The DNC is the problem. Or is it?

[PyramidHead]

Your honor, the man has dark skin compared to the median of the population, and so there's really no malice in simply calling him a "darkie" as an innocuous acknowledgement of that purely aesthetic difference

I do have dark skin. Almond shaped eyes too. I didn't personally take credit for my country's superior health care system. I said I have it and have enjoyed it for decades and that I would like the same for the rest of you. I even wrote that if The US surpasses Canada and get dental and pharmacare that the US will be more enlightened than Canada. Nor is it I that introduced the term "enlightened". That was also Toni in another lame straw man attack. Lame straw man attacks is all these conservatives have when they full well know they have zero points on the issues.

Bravo on using that term correctly. That's exactly what they are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your honor, the man has dark skin compared to the median of the population, and so there's really no malice in simply calling him a "darkie" as an innocuous acknowledgement of that purely aesthetic difference

I do have dark skin. Almond shaped eyes too. I didn't personally take credit for my country's superior health care system. I said I have it and have enjoyed it for decades and that I would like the same for the rest of you. I even wrote that if The US surpasses Canada and get dental and pharmacare that the US will be more enlightened than Canada. Nor is it I that introduced the term "enlightened". That was also Toni in another lame straw man attack. Lame straw man attacks is all these conservatives have when they full well know they have zero points on the issues.

Bravo on using that term correctly. That's exactly what they are.

Yeah, calling the person that doesn't like M4A because he supports zero out of pocket UHC a conservative is hilarious. That'd be like calling you a liberal. All JP has is their high podium talk and apparently name calling now, as they have little knowledge on contemporary or near contemporary American political history, apparently joyously ignorant of how the progressives have helped move the Democrat Party... to the right.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bravo on using that term correctly. That's exactly what they are.

Yeah, calling the person that doesn't like M4A because he supports zero out of pocket UHC a conservative is hilarious. That'd be like calling you a liberal. All JP has is their high podium talk and apparently name calling now, as they have little knowledge on contemporary or near contemporary American political history, apparently joyously ignorant of how the progressives have helped move the Democrat Party... to the right.

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC. It literally means free at the point of service, no copays, no premiums, no deductibles. But instead of offering your full-throated support to the only candidate who will fight for that, you start threads about why Klobuchar shifting from 7% to 8% among the elderly population makes her the candidate to watch. And as for progressives helping to move the party to the right... what? Could you say that again, but maybe throw a "Jebus" in there so it seems less like gaslighting?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bravo on using that term correctly. That's exactly what they are.

Yeah, calling the person that doesn't like M4A because he supports zero out of pocket UHC a conservative is hilarious. That'd be like calling you a liberal. All JP has is their high podium talk and apparently name calling now, as they have little knowledge on contemporary or near contemporary American political history, apparently joyously ignorant of how the progressives have helped move the Democrat Party... to the right.

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC.

Then it isn't Medicare at all!

 

[PyramidHead]

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC.

Then it isn't Medicare at all!

I knew he was an extremist, but... is Bernie Sanders proposing a change that would mean an existing word might have a different meaning than it does today? Won't somebody think of the children?!

 

[PyramidHead]

I would support Medicare for All, but sadly I cannot do so as the term "Medicare" is logically incompatible with the predicate "for All", and since words can never change their meanings, I, the non-conservative in this conversation, must begrudgingly support... *squints at notes* any of the plans that are further from UHC than Medicare for All in practice. Also, I support gay marriage without irony

 

[laughing dog]

Wow @ "foreigner". Mask fucking off, Toni

I realize that reality is difficult for you to comprehend, but JP is a Canadian which makes him a foreigner.

Your honor, the man has dark skin compared to the median of the population, and so there's really no malice in simply calling him a "darkie" as an innocuous acknowledgement of that purely aesthetic difference

Doubling down on the stupid is not an effective technique of argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your honor, the man has dark skin compared to the median of the population, and so there's really no malice in simply calling him a "darkie" as an innocuous acknowledgement of that purely aesthetic difference

Doubling down on the stupid is not an effective technique of argument.

The very basis of the usage is fallacious. Just because he is from a foreign country does not impact in any way the validity of his argument.

It is non sequitur, and thus an abusive position to single him as a foreigner, ostensibly as a criticism of his argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your honor, the man has dark skin compared to the median of the population, and so there's really no malice in simply calling him a "darkie" as an innocuous acknowledgement of that purely aesthetic difference

Doubling down on the stupid is not an effective technique of argument.

The very basis of the usage is fallacious. Just because he is from a foreign country does not impact in any way the validity of his argument.

It is non sequitur, and thus an abusive position to single him as a foreigner, ostensibly as a criticism of his argument.

And had Toni opened with that, this would be a valid criticism. It is a viable reflection, however based on months of posting, seeing that JP has shown no interest in learning about the American Political system of which he is actually foreign (as has no experience within) to.

 

[Angry Floof]

She's pointing out that he is not speaking from an American context. That's not arbitrary right wing "yer different from me so I don't like you" discrimination. JP not only can't speak from an American context, he is also ignorant about quite a lot of American politics. Jesus. Can we move on or is everyone intent on continuing to piss about nothing?

