Advice For Divided Democrats

[Terrell]

You're not going to get substance from an ardent supporter of a candidate short on substance.

When asked for specifics on how he's going to accomplish a certain policy, Bernie says "we need a political revolution!"

When asked how to do that, Bernie says "we need to get money out of politics!"

And how do you do that, Senator Sanders? "We need to have a political revolution!"

Then there's a rant about the "Big Banks" on Wall Street, the 1%, income inequality, and all the other things Bernie will address by having a "political revolution."

Of course you're not going to get anything other than Bernie's talking points in response. That's all he's got, so that's all the followers got.

Bernie is wanting to return to where we have already been.

To a time where it was understood that the problems created by capitalism needed vigorous government action.

Away from the domination of money through surrogates like Bill and Hillary who will sell out any principle for personal gain.

I've already heard Bernie's rhetoric. How does he effectuate said rhetoric into policy, and keep said policy in place?

 

[untermensche]

There are some that can see problems and others that spell out the problems and others that find solutions and others that work to implement those solutions.

Excuse me for not being all things.

I've already proposed a solution, several times. You just give rhetoric about working outside the party, how about you give details on how you get where you're trying to go.

Your solution is no solution.

When a party is completely corrupted it is insanity to propose you change it from within.

Good luck with that non-solution.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie is wanting to return to where we have already been.

To a time where it was understood that the problems created by capitalism needed vigorous government action.

Away from the domination of money through surrogates like Bill and Hillary who will sell out any principle for personal gain.

I've already heard Bernie's rhetoric. How does he effectuate said rhetoric into policy, and keep said policy in place?

I don't think you have actually heard a word of it.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?

Probably not because according to you it was impossible.

 

[Terrell]

I've already proposed a solution, several times. You just give rhetoric about working outside the party, how about you give details on how you get where you're trying to go.

Your solution is no solution.

When a party is completely corrupted it is insanity to propose you change it from within.

Good luck with that non-solution.

What I propose has already worked to move one party in the direction a desired faction wanted. What's your solution?

 

[Terrell]

I don't think you have actually heard a word of it.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?

Probably not because according to you it was impossible.

Really, where did I say that it was impossible? Please show the exact post. I've asked for some actual substantive argument from you on how you can actually get from here to whatever policies you want. So far I haven't heard anything.

 

[Ford]

You're not going to get substance from an ardent supporter of a candidate short on substance.

When asked for specifics on how he's going to accomplish a certain policy, Bernie says "we need a political revolution!"

When asked how to do that, Bernie says "we need to get money out of politics!"

And how do you do that, Senator Sanders? "We need to have a political revolution!"

Then there's a rant about the "Big Banks" on Wall Street, the 1%, income inequality, and all the other things Bernie will address by having a "political revolution."

Of course you're not going to get anything other than Bernie's talking points in response. That's all he's got, so that's all the followers got.

Bernie is wanting to return to where we have already been.

That's the Republican Party's answer. To go back. Drag the country into an idyllic past which didn't really exist. An imaginary "better time."

Democrats are supposed to be the progressive party. One that looks to the future as the better time, and understands that a better future is built on new ideas. Solutions for current problems, not solutions for problems we had 80 years ago.

 

[untermensche]

Bernie is wanting to return to where we have already been.

That's the Republican Party's answer. To go back. Drag the country into an idyllic past which didn't really exist. An imaginary "better time."

Democrats are supposed to be the progressive party. One that looks to the future as the better time, and understands that a better future is built on new ideas. Solutions for current problems, not solutions for problems we had 80 years ago.

So you just assume the mindset of the most ignorant when it suits you?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you have actually heard a word of it.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?

Probably not because according to you it was impossible.

Really, where did I say that it was impossible? Please show the exact post. I've asked for some actual substantive argument from you on how you can actually get from here to whatever policies you want. So far I haven't heard anything.

Yes I haven't single handedly cured cancer and eliminated disease.

Your demands are irrational.

- - - Updated - - -

Your solution is no solution.

When a party is completely corrupted it is insanity to propose you change it from within.

Good luck with that non-solution.

What I propose has already worked to move one party in the direction a desired faction wanted. What's your solution?

