Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Progressive Democrats are forcing the party into unpopular positions. Stop it.

Progressives - a largely white, educated, wealthy demographic within the party - are pushing the Democratic party farther to the Left than the general public is comfortable with and helping Trump in areas that he should be very vulnerable in.

"Last fall, most Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, according to the Pew Research Center. That makes sense, because Democrats ran a populist campaign in the 2018 midterms, focused on pocketbook issues that dominate many people’s lives, like wages and medical costs.

This year, the polling has flipped. Most Americans now have an unfavorable view of the party, no better than their view of the Republican Party. Likewise, slightly more voters say the “ideas being offered by the Democratic candidates” would hurt the country than say would help, according to the NPR poll."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 328November 2, 2019 3:44 PM

USA is so politically pathetic that universal healthcare coverage is allowed, by its left, to be controversial. Or resisting concentration camps. Or delivering compensation to decendents of the enslaved and totally disenfranchised.

So stupid. Fight for something god damn it. Why do you keep following narratives set by the right? Especially THIS right?

by Anonymousreply 1September 11, 2019 10:59 AM

I'm going to regret answering this troll, but in ordinary American political discourse, "progressive" describes health care reform activists, civil rights activists, activists for better working conditions and a higher minimum wage, and plenty of other movements that include large numbers of people of color, not "largely" the "white, educated, wealthy demographic."

by Anonymousreply 2September 11, 2019 11:17 AM

I don't understand how anyone expects their point of view to be taken seriously when they invoke the offensive and immature practice of calling anyone who disagrees with them (in this case a fellow Democrat and respected New York Times journalist), names such as "troll". I agree with the article, so I guess that makes me and anyone else who does a "troll" too, because we have different opinions than the name caller. This person ironically have such little self awareness that they don't realize exactly who they sound like by childishly calling people insulting names.

by Anonymousreply 3September 11, 2019 11:30 AM

[quote]If the Dems truly want to win back the White House, they need to focus on the voters in these 5 key states to understand their concerns and create solutions, not policy papers, to address these concerns. Its likely to include Access to Quality Health Care, Job Insecurity / Living Wage Issues, and maybe one or two others. Its not LBGT "rights"; its not Illegal Immigrant "rights"; its not free college education; and its not "Guaranteed Income

One of the comments from a deplorable Austinite. Don't you just love your "right" not to be fired simply for being gay framed as a wedge issue like that? Also, there are no gay people in those 5 key states. You heard it here first!

by Anonymousreply 4September 11, 2019 11:30 AM

[quote]they need to focus on the voters in these 5 key states to understand their concerns

So the next Dem president should basically only be the president of those 5 states? Gotcha.

[quote]and create solutions, not policy papers

Because as we all know, no solution has ever been preceded by a policy paper, and policy papers are by far the biggest obstacles to creating solutions. 🙄

by Anonymousreply 5September 11, 2019 11:34 AM

Another hit piece on Democrats from the NY Times? How shocking.

by Anonymousreply 6September 11, 2019 11:39 AM

R3, the Times has turned all of their op-ed authors into trolls, recruiting them to rush to Twitter to defend every dippy thing their colleagues do, asking them to write articles criticizing the Democratic Party as a whole while rarely doing the same for Republicans.

I went to David Leonhardt's Twitter and it was all "this is why Trump will win" trolling, just prettied up a little bit and focused on his own two personal pet peeves, immigration and Medicare for all. He's one of those dime-a-dozen liberal voices in the media who does little but complain about liberals.

Which is what the right-wing media wants, of course. The narrative of "this important liberal says liberals are wrong, why won't liberals listen to him?" is an old, and unfortunately still effective, rhetorical trick.

by Anonymousreply 7September 11, 2019 11:47 AM

Way back in the day, the NYT and other liberal East Coast mouth pieces did a lot of puff pieces on a rising young politician in Germany named Adolph Hitler

Obviously, there hasn't been a lot of change in the last 80 years among the East Coast media elite.

by Anonymousreply 8September 11, 2019 11:55 AM

On the one hand, we have the American Hitler possibly getting reelected. But on the other hand, there's possible debt relief, universal healthcare, progressive taxation, abortion remaining legal, wages going up, climate crisis getting addressed... if one of these progressive Dems gets elected.

Choices, choices. 🤔

by Anonymousreply 9September 11, 2019 12:03 PM

[quote]I don't understand how anyone expects their point of view to be taken seriously when they invoke the offensive and immature practice of calling anyone who disagrees with them (in this case a fellow Democrat and respected New York Times journalist), names such as "troll".

Unfortunately, that "offensive and immature practice" is indicative of "progressive" discourse used to dismiss any opinion outside accepted group think, often reinforced with ignorant hyperbole. Troll and deplorable are but two of a glut of juvenile pejoratives seen regularly on DL. And right here on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 10September 11, 2019 12:09 PM

People are forgetting that in order to accomplish anything, you first have to gain power. Without it, every thing else is irrelevant.

It's clear that some of the more liberal proposals being floated by some of the more progressive candidates are a turn off to exactly the voters the Dems need to win. You can argue all day about the merits of the proposals, but without power it's a mute argument.

The article argues that the consequences of losing are too dire to take the risk of alienating the very voters that are needed to assure a Democratic victory. And it is right. Another four years would be disastrous for the country, the risk is way too great than trying to selfishly win an internal argument within the Democratic party regarding adopting a more progressive agenda. While people are understandably passionate about their specific issues, the big picture is so much more important.

by Anonymousreply 11September 11, 2019 12:09 PM

The article is correct. Democrats need to focus on winning Midwest and upper South swing states, and leftwing policies on immigration or socialism won’t do it. Middle America gates and fears socialism, atheist, and illegal immigrants even more than the Trump Klown Posse.

by Anonymousreply 12September 11, 2019 12:10 PM

There is a radical segment of progressives that would rather push their deeply unpopular views and cause Democrats to lose than to lay low and compromise to help Democrats get elected. These wild-eyed radicals are enemies of the Party.

by Anonymousreply 13September 11, 2019 12:12 PM

But there is no evidence that any candidate at this point is saying anything about, say, immigration that is alienating people who would otherwise vote Democratic.

That's the point. Simply saying that, theoretically, there are people who would vote Democratic if the candidate would simply stop talking about immigration is fine, I suppose, but no one does that. Instead, they claim it's a given, usually while saying things like "Democrats can't keep supporting open borders" when Dems do no such thing.

That's what Leonhardt is doing here: saying Democrats are for "border decriminalization." They aren't, not as a party. In fact, it's 50/50 for/against border decriminalization amongst the top five running for the nom (Biden and O'Rourke against it, Warren and Sanders for it, Harris wants to get rid of ICE but replace it with something else and not just abolish it altogether).

by Anonymousreply 14September 11, 2019 1:07 PM

Americans are so conservative. Dems are not dragging you to the left, they are dragging you towards moderate middle. There is no left in USA.

by Anonymousreply 15September 11, 2019 1:11 PM

[quote]Adolph Hitler

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 16September 11, 2019 1:18 PM

The rock bottom problem is there are a lot more people who identify as conservative than who identify as liberal, even after gains in liberal identity. For a host of reasons, middle America wants to see itself as conservative and are susceptible to conservative scare tactics and cultural differences g whistles that portray progressivism as godless Communism

by Anonymousreply 17September 11, 2019 1:40 PM

Unions, SS, Medicare, Equal Pay, Civil Rights, Marriage Equality, are Progressive Issues. All supported by the American people. Moderates fought for nothing. The Democrats problem is they cede the Party's image to the Republicans. They take the GOP bait on Socialism. The real Socialists are the Republican sponsored Corporate Welfare cronies. Republicans call themselves Fiscal Conservatives. Conservatives have raised taxes, spent every dime, and driven the national debt to Depressions and Recessions. They've never had a balanced budget nor a budget surplus. Yet, the Democrats say nothing about it. The Republicans understand the art of perception vs. reality. That's why Trump is in the WH.

by Anonymousreply 18September 11, 2019 1:52 PM

Also, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to contaminate the words Liberal and Progressive. Now we can't use them. The Democrats should spin it around and start hacking away at the real definition of Conservative.

by Anonymousreply 19September 11, 2019 1:55 PM

But middle America doesn’t vote on the progressive positions they claim to support. They vote conservative based on red meat cultural issues and identity.

by Anonymousreply 20September 11, 2019 1:56 PM

And those cultural issues are exactly what the Republicans use to bait the Democrats away from kitchen table issues like the economy, healthcare, and wages.

The Democrats are talking about Dreamers, the electoral college, and reparations. None of which will get us the majority.

by Anonymousreply 21September 11, 2019 2:05 PM

You "progressives" keep right on negativizing "conservatives". See how far that gets you come Nov 2020.

by Anonymousreply 22September 11, 2019 2:06 PM

Conservatives: Steal all our money and spend it on themselves. Perfect definition.

by Anonymousreply 23September 11, 2019 2:11 PM

“And those cultural issues are exactly what the Republicans use to bait the Democrats away from kitchen table issues like the economy, healthcare, and wages.”

But Republicans know so many voters don’t care about healthcare and wages when they are talking about Abortion, guns, religion, Muslims, immigrants, and black crime. No matter what Democrats do, Republicans will make sure cultural issues are front and center. It’s their ace.

by Anonymousreply 24September 11, 2019 2:59 PM

"There is a radical segment of progressives that would rather push their deeply unpopular views and cause Democrats to lose than to lay low and compromise to help Democrats get elected. These wild-eyed radicals are enemies of the Party."

Please, most Americans hate Trump

by Anonymousreply 25September 11, 2019 3:01 PM

R24 It’s only their ace because the idiot Democrats keep giving them cause to beat them. Right now Democrats are blabbering about gun control. Not going to play well in the Midwest or South. Again Democrats falling for their bait.

by Anonymousreply 26September 11, 2019 3:05 PM

Yeah gun control is a losing issue for a presidential candidate in swing states

by Anonymousreply 27September 11, 2019 3:17 PM

Not true, r2. Moderates believe in the same things. The difference between the two is in how to get it done.

Progressives don't own liberalism.

by Anonymousreply 28September 11, 2019 3:26 PM

We've moved so far to the right, I'd gladly take a first step towards a return to a liberal center. I generally agree with the progressive left, but this election is so vital to our Democracy that I really don't want anyone on the left discounted.

by Anonymousreply 29September 11, 2019 3:45 PM

This trolling reminds me of the time where conservative gays were shouting "stop rocking the boat! You Liberal Gays ask for TOO MUCH! You will doom us all!". Like, marriage equality.