 

[Jarhyn]

She's pointing out that he is not speaking from an American context. That's not arbitrary right wing "yer different from me so I don't like you" discrimination. JP not only can't speak from an American context, he is also ignorant about quite a lot of American politics. Jesus. Can we move on or is everyone intent on continuing to piss about nothing?

Then tell us what he said about that which is wrong? Game theory is game theory. If you get nothing of what you want by acceding no compromise, and get most of what you want by conceding some compromise, you get more acceding the compromise.

Bernie's supporters get nothing of what they want by compromising: real social change will not happen without a progressive candidate, and Bernie's supporters are in this for real social change rather than the fucking crumbs offered by the blue dogs.

We want education.

We want freedom from educational debt.

We want freedom from private health care debt.

We want to have a share of the surplus of our labor.

We want to see the work of our government turned towards building our infrastructure rather than bombs to destroy our neighbors.

We won't get that from Bloomberg. We will get exactly as much progress on those matters as we got from Trump.

The environment is important too. It's a huge issue, and something that matters... But at this point, what good is a future if it is a future in which we are progressively chained to the wheel of a machine that grinds us to dust?

I will not vote for a future in which I am fodder for Bloomberg's gluttony. Maybe whatever crawls out of the muck we leave behind will be wiser than to let such parasites arise of their ranks

 

[rousseau]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Rhea]

Your whiny response doesn't actually address the logic in what I and others have written. If you truly want to defeat Trump and believe your conservative Democrats will vote blue no matter who to get that done, and that the liberal and progressive "Bernie Bros" may not, then will you really let your ego get in the way of the ousting of Trump you claim to be for?

Or are you going to admit that many conservative or "moderate" Democrats actually won't vote blue if it's Bernie?

You continue to conflate two unrelated things. I can see why you do, as it allows you to place blame. But they are not related.

On the one hand, you are exhorting progressives like me (while falsely calling me a moderate or a conservative, which doesn't bother me, but it is laughably, pathetically false, and you know it, since I have repeatedly told you, so it is laughably, pathetically knowingly false), to change our PRIMARY vote to appease the unreliable block that claims they will support progressive action, but who have shown that they only support progressive action when it is progressive enough for their purity test.

And on the other hand, you are claiming that we are not all in on our GENERAL ELECTION promise to vote blue no matter who.

If Bernie is the nomination, I will vote for him (as I have said, repeatedly, so you already know)
To get to the nomination, you think I should change my values to make sure he is nominated (I have a value of electing someone who can get things done, I don't think Bernie has demonstrated that he can) for the reason that someone is holding a trump-shaped gun to my head? And that it's me you need to convince, not them?


You just aren't making any sense.



And no, Pyramid is wrong - you do NOT have the same access to voter feelings as someone who lives among the voters. You know what you read, not what you hear and see and feel in grocery stores, libraries, town halls and workplaces. Your information is limited due to your foreign location and that leaves you ignorant of what the actual dynamics look like.

 

[Rhea]

Seriously, I disagree with JP on a lot and laugh that he was a Yang Ganger, but his takes are consistently closer to what is actually happening in the country and in your dumb, inneffective opposition party than anything Toni or Jimmy has to say. Calling him out on being a fOrEiGnEr as if we don't all have access to the same information and the same 24-hour coverage of this shitshow is petty and vindictive

Are you also in an opposition party? One is that is not dumb and ineffective? What is it?

 

[Rhea]

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC. It literally means free at the point of service, no copays, no premiums, no deductibles.

Hang on. You think Medicare is zero out of pocket?
As someone who manages medicare (and now medicaid) healthcare for someone as their legal proxy - I think you are perhaps ignorant of Medicare?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC. It literally means free at the point of service, no copays, no premiums, no deductibles.

Hang on. You think Medicare is zero out of pocket?
As someone who manages medicare (and now medicaid) healthcare for someone as their legal proxy - I think you are perhaps ignorant of Medicare?

PH was talking about the M4A plan... which apparently isn't Medicare 4 All, but some other program that doesn't exist yet for all.

 

[ZiprHead]

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC. It literally means free at the point of service, no copays, no premiums, no deductibles.

Hang on. You think Medicare is zero out of pocket?
As someone who manages medicare (and now medicaid) healthcare for someone as their legal proxy - I think you are perhaps ignorant of Medicare?

Bernie's plan is zero at the point of service. That's he's still calling it Medicare is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She's pointing out that he is not speaking from an American context. That's not arbitrary right wing "yer different from me so I don't like you" discrimination. JP not only can't speak from an American context, he is also ignorant about quite a lot of American politics. Jesus. Can we move on or is everyone intent on continuing to piss about nothing?

Then tell us what he said about that which is wrong?

In general? It is about how we got here, what happened in 2016, what happened between '09-'16, the entire 20th Century...

Game theory is game theory. If you get nothing of what you want by acceding no compromise, and get most of what you want by conceding some compromise, you get more acceding the compromise.

Bernie's supporters get nothing of what they want by compromising: real social change will not happen without a progressive candidate, and Bernie's supporters are in this for real social change rather than the fucking crumbs offered by the blue dogs.