You mean by doing something like electing Bernie?

Good idea.

 

[Ford]

That's the Republican Party's answer. To go back. Drag the country into an idyllic past which didn't really exist. An imaginary "better time."

Democrats are supposed to be the progressive party. One that looks to the future as the better time, and understands that a better future is built on new ideas. Solutions for current problems, not solutions for problems we had 80 years ago.

So you just assume the mindset of the most ignorant when it suits you?

So when you run out of Bernie's talking points you resort to personal attacks?

 

[Terrell]

That's the Republican Party's answer. To go back. Drag the country into an idyllic past which didn't really exist. An imaginary "better time."

Democrats are supposed to be the progressive party. One that looks to the future as the better time, and understands that a better future is built on new ideas. Solutions for current problems, not solutions for problems we had 80 years ago.

So you just assume the mindset of the most ignorant when it suits you?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you have actually heard a word of it.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?

Probably not because according to you it was impossible.

Really, where did I say that it was impossible? Please show the exact post. I've asked for some actual substantive argument from you on how you can actually get from here to whatever policies you want. So far I haven't heard anything.

Yes I haven't single handedly cured cancer and eliminated disease.

Your demands are irrational.

How are they irrational? Please be specific. At this point my conclusion is that you have nothing to actually offer as substantive argument. Prove to me you have anything beyond distance & irritation as a tactic.

Enough of the vote is in already, it's highly unlikely that Bernie is getting elected.

 

[MarkW]

A wet dream that they spent a reported $100 million to try to block.

They spent that money to try to block the public option, and succeeded. And by blocking the public option these corporations will make a lot more than $100 million.

As I said the Bill forces people to pay whatever the insurance corporations demand.

The insurance corporations couldn't be happier with it.

A great move to the right for healthcare.

They weren't just trying to stop the public option; they continued spending after the public option was removed from the bill. IN the first three months of 2010 the biggest health insurance lobbying group, AHIP, poured about $16 million into opposing the ACA.

And it's really ludicrous to describe a program that gave over 15 million Americans health coverage when they had none before a "move to the right."

Just as it really doesn't make sense to keep calling the ACA "a gift to the insurance industry" just because the subsidies given to low-income families to pay for health insurance wind up being spent by them--to pay for health insurance. By that token, any economic assistance to people with low incomes should be eliminated because it ends up being spent when they use their food stamps or welfare benefits or whatever to make purchases from large retail corporations--all those anti-poverty programs are, by your logic, "just a gift to Walmart."

 

[MarkW]

I don't think you have actually heard a word of it.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?

Probably not because according to you it was impossible.

I advise you to never study the New Deal in too much detail, or you will undoubtedly be devastated by the degree to which it involved making compromises with some very unsavory interests--in particular, the ways that many New Deal programs were limited in order to gain the politically necessary support of segregationist Southern Democrats.

The same is also true of the Great Society.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think you have actually heard a word of it.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?

Probably not because according to you it was impossible.

I advise you to never study the New Deal in too much detail, or you will undoubtedly be devastated by the degree to which it involved making compromises with some very unsavory interests--in particular, the ways that many New Deal programs were limited in order to gain the politically necessary support of segregationist Southern Democrats.

The same is also true of the Great Society.

So how exactly does this make the things Bernie proposes impossible? It merely means it will be difficult. And nobody thinks otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

And it's really ludicrous to describe a program that gave over 15 million Americans health coverage when they had none before a "move to the right."

It gave the insurance corporations more. And many of those Americans were forced to buy it. They weren't given anything but a massive tax increase.

A system that gives more to insurance corporations than to people is not a program from the left.

 

[Rhea]

And it's really ludicrous to describe a program that gave over 15 million Americans health coverage when they had none before a "move to the right."

It gave the insurance corporations more. And many of those Americans were forced to buy it. They weren't given anything but a massive tax increase.

A system that gives more to insurance corporations than to people is not a program from the left.

What was leftist about it was the abolishing of the "precondition" loophole. It was a terrible and inhumane thing and it's gone, though the insurance companies fought against that tooth and nail. Very glad we won that leftist part.

