Advice For Divided Democrats

[untermensche]

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.

Well then you would have opposed FDR.

 

[Rhea]

Yes child.

What's with the insults? You find that substantive or productive?
And you'd better watch it, or I'll cut you with my AARP card.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Change that plans to hold a revolution with no explicit plan to rebuild seems to do so quite predictably.

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.

Well then you would have opposed FDR.

Except that the other choice was Hoover. So... no.
And FDR was not chanting revolution, he had general outlines, at least.

 

[Ford]

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

You mean the same Hillary that Bernie will be supporting if she wins the nomination?

“Sure I will,” he said, when pressed by CBS News’ Charlie Rose in an interview. “Look, as I said a million times, I think the idea of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I will do everything in my power and work as hard as I can to make sure that that does not happen. And if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93

 

[untermensche]

What's with the insults? You find that substantive or productive?

If you make childish comments don't blame me for pointing that out to you.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that the other choice was Hoover. So... no.

Hoover had all kinds of detailed plans.

He was your guy.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the same Hillary that Bernie will be supporting if she wins the nomination?

“Sure I will,” he said, when pressed by CBS News’ Charlie Rose in an interview. “Look, as I said a million times, I think the idea of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I will do everything in my power and work as hard as I can to make sure that that does not happen. And if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93

Yes Bernie will support the lesser of 2 evils.

Just don't try to get me to buy that Hillary is not an evil.

 

[Rhea]

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.

They introduced the requirement that 85% of premiums be spent ON healthcare, not administration or dividends. This is a cost control.
As someone who has managed purchasing healthcare for employees, there was a very real difference in before-ACA and after-ACA in the cost escalations. You poo-poo this, but our taxpayers felt the relief quite keenly.

 

[Rhea]

Except that the other choice was Hoover. So... no.

Hoover had all kinds of detailed plans.

He was your guy.

No. I said if they have plans, I can evaluate them. If the plans suck, like Cruz' would, then I'm not going to vote for it just because he has a plan. I made that clear.

But if I have "fair" plans vs. no plans, I'm not going to risk no plans, even if I agree with the final goal, if I expect the fact of no plans will lead me _away_ from what I want.

Just don't try to get me to buy that Hillary is not an evil.

No one is trying to.
We may be saying that _we_ think she's not evil, but we don't care if you think she is.
And if you are ultimately voting to leftward push the SC by voting in a way to make Trump lose, then we're on the same side!

 

[MarkW]

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.

Just to reiterate, the point is that the New Deal and Great Society were not achieved by taking the no-compromise approach which, in this thread, you have repeatedly implied should have been taken with the ACA. Ira Katznelson's Fear Itself demonstrates how, in order to get essential votes from segregationist Southern Democrats, FDR repeatedly accepted weaker versions of many of his programs, and also refused to support things like Robert Wagner's anti-lynching bill, to avoid losing Southern Democrats' support. He also made many other compromises, for instance remaining neutral in the 1934 California Governor's race, instead of supporting Democrat Upton Sinclair, in return for a pledge from Republican nominee and eventual Governor Frank Merriam that he would not oppose the New Deal.

Had FDR taken the approach to the New Deal reforms that you imply President Obama should have taken with the ACA, he would, for instance, have withdrawn his proposal for Social Security rather than pass it while excluding about half the labor force from the program, because including farm workers and domestic servants, both disproportionately African-American, would have offended the segregationists.

 

[untermensche]

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

Just to reiterate, the point is that the New Deal and Great Society were not achieved by taking the no-compromise approach which, in this thread, you have repeatedly implied should have been taken with the ACA. Ira Katznelson's Fear Itself demonstrates how, in order to get essential votes from segregationist Southern Democrats, FDR repeatedly accepted weaker versions of many of his programs, and also refused to support things like Robert Wagner's anti-lynching bill, to avoid losing Southern Democrats' support. He also made many other compromises, for instance remaining neutral in the 1934 California Governor's race, instead of supporting Democrat Upton Sinclair, in return for a pledge from Republican nominee and eventual Governor Frank Merriam that he would not oppose the New Deal.

Had FDR taken the approach to the New Deal reforms that you imply President Obama should have taken with the ACA, he would, for instance, have withdrawn his proposal for Social Security rather than pass it while excluding about half the labor force from the program, because including farm workers and domestic servants, both disproportionately African-American, would have offended the segregationists.

The ultimate point is that we don't get any kind of meaningful change with Hillary. We slide a little further to the right.

We get support for the banks over the people and authorization to invade Iraq at will.

 

[untermensche]

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.

They introduced the requirement that 85% of premiums be spent ON healthcare, not administration or dividends. This is a cost control.
As someone who has managed purchasing healthcare for employees, there was a very real difference in before-ACA and after-ACA in the cost escalations. You poo-poo this, but our taxpayers felt the relief quite keenly.

Overall the Act puts money into the pockets of insurance corporations and makes them richer.

And does nothing about an obsolete fractured insane health insurance system.