It is horrible that conservatives are encouraged to step up and flaunt their bigoted racism, but wanting affordable healthcare and decent wages is extreme and brings the end of the world? Fuck that.

Right Wing media should be shunned and declared Right Wing Propaganda machinery to pollute people's minds with lies, distractions and deception.

by Anonymousreply 30September 11, 2019 3:50 PM

Preaching to the choir won't sell newspapers or get you many Internet clicks. But screaming at the choir and calling them names will!

You may even get someone to link your article on Datalounge to get even more clicks!

by Anonymousreply 31September 11, 2019 3:51 PM

R28 Progressives got it done.

by Anonymousreply 32September 11, 2019 4:08 PM

No Republican will play well in most of the Midwest, R26, and across the board, even in this regressive age, over 60% of people want stricter gun control laws.

Why do people like you keep telling us no one wants it? A majority want it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33September 11, 2019 4:12 PM

And not only do most Democrats support an assault weapon ban, so do most Republicans, 55%. Yet we're constantly being told we can't have our candidates supporting gun control because the independents, moderates and Midwesterners won't like it. That doesn't seem to actually be true.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34September 11, 2019 4:13 PM

Liberals got it done, r32. Again. Progressives don't own liberalism and they sure as shit didn't deliver the house in 2018.

by Anonymousreply 35September 11, 2019 4:46 PM

Most of criticizing the article seem to have not actually read it.

“Americans are frustrated, and a majority supports a populist agenda: higher taxes on corporations and the rich, expanded government health care and financial aid, a higher minimum wage, even a Green New Deal.”

He’s for all these things too

by Anonymousreply 36September 11, 2019 4:50 PM

Yes, r36, as I have said the difference isn't in the ideas, it's in how to get it done. Progressives seem to think they own liberalism. They don't. And if left up to them we will be fighting over universal healthcare for years as nothing gets done to lower healthcare costs because it's all or nothing with them.

by Anonymousreply 37September 11, 2019 4:56 PM

Open borders in all but name. Spending trillions to "cancel" student debt with no plan to keep more debt from accruing in the future. A Green New Deal that would cost more than the entire U.S. economy. Universal health care for illegal immigrants, which, combined with open borders in all but name, would bankrupt the system before it even started.

What's to worry about? This is clearly a winning platform.

by Anonymousreply 38September 11, 2019 5:05 PM

1. A close election and more people reading about the close election helps the NYT's bottom line.

2. Even if Bernie Sanders is elected president, he'd have to get Congress to actually, you know, vote to create a national healthcare system and get rid of employer-sponsored plans. It's not like he claps his hands twice and boom it happens. Something the commentariat class frequently glosses over.

by Anonymousreply 39September 11, 2019 5:17 PM

Totally bull crap about the mostly white demographic. And most progressives aren’t wealthy either. Stop trying to slander progressives by accusing us of elitist tendencies out the gate.

by Anonymousreply 40September 11, 2019 5:24 PM

Hey R40 - how about this data? Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it false.

[quote] "Democratic Party voters are split. Its most progressive wing, which is supportive of contentious policies on immigration, health care and other issues, is, in the context of the party’s electorate, disproportionately white. So is the party’s middle group of “somewhat liberal” voters. Its more moderate wing, which is pressing bread-and-butter concerns like jobs, taxes and a less totalizing vision of health care reform, is majority nonwhite, with almost half of its support coming from African-American and Hispanic voters.

This division revealed itself most recently in the CBS battleground tracking surveys of Democratic voters in the first 18 states that will hold primaries. Kabir Khanna, a senior elections manager at CBS, provided detailed findings on these key voters.

CBS broke them into three roughly equal groups.

The first two groups are made up of those who say they are “very liberal” and those who say they are “somewhat liberal.” Both groups are two-thirds white and have substantial — but for the Democratic Party below average — minority representation. They are roughly a quarter African-American and Hispanic."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41September 11, 2019 6:38 PM

R30, the problem with the "Right Wing media" is that they are NOT journalists - they are LIARS and do not have to abide by the same rules as the REAL media networks. Fox News is an ENTERTAINMENT network. They fucking lie about everything and get away with it - as none of them are journalists at all. All nasty, ugly actors. Rupert Murdoch is the modern age Hitler.

by Anonymousreply 42September 11, 2019 6:39 PM

[quote]But middle America doesn’t vote on the progressive positions they claim to support. They vote conservative based on red meat cultural issues and identity.

Where is the evidence for claims like this? Democrats have won a majority (or at least plurality) of the popular vote in every election since, and including 1992, except for 2004 (which was close). They'd win even more if not for vote suppression in places like Ohio, Georgia, and Florida. The middle only falls for conservative "red meat" when they can afford to, i.e. when they have no economic anxiety, and even then not all of them do. 2012, ffs!

by Anonymousreply 43September 11, 2019 8:05 PM

Dumping the world “liberal” may be a good decision — especially as Democrats try to woo the swing-state religious voters who played a key role in the 2016 presidential election.

The word “liberal” has become taboo for many religious Americans, at least according to data from the General Social Survey dating back to 1974.

While over 40% of nonwhite weekly church attenders identified as liberal in the 1970s, that has now dropped to just 28%.

The decline for the most devout white Americans is more dramatic. While 21.6% of them were liberals in 1974, today it’s just 12.7%, according to the GSS. Among those who never attend worship services, the word “liberal” retains some appeal.

About 4 in 10 white Americans who never attend services described themselves as liberal, a percentage that has remained stable since the 1970s.

Among nonwhite Americans who never attend services, the world “liberal” is slightly more popular, with more than 4 in 10 embracing the term. Still, less than half of Americans who never attend services call themselves liberal, according to the GSS.

The Cooperative Congressional Election Study shows some similar patterns.

Using data from 2018, I analyzed political ideology for whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians at six attendance levels, ranging from never attending to attendance that was multiple times a week

The results will likely leave religiously devout liberals feeling very isolated.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44September 11, 2019 11:50 PM

Among those who attend more than once a week, few identify themselves as liberal.

That includes about a third (31.8%) of African American frequent churchgoers, and about 1 in 10 of Asian American (9.9%) and white (8%) churchgoers. Slightly more Hispanic Americans (11.8%) who attend more than once a week say they are liberal.

By contrast, over three-quarters (77.1%) of white Americans who indicate that they attend church multiple times a week say that they are conservative. Or said another way, for every liberal white person who attends church frequently, there are nine conservatives.

Among all Americans who never attend services, about half identify as liberal, according to the CCES.

While many religious Americans have dropped the liberal label, they haven’t abandoned the Democratic Party. The party’s members include many black Protestants, one of the most devout religious groups in the United States, as well as Hispanic Catholics, Jews, Muslims and other religious Americans.

By contrast, white frequent churchgoers have largely abandoned the Democratic Party.

In 1974, 54.7% of this group identified as Democrats, but today it’s just 22.5%. That’s a nearly 60% decline in 40 years.

by Anonymousreply 45September 11, 2019 11:52 PM

The primacy of cultural issues in national politics has been growing since the 1960s. Then, many voters in the south and midwest switched their party affiliation to Republican for reasons believed to align with their cultural identity: opposition to the Civil Rights Act and support for the GOP’s embrace of evangelical Christians. In this most recent presidential election, matters like immigration shot up the rankings of critical issues, while the emphasis on the economy remained steady. The favorability of US trade policy actually improved in the minds of most American voters: 58% of Americans called trade an “opportunity” while 34% considered it a “threat,” compared to a 2012 poll showing opinions evenly split, reports Gallup (pdf).

“Cultural issues have replaced economic ones in their importance for electoral outcomes,” Freund argues. “I think the [2016] election was not about trade and manufacturing. It was about globalization in a different way, which is a sense of where America is in the world and a loss of identity that people seem to have…. It was much more about who we are…and where we’re going.”

That phenomenon is reshaping politics around the world, reports a Harvard Kennedy School of Government study, which found older, less-educated men are leading a backlash against cultural changes that “largely explains the rise of populist politics across the West.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46September 11, 2019 11:54 PM

R43, religion and churchgoing is dying all across the board in the US.

Unlike the Republicans who cleave desperately to an aging and shrinking population as their main base of support, it actually behooves Democrats to read the room and address things that actually matter: the climate crisis, gun control, affordable healthcare, housing and education, job automation.

In other words, a little less Jesus fairies, a little more reality.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 47September 12, 2019 12:06 AM

So many Americans seem to be under the misguided illusion that presidents are kings. I am amazed at the people who don't realize that if the president wants to get anything real and lasting done in the this country, he needs the legislature ( the branch of government closest to the people). Have schools done away with civics for budgetary reasons?

And on a final note, the biggest problem that I see with progressive democrats is that they think the Democratic Party on Twitter is THE Democratic Party. And they think that telling more moderate democrats that they're stupid and don't understand is going to somehow bring into the light. The truth is, no matter what type of democrat you are, you really aren't that far apart from a fellow democrat on most issues. Our approaches are just different.

by Anonymousreply 48September 12, 2019 12:06 AM

[quote]Conservatives: Steal all our money and spend it on themselves. Perfect definition.

Wait. DeBlasio and Sanders' thieving wives are conservatives?

by Anonymousreply 49September 12, 2019 12:07 AM

Russian agents want and need to divide the USA and they largely have succeeded

by Anonymousreply 50September 12, 2019 12:09 AM

R48 -- Agree 100% with both your points friend.

Well stated.

by Anonymousreply 51September 12, 2019 12:11 AM

I see a lot people voting republican because they despise and resent people whom Democrats try to protect. Resentment and tribal hate is a huge motivator in voting today. People vote GOP to express hate against “elites,” atheists, intellectuals, Gays, urbanites, environmentalists, Muslims, Hispanics, and poor people.

by Anonymousreply 52September 12, 2019 12:12 AM

I agree, OP. They're going to ruin it for the rest of the *world* because of their purity test. Suburban moms don't want weed and prostitution legalized. They don't want the government taking over their healthcare. They really aren't that concerned about climate change.