 

[Rhea]

It really is the only chance of change, but things will have to get worse before they better.

So this is the "revolution" talk. We must hit rock bottom before we can improve!

Others find that your view of this is unworkable and will not bring what you think it will bring.
You say you don't have a plan and then jump to a straw man, but no one is asking yOU to have a plan, we're expecting your candidate to have a step by step plan. One that somehow works when the only person loyal to the party of his ideas is him. A plan that does not depend on a sympathetic court, a plan that somehow works without a sympathetic congress, a plan that somehow reaches the local laws without having any supporters writing those local laws.

It's folly. It's unicorns.

Even though I want the same things as you do, I bel;ieve they are impossible to achieve by "revolution" and very very possible to achieve by hard work, toil and a long term PLAN that many diverse people can follow.

The Democrats and the Republicans are thoroughly corrupted by money. Right now they differ on SC nominees and little else.

Differing on the SC is plenty of reason to not destroy the dem party as enemies.

 

[untermensche]

we're expecting your candidate to have a step by step plan.

When exactly has that happened in history?

FDR had no step by step plan. It was trial and error.

What you want is the desire to move things in a different direction. Away from the corruption of Bill Clinton.

Not simply the desire to get elected at any cost like that sell out Hillary.

 

[Rhea]

And the process to get from worse to better is revolution. Hopefully a democratic revolution.

Revolution - it is kind of what Bush and Cheney thought would happen in Iraq.
1. Tear apart the corrupt regime
2. ???
3. ROBUST DEMOCRACY!!!

If your candidate does not have a PLAN for this, how on _earth_ are you supposed to follow the path?

Collaboration with the current system will not result in change.

And yet it demonstrably worked for the right wing, via their 30-year plan of starting with school boards and taking over the congress.

 

[untermensche]

It gave the insurance corporations more. And many of those Americans were forced to buy it. They weren't given anything but a massive tax increase.

A system that gives more to insurance corporations than to people is not a program from the left.

What was leftist about it was the abolishing of the "precondition" loophole. It was a terrible and inhumane thing and it's gone, though the insurance companies fought against that tooth and nail. Very glad we won that leftist part.

Yes, that was good for the few it benefited. The most sick are already on Medicare disability.

But the bulk of the plan was a boon to insurance corporations.

Forcing people to pay their price and not offering any real competition to control the costs.

 

[Rhea]

Citizen's United was a 5-4 decision, the justices that voted to strike down parts of campaign finance reform law were all appointed by Republicans. The 4 Democratic appointees voted to uphold such reforms.

You don't do it by working with thoroughly corrupted parties.

That much is known.

It. Is. Not.

Corporations don't give a shit about Anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant. And yet these are making strong inroads into the GOP. Why? Because your thesis is not correct.

Moreover, this "thoroughly corrupted" Democratic party was resposible for the rise of the 4 justices that voted FOR the reforms. Your thesis states that it should have been a 9-0 decision because "Dems and Repubs are both the same"

Demonstrably not, eh? Don't you wish you had more of the Dem-system SC justices when that decision came around?
I know I do...

And again I only know it has to be done. How and if it will be done is at this point unknown.

Then there is no one to vote for to get it.

But it is ignorance to say the future must be anything like the past. The past is just one contingency among infinite possibilities.

I'm not for governing by crap-shoot.
The Dems have a history of being a source of some of the things I want. Like a Supreme Court that will uphold campaign finance reforms.
The GOP has a history of being a source of things I abhor and not a single thing I support. Like a Supreme Court that takes away individual civil rights in favor of corporate rights.

So far, each future has been very much like its past.

 

[untermensche]

Revolution - it is kind of what Bush and Cheney thought would happen in Iraq.

Yes child. All change is exactly like the dreams of Bush and Cheney.

And yet it demonstrably worked for the right wing, via their 30-year plan of starting with school boards and taking over the congress.

The system was corrupted from the outside because of the influence of money.

 

[Rhea]

we're expecting your candidate to have a step by step plan.

When exactly has that happened in history?

I have looked at the issues and policies websites of our presidential candidates. Some have plans, some do not. I can evaluate the ones with plans. The ones without - they are unicorn farts.