• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

National polls for a primary that's decided by a series of statewide votes. I'm more interested in the states, especially the early ones that have a windfall effect on everything afterward.
Yes. Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mick Huckabee... all winners in Iowa. Sorry, but national polls do have an influence, and it indicates that Warren is rising in the polls. They also indicate a three horse race. I'm sorry if you disagree.
 
Sanders was a wake up call to liberals to stop selling out to corporations and to stop folding in to Republicans. He sparked a new wave of progressives pushing hard rather than giving in or selling out. The ideas are not new. But the push is. Obama didn't even TRY for single payer. It would have been one thing to push for it and fail, and settle for what you got, but he didn't even try for it.
I'm so tired of that bullshit line. They got ACA through by one vote in the Senate (filibuster) and 3 votes in the House, and it took a little creativity with parliament rules to do even accomplish that! Lieberman and Nelson along with a Wagstaff GOP ensured a single payer was never going to be on the table.
Obama didn't TRY.
There was a short-lived compromise on expanding Medicare to people 55 or older. Lieberman and Nelson blocked that.
As I wrote above, trying and failing would be one thing.
Yes, I know you would have loved them trying... it was never going to happen.
He didn't even try. That speaks volumes to me.
It should only speak that the Dems knew a public option wasn't passable, but you really want to make it look worse than what it was.
He could have started with universal single payer and then bargained down from there. If he had, you may have the "Public Option" today that he instead decided to start with.
Sorry, my brain just exploded reading that. You are aware the GOP has been trying to repeal ACA since 2010, right?
 
National polls for a primary that's decided by a series of statewide votes. I'm more interested in the states, especially the early ones that have a windfall effect on everything afterward.
Yes. Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mick Huckabee... all winners in Iowa. Sorry, but national polls do have an influence, and it indicates that Warren is rising in the polls. They also indicate a three horse race. I'm sorry if you disagree.

I agree it's a three horse race, I just think the person in second place in Iowa should be one of the horses, and not the person who is usually in the single digits there and everywhere else. Nor do I deny that Warren is rising, which is better news than Biden or Harris rising.
 
Obama didn't TRY. As I wrote above, trying and failing would be one thing. He didn't even try. That speaks volumes to me. He could have started with universal single payer and then bargained down from there. If he had, you may have the "Public Option" today that he instead decided to start with.
I was not present at the planning stages (and neither were you), so we don't know Obama did not even "try". I recall that a public option was discussed in the media, which suggests it was being mooted. But the idea that we would have a Public Option today as possibility is a testament to persistence of hopeful ignorance over the unpleasant political realities of the times.

You'll never know if you carry a defeatist "Magical Ponies" attitude and don't try.
First, you don't know what Obama tried. Second, there is plenty ex post evidence that such an effort was not only a waste of time but could have endangered getting anything done.

Utopian platitudes are only useful in Utopia. We don't live there.
 
Utopian platitudes are only useful in Utopia. We don't live there.

But, LD, don't you understand? We have to push harder to get there. We're pushing, we're just not pushing harder. So, we need to, like, say to Republicans, "Hey! Dude! I mean, come on! We really really really really need universal healthcare and to, like, stop climate change and shit and poor people? I mean, really? Poor people? But, like, for realz this time!"

No, wait, that's not pushing hard enough. We need to say, "HEY! GIMME IT! I MEAN IT! GIMME IT! DO IT!"

Yeah! That will do it!

The problem all along has been us, not them. We just didn't understand that it was a matter of pushing harder and believing in magical ponies and we need to try damnit! It's like what Bernie Sanders said about Obama and Republicans:

“[Obama] thought he could walk into Capitol Hill and the Oval Office and sit down with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and the Republicans and say, ‘I can’t get it all. You can’t get it all. Let’s work out something that’s reasonable,’ because he’s a reasonable guy. He’s a pretty rational guy,” Sanders said. “These guys never had any intention of doing [serious] negotiating and compromising. … I think it took the president too long to fully appreciate that.”
...
“I don’t have any illusion that I’m going to walk in, and I certainly hope it is not the case but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, that I’m going to walk in there and say, ‘Hey guys, listen. I’d like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,’” he said. “It ain’t gonna happen, I have no illusion about that. The only way that I believe that change takes place … is that tens of millions of people are going to have to stand up and be involved in the political process the day after the election.”
...
“It sounds a little like the same argument which is it is better to be pure than to be pragmatic,“ Axelrod said.

“No, you didn’t hear me say that, that’s not what I said,” Sanders said. “What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave. ... You should win those fights and it’s not good enough to sit down with Boehner and say, ‘No, I can’t support’ — ‘Oh OK, guess we’re not going to do it.’”