The candidates are making a *huge* mistake by ignoring foreign policy; a desperate Dump will launch a war next year to save his presidency. Mark my words, if Sanders or Warren are the nominee, get ready for four more years of Trumph. Fire away, I have my asbestos pantsuit on.

by Anonymousreply 53September 12, 2019 12:19 AM

[quote]But there is no evidence that any candidate at this point is saying anything about, say, immigration that is alienating people who would otherwise vote Democratic.

They may or may not have said. But the right wing propaganda and mainstream media don't care about the factual situation. They will push that narrative to death - the former for power, the latter for profits.

RW propaganda has proven to work very effectively. Just blast a few labels on constant repeat while you fear-monger "alternative facts", and do it for years and decades as the GOP has. Then open the doors to the Russians and let Trump's unhinged twitter rants amplify all that.

by Anonymousreply 54September 12, 2019 12:22 AM

Nomad is a cunt.

Jesus fucking Christ, when did this website become 24 hou propaganda for FOX News?

by Anonymousreply 55September 12, 2019 12:22 AM

They tried that in 2018, R54, and they had a manufactured "crisis" at the southern border and an "invading caravan" to help them. They went all in on fear, on "invasion," on "MS-13" and "gangs" and "disease." It didn't work. We still had a blue wave.

So forgive some of us if we aren't as persuaded as you about the effectiveness of their propaganda, particularly when Democrats can counter with factual representations about what the Trump administration is doing to families and children at our borders.

by Anonymousreply 56September 12, 2019 12:27 AM

One of the problem is some people get terrified of the word, Progressive or Liberal, which sadly the Democrat became terrified of and they don't even know that these so called Progressives want to give them what they want. Most are for healthcare for everyone and not letting insurance companies decide if we live or die. They are for civil rights, gay rights, helping those who are hungry and or have no homes, building infrastructure, not allowing the religious right to dictate what everyone does, etc. This is why Democrats need to literally go door to door and let people know exactly what they stand for.

by Anonymousreply 57September 12, 2019 12:29 AM

[quote]Open borders in all but name

No. You're simply lying. Or stupid. Or both.

[quote]What's to worry about? This is clearly a winning platform.

Got it. It's both.

by Anonymousreply 58September 12, 2019 12:29 AM

As for the op-ed itself, it's bullshit. It is depending on cherry-picked data to try to make its point. I'm sick and tired of the hand-wringing concern trolls who don't have the data to back up all of their "concerns." Talk to us again once the Democratic campaign really starts to take shape.

by Anonymousreply 59September 12, 2019 12:31 AM

[quote]They went all in on fear, on "invasion," on "MS-13" and "gangs" and "disease."

R56 obviously doesn't live here on Long Island because it's quite common to read in the local newspapers or watch on the local news stories about MS-13 gang killings. Someone jogging and finding a headless corpse etc. But, hey, most of the victims are "just" Hispanic so no biggie, right, R56?

All the landscapers and handymen in my town are from Mexico or Guatamala or someplace else south of the border and they also admit they came to America to get the fuck away from MS-13 and the violence back home.

They must be making it up too, right, R56? Oh those wacky Republican Hispanics spreading fake news to anyone who will listen! They're all in on it!

by Anonymousreply 60September 12, 2019 12:35 AM

You really are a moron, aren't you, R60? We're talking about the effectiveness of Republican propaganda. That oh so effective propaganda that led to a blue wave in 2018.

As for MS-13, that's mostly homegrown and has zilch to do with anything happening at our southern border. I do love that you lamely and pathetically tried to put words in my mouth rather than actually respond to what I wrote. Having a discussion is just ever so much easier when you make up shit, isn't it, R60?

by Anonymousreply 61September 12, 2019 12:40 AM

Progressives are the Meghan McCains of the Democratic Party.

Total attention whores who sincerely believe they are always right, have earned everything they haven’t yet gotten and *everything would be perfect* if only everybody else shut the fuck up and did what they say.

They’re just about as popular as Meghan outside of their core base of devotees, too. Polling numbers show it. But the Meghans don’t want to heart it. THEY’RE POPULAR.

by Anonymousreply 62September 12, 2019 12:40 AM

R61 MS-13 has "zilch" to do with the southern border except for the fact they're crossing it illegally to get to the U.S.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 63September 12, 2019 12:43 AM

Dear R63, MS-13 was created in Los Angeles and was exported to Central America. It has zilch to do with what is happening at our southern border, as your own link demonstrates. I know you want us to wallow in fear and piss our pants as we tremble in terror and pull the lever for Trump, but here is a little reality for you about the dangers posed by MS-13, none of which has anything to do with what is happening at our southern border.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 64September 12, 2019 12:50 AM

I don't like the word 'Progressive' and I don't like those arrogant people who arrogantly claim that they're "on the right side of history".

The dictionary has two meanings for the word. It means something "happening or developing gradually or in stages" and "a person or idea favouring social reform".

Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung favoured social reform and they killed those citizens who disagreed with their social engineering.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 65September 12, 2019 12:51 AM

Keep telling yourself that, R64, and keep embarrassing yourself trying to convince others of that too. And, while you're at it, keep referring to obscure websites that nobody has ever heard of and for good reason.

by Anonymousreply 66September 12, 2019 12:54 AM

I am skeptical of anyone who tries to use the word progressive as a dirty word, and even more skeptical of someone who uses it as being analagous to fucking Stalin and Mao Zedong.

by Anonymousreply 67September 12, 2019 12:55 AM

LOL.... You keep on pushing that endless propaganda, R66. You tried that in 2018. How did that work out for you? As for "obscure websites," thank you for confirming your ignorance of an organization that has received five Pulitzer Prizes, seven George Polk Awards, four Peabody Awards, an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, two Emmy Awards, four Online Journalism Awards for General Excellence, and a National Magazine Award. Boy, it sure is a good thing that nobody has ever heard of them, isn't it?

But hey, let's look at your own link, shall we? There have been 1,082,306 CBP enforcement actions so far in 2019, including 818,361 apprehensions and 263,945 persons deemed inadmissible. So yeah, you just go right on touting those 413 gang members who were blocked from entering the U.S. I'm just totally quivering in fear of that 0.05% of the people apprehended at our southern border.

by Anonymousreply 68September 12, 2019 1:02 AM

Stalin and Mao Zedong belonged to the elite and they ignored the wishes of the commoners.

by Anonymousreply 69September 12, 2019 1:05 AM

I did love the "obscure website" remark that R66 made, considering ProPublica's reputation. As for his own link, to the right-wing rag, the Washington Examiner, I went looking in vain for any awards that it had won. I did find this info in Wikipedia, though:

[quote]In January 2019, the Washington Examiner published a story with the headline, "Border rancher: 'We've found prayer rugs out here. It's unreal'." Shortly thereafter, President Donald Trump cited the story as another justification for a border wall amid the 2018-2019 federal government shutdown. The story in question cited one anonymous rancher who offered no evidence of these Muslim prayer rugs, such as photos. The story provided no elaboration on how the rancher knew the rugs in question were Muslim prayer rugs. The author of the story formerly worked as press secretary for the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform. Stories of Muslim prayer rugs at the border are urban myths that have frequently popped up since at least 2005, but with no evidence to substantiate the claims. The Examiner never issued a clarification or retracted the story.

[quote]In April 2019, Quartz reported that White House advisor Stephen Miller had been purposely leaking information on border apprehensions and asylum seekers to the Washington Examiner so that the paper would publish stories with alarming statistics that sometimes criticized DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, which he could then show to Trump and undermine her position. Nielsen was fired in April 2019 for reportedly not being sufficiently hawkish on immigration.

Don't you hate it when you got caught pushing blatant propaganda?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 70September 12, 2019 1:15 AM

At this point, I'd rather kill myself than read a New York Times editorial.

by Anonymousreply 71September 12, 2019 1:18 AM

Republicans would love nothing more than to see the Democratic party just be Republican Lite. Unfortunately for them, age, demographics, and the future is not in their favor.

by Anonymousreply 72September 12, 2019 1:18 AM

[quote]I did love the "obscure website" remark that [R66] made

STILL going on about that, R70? Obviously that struck a nerve.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 73September 12, 2019 1:26 AM

LOL... No, dear; I find rank stupidity to be amusing. I did love the "STILL going on about that" to a single comment, though. It's like you think that nobody can possibly read the other posts in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 74September 12, 2019 1:28 AM

The media loves Trump because he's such good copy and gets tons of people reading/watching their stories.

by Anonymousreply 75September 12, 2019 1:31 AM

The Republican party never bitches at it's self. Let Democrats do some good.

by Anonymousreply 76September 12, 2019 1:40 AM

OP is, of course, correct. I suspect R1 is a Trumpster.

by Anonymousreply 77September 12, 2019 1:40 AM

[quote] It is horrible that conservatives are encouraged to step up and flaunt their bigoted racism, but wanting affordable healthcare and decent wages is extreme and brings the end of the world?

The op-ed at OP's link argues that affordable health care and decent wages are exactly the issues that Democrats should be focusing on.

[quote] Over the past two decades, incomes for most Americans have barely grown. Median wealth has declined. Americans are frustrated, and a majority supports a populist agenda: higher taxes on corporations and the rich, expanded government health care and financial aid, a higher minimum wage, even a Green New Deal.

[quote] The Democrats are on solid ground, substantively and politically, by pushing all of these issues. They should be casting Trump as a plutocrat in populist’s clothes, who has used the presidency to enrich himself and other wealthy insiders at the expense of hard-working middle-class families. It’s a caricature that has the benefit of truth. When pundits yearn for economic triangulation, they’re the ones confusing their own policy preferences with good political advice.

by Anonymousreply 78September 12, 2019 1:46 AM

They need to calm down. Be very middle of the road. The country seriously depends on the next presidential election. If trump isn't voted out, he won't leave. He will just write an executive order and he'll be with us until he dies

Mark my words, the dems are going to hand this election to trump AGAIN

They need to really just focus on what a dishonest clown trump is. That is enough to keep anyone talking 24/7. And STOP with the immigration stuff. Most Americans don't care. Actually most are against it.

by Anonymousreply 79September 12, 2019 1:47 AM

[quote]He will just write an executive order and he'll be with us until he dies

The president cannot do that.

by Anonymousreply 80September 12, 2019 2:09 AM

R80 there are a lot of things Trump isn't allowed to do but he does them anyway and he gets away with it.

by Anonymousreply 81September 12, 2019 2:11 AM

R79, most Americans are against the wall. Stop lying. No one "handed" Trump the election, he lost the popular vote

by Anonymousreply 82September 12, 2019 2:11 AM

R35 I don’t know where you were but the progressives in 2018 were talking about jobs, wages, and healthcare. They weren’t harping about banning transgendered people in the military which is a lose lose for the Democrats.

by Anonymousreply 83September 12, 2019 2:12 AM

r81 the two-term limit is the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. A president can't just overturn a Constitutional Amendment.

by Anonymousreply 84September 12, 2019 2:13 AM

R83, what kind of progressive are you that you think it's okay to ban trans people from the military? And why do you think that's a losing issue, most Americans were against DADT when it was overturned?

by Anonymousreply 85September 12, 2019 2:16 AM

R44 The word that should be taboo should be conservative. It denotes racism, misogyny, stupidity, taxes, spending, high deficits, and mass shootings.