 

[laughing dog]

IMO, the ACA is a first step towards a more sane healthcare system. I don't think we should let the ideal get in the way of progress. Sometimes taking a couple of step forward at a time gets us to the destination faster than bulldozing our way through.

 

[Ford]

You mean the same Hillary that Bernie will be supporting if she wins the nomination?

“Sure I will,” he said, when pressed by CBS News’ Charlie Rose in an interview. “Look, as I said a million times, I think the idea of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I will do everything in my power and work as hard as I can to make sure that that does not happen. And if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93

Yes Bernie will support the lesser of 2 evils.

Just don't try to get me to buy that Hillary is not an evil.

I brought up the quote because while it is clear nobody on this board can get through to you, I thought maybe Saint Bernard himself might. He didn't say (nor does he apparently feel personally) that Hillary Clinton is evil. He understands (unlike you) that a choice between Clinton and Trump is clear because they have such clear differences from a policy standpoint.

I also brought it up because it shines a light on the fact that the die hard Bernie supporters like yourself have taken a position that the candidate himself does not support: Bernie or Bust. It shows that your hero-worship is sorely misplaced. You've got it into your head that if the country fails to "Feel the Bern," then your rallying cry should be "Bern It Down." You want Trump to win so that the nation will be punished for not electing Bernie. You want everything to go to hell in order to justify some apocalyptic version of Sanders' "political revolution" slogan, but that's not what Bernie wants.


He sold out to the Democratic Party because it was the only path forward. The party you feel is no better than the GOP is the party where Bernie went, hat in hand, to ask for their blessing and support. If he does not get the nomination, he will support the nominee. Then presumably he'll take off his temporary Democrat label and go back to the Senate and probably work to get President Clinton's agenda passed.

 

[untermensche]

You mean the same Hillary that Bernie will be supporting if she wins the nomination?

“Sure I will,” he said, when pressed by CBS News’ Charlie Rose in an interview. “Look, as I said a million times, I think the idea of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I will do everything in my power and work as hard as I can to make sure that that does not happen. And if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93

Yes Bernie will support the lesser of 2 evils.

Just don't try to get me to buy that Hillary is not an evil.

I brought up the quote because while it is clear nobody on this board can get through to you, I thought maybe Saint Bernard himself might. He didn't say (nor does he apparently feel personally) that Hillary Clinton is evil. He understands (unlike you) that a choice between Clinton and Trump is clear because they have such clear differences from a policy standpoint.

I also brought it up because it shines a light on the fact that the die hard Bernie supporters like yourself have taken a position that the candidate himself does not support: Bernie or Bust. It shows that your hero-worship is sorely misplaced. You've got it into your head that if the country fails to "Feel the Bern," then your rallying cry should be "Bern It Down." You want Trump to win so that the nation will be punished for not electing Bernie. You want everything to go to hell in order to justify some apocalyptic version of Sanders' "political revolution" slogan, but that's not what Bernie wants.


He sold out to the Democratic Party because it was the only path forward. The party you feel is no better than the GOP is the party where Bernie went, hat in hand, to ask for their blessing and support. If he does not get the nomination, he will support the nominee. Then presumably he'll take off his temporary Democrat label and go back to the Senate and probably work to get President Clinton's agenda passed.

A handful of blind Hillary supporters who really never supported Bernie can't get me to think Hillary is anything but what she is.

A moderate Republican with moderate Republican ideas.

 

[arkirk]

What we don't seem to be seeing here is that slick (and sometimes not so slick) liars are really no improvement over the mentally disturbed in the office of the President. Hillary already makes it clear there is no real difference in her plan for those she thinks would be in her way (or would be in Trump's way) or Wall Street's way. Her policies, heavily influenced by Henry Kissinger, are perhaps not blustered as loudly as Trump's, but are every bit as much of a danger to our civilization as Trump. Both of them are deniers. The difference with Clinton is that the denial is in her head and she will be pleasing industrial polluters and oil people...and military people. I don't think either Trump or Clinton should ever be allowed near the nuclear buttons. The Republicans may still have a place in your future if they stop either of these fools from fomenting another war... Then again...maybe they won't. I am still voting for Bernie. But there will be no vote for the pseudo Democrat Clinton coming from this guy.

 

[MarkW]

IMO, the ACA is a first step towards a more sane healthcare system. I don't think we should let the ideal get in the way of progress. Sometimes taking a couple of step forward at a time gets us to the destination faster than bulldozing our way through.

I agree. That's how it went with Social Security. Initially, only about half of the work force, as I noted upthread, was included in the program. But over time, uncovered workers like farm workers, domestic servants, the self-employed, etc., were added. There were also other improvements, like the provision for an annual COLA.

That's not to mention that incremental change is often the only route that is politically realistic; trying to "bulldoze through" a mass of powerful interests all at once isn't going to happen.

