody has the option of private healthcare, rather than one in which a single-funded system is adequate and available to all? By the "technically single payer" definition you are using a country would have to literally ban private healthcare providers and insurance in order to qualify.

Of course, chunks actual criticism was of Democrat politicians who rule single-payer as being off the table, which you chose to misinterpret as "Healthcare is only affordable in the UK, Canada and Taiwan."
__________________
the new self :euterpe:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (08-29-2018), chunksmediocrites (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018)
  #219  
Old 08-29-2018, 03:53 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMDCCCLXXIX
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
France doesn't have a full single payer system, which is what I said, and which is accurate.
This is exactly the sort of hair-splitting that is why you are arguing in bad faith. Do you really think that when chunks referred to single-payer he only meant a system in which nobody has the option of private healthcare, rather than one in which a single-funded system is adequate and available to all? By the "technically single payer" definition you are using a country would have to literally ban private healthcare providers and insurance in order to qualify.

Of course, chunks actual criticism was of Democrat politicians who rule single-payer as being off the table, which you chose to misinterpret as "Healthcare is only affordable in the UK, Canada and Taiwan."
If you think a quarter of spending is a trivial deviation from 100%, then perhaps that is a valid argument. I don't know that it's obvious that it shouldn't count. But chunks's statement offers nowhere near enough information to know what he means when he says "single payer". And either way, other countries I mentioned are further from a single payer system than France.

And because single payer has a technical meaning, which others may be using, are we to assume that every Democrat that chunks is complaining about is using it to refer to the range of systems that you are assuming chunks is referring to? Which systems are "basically" single payer, and what are the details of those and how do they differ from proposals supported by large numbers of Democratic politicians? The problem is that the broader you consider it, the criticism is also less valid, since if you expand it enough, it will encompass plans being proposed by Democrats.

I think I've more than adequately explained my views on this and why I think chunks' complaints about Democrats on that are misguided, and focusing on the term "single payer" as it applies or doesn't to France, rather than addressing my overall point, doesn't strike me as being more in good faith than my more detailed explanation of my position.

And if you think it's an oversimplification to the point of bad faith (my more detailed explanations notwithstanding) for me to say France does not have single payer, how can you view chunks' statements as good faith? Or how is it good faith to focus on that single statement to the exclusion of, well, everything else in there?