This kind of forgets that Ocasio Cortez like candidates aren't winning in Alabama. People want to whine about Blue Dogs, but Blue Dogs are the only Dems electable down South. They are part of the equation. A good number of Blue Dogs lost their House seats supporting ACA. They voted for it and lost and knew that was extremely likely when they voted for ACA ... and not because ACA wasn't progressive enough. So when I hear about people shitting on Blue Dogs, it implies that they have absolutely no idea what politics looks like in other parts of the country.

I want a liberal Democrat party, but I can't just shove my head in the ground and pretend America is stuffed full of enlightened progressives. Anyone that knows anything about the Socialist Democrat Party and what they went through in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries understands this. Politics in complicated, and we aren't going to magically remove politics from the Party.

We want education.

We want freedom from educational debt.

We want freedom from private health care debt.

We want to have a share of the surplus of our labor.

We want to see the work of our government turned towards building our infrastructure rather than bombs to destroy our neighbors.

We won't get that from Bloomberg. We will get exactly as much progress on those matters as we got from Trump.

I fear we have no idea what we'd get from Bloomberg. He is a rare candidate in that he has to tack to the left hard in this primary, just to become moderate when it comes to economics.

I will not vote for a future in which I am fodder for Bloomberg's gluttony. Maybe whatever crawls out of the muck we leave behind will be wiser than to let such parasites arise of their ranks

I'm not comfortable with Bloomberg getting the Democrat nomination for a few reasons. But Bloomberg is still better than Trump for at least the Courts. And some people like our communist wannabe have little appreciation for just how much that means. After all, Citizen United doesn't happen if Al Gore is the President.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

M4A is zero out of pocket UHC. It literally means free at the point of service, no copays, no premiums, no deductibles.

Hang on. You think Medicare is zero out of pocket?
As someone who manages medicare (and now medicaid) healthcare for someone as their legal proxy - I think you are perhaps ignorant of Medicare?

Bernie's plan is zero at the point of service. That's he's still calling it Medicare is a feature, not a bug.

I can appreciate the idea of using existing branding for its name value, but it is disingenuous to call something new something that already exists. M4A sounds like something you could just press a couple of buttons and *BAM!!!* done. "M"4A would take a tremendous effort to create... and we don't even have a majority in the Senate.

 

[Jarhyn]

In general? It is about how we got here, what happened in 2016, what happened between '09-'16, the entire 20th Century...

Game theory is game theory. If you get nothing of what you want by acceding no compromise, and get most of what you want by conceding some compromise, you get more acceding the compromise.

Bernie's supporters get nothing of what they want by compromising: real social change will not happen without a progressive candidate, and Bernie's supporters are in this for real social change rather than the fucking crumbs offered by the blue dogs.

This kind of forgets that Ocasio Cortez like candidates aren't winning in Alabama. People want to whine about Blue Dogs, but Blue Dogs are the only Dems electable down South. They are part of the equation. A good number of Blue Dogs lost their House seats supporting ACA. They voted for it and lost and knew that was extremely likely when they voted for ACA ... and not because ACA wasn't progressive enough. So when I hear about people shitting on Blue Dogs, it implies that they have absolutely no idea what politics looks like in other parts of the country.

I want a liberal Democrat party, but I can't just shove my head in the ground and pretend America is stuffed full of enlightened progressives. Anyone that knows anything about the Socialist Democrat Party and what they went through in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries understands this. Politics in complicated, and we aren't going to magically remove politics from the Party.

the game theory here demands that the southern democrats get no compromise without accepting progress. Period. I will see the world burn if I am given the choice between selling the world to a competent dictator or an incompetent one. The politics are where one side has their finger on Armageddon. Is holding onto neolib politics worth the end of the world?

We want education.

We want freedom from educational debt.

We want freedom from private health care debt.

We want to have a share of the surplus of our labor.

We want to see the work of our government turned towards building our infrastructure rather than bombs to destroy our neighbors.

I fear we have no idea what we'd get from Bloomberg. He is a rare candidate in that he has to tack to the left hard in this primary, just to become moderate when it comes to economics.

We won't get that from Bloomberg. We will get exactly
As much progress on those matters as we got from Trump.

if you think he is tacking anything but BLOOMBERG, you are deluded. He is owned by nobody but himself and his interests and his promises are worth nothing.

I will not vote for a future in which I am fodder for Bloomberg's gluttony. Maybe whatever crawls out of the muck we leave behind will be wiser than to let such parasites arise of their ranks

I'm not comfortable with Bloomberg getting the Democrat nomination for a few reasons. But Bloomberg is still better than Trump for at least the Courts. And some people like our communist wannabe have little appreciation for just how much that means. After all, Citizen United doesn't happen if Al Gore is the President.

No. He isn't better for the courts. He is worse. Because he will appoint literally the most corporatist person he can blackmail or bribe. He won't appoint a person who will hurt gays by repealing Lawrence, sure. He's an equal opportunity slaver. He gives everyone an equal opportunity to be stepped on by billionaires. Imagine a boot stomping on a human face. Forever.

I would sooner see the world burn.