The word liberal has brought all the advancements in this country and the Democrat should’ve been the one to define the word and the image of the word and what it really means instead of leaving it to Republicans which they always do.

by Anonymousreply 86September 12, 2019 2:16 AM

One big thing all the Democrats need to do, be are they the most Liberal or close to being Republicans is grow a fucking spine. We know perfectly if a Democrat was in the WH doing the things Trump has done since day one and continues to do, breaking law after law the Republicans would have had him in prison, maybe executed by now. The same with Moscow Mitch. If Harry Reid had done shit like that he'd be in prison.

Why are the Democrats so weak. No one likes weak people. You'd think they'd have learned it by now. What will it take. I'll vote for them anyway but some people won't.

by Anonymousreply 87September 12, 2019 2:16 AM

r87 asks the question of the night:

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SO WEAK?

by Anonymousreply 88September 12, 2019 2:41 AM

[quote]I am skeptical of anyone who tries to use the word progressive as a dirty word

What happened is you allowed the right to turn progressive into a dirty word, the same way they turned liberal into a dirty word, which is why you switched from liberal to progressive in the first place. The problem is and will perhaps always be that Republicans are just better at setting the narrative or mucking up democratic talking points and the media loves to put them in front of a camera to talk shit about us.

by Anonymousreply 89September 12, 2019 2:41 AM

Is Kamala one of the so-called "Progressives"?

Is AOC?

by Anonymousreply 90September 12, 2019 5:30 AM

R55, Nomad spams the board every morning with a ton of articles from a bunch of different sources. Some are propaganda but I get the impression that Nomad can't tell the difference. He's been doing this for years and has never, the best I can tell, even commented on his articles.

And to be fair, the link is the NY Times and a lot of people still don't realize they've been publishing a lot of propaganda for a few years now. It used to be an occasional thing with them, quickly forgiven. Now it's daily.

by Anonymousreply 91September 12, 2019 5:39 AM

No, R88. R87 is barely literate in English. He's not asking the big questions.

by Anonymousreply 92September 12, 2019 5:40 AM

[quote]the dems are going to hand this election to trump AGAIN

It was racists, the media and the FBI who handed Trump the election, dipshit.

by Anonymousreply 93September 12, 2019 5:42 AM

“Unpopular opinions” my Progressive ass. We need major reform across ALL quarters. The world is about to start burning AND flooding, and we’re distracted into focusing our attention on ourselves on material things and on glorified, trashy overly privileged people. “Sell! Sell! Sell! Buy! Buy! Buy!,” is the mantra of yore and of today, only today it’s more pointed and scarier.

America will never be a Socialist country - nor would I want it to be - even under a Bernie Sanders Presidency because Americans are just too independent minded and DIVERSE. We’d give them hell and the whole goddamn thing would go a tumblin’.

However, we need bold, fierce and sweeping change. Sanders knows what he’s doing by addressing the fundamental problems facing this country and the world at large today. His positions may be labeled radical by some but they are also very much populist as well. The majority of Americans support Medicare for All, want a $15 minimum wage, believe in stricter gun laws and view Climate Change as a top of not the top issue.

Bernie is not only on point when it comes to his positions, he’s strong, sharp and formidable. Trump and the Republicans are scared, the Corporatists and Neoliberals are scared - and EVERYONE knows it. That’s why so many games are being played and so many red herrings being lined up...

I digressed. Sanders brings the fire and that is what we as a country and as a party need.

by Anonymousreply 94September 12, 2019 5:56 AM

We're reclaiming the party of FDR.

The Repugs are currently busy reclaiming the party of Andrew Johnson.

Pick your fucking side and fight for it.

by Anonymousreply 95September 12, 2019 6:01 AM

Bernie wants FREE education and FREE medication for everyone who asks for it!

Kamala wants FREE reparation for all those indentured a century ago.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96September 12, 2019 7:21 AM

Gay marriage, gay adoption, gay civil unions were "progressive" ideals which were once thought to be too out there worth pursuing.

The Democratic party fought and won these battles because the Democratic party [italic]is[/italic] progressive.

Thank goodness the Democratic party keeps pushing and forging ahead with actual progress instead of taking their cues from Christian Mildred in North Dakota.

by Anonymousreply 97September 12, 2019 7:30 AM

R97 Gay marriage, gay adoption, gay civil unions cost some heartbreak.

But Free education, medication and reparation will cost billions and billions and billions — enough billions to break the Democratic Party's hopes and dreams.

by Anonymousreply 98September 12, 2019 7:46 AM

R98, would that be more billions and billions and billions than the Republican party typically awards their corporate interests?

by Anonymousreply 99September 12, 2019 7:48 AM

r52 The idea that voters want to stick it to the other side, or just to people they hate, is VERY underappreciated in current political analysis. On a recent political podcast, the guest was Malcolm Gladwell who recounted a story someone in Hollywood told him regarding Scarlet Johannson; apparently after she publicly said she supported Woody Allen, she was offered 5 major movie roles, not because she suddenly became a good actress but because the directors/producers/w/e agreed with her statements on Allen and hated that they couldn't publicly state their position, lest they be "cancelled" or "crucified" by the very, very loud minority on twitter et. al. IDK if that's a true story, but Bill Mahar gets to the same point when he says that to many republicans, "owning the libs" is their motivation. Polls show that Americans in an overwhelming majority HATE political correctness, and think it's toxic for our culture, but somehow we still find ourselves slavishly chained to these ever-shifting rules of conduct and speech, and god have mercy on the fool that fails to toe the line! Fired! Cancelled! Doxxed! Literal Nazi!!

I don't know if anything I just wrote is relevant, but to me, it's not hard to see why some people want to "stick it to" the PC police. On the aforementioned political podcast, this was the theory presented to help explain Trump's popularity (and polling in-elasticity) itself.

by Anonymousreply 100September 12, 2019 7:54 AM

R100 does that explain why Trump and Republicans are losing suburban voters by the droves?

by Anonymousreply 101September 12, 2019 8:31 AM

R101, big city suburban voters are more likely to be a part of or associated with the pc culture than exurban or rural voters.

by Anonymousreply 102September 12, 2019 11:46 AM

Suburban moms shop at Walmart. They know Trump stoked that shooting. Of course they fled from Trump - fear for their children's safety triumphs over economic anxiety.

by Anonymousreply 103September 12, 2019 12:35 PM

I have no issue with Political Correctness in its original form (calling people what they want to be called and taking into account the diversity and differences of the entire country instead of defaulting to white/Xtian everything) Republicans turned that into a bad thing and white people felt under attack. But, there was never a war on Xmas and hyphenated Americans love the country as much as everyone else, those were just political strategies designed to get votes.

The sad result of all of this is now cancel culture and purity tests. But even that is just the booming voices of a loud minority on social media. And therein lies the problem. The world of Twitter is but a small fraction of voices, but is covered in the media like it's the word of God. I guess it doesn't help that we have a President who unveils policy and employment decisions on Twitter. Democrats just need to remember not to fall into the Twitter trap.

I guess what it all boils down to is Social Media was supposed to bring us together, instead it's going to be our downfall.

by Anonymousreply 104September 12, 2019 1:09 PM

Free stuff!!

by Anonymousreply 105September 12, 2019 1:35 PM

R105 That’s what the Corporatists say and get!

by Anonymousreply 106September 12, 2019 1:40 PM

[quote]Progressives - a largely white, educated, wealthy demographic within the party - are pushing the Democratic party farther to the Left than the general public is comfortable with

Yep. Rich, white people with major white guilt are the ones pushing the party farther left. They're also the ones who get offended *for* minorities. Now they're running the entertainment business (e.g., Hollywood, Broadway), which explains why forced diversity casting is being pushed and content is restricted and every movie/show is preachy. Artists/comedians today have no freedom to fully express themselves anymore.

by Anonymousreply 107September 12, 2019 2:51 PM

R107 is a deplorable

by Anonymousreply 108September 12, 2019 3:27 PM

R108 Right. It’s level of self projection is blinding.

by Anonymousreply 109September 12, 2019 3:29 PM

Isn't there a rule that the first person to bring Hitler into an argument automatically loses?

Yes. Here it is.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110September 12, 2019 3:42 PM

Let's face it. If the Democrats nominate anybody even remotely connected to doing away with private health insurance, you're talking about a Trump landslide.

by Anonymousreply 111September 12, 2019 7:19 PM

Let's face it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 112September 12, 2019 7:33 PM

That’s true though

by Anonymousreply 113September 12, 2019 8:23 PM

R107 called it right.

by Anonymousreply 114September 12, 2019 11:38 PM

Yes, R107 says the self-deluding Virtue-signallers are spoiling things.

by Anonymousreply 115September 12, 2019 11:45 PM

r107 does have a point. I'm all for diversity, but when it's forced into situations where diversity would be unlikely (if not impossible) it just takes you right out of the story.

by Anonymousreply 116September 13, 2019 12:12 AM

Diversity is divisive.

by Anonymousreply 117September 13, 2019 12:17 AM

Fine. Just condemn anything progressive as bad and socialist, and eventually the people will be pushed to actual socialist (as in communist) revolution instead.

by Anonymousreply 118September 13, 2019 12:25 AM

"Revolution" will never happen here.

by Anonymousreply 119September 13, 2019 12:25 AM

Say wa? r118

by Anonymousreply 120September 13, 2019 12:44 AM

Dear R118 you can have your own "socialist and/or communist revolution" inside your own house and in your own Twitter account.