Or is suggesting there be any precision in statements the "bad faith" move while overly broad generalizations are not? And if he wasn't being precise in talking about "single payer", is it good faith to glide right past the many Congressional Democrats including presidential hopefuls who support "Medicare for All"? So when he says "a hair's breadth" from privatizing Social Security, that's good faith? Or that they "refused to regulate" the financial industry despite the passage of Dodd-Frank and the creation of the CFPB? Well, if chunks thinks it's inadequate, it's still good faith to imply they did nothing. Comparisons to Nixon that are clearly not based off actually reviewing Nixon's record, well, that's good faith too. Considering the party that controls neither House of Congress, nor the SCOTUS nor the White House responsible for the impending overturn of Roe v Wade, well, that's just based off a good faith reading of the Constitution and how power in those bodies works.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-29-2018), The Man (08-29-2018)
  #220  
Old 08-29-2018, 10:00 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMLXXXIV
Images: 295
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Please do not make any attempts to try to win me over. You should instead focus your efforts on persuadable voters, even if that means that you will look to more moderate swing voters instead of me.
Or conversely, don't reward bad behavior by agreeing to be a captive base. LGBTQ voters and Latinx voters in the Obama administration only gained the barest of ground during the Obama administration because they organized and threatened to withhold their votes, not through accepting the status quo and waiting for the fail party to compromise their rights away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I require that you alienate more voters than you'd win before I will support you.
Your opinion is noted; but how's that "big tent" approach working, exactly? How much further right should the Democratic Party move, in your opinion, to capture that "moderate, swing voter," rather than act to help the people they claim to represent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-If you previously did bad things, I will not take yes for an answer if you subsequently adopt policies closer to my preferences.
Which of those bad things are you referring to here, that the DNC-backed party leaders have made an about-face on, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-In fact, I will not support you unless most long-time members resign en masse, throwing away all incumbency advantages and making it impossible to win control of Congress.
Seems like a stretch. How about, I will not support you if you don't actually represent me? I know, I know- how blind and foolish- how's that captive base strategy working?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I require that certain approaches be prioritized even if they are politically very difficult,
Could you point out the "difficult" political positions you mention here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
and I will consider any efforts to make me understand the variety of approaches used in other countries to be neoliberalism.
Please, tell me about the approaches used in other countries, and let me know which are, in your opinion, an aspect of neoliberal globalization, and which are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-Healthcare is only affordable in the UK, Canada and Taiwan. Healthcare in countries without full single payer, like Germany, France and Japan, is only affordable to a small minority.
Is this an argument I made, or you made? I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a defense of the DNC- if so, it is confusing. Hey, remember when Obama pushed through a health care plan written by The Heritage Foundation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-Even though not a single Democrat defected on Social Security when Bush tried to privatize it, I think you are a hair's breadth away from privatizing it.
Wrong Presidential terms. How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security
Though I will agree, maybe Obama wasn't going for privatization as much as just gutting social safety nets.
Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts
Quote:
The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
I know that secretly Nancy Pelosi longs to destroy Social Security, and blocking Bush's efforts and campaigning on the notion that Trump's GOP wants to gut Medicare and Social Security are just parts of her 11-dimensional long game to do so.
This is what they rally around when not in power, in the same way the RNC calls for fiscal conservancy when not in power, and does the opposite when in office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I don't know very much about Nixon or Eisenhower. I do know that Rehnquist and other Nixon appointees surely reflect a more progressive presidency than Obama or Clinton with their appointments of Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
Note that I said the RNC platform under these presidencies was more progressive than the DNC today. Did I discuss SCOTUS appointees?
Politifact:
Quote:
The meme, created by the group Occupy Democrats, summarized a few planks from the 1956 Republican Party platform...
...>snip<...
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
...>snip<...
We located a copy of the official party platform from 1956, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was running (successfully, as it turned out) for his second term as president.

All told, the meme is generally accurate in portraying these seven elements of the 1956 platform, with some caveats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-While I consider your efforts to placate me to be mere lip service, it is impossible that Nixon or Eisenhower may have offered lip service to New Deal ideals because they thought it was politically necessary coming off a 20-year run of Democratic presidential success and facing Democratic majorities in Congress.
Wow. I said all that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I also don't know what your presidential hopefuls are saying about criminal justice, drug policy, healthcare, job guarantees, immigration, or a number of other issues. I assume it is all bad.
I know what they say when not in a position to effect change, versus what they actually do while in power; which is very little unless forced FROM THE LEFT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I am upset that you are not standing up for marginalized communities or women enough. I stand up for them by saying that Trump and the GOP aren't that bad compared to you and considering it not worth the effort to try to end their control.
This is really the crux of your false argument in my opinion. Not toeing the line to stand behind the DNC is heresy and equivalent to supporting Trump and the GOP? I disagree entirely. A DNC that cannot handle any criticism from the left is a weak-ass party that has lost its bearing and demands obedience, rather than service. Fuck that noise, and fuck you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I will blame you for the Supreme Court ending Roe v Wade, since you have a strong 49 vote majority to block any anti-abortion judge. The GOP having the White House, majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court doesn't mean it's not primarily your fault. That the four Democratic-appointed justices on the Supreme Court consistently vote in favor of reproductive rights and your last presidential candidate campaigned on defending Roe v Wade and repealing the Hyde Amendment and partial birth abortion bans is no defense.
I will absolutely blame the DNC, Clinton's centrist strategy, and the ability of Democrats on the national level to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of shutting down the Congress, instead of fighting against the SCOTUS nominees with any level of spine, instead of taking to the streets, instead of rallying their supposed base while in power or out, they try incremental bullshit, and surprise- they get almost no advances.
Vice:
Quote:
In 2009, 64 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives very nearly torpedoed the legislation that would soon become the Affordable Care Act because they wanted more restrictions on abortion.
How many of those pieces of shit do you think the DNC fund-raised for, and supported?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
I am convinced that they will see the error of their ways and do what is necessary to win me over. Which is resigning.
I wish, erimir.
Instead I think that without pressure from the left, the center-right DNC will not represent its supposed base.
I think that a corrupt and captured DNC should not be rewarded for bad-faith actions.
I think that a DNC that can't handle criticism from the left should go home and work on their garden, Netflix and chill, and let someone else oppose the RNC, because that's a tired baby that needs a nap.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (08-29-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018)
  #221  
Old 08-29-2018, 11:56 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMDCCCLXXIX
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Or conversely, don't reward bad behavior by agreeing to be a captive base.
This theory seems to rely on the Democrats being the only party with agency. Like you're just punishing and denying toys to the Democratic pols who displeased you, and they'll try harder next time. But the Republicans have agency and will be doing stuff the whole time.