So that's "pushing harder." After the election, so long as you have 70-80% of the entire American public--Republicans included--standing up and being actively involved in the political process, well, you should win those fights. Right? I mean, come on.

Poor naive Obama. Sanders has no such "illusion." He's going to push harder (so long as he has a never before heard of 80% of ALL Americans not just voting for him, but being actively engaged in lock step with him on every single thing he ever proposes).

It's so simple and we're just being defeatist.
 
The fact that the news networks running the debates are paid for by advertisements run by health insurance marketing firms is something hardly anyone seems to mention

ramps.pngseven.png

Partnership for America's Health Care Future

Partnership for America’s Health Care Future is an ad hoc alliance of American hospital, health insurance, and pharmaceutical lobbyists committed to preventing legislation that would lead to single payer healthcare, expanding Medicare, or creating Medicare for All in particular.[1][2] It does support expansion of the Affordable Care Act.[3]

Founded in June 2018 by the Federation of American Hospitals, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Washington, DC-based[4] Partnership has grown to include the American Hospital Association and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.[3]

Several candidates are proposing Medicare for All-like health care plans, but only Bernie is explicitly and consistently calling for the end of private health insurance for all forms of medical care, including vision, dental, and mental health. Why would anybody think that a news network running ads for a group diametrically opposed to that would be neutral about the issue in its coverage?
 
ABC and Univision aren't "news networks".

Whenever I hear something like "Partnership for America’s Health Care Future", I immediately wonder if it is a wolf in sheep clothing.
 
From a comprehensive RealClear poll specifically about healthcare conducted back in May of 2019:

Screen Shot 2019-09-13 at 2.11.35 PM.png

72% of Americans want Congress/the President to improve what we already have.

In regard to "Medicare for All" specifically:

Screen Shot 2019-09-13 at 2.17.29 PM.png

Even among the few who strongly support it, when you ask them if they'd still strongly support it if we did away with all private insurers, it drops nine points (from 36% to 27%) and overall support drops ten points (from 65% to 55%).

Do you want me to quote this part from Sanders' own mouth:

It ain’t gonna happen, I have no illusion about that.

Or this part from Sanders' own mouth:

70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you

Which is really him saying:

The only way that I believe that change takes place [is if] you have 70%-80% of the people behind you [standing] up and [being] involved in the political process the day after the election.

People who only "somewhat approve" of something, btw, are NOT the ones he's referring to. So we're talking about 27% of the people standing up and being involved in the process after the election when it comes to him trying to do away with all private insurers and just have taxpayers pay for everyone.

So, back to....

It ain’t gonna happen, I have no illusion about that.

And then the question becomes, if he has no "illusion" about that, why do you?
 
ABC and Univision aren't "news networks".

Whenever I hear something like "Partnership for America’s Health Care Future", I immediately wonder if it is a wolf in sheep clothing.

Fair point; I misread it and assumed they were talking about ABC News, which is a news network, albeit not a major one.
 
From Politico:

miffed.jpg

Last week this happened
suicide.jpg

But there's no reason to be "miffed" about this taking place in the richest nation on earth, so let's all make fun of how Shouty the Brooklyn Jew has a sore throat from shouting so much
 
The irony of this thread is profound on at least two levels:

  1. Whining about Sanders' perceived mistreatment, while at the same time ignoring the fact that this is child's play compared to what the GOP/Trump/Russian attacks would look like should hell freeze over and he win the nomination, and
  2. Whining about Sander's perceived mistreatment, while at the same time just ignoring the mistreatment he and his camp flung at Hillary all the way through to the bitterly divisive end.

The Cult of Bernie can do no wrong. All actions in his name are pure. Everyone else simply deserves what is dished out to them, but no one dare dish back!

It's so weird to see religious zealotry among atheists with all of the same denialist blinders on.
 
Look at the frigging headline then look at the slogan for the Washington Post and tell me this isn't satire

darkness.jpg
 
Are you simply not capable of actually getting passed a headline and reading the piece?

First of all, it's an opinion piece. Second, the author's argument is more an indictment of current culture than anything else. From the piece:

And what exactly is democratic socialism? Democratic socialists are still arguing about that.

For Sanders, democratic socialism is Scandinavia. Not good enough, retorts the website Jacobin, which declared “Democratic Socialism Isn’t Social Democracy” in a headline last year. Around the same time, one of the website’s staff writers said in an article for Vox that social democracy’s ultimate goal is to “end capitalism.” Jacobin has pointed the way in various articles: nationalize vast swaths of the economy, abolish wage-slavery and turn every workplace into a miniature democracy.
...
It’s a radical vision not simply of redistributing the fruits of our labor, but fundamentally altering how that work is organized, to something less like the army and more like the prom committee. On the left, this seems to be gaining on Sanders’s “Norway, but bigger” model of democratic socialism.