But it won't happen here.

by Anonymousreply 121September 13, 2019 12:58 AM

So Joe Biden is finally embracing the Progressive policies of the Democrats.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 122September 13, 2019 9:14 AM

These debates are stupid. A president signs legislation. Just like Trump raped America with his 2 TRILLION dollar cash give away to the rich.

Obama gave healthcare to the nation when Dems had control of Congress and Trump gave cash to rich people when Rep[ublicans controled Congress.

Do you think a Biden or a Harris would Veto ANY Democratic legislation?

Again, debates are stupid.

by Anonymousreply 123September 13, 2019 9:22 AM

The point isn't that they would veto them, but that they would help shape, sell, and then sign them.

by Anonymousreply 124September 13, 2019 4:40 PM

Anyone advocating taking away people’s current health insurance is a loser. Republicans are chomping at the bit to face a Democrat who wants to take away the choice for private insurance

by Anonymousreply 125September 13, 2019 4:42 PM

R125, how many people you know love their insurance? My guess is that your pool of people is very limited. Go educate yourself instead of shitting on ideas that would make things way better for 95% of people in the country. Why would you want to do the Repug's work for them?

by Anonymousreply 126September 13, 2019 5:52 PM

R126 I love my health insurance. I spent six hours in the hospital late last year and was hit with a $30,000 hospital bill which my health insurance covered in its entirety. I didn't have to pay a dime.

If you live in an area of the country where there's competition, you can get good health care as well.

by Anonymousreply 127September 13, 2019 6:01 PM

R126...as someone who was once on medicaid and a NYHealthExchange plan...I'll take private insurance hands down.

by Anonymousreply 128September 13, 2019 6:07 PM

How much do you pay a year, R127? Or, more likely, how much does your employer pay?

Also, would you have paid, say, $1000 if it meant that 1000 other people could get the health care they needed?

R128, Medicaid is not Medicare. No one is advocating for Medicaid for all.

by Anonymousreply 129September 13, 2019 6:08 PM

R129, I don't think you understand medicare either.

First, out of the 350 million people in this country only about 30 million are uninsured and it's only that high because Trump dismantled the ACA. Prior to that it was 10 million. So what you are advocating is to displace 150 million plus people off their plans to accommodate a relatively smaller number that can be taken care of by other means (see everyone's plan but Warren and Sanders).

Second, medicare isn't all encompassing. It relies on private, supplemental insurance, deductibles, premiums and co-pays. People do have claims denied on medicare. Not sure where people get the idea that medicare covers everything. It doesn't.

Third, it will likely be as expensive, if not more so, for those of us who are on private insurance.

But, yes, please try to tell the majority that they are ones that need to make a sacrifice.

by Anonymousreply 130September 13, 2019 6:20 PM

[quote]How much do you pay a year, [R127]? Or, more likely, how much does your employer pay?

Well, that's the point, isn't it? People whose employers pay all or a good chunk of their health insurance -- which is a significant majority of Americans -- are not going to be happy with a change.

Advocates say additional taxes to pay for Medicare for All wouldn't be as high as what an individual insurance plan costs today. But what they don't say is that the new tax would be significantly higher than what most people now pay, because most only pay a portion of the true cost. I think we'd be better off if health insurance was decoupled from employment, but it would be a very ugly transition.

by Anonymousreply 131September 13, 2019 6:28 PM

We need Medicare for All. It’s what most polled Americans want. I don’t care how you try to fucking spin it.

by Anonymousreply 132September 13, 2019 7:23 PM

They want it much less when they hear their taxes will increase or that they will lose their private hewlth insurance.

by Anonymousreply 133September 13, 2019 7:46 PM

I've been on Medicaid and private insurance and Medicaid is better. Medicare is better than both. If you're young ask your parents or grandparents if they would be willing to give up their Medicare. You will hear a loud NO! Now ask them how Republicans fought Medicare. There were TV commercials and ads everywhere how it would turn this country into a Communist/Socialist country, how would destroy America and the American dream and most of all how it would destroy Medical care, "The best medical care in the world, unfucking quote! Sound familiar? Regan, not yet a president, fought Medicare like it was the plague. The right has been doing this same song and dance about anything medical that will help most people since the 60s.

by Anonymousreply 134September 13, 2019 8:15 PM

And I know people who are on medicare now and would love to have their employer sponsored insurance back, r134. It's called anecdotal information.

Now if you want to talk actual polling then look no further than Kaiser's poll earlier this year that shows support for medicare for all drops significantly when people learn the details like cost and losing private insurance.

by Anonymousreply 135September 13, 2019 8:49 PM

I love my health insurance. You’ll find out just how many people at least think they do also when Democrats or anyone else propose to take away their choice to have private health insurance. If you thought the uprising over Obamacare was histrionics and politically consequential, just wait till Saunders or Warren’s plans become a realistic possibility.

by Anonymousreply 136September 13, 2019 8:50 PM

R127 $30,000 in one day!! That's shocking.

What did you have?

by Anonymousreply 137September 13, 2019 8:54 PM

Remember in 2007 and 2008 when Polls said that an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted universal healthcare? Well that majority was cut in half as soon as a real proposal was before Congress and it became law. While Obamacare has gained popularity in the last few years, it still doesn’t have strong majority support.

by Anonymousreply 138September 13, 2019 8:54 PM

Don't worry, Saunders will never become president, however Sanders might.

by Anonymousreply 139September 13, 2019 8:55 PM

[quote] If you thought the uprising over Obamacare was histrionics and politically consequential, just wait till Saunders or Warren’s plans become a realistic possibility.

Exactly. I don't understand why so many Democrats are so eager to turn a sure-fire winning issue into a losing issue. We're finally winning the health care issue. Even many critics of Obamacare have finally come around and now support it. This is a slam-dunk win for the Democrats. All we have to say is, "Obamacare is working, and we'll tweak it to make it even better. The Republicans want to take it away and have no plan to replace it!" Easy victory.

Instead, Warren and Sanders want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They want to scrap everything in favor of Medicare for All, guaranteeing another bitter health care debate that will probably drag on for years, complete with GOP scare tactics. You can already imagine the TV ads: "The socialist Democrats want to take away your health insurance, turn it over to the government, and raise your taxes to pay for it!"

by Anonymousreply 140September 13, 2019 9:50 PM

Yes, Warren wants to take away our health insurance, turn it over to the fat, fumbling Washington bureaucrats and THEN they want take MORE of mu hard-earned money to pay for it!

England's gargantuan system is rife with big problems and small corruption.

by Anonymousreply 141September 13, 2019 10:33 PM

You call it ACA and people love it. You call it Obamacare and people hate it. The only problem with Obamacare was the messaging. I love Obama more than cooked food, but when his administration allowed the republicans to take control of the narrative it just fucked up a good thing. They characterized it as another freebie give away that would take money out of the pockets hardworking white people and give it to minorities.

But I won't completely blame the Obama administration, because in 2010 his voters didn't show up to give him the support he needed to hold on to Congress and keep working on fixing the problems of the ACA. This country could already have better healthcare, but democrats didn't show up, why are we supposed to believe that they are going to show up in 2020 or 2022?

by Anonymousreply 142September 13, 2019 11:03 PM

The messaging? If messaging is the only problem, Democrats can’t win

by Anonymousreply 143September 13, 2019 11:05 PM

The reparations talk needs to fucking stop, even though I kinda support them. Let's defeat Trump first and then talk reparations. I don't even know why this is suddenly such a big topic anyway, during the fucking Trump presidency. Was there any talk about it during Obama's run?

by Anonymousreply 144September 13, 2019 11:17 PM

Coming from the NYT where they gleefully push(ed) neocon wars when they're not doing puff pieces on Trump supporters and normalizing their *actual* extremist views which include racism and bigotry or hiring the likes of Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss who also normalize Trump supporters and the right-wing, I couldn't give less of shit what they think.

I wonder what article these neocons would've written if it were a left-wing lobby group putting out an ad including a picture of a Republican MoC set on fire. No doubt more of this shit of constantly attacking Dems.

by Anonymousreply 145September 13, 2019 11:19 PM

I don't expect any kind of special treatment from the media, but some of the questions they ask at these debates seem to be designed to fuck over democrats.

by Anonymousreply 146September 13, 2019 11:35 PM

To the media, being on the left and outraged by children in cages is the same as being on the right and upset over a black guy on his knee and silently protesting injustice. So desperate to be seen as "objective" that basic human decency goes out the window for the media.

by Anonymousreply 147September 13, 2019 11:39 PM

Wow r140, that sounded like you could have been one of the ones who wrote those ads years ago.

Is ANYBODY proposing getting the insurance INDUSTRY out of our health care system? Because that's what really needs to be done.

by Anonymousreply 148September 13, 2019 11:44 PM

[quote]The right has been doing this same song and dance about anything medical that will help most people since the 60s.

Absolutely. This issue could've been settled 50 years ago. Like it was in most other civilized countries. Yet here we are decades later, debating something that should've been done and over with for decades.

by Anonymousreply 149September 13, 2019 11:50 PM

To those whining about how many people will be so angry when they move their employer based health insurance into a universal system, how angry do you think people were when they started taking social security and medicare taxes out of their checks? Do you know what happened? They got the fuck over it because they got used to it and realized that it was better for them and everyone else in the end.

So sick of the privileged people whining while deriving the benefits of their Cadillac plans and not giving a shit about anyone but themselves. Like I asked above to the person who seemingly needed $30,000 for one day of emergency room care and paid nothing, why would anyone not want to spread out the benefits? Why not, instead of him paying nothing and 1000 other people just dying or going bankrupt, have everyone pay $1000? That's what happens when you spread the risk pool out to the entire nation which, of course, is why the prices would plummet.

Also, whiners, just like all the other countries in the world, you can still buy into your special care for the rich with your gold-plated supplement plans that the insurance companies will sell. You're employers can even buy them for you but, first, everyone gets basic, affordable coverage.

by Anonymousreply 150September 14, 2019 6:43 AM

*your

by Anonymousreply 151September 14, 2019 6:44 AM

[quote] how angry do you think people were when they started taking social security and medicare taxes out of their checks? Do you know what happened? They got the fuck over it because they got used to it and realized that it was better for them and everyone else in the end.