Most importantly, every time you allow the Republicans to gain power, they will use that power to entrench themselves.

For example:


Even if I grant that throwing a left-wing tantrum by sitting out the election will get Democrats to move left... it only works if the next election takes place under the same rules. Does it help much if you have convinced the Democrats that they would need to move left to improve their electoral chances under the old electorate and districts, if the Republicans use voter suppression to create a more right-wing electorate and gerrymandering to create a more right-wing median district?
Quote:
LGBTQ voters and Latinx voters in the Obama administration only gained the barest of ground during the Obama administration because they organized and threatened to withhold their votes, not through accepting the status quo and waiting for the fail party to compromise their rights away.
I don't recall the big LGBT push to sit out elections, and unlike you, I was gay the whole time Obama was president. LGBT activists have done a lot more than threaten to let Republicans take office by not voting for Democrats. Much less seen anything that suggests that was anything like their most effective tactic.
Quote:
Your opinion is noted; but how's that "big tent" approach working, exactly? How much further right should the Democratic Party move, in your opinion, to capture that "moderate, swing voter," rather than act to help the people they claim to represent?
Wow, I said all that?

I don't recall saying that the Democrats should move right. I also don't think they have been moving right for at least the past decade. I have quite a lot of posts about politics on this board, and I don't think you'll find many instances of me advocating Democrats move right on anything. It's possible to be on the left and still think you are misinformed and have bad ideas about politics.
Quote:
Quote:
-I require that certain approaches be prioritized even if they are politically very difficult,
Could you point out the "difficult" political positions you mention here?
[...]
Please, tell me about the approaches used in other countries, and let me know which are, in your opinion, an aspect of neoliberal globalization, and which are not.
I was talking about single payer, which I already elaborated on.

The approaches used in many other countries (like Japan, Germany, the Netherlands) are not single payer. Technically not even France is. Nor would advocating those systems in the US be neoliberalism. The reference to that was of course a rhetorical flair. I wasn't directly quoting you for a reason.
Quote:
Hey, remember when Obama pushed through a health care plan written by The Heritage Foundation?
No, I don't remember that imaginary event, because it didn't happen. And saying that it did just reveals that you have no fucking clue what was in the Heritage plan.

It is understandable, since most people didn't and don't.

The Heritage plan differs from the ACA in the following, not at all trivial, ways:
-it did not expand Medicaid, instead it gutted it
-the ACA had significant coverage requirements, the Heritage plan only required bare bones catastrophic coverage
-the ACA did not change Medicare significantly, while the Heritage plan replaced it with a voucher system
-the Heritage plan ended tax benefits for employer-provided insurance, which would probably lead to the end of employer-based insurance, while the ACA was designed to keep most of that intact

But yes, they both had a "mandate", so therefore Obama was pushing through a Heritage healthcare plan.
Quote:
Wrong Presidential terms.
Yeah, I don't make my political decisions on the basis of what Congress "almost" did 20+ years ago. Most of those people aren't around anymore.
Quote:
Though I will agree, maybe Obama wasn't going for privatization as much as just gutting social safety nets.
Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts
Quote:
The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.
That was mostly political posturing to demonstrate GOP hypocrisy. There was no way that the GOP would agree to $1 trillion in new revenues. Do you suppose that Democrats might ever insincerely pander to "the center"? Is that theoretically possible?