But if democratic socialism is truly going to be democratic, we have to ask: Do people actually want more democracy in their lives? Not just a higher minimum wage and better workplace protections, but actual day-to-day worker control over operations?

True workplace democracy would replace the power of the boss with the power of your peers — a power that, as innumerable “small town” novels attest, can be at least as oppressive as the capitalist kind.

In small towns, the best counterweight to that tyranny is civic participation: Protect yourself from minority rule by yourself becoming a pillar of the churches, civic groups and clubs that shape the community.

America has a long tradition of such engagement; as far back as 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville remarked on our propensity for forming community groups. But as Timothy P. Carney shows in his new book, “Alienated America,” those community bonds have begun to fray. And you can’t simply blame capitalism, or a “neoliberal order” that suppresses labor unions. We’re not joining unions, yes, but we’re also not joining churches or bowling leagues or literary societies, things we did with abandon a century ago, when capitalism was much less fettered than it is now, and long working hours left much less time for groupishness.

Instead of an explosion of personal and community development once predicted for our comparatively newfound leisure, we’re mostly at home, staring at screens.

Those developments may not be unconnected. Until roughly 100 years ago, the only source of entertainment most people had was their neighbors. Today, ubiquitous cheap entertainment provides wittier dialogue and zippier plots than the Rotary Club, and higher performance quality than the church organist.

You can argue — as Carney and I both would — that we’d be better off going to a PTA meeting or, for that matter, the union hall, than passively entertaining ourselves. But engaging with people in real time means stretches of tedium and some interpersonal friction; the considerable rewards of long fellowship only materialize later. No wonder that at any given moment, the screen wins.

Yet democratic socialism somehow presumes a large body of workers eager to rush into the time-consuming and often tedious work of what social scientists call “thick civic engagement”: doing things not one-on-one, but as a group, with all the politicking, boring meetings and inconvenient obligations that implies. Unless most American workers are prepared to be active participants in their union local or work council, the radical new system would look a lot like the old one, except with the power resting in the hands of a government bureaucrat or union leader just as unaccountable and pettifogging as the hated “boss.”

Unfortunately, America seems to be running in the opposite direction, avoiding as much as possible any direct interaction with other people: ordering from an online site rather than going to the store, texting or emailing rather than making a phone call, organizing friendships around social-media sites instead of social events.

Which leaves democratic socialists with something of a dilemma: selling a system that can only work as promised in tandem with a culture of civic engagement we no longer have. Can democratic socialists persuade a majority of voters that they’ll really prefer a three-hour work council meeting to binge-watching Netflix? Or will democratic socialism require a democratically unpopular state action to curtail those alluring temptations — or, perhaps, simply an economy too hobbled to produce them?

Basically, she's saying that the current generation of Americans can't put down their goddamned phones for more than ten seconds and have a notoriously bad reputation as privileged, ADHD, adderall-addicted whiny little dipshits when it comes to having to do any kind of extended work to begin with, let alone taking the reigns and being an efficient collective work force without a centralized authority system.

Much like you with your worship of Sanders who has publicly stated directly that he cannot implement anything he proposes.

And this is the generation that is supposed to instantly shift from myopic Kardashian insta-narcissists to utopic collective rule. Just, magically. With ponies.
 
Now all is changed. Private enterprise has succeeded where Socialism failed. Whilst we conventional Social Democrats were wasting our time on education, agitation, and organisation, some independent genius has taken the matter in hand...
 
Whining about Sander's perceived mistreatment, while at the same time just ignoring the mistreatment he and his camp flung at Hillary all the way through to the bitterly divisive end.

You mean by not immediately dropping out of the primary, refusing to make an issue of her emails, and campaigning for her in the end? Ya, he was brutal to her wasn't he?
 
The irony of this thread is profound on at least two levels:

  1. Whining about Sanders' perceived mistreatment, while at the same time ignoring the fact that this is child's play compared to what the GOP/Trump/Russian attacks would look like should hell freeze over and he win the nomination, and
  2. Whining about Sander's perceived mistreatment, while at the same time just ignoring the mistreatment he and his camp flung at Hillary all the way through to the bitterly divisive end.

The Cult of Bernie can do no wrong. All actions in his name are pure. Everyone else simply deserves what is dished out to them, but no one dare dish back!

It's so weird to see religious zealotry among atheists with all of the same denialist blinders on.

I actually don't think that Bernie whines that much about the perceived unfair press coverage. A lot of his followers are abscessed about it though...
 
Back
Top Bottom