Sure, people may realize IN THE END that Medicare for All truly is the best solution (just like a lot of people who whined about Obamacare finally realized that it wasn't so bad after all). But in the meantime, we have an election to win. "You may hate the idea now, but you'll thank me later" isn't a good campaign slogan.

by Anonymousreply 152September 14, 2019 1:29 PM

Obamacare, medicare and social security don't compare. With medicare-for-all health care you are proposing taking away something a majority of people want to keep and are replacing in with something people don't want.

I also don't get why r150 finds it hard to understand that those "1000 uninsured" can be insured without taking away other people's "cadillac plans".

by Anonymousreply 153September 14, 2019 1:36 PM

Just like with the ACA, many people who might benefit from medicare for all will still be against it because they will fall for the Republican talking points that it is socialized medicine, and government is taking over their personal lives.

by Anonymousreply 154September 14, 2019 3:31 PM

R154, people are against it because there isn't a viable plan. Bernie's numbers are questionable (and have been since 2016) and Warren doesn't have a plan. But, please, tell everyone how they're falling for Republican talking points because Democrats don't have their shit together. And, FYI...Democrats were in favor of the ACA and it's also Democrats who don't' want to lose their private insurance. There is no Republican boogeyman whispering in the ears of Democrats on this one.

by Anonymousreply 155September 14, 2019 4:02 PM

Maybe we, as democrats, need to stop telling stupid people, that they're stupid and that "we" know what they need better than they know what they need. Stay away from the polarizing nonsense and don't fall into the traps that the media sets for us.

by Anonymousreply 156September 14, 2019 4:58 PM

True. Democrats show contempt for the values of Middle America, yet are amazed they can’t get their votes

by Anonymousreply 157September 14, 2019 5:19 PM

r157, go back to Olga in HR.

It is all about the messaging.

Remember when everyone clamored for the ACA to have a public option and then for-profit insurance companies, and the Republicans they bought, got all up in arms because it was UNFAIR to have a public, single payer option for people to join? Oh, those wacky Republicans.

Tell stupid people the truth but put it in their own words.

If you are currently employed, you MUST stay on employer insurance. If you are currently on an ACA plan you will have one more option. [Don't tell them it is the best option because they want to have the ability to pick their option. Just like Republicans, give them false choices. But offer better healthcare as opposed to fake catastrophic plans.]

by Anonymousreply 158September 14, 2019 6:16 PM

[quote]Democrats show contempt for the values of Middle America, yet are amazed they can’t get their votes

Translation: Non-whites are not real Americans and it's OK that Trump has said the most vile things possible about them to get "Middle America's" vote because it's OK for them to feel superior to their fellow man and we must pretend they didn't vote for Trump specifically because he was a racist and bigot and we must also pretend that Dems have attacked Middle America by virtue of reminding them that they're not the only ones who live in this country and certainly don't pay most of the fucking taxes. We must coddle their hate for other people and still pretend that it's "Middle America" that's being "attacked" by Dems.

We must pretend that Dems don't continuously propose economic plans that specifically benefit those entitled assholes as they continue to vote for a party playing on their racism and getting tax cuts for the ELITISTS...most of whom don't live in "Middle America."

Sweetheart, I saw a fucking asshole of a woman who you coddle say she hated giving Obama credit for the healthcare she finally got and she'd continue to vote Republican. People like you are simply weasels looking for any way to excuse the reason they vote for repulsive people like Trump.

by Anonymousreply 159September 14, 2019 6:27 PM

[quote]Maybe we, as democrats, need to stop telling stupid people, that they're stupid and that "we" know what they need better than they know what they need.

We need to start ignoring the stupid people completely. Trying to placate the moron contingent by dumbing everything down is what gets us in trouble.

by Anonymousreply 160September 14, 2019 6:37 PM

I loved my health insurance. Then I lost it because of Obamacare. I now have health insurance again (after going a few years without because I simply couldn't afford it) and love it. I'm going to be really fucking pissed if those cunt politicians with their Cadillac plans fuck me over again and make me lost my health insurance a second time. Stop fucking with the people. The majority of Americans already have health insurance and are more or less happy with it. Don't yank it away from the majority just to "help" the minority. They did that last time and see how that turned out. More people without health insurance good or otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 161September 14, 2019 6:42 PM

R161, the support for Obamacare has done nothing but grow since its inception. You are just selfish. It's called change and it has to happen to get to the better end for everyone. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 162September 14, 2019 6:51 PM

Progressivism is just white people's latest bullshit. That's all it is. A bunch of stupid (yet often degree-holding) white people snarking at a bunch of other (typically not degree-holding) white people, while non-white people conclude correctly that white people are insane and must be removed from power. The progressives most of all, people that basically mind-fucked and hypocritical can only do harm.

by Anonymousreply 163September 14, 2019 6:54 PM

R162 I'm selfish because I'm relieved to finally be able to afford health insurance for myself after the health insurance I was happy with was yanked away from me by cunts in congress and then made to go without for a few years?

You remind me of the kind of parent who would let their own kids starve to death just so they could feel good about feeding the next door neighbor's hungry kids.

by Anonymousreply 164September 14, 2019 7:00 PM

Saddd

by Anonymousreply 165September 14, 2019 7:22 PM

[quote]They did that last time and see how that turned out. More people without health insurance good or otherwise.

This is completely false, not to mention completely ignorant.

by Anonymousreply 166September 14, 2019 7:27 PM

R166 If Obamacare is go great, why did congress make sure to keep their Cadillac plans for themselves and just thrust Obamacare onto the little people? If it was so great, they'd want to be on it too. But they're aren't. Ask yourself why.

And it's true that more people were without health insurance after Obamacare kicked in because many people (like myself) lost their employer health insurance.

by Anonymousreply 167September 14, 2019 7:35 PM

Some comments for the pearl-clutchers.

The first is that something like Medicare for All is inevitable. It may not (and likely will not) happen in the next ten years but it will be coming. What we have now is unsustainable, not just because of the bankruptcies and avoidable tens of thousands of deaths every year but because of the cost as a percentage of GDP is expected to climb to over 22%. Over one-fifth of our economy devoted to a single item: health care. That's as much as double what other countries are paying and it's, effectively, a tax on everything we export. Health care costs continue to climb at a rate above inflation, an unsustainable rate over the longer term. The Republican plan to deal with this is "die." The Democratic plan is going to, at some point, have to be Medicare for All.

The second is that you don't start negotiating from the center. You start negotiating from the left and allow yourself to be brought to the center. It's the mistake that Obama and Senate Democrats made with respect to the stimulus package and with respect to the ACA. They assumed that the other side would bargain in good faith; they were wrong. So Democrats proposed a centrist idea; Republicans countered with either nothing or with a far-right idea. The end result was not good for Democrats.

Even if we don't get Medicare for All in the next four years, we're setting the stage, sowing the seeds, for when it will become obvious that it's the only viable option if we're going to solve these problems once and for all.

The third is that comparing Medicare for All with the British NHS or with the VA program is dishonest. The former is government-supplied insurance; the latter is government-supplied care. There are critical differences between them. Comparing them is comparing apples to oranges.

The fourth is that you're ignoring what the Republicans bring to the table with respect to health care. Nothing.

And the fifth is that if you censor your policies because you're quivering in fear about how people will react, you've already lost. Stand for something, figure out how to sell it, and then go for it.

by Anonymousreply 168September 14, 2019 7:37 PM

[quote]If Obamacare is go great, why did congress make sure to keep their Cadillac plans for themselves and just thrust Obamacare onto the little people? If it was so great, they'd want to be on it too. But they're aren't. Ask yourself why.

I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Congress is, in fact, on the ACA. Republicans insisted on it, figuring that this would derail it because Democratic members of Congress would never agree. Democrats, to their surprise, had no problem with this.

[quote]And it's true that more people were without health insurance after Obamacare kicked in because many people (like myself) lost their employer health insurance.

No, actually, it's not true. It's not only false, it's stupid. Just stop digging. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 169September 14, 2019 7:39 PM

[quote]Congress is, in fact, on the ACA.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 170September 14, 2019 7:40 PM

Congress on the ACA.

[quote]Under the health care law, their insurance coverage will have to switch from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the group of private insurance plans that cover 8 million federal employees and retirees, to the exchanges created by the law. Those exchanges are meant for those who buy coverage on their own, the currently uninsured and small businesses. Members of Congress and their staffs would be the only employees of a large employer in the exchanges, which are set to begin offering insurance in January.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 171September 14, 2019 7:40 PM

R170, you really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Did you even bother to spend 30 seconds on a Google search before you exposed your ignorance?

by Anonymousreply 172September 14, 2019 7:41 PM

The only stupid one is one who believes Pelosi has Obamacare.

by Anonymousreply 173September 14, 2019 7:41 PM

Since she is on Obamacare, R173, I have no idea why you continue to expose your ignorance for all to see.

by Anonymousreply 174September 14, 2019 7:42 PM

How the uninsured were affected by the ACA.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 175September 14, 2019 7:43 PM

More on how the number of uninsured people declined after the passage of the ACA.

[quote]The latest report shows that an estimated 28.4 million Americans of all ages were uninsured for January through June 2016. The number of the uninsured in 2010, the year the ACA was enacted, was 48.6 million. That’s a decrease of 20 million people.

[quote]We could start the clock a little later, in 2012, the year before the first open enrollment period for the ACA marketplaces — and the year before some Americans received cancellation notices when their individual market plans no longer met the ACA’s benefit requirements. From 2012 through the first half of 2016, the number of the uninsured declined by 17.1 million.

[quote]In percentage terms, 8.9 percent of all U.S. residents lacked insurance during the first half of 2016, the lowest uninsured rate on record. (See page 9 of this NHIS report for historical data dating back to 1972.) The rate was 16 percent in 2010, and it has been declining every year since.

It's not just that we have trolls here but, my god, our trolls are just so fucking [italic]stupid[/italic]!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 176September 14, 2019 7:46 PM

r176, the problem is that they are ESL trolls.

by Anonymousreply 177September 14, 2019 7:50 PM

This particular troll is also the sociopath who posted:

[quote]BREAKING! Billy Porter is right now being rushed to the hospital on a blood-soaked stretcher. Keep an eye out for the news.

And who insisted that Trump is going to get reelected and that a +10 move to the Democratic candidate in North Carolina is great news for Republicans.

Like I said: stupid.

by Anonymousreply 178September 14, 2019 7:53 PM

I can't stand people against reforming health care, because the arguments for why they are against it are ignorant of how the healthcare industry works.