Either way, Obama is not in office anymore and he could not have passed any such plan without any Democratic support in Congress. Do you have the receipts on how they would've voted for it?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
I know that secretly Nancy Pelosi longs to destroy Social Security, and blocking Bush's efforts and campaigning on the notion that Trump's GOP wants to gut Medicare and Social Security are just parts of her 11-dimensional long game to do so.
This is what they rally around when not in power, in the same way the RNC calls for fiscal conservancy when not in power, and does the opposite when in office.
If they do the opposite when in power, how come under Obama they expanded Medicaid and didn't, in fact, cut Social Security or Medicare?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I don't know very much about Nixon or Eisenhower. I do know that Rehnquist and other Nixon appointees surely reflect a more progressive presidency than Obama or Clinton with their appointments of Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
Note that I said the RNC platform under these presidencies was more progressive than the DNC today. Did I discuss SCOTUS appointees?
No, but you should have, because they are a pretty good indicator of a president's ideology. Particularly in the past, they were subject to less constraints as Congress generally rubber-stamped most nominees. Nixon was not a liberal, because no liberal would have nominated Rehnquist when a Democratic Senate would have confirmed a solidly liberal nominee any day he wanted.

The myth that Nixon was the last liberal president is harmful and leads to stupid opinions about modern politics.
Quote:
Politifact:
Quote:
The meme, created by the group Occupy Democrats, summarized a few planks from the 1956 Republican Party platform...
...>snip<...
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
...>snip<...
We located a copy of the official party platform from 1956, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was running (successfully, as it turned out) for his second term as president.

All told, the meme is generally accurate in portraying these seven elements of the 1956 platform, with some caveats.
Are those 7 bits meant to show that this is more progressive than the current Democratic platform? Because I don't think it does.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-While I consider your efforts to placate me to be mere lip service, it is impossible that Nixon or Eisenhower may have offered lip service to New Deal ideals because they thought it was politically necessary coming off a 20-year run of Democratic presidential success and facing Democratic majorities in Congress.
Wow. I said all that?
Well, you do seem to believe GOP gestures towards the center more than Democratic rhetoric in support of, say, protecting Social Security...

Otherwise what's the relevance of the Eisenhower GOP platform?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I also don't know what your presidential hopefuls are saying about criminal justice, drug policy, healthcare, job guarantees, immigration, or a number of other issues. I assume it is all bad.
I know what they say when not in a position to effect change, versus what they actually do while in power; which is very little unless forced FROM THE LEFT.
So you'll only support them if they are already in power?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I am upset that you are not standing up for marginalized communities or women enough. I stand up for them by saying that Trump and the GOP aren't that bad compared to you and considering it not worth the effort to try to end their control.
This is really the crux of your false argument in my opinion. Not toeing the line to stand behind the DNC is heresy and equivalent to supporting Trump and the GOP? I disagree entirely. A DNC that cannot handle any criticism from the left is a weak-ass party that has lost its bearing and demands obedience, rather than service.
I'm pretty sure I wrote "not considering it worth the effort to try to end their control" and not "supporting Trump". I think the former is a straightforward description of what you're saying.