 

[MarkW]

Just to reiterate, the point is that the New Deal and Great Society were not achieved by taking the no-compromise approach which, in this thread, you have repeatedly implied should have been taken with the ACA. Ira Katznelson's Fear Itself demonstrates how, in order to get essential votes from segregationist Southern Democrats, FDR repeatedly accepted weaker versions of many of his programs, and also refused to support things like Robert Wagner's anti-lynching bill, to avoid losing Southern Democrats' support. He also made many other compromises, for instance remaining neutral in the 1934 California Governor's race, instead of supporting Democrat Upton Sinclair, in return for a pledge from Republican nominee and eventual Governor Frank Merriam that he would not oppose the New Deal.

Had FDR taken the approach to the New Deal reforms that you imply President Obama should have taken with the ACA, he would, for instance, have withdrawn his proposal for Social Security rather than pass it while excluding about half the labor force from the program, because including farm workers and domestic servants, both disproportionately African-American, would have offended the segregationists.

The ultimate point is that we don't get any kind of meaningful change with Hillary. We slide a little further to the right.

We get support for the banks over the people and authorization to invade Iraq at will.

As a response to the point I made, "but Hillary is icky" is completely irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

The ultimate point is that we don't get any kind of meaningful change with Hillary. We slide a little further to the right.

We get support for the banks over the people and authorization to invade Iraq at will.

As a response to the point I made, "but Hillary is icky" is completely irrelevant.

As a response to my point complete nonsense is irrelevant.

Hillary is just a way to move the nation a little further right. Like her husband did.

I just wish the supporters of Hillary would be honest about this.

 

[arkirk]

IMO, the ACA is a first step towards a more sane healthcare system. I don't think we should let the ideal get in the way of progress. Sometimes taking a couple of step forward at a time gets us to the destination faster than bulldozing our way through.

I agree. That's how it went with Social Security. Initially, only about half of the work force, as I noted upthread, was included in the program. But over time, uncovered workers like farm workers, domestic servants, the self-employed, etc., were added. There were also other improvements, like the provision for an annual COLA.

That's not to mention that incremental change is often the only route that is politically realistic; trying to "bulldoze through" a mass of powerful interests all at once isn't going to happen.

If you see those who are denied healthcare even under Obamacare (there are millions of these folks) you begin to see the similarity in the ACA to perhaps an improvement in Sharia law where criminals who steal (if they are above a certain income level...as in Obamacarese can afford coverage) will only have one finger chopped off as punishment instead of a whole hand. There ain't nothin' like good ole incrementalism.

 

[Ford]

You mean the same Hillary that Bernie will be supporting if she wins the nomination?

“Sure I will,” he said, when pressed by CBS News’ Charlie Rose in an interview. “Look, as I said a million times, I think the idea of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I will do everything in my power and work as hard as I can to make sure that that does not happen. And if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93

Yes Bernie will support the lesser of 2 evils.

Just don't try to get me to buy that Hillary is not an evil.

I brought up the quote because while it is clear nobody on this board can get through to you, I thought maybe Saint Bernard himself might. He didn't say (nor does he apparently feel personally) that Hillary Clinton is evil. He understands (unlike you) that a choice between Clinton and Trump is clear because they have such clear differences from a policy standpoint.

I also brought it up because it shines a light on the fact that the die hard Bernie supporters like yourself have taken a position that the candidate himself does not support: Bernie or Bust. It shows that your hero-worship is sorely misplaced. You've got it into your head that if the country fails to "Feel the Bern," then your rallying cry should be "Bern It Down." You want Trump to win so that the nation will be punished for not electing Bernie. You want everything to go to hell in order to justify some apocalyptic version of Sanders' "political revolution" slogan, but that's not what Bernie wants.


He sold out to the Democratic Party because it was the only path forward. The party you feel is no better than the GOP is the party where Bernie went, hat in hand, to ask for their blessing and support. If he does not get the nomination, he will support the nominee. Then presumably he'll take off his temporary Democrat label and go back to the Senate and probably work to get President Clinton's agenda passed.

A handful of blind Hillary supporters who really never supported Bernie can't get me to think Hillary is anything but what she is.

A moderate Republican with moderate Republican ideas.

So you won't support Bernie in his support of Hillary. You aren't really a Bernie supporter then.

 

[arkirk]

I hope we have provisions for the removal of a President for mental illness. Actually if our presidential nominating system was sufficient a thing like Trump should not get through on the grounds of him being a Megalomanic Narcissist. His latest outrageous ideas...cancel global warming funding, rearrange the water supply to make sure industrial farms get water before people or endangered wildlife, defund the EPA. The guy is a coo coo, completely out of touch with scientific reality and unsympathetic with poor and disenfranchised people in our country. He truly would probably have a psychotic break as president. Do American Presidents have analysts? This one very well might need one pretty much right away.

 

[MarkW]

As a response to the point I made, "but Hillary is icky" is completely irrelevant.

As a response to my point complete nonsense is irrelevant.

Hillary is just a way to move the nation a little further right. Like her husband did.

I just wish the supporters of Hillary would be honest about this.

See that's the thing--I don't agree that "Hillary is just a way to move the nation a little further right." I am under no obligation to share your opinion just because you keep repeating it. My disagreement with your personal opinion does not make me dishonest.