Having health care connected to jobs is plain foolish. It has become another excuse for stagnant wages, since people either sacrifice better opportunities for better insurance, or employers claim it's costing so much money, so fuck getting a decent raise.

Those with employer based insurance are more vulnerable than anyone else is. If you end up seriously injured, or ill, you will lose your job and insurance anyway. Tell me again what the point of "good insurance", if it won't be there the second you need it?? Most end up having to go on government insurance, because they lose their job. All that money you paid for years, went in their pocket. Hope you get that through your head r164.

The ACA was an attempt to do something because of the insanely rising costs. Anyone with a brain realized it was quickly headed towards a disaster. Right beforehand, employers were switching to high deductible plans at a fast rate. Insurance could tell you to fuck off for ANY preexisting conditions, which even included pregnancy.

People with private insurance pay 3x the amount for the same treatment. Please tell me, which industry can get away with not showing costs ahead of time to "customers", charge 3x as much fir the same service, and can deny you anyway? That's the result of for profit healthcare. It's about as smart as for profit prisons.

Anyone here claiming it would be too expensive, is wrong. 30% of costs go to "administration", which is why hospital CEOS are making 10 mil per year, yet crying broke. There's also no reason why private insurance would completely cease to exist. Like Medicare patients, your happy ass can pick out whatever supplemental you'd like.

Every year, insurance is going up. Copays raise $5, or they cut services. You're getting charged for everyone no matter what -- that's why your insurance pays 3x the amount for service. It comes out of your pocket in many ways. That 30k fool, bragging about his insurance? It probably cost a third, but since the house doesn't lose, it cost you 3x more.

We'd also have less ill people, reducing the costs almost immediately. Do you know how many people skip simple inexpensive testing, only to end up needing expensive chronic care, we end up paying for anyway? Too many to count.

by Anonymousreply 179September 14, 2019 8:49 PM

Before some smartass points it out, yes there's mistakes, like "fir" = for*, but I swipe and this format isn't easy on the eyes.

by Anonymousreply 180September 14, 2019 8:52 PM

Neither the left, nor the right care about gay people. If you think republicans or democrats give two shits about our human rights, you’re kidding yourself. At worst they want to have us murdered, at best they want to use us as martyrs and pawns so that they can climb the political ladder.

by Anonymousreply 181September 14, 2019 9:01 PM

The Democrats most assuredly care about ALL minorities. It is the party of America.

You are laughable r181. Take your Reaganesque bullshit someplace else.

by Anonymousreply 182September 14, 2019 9:11 PM

[quote]Neither the left, nor the right care about gay people.

Right. Dubya attempting to put through a constitutional amendment to essentially ban gay marriage is exactly the same as what Obama did to gay people. People like you are always just fucking neocon liberals like Bari Weiss. Just lazy-thinking embarrassments.

Fucking tiresome.

by Anonymousreply 183September 14, 2019 9:44 PM

That particular troll also had this to say:

[quote]Dear Datalounge, what was it like experiencing 9/11? I was born two years after the WTC fell, so I have a slight grasp on what the aftermath was like, but I know nothing about what it was like while it was happening in real time. How bad was the hysteria and panic? Did people really think we were being invaded a la Red Dawn?

[quote]Watching Sex And The City for the first time. Why did women like this show? It seems incredibly misogynistic. I will say though, the GBF saying that the only place love is still alive is in the gay community was fucking hilarious.

[quote]Gen Z Teenage Gay Here To Answer All Eldergay Questions PART II. The thread got cut off to those without a subscription and I’m bored again. Continue asking things here, folks!

by Anonymousreply 184September 14, 2019 9:50 PM

The Democrats love minorities.

by Anonymousreply 185September 14, 2019 10:15 PM

R185, tell us the laws that the Dems are pushing specifically based on making any race, sexuality or religion higher on the food chain and I'll direct you to the "religious freedom" laws the GOP is *actually* putting in place. And if you think treating people who happen not to be white as equal, falls into that category as you listen to the current president literally demonize people based on what they are, then you're even stupider than I thought.

You're too dumb for this debate. Go sit the fuck down, troll.

by Anonymousreply 186September 14, 2019 10:20 PM

[quote]You remind me of the kind of parent who would let their own kids starve to death just so they could feel good about feeding the next door neighbor's hungry kids.

Nope, asshole, I'd be the kind of parent who wouldn't let the neighbor kid starve to death while my kid got fat by eating everything in sight. That's how our system works right now. Healthcare should not be a system with haves and have-nots.

by Anonymousreply 187September 14, 2019 10:21 PM

I agree R168--it is indeed inevitable

The other thing pushing it is that employer-funded health plans, especially for white collar workers have gotten crappier and crappier over the past say five years or so.

More expensive, higher deductibles, less of the actual bill covered, etc.

Because it's one thing when The Poors have crappy health care. But when lawyers and bankers and consultants are unhappy with their plans, somebody is going to want to speak to the manager.

(They're also all reassured by the fact that in places like the UK and Israel, people with money can also buy private health insurance so they can go to "Harley Street Doctors" if they need to.)

by Anonymousreply 188September 14, 2019 10:23 PM

Americans have been so brainwashed into believing that healthcare is a luxury like it's the latest iphone. How in the fuck is it a luxury potentially losing your home because you have to pay for cancer treatments? How the fuck is it a "luxury" when you're having a seizure and the company making your epipen just jacked up the price by a 1000% knowing full-well that same epipen that was developed HERE is far cheaper in a foreign country?

by Anonymousreply 189September 14, 2019 10:32 PM

R179 There's a big difference between reforming health care and destroying it.

by Anonymousreply 190September 14, 2019 10:32 PM

R184 Those are not my posts (as can be proven by anyone who puts me on ignore and reads my previous posts) but keep making shit up if that's what amuses you.

by Anonymousreply 191September 14, 2019 10:34 PM

r190, like the Republican plan?

by Anonymousreply 192September 14, 2019 10:56 PM

Yes, there is, R190, but since nobody is talking about "destroying" health care, what you've demonstrated with this comment is that you're either an idiot or a ridiculous troll, and that you're either not interested in or not capable of having a serious discussion.

by Anonymousreply 193September 14, 2019 11:02 PM

R191, I've already covered your posts in R178. Those posts were by the idiotic other troll, R181.

Thank you, by the way, for admitting that you are indeed a troll.

by Anonymousreply 194September 14, 2019 11:04 PM

Progressivism is just white people's latest bullshit. That's all it is. A bunch of stupid (yet often degree-holding) white people snarking at a bunch of other (typically not degree-holding) white people, while non-white people conclude correctly that white people are insane and must be removed from power. The progressives most of all, people that basically mind-fucked and hypocritical can only do harm.

by Anonymousreply 195September 14, 2019 11:10 PM

r193, it is delightful to see you spout reductive ad hominems. Pitiful.

Bottom line, is that Republicans have had no ACA alternative since 2010 when they first started to repeal.

Their only option is the cheap, pay premiums, get no healthcare catastrophic policies that Trump pushed through.

Money for nothing, and "nothing" should be free.

by Anonymousreply 196September 14, 2019 11:15 PM

Yes, we know, R195. It wasn't any smarter the first time you posted it in this thread in R163.

Can we *please* get some smarter trolls?

R196, pointing out that R190 was rather clumsily trolling is not a "reductive ad hominem." It is, instead, a simple statement of fact. Nobody, anywhere, is talking about "destroying" health care. Pretending that they are and, of course, entirely failing to back up that ridiculous statement, clearly identifies R190.

by Anonymousreply 197September 14, 2019 11:19 PM

It bears repeating:

Progressivism is just white people's latest bullshit. That's all it is. A bunch of stupid (yet often degree-holding) white people snarking at a bunch of other (typically not degree-holding) white people, while non-white people conclude correctly that white people are insane and must be removed from power. The progressives most of all, people that basically mind-fucked and hypocritical can only do harm.

by Anonymousreply 198September 14, 2019 11:21 PM

Once more:

Progressivism is just white people's latest bullshit. That's all it is. A bunch of stupid (yet often degree-holding) white people snarking at a bunch of other (typically not degree-holding) white people, while non-white people conclude correctly that white people are insane and must be removed from power. The progressives most of all, people that basically mind-fucked and hypocritical can only do harm.

by Anonymousreply 199September 14, 2019 11:21 PM

[quote]It is, instead, a simple statement of fact.

And this is where trolls reveal themselves.

Their OPINIONS are not facts. Their opinions based on other opinions, do not create facts.

Please, someone drop a house on her, she done.

by Anonymousreply 200September 14, 2019 11:22 PM

In case you missed it:

Progressivism is just white people's latest bullshit. That's all it is. A bunch of stupid (yet often degree-holding) white people snarking at a bunch of other (typically not degree-holding) white people, while non-white people conclude correctly that white people are insane and must be removed from power. The progressives most of all, people that basically mind-fucked and hypocritical can only do harm.

by Anonymousreply 201September 14, 2019 11:23 PM

The story linked in this DL thread backs up R201's point

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 202September 14, 2019 11:27 PM

Actually, R200, it's a simple statement of fact and I already explained why. I repeat: Nobody, anywhere, is talking about "destroying" health care. Pretending that they are and, of course, entirely failing to back up that ridiculous statement, clearly identifies R190.

This is confirmed, by the way, by looking at R190's other posts. He's been trolling all over DL of late. See R178 for a couple of examples. I'm sorry that this simple statement of fact is bothering you so much.

by Anonymousreply 203September 14, 2019 11:28 PM

[quote]The second is that you don't start negotiating from the center. You start negotiating from the left and allow yourself to be brought to the center. It's the mistake that Obama and Senate Democrats made with respect to the stimulus package and with respect to the ACA.

Absolute bullshit. If Obama started to negotiate from the left, as you say, then there wouldn't be an ACA. We have the ACA today because he started from the center and built a collation that Pelosi was able to cobble together to get it passed. And Pelosi worked nard to get it passed.