I also don't consider your misinformed beliefs about Nixon or the Heritage plan to be valid bases for criticism. Which is why I was criticizing them, rather than saying that the DNC must be supported in all things.
Quote:
Fuck that noise, and fuck you.
Perhaps you should Netflix and chill instead of posting ill-informed screeds, if you're too weak-ass to handle any criticism.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
-I will blame you for the Supreme Court ending Roe v Wade, since you have a strong 49 vote majority to block any anti-abortion judge. The GOP having the White House, majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court doesn't mean it's not primarily your fault. That the four Democratic-appointed justices on the Supreme Court consistently vote in favor of reproductive rights and your last presidential candidate campaigned on defending Roe v Wade and repealing the Hyde Amendment and partial birth abortion bans is no defense.
I will absolutely blame the DNC, Clinton's centrist strategy, and the ability of Democrats on the national level to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Again, more theories that require only Democrats to have agency. Republicans and voters have no agency here.
Quote:
Instead of shutting down the Congress,
How do you propose they do that? Explain to me how they get to "shut down" the Senate with 49 votes. And in fact, how it would even be (small-d) democratic for them to be able to do so. The filibuster is bullshit and always has been. The Republicans eliminated it, because you only need 51 votes to eliminate it. So how do they shut it down with fewer votes?
Quote:
instead of fighting against the SCOTUS nominees with any level of spine, instead of taking to the streets,
Oh bullshit, like you wouldn't call them taking to the streets an attempt to "co-opt" grassroots protests and make it about themselves.

Either way, there have been protests against Kavanaugh, and many Democrats have endorsed those protests.
Quote:
instead of rallying their supposed base while in power or out,
"Rallying the base" doesn't mean anything. It is not a concrete action, it's just saying "in order to succeed, they should succeed." What should they do to rally the base, and what is the evidence that it would work?

It's not like you would give a shit what they tell you to do about Kavanaugh, is it?
Quote:
Quote:
In 2009, 64 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives very nearly torpedoed the legislation that would soon become the Affordable Care Act because they wanted more restrictions on abortion.
How many of those pieces of shit do you think the DNC fund-raised for, and supported?
The DNC fundraises for the DNC, and during non-presidential years, transfers much of that money to other Democratic organizations, like the DSCC, DCCC and DLCC.

The DNC plays no role in recruiting House candidates. Aside from fundraising and some PR role (the head of the DNC goes on the news sometimes), their primary purpose is organizing the presidential debates, determining the presidential nomination rules and writing the Democratic national platform. I'm not sure they do fundraisers for specific candidates at all.

Anyway, those Democrats are nearly all gone from the Congress. It's pretty fucking rich that you're quoting from an article literally titled "Where have all the pro-life Democrats gone?" that's about how Democrats are moving left on abortion... when you're arguing that they're not left enough on abortion.
Quote:
I think that a corrupt and captured DNC should not be rewarded for bad-faith actions.
I think I don't really care that much about whether the DNC is "rewarded". I care more about what happens in the country than I do about punishing politicians that I dislike.

And speaking of weak-ass parties and politicians, I didn't touch it earlier, but if you think the DNC scheduling a couple debates out of nine on Saturdays and sending some bitchy emails in April (after he got blown the fuck out on Super Tuesday and on March 15) cost Bernie Sanders the primary and rigged it, he must've been the weakest fucking candidate ever. I assume this is what you mean by DNC corruption.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kael (08-29-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018), The Man (08-29-2018)
  #222  
Old 08-29-2018, 01:17 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCMLII
Images: 19
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

I can see a multitude of weaknesses in that restatement of your position, chunks; too many for me to contemplate tackling them all right now. Maybe later ...

For now I'll take one from the top and one from the bottom ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
LGBTQ voters and Latinx voters in the Obama administration only gained the barest of ground during the Obama administration because they organized and threatened to withhold their votes ...
I don't know how accurate this is, but supposing it is entirely true (ie. that the good things gained by LGBTQ and Latinx under Obama were so small that they were almost not worth having), it seems to me that it leaves out two important considerations; firstly, that Obama was elected and then concessions were demanded from his administration; secondly, that the cost to LGBTQ and Latinx of not electing Clinton is not the apparently negligible concessions that her administration might have made in response to their demands, but the real harms being done to their people under Trump*

Quote:
I think that a DNC that can't handle criticism from the left should go home and work on their garden, Netflix and chill, and let someone else oppose the RNC ...
Okay I get that, and if the DNC couldn't handle criticism you'd have a brilliant point. But who is suggesting that the DNC can't handle criticism? Not erimir, certainly, and that in itself makes a strawman out of the point you are trying to make.

What I take erimir to be saying, and of course he is right, is that the DNC can't handle too many people not voting for them[/I].


* for example Trump administration dismantles LGBT-friendly policies - POLITICO and Trump’s executive order ending immigrant family separation doesn’t address getting current child detainees back to their parents – Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (08-29-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018), The Man (08-29-2018)
  #223  
Old 08-29-2018, 04:34 PM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VCDXLI
Images: 2
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Is this instructive or merely a fluke?

Quote:
Despite being massively outspent by his centrist millionaire opponents and lacking support from the Democratic establishment, progressive Andrew Gillum rode grassroots enthusiasm for his unabashedly left-wing agenda of Medicare for All and bold criminal justice reform to a shocking and historic upset victory Tuesday night in Florida's gubernatorial primary.
Quote:
While Gillum—who is currently the mayor of Tallahassee—lacked the institutional backing and immense personal wealth of his Democratic opponents, he overcame this cash deficit with a massive surge in voter turnout, which was attributed to his unwavering embrace of popular policies like Medicare for All and raising the minimum wage.

"My opponents have spent, together, over $90 million in this race. We have spent four [million]," Gillum told supporters at an event on Saturday. "Money doesn’t vote. People do."
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (08-29-2018), chunksmediocrites (08-29-2018), erimir (08-29-2018), The Man (08-29-2018)
  #224  
Old 08-29-2018, 07:32 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

It's an important lesson, sure – I have a friend who's really cynical about politics, and one of the things I keep trying to point out to them is that we are not (yet) at the stage of fraudulent elections. How people actually vote still matters, the money controls the messaging not the votes. So seeing an upswell in these sorts of candidates coming out of the dumpster-fire of 2016 is encouraging, but it remains to be seen how these more genuinely-left-leaning Dems do in the general election.

That said, I strongly agree with Erimir on several points, especially the way this narrative of "DNC is now to the right of Nixon/Eisenhower" is used. It paints things as though Democrats just woke up one morning and were like "hey let's all be more conservative!" The whole country moved to the right since Eisenhower and Nixon, especially on economic issues, and it didn't do it overnight. Reaganaughts and Neo-Cons, and most recently actual white supremacists again, worked long and hard to move the center to where it is now, and we're not going to move it back by planting our feet where we want it to be and insisting it come all the way back over right now or so help us!

The Left in the US seems to have the same problem over and over: we elect a few promising people at the national level then dust off our hands and walk away. Meanwhile activists for all sorts of conservative issues stay on message and on target, and work State and local too for every scrap they can get. And then when we see how much more ground they've gained than we have, we throw a tantrum and threaten to take our ball and go home, which only ends up ceding more ground.

It's going to happen again if we don't knock it off.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (08-29-2018), erimir (08-29-2018), lisarea (08-29-2018), mickthinks (08-29-2018), SR71 (08-29-2018), The Man (08-29-2018)
  #225  
Old 08-29-2018, 08:08 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCV
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by SR71 View Post
Is this instructive or merely a fluke?

Quote:
Despite being massively outspent by his centrist millionaire opponents and lacking support from the Democratic establishment, progressive Andrew Gillum rode grassroots enthusiasm for his unabashedly left-wing agenda of Medicare for All and bold criminal justice reform to a shocking and historic upset victory Tuesday night in Florida's gubernatorial primary.
Quote:
While Gillum—who is currently the mayor of Tallahassee—lacked the institutional backing and immense personal wealth of his Democratic opponents, he overcame this cash deficit with a massive surge in voter turnout, which was attributed to his unwavering embrace of popular policies like Medicare for All and raising the minimum wage.

"My opponents have spent, together, over $90 million in this race. We have spent four [million]," Gillum told supporters at an event on Saturday. "Money doesn’t vote. People do."

Another round of the massive ass whooping the Democrat corporate whores are getting right now. It's pretty unlikely it would have happened without a Trump victory.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-30-2018)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.62680 seconds with 14 queries