Goddamn progressives are just as loose with the truth as Trump.

by Anonymousreply 204September 14, 2019 11:51 PM

R202: R201 has no point and has posted the same racist trolling bullshit 3 posts in a row from 3 different accounts.

by Anonymousreply 205September 15, 2019 12:09 AM

It's not possible to be racist toward whites. Look it up.

by Anonymousreply 206September 15, 2019 12:17 AM

And right there R206 reveals herself to be a dishonest troll who's just trying to get a rise out of people.

by Anonymousreply 207September 15, 2019 12:31 AM

Faux "Concerned Democrat" trolls are forcing DL into F&Fing them. Don't stop it.

by Anonymousreply 208September 15, 2019 12:31 AM

r207 no, seriously -- look it up. According to a whole lot of white academics in the humanities, only white people can be racist.

It is not racism when other races attack whites, it's justice.

by Anonymousreply 209September 15, 2019 12:36 AM

R209: That's the structural definition of racism that no one subscribes to. But nice try, babe. Now shut up.

by Anonymousreply 210September 15, 2019 12:39 AM

No one subscribes to, except every government department (municipal, state, and federal), university, and also every Silicon Valley tech behemoth and the many companies that aspire to that status.

Yeah, that's all.

by Anonymousreply 211September 15, 2019 12:41 AM

I agree that Medicare For All is inevitable. Unfortunately, I also think in order for it to be implemented we'll have to wait for the Boomers to die off.

by Anonymousreply 212September 15, 2019 12:43 AM

To the anti-white poster - you're free at any time to go live in a country where whites are not the majority. Those countries are actually most countries on Earth. If you hate white people so much, there are dozens of countries throughout the world you can move to where you will never have to see another white person again if you don't want to.

by Anonymousreply 213September 15, 2019 12:45 AM

R211; No, retard. Untrue. NO ONE thinks racial motivated attacks on whites are not racially bigoted. Feel free to make up more shit now, you race baiting loser.

by Anonymousreply 214September 15, 2019 12:52 AM

r213 the point is not whether I hate whites or not. The point is that you hate yourselves. Everyone else just thinks you are all fucking crazy.

by Anonymousreply 215September 15, 2019 12:52 AM

Pre ACA I had really good private insurance that I paid a fortune for and within days of surgery for cancer it was yanked away from me, not by the ACA but by the fucking insurance company that so much of my income went to. That is what healthcare for profit does. Yes I loved my insurance until the company left me with cancer and no medical care.

I pray the Progressives, and I hate that name and their cowardliness about being called Liberals, win everything and that we go to Medicare for All or some kind of single payer. I do have insurance again but unlike some of the selfish pricks here for me being very sick and going without insurance made me know how others have to live and I want every person in this country to have good health care and I'll be happy to go on Medicare For All to have that happen. I so much would rather pay taxes than pay for insurance company CEOs to continue to make BILLIONS!!!

Go Elizabeth! Go Bernie! Go everyone who wants to do the right thing.

by Anonymousreply 216September 15, 2019 12:54 AM

The news media is stirring up division and hyping every little twinge to make sure they portray us as divided. We're not. We're focused on Trump. Stop listening to the hype. The media gins up the political contests to generate ratings and revenue. Period. ignore them. We're not nearly as divided as we appear. And anything we propose is going to have to go through the legislative process in Congress. But here's the real deal. No one seems overly hyped about the Republicans going too far to the Right. To the Fascist, neo nazi, corporate police state. So fuck them. The Media is controlled by corporations who are terrified we will become (gasp) Socialists!!!!!OMG. We might turn into... Canada...or Norway...or Sweden...or France ...or Germany. OMG. LOL! Younger voters are going to turn out this time. Like 2018. They care about student loan debt. They care about the Environment. They care about Gun safety reforms. They care about healthcare. They have traveled to Europe. They have traveled to Canada. They find our determination to stay backward and pay a fortune for insulin ridiculous. Fuck the media. Fuck the pundits. #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. Aren't people tired of being manipulated by fear and rama and division? I am.

by Anonymousreply 217September 15, 2019 1:23 AM

R217 Except this very thread shows that we ARE divided on the issue. Or are you going to claim half the posts are courtesy of a Russian troll?

by Anonymousreply 218September 15, 2019 2:26 AM

[quote] We're not nearly as divided as we appear.

Who's "we"?

by Anonymousreply 219September 15, 2019 4:08 AM

R218, no, we are not divided, even on this thread. There are a couple of selfish assholes. Then there are the real progressives and real Democrats. R216's post is the only one that needs to be read in this thread because it encompasses all the others.

The only people who love their insurance are those who've never had to use it for anything beyond some minor issue, who have it paid for in its entirety by their employer, or are too stupid to understand where the current system is headed, which happens to be over a cliff.

by Anonymousreply 220September 15, 2019 7:57 AM

My mother enrolled in Medicare three years ago when she turned 65. It was mandatory. Period. Nothing terrible happened. It wasn't scary. She kept her doctors and her hospital and her prescription drugs. She's fine. She purchased supplemental insurance from a PRIVATE INSURER to make it all work. So there is nothing scary about Medicare for all. Period. Think about this. You have Republicans like McConnell and Ryan and the rest who have publicly stated they are going to gut Medicare and take it away. And you have all the Democrats trying to improve healthcare and make it accessible and affordable to the most people. The Republicans are in the pockets of the Insurance companies. They want to privatize everything not nailed down. Stop being stupid. Medicare for all is not scary. Socialism is not scary or evil. We need to get smarter and stop being manipulated. We live in a fool's paradise if we believe this house of cards we are currently inhabiting isn't going to come crashing down on us. Don't get sick, or you'll discover just how very bad it is. And if you know people with pre existing conditions, or disabilities, ask them how they can live in terror of losing their healthcare every fucking day because of guys like Trump McConnell and the Republican governors. I lie the idea of uncoupling healthcare from employment. Employers don't really want to give us benefits anyway. They offer us bullshit most of the time. And if we get laid off or lose our jobs, eventually we can't afford the premiums and we're fucked. And BTW, I See a lot of people who are considering working abroad in one of those scary evil socialist countries like Spain or Sweden, because...healthcare.

by Anonymousreply 221September 15, 2019 10:32 AM

Experts know best. "Just run the numbers."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 222September 15, 2019 10:52 PM

Anyone who knows anything about health insurance knows that a risk pool of 300,000,000+ wins every time.

by Anonymousreply 223September 16, 2019 1:51 AM

Medicare For All or a national health care system of some sort is clearly the way to go.

The issue seems to be getting to a place where Congress will actually vote for it.

There's an argument to be made that a President Warren will have a mandate for it because she campaigned on it and won.

But that will only go so far against a determined GOP and health care industry.

Not sure what the answer is.

I have observed though, that people who used to have "good" private insurance through their employers, people who would gladly pay more for it too, are finding that that insurance is getting worse and worse, with higher deductibles and lower payments on actual procedures. And that alone might help push people towards a nationalized system.

by Anonymousreply 224September 16, 2019 2:04 AM

All Warren has to do is win the public conversation. In 2009, Obama's people did not serve him well. in that regard. They lost the public conversation. They ceded the high ground to the Republicans when it came to messaging, and allowed the GOP to define the discussion about healthcare with their "death panels" and other scare tactics. When are people going to get smart and realize the Republicans are always scaring us telling us lies and distorting the effects of change so they can get fat?

As long as a President has the pubic with them, that popularity, and a very strong messaging campaign will get us closer to what we need. I Remember when Rahm Emanuel boldly announced "healthcare is dead, we can't get it passed now. We'll have to try again after the mid-terms, etc." Nancy Pelosi and Obama had a talk. She told Obama they could pass it. She wanted the public option included, but was forced to give it up in negotiations.

Bernie, meanwhile, kept trying to sabotage the Affordable Care Act's passage because he "had a better idea" and several times, thanks to his efforts it almost got derailed. He played right into the Republicans' hands. The main point is Warren can get a lot of what she wants, and we build from there. If it's Biden or Warren it still will only be partially successful. So why not press for as much as you can.

Just control the messaging and the public conversation. She is really doing well educating people on issues in this campaign, but we need to magnify that 100-fold to make sure that by the time it comes before Congress, enough of us will be on board to get it passed. We have a role to play. We can't be spectators.

by Anonymousreply 225September 16, 2019 3:16 PM

Elizabeth drew a crowd of over 20,000 people in Washington Square Park last night.

by Anonymousreply 226September 17, 2019 3:57 PM

That's in the heart of the second most liberal/progressive city in the US (after SF).

Let's see what kind of crowds she draws in Charlotte or Milwaukee or Pittsburgh.

by Anonymousreply 227September 17, 2019 5:41 PM

Daily Kos voting has Elizabeth at 65% and Bernie at 7%. Now I love Bernie. I have always posted I love Bernie but I could not help but get a smile on my face when I saw this. I really want Elizabeth this time. She has backed up everything she wants to do with how it will work and more important (or is it most importantly?) how it will get PAID FOR. She has the backing of the most powerful Progressive group in the nation. I honestly think she can beat Trump and compared to Trump and Biden she's a youngin' and her brain is working just fine and she has more energy than most of us put together. If we can give her the WH and the Congress and Senate she will do amazing things in her first year, absolutely amazing.

I do however think she should do Medicare For All for everyone who wants it. This way she won't give the evil ones ammunition. I will bet in two years 95% of the country will sign up for MFA once word of mouth get around about how great it is. Everyone I know on Medicare adores it, not just the elderly but those who are young and disabled. People wouldn't let their Medicare go for all the private insurance in the country, even the good plans. No private insurance is better than Medicare and if it also includes dental and eye care, and it will, in MFA there is no comparison. There will be nothing but a handful of rich fucks left keeping their private insurance. The insurance company CEO billionaires will be jumping out the windows and isn't that something most of us would like to see?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 228September 17, 2019 6:06 PM

Warren is a woman who will have earned the nomination.

We shall see if she eats into Joe's numbers.

by Anonymousreply 229September 17, 2019 6:25 PM

I think if she gets the nomination most of the Biden supporters will come over to her but she really needs to stop saying she will take away private insurance. The rich and/or the stupid love their private insurance and the stupid think they will always have it, that no one will ever take it away. Now that may be true if you're part of a public service employee union which are not that many nation wide, but certainly not true for everyone else, not even for those in other unions. I speak from experience of having the private insurance I loved taken away due to me having the nerve to get sick and need to use it.

by Anonymousreply 230September 17, 2019 6:35 PM

[quote]I will bet in two years 95% of the country will sign up for MFA once word of mouth get around about how great it is.

I'll take that bet.

by Anonymousreply 231September 17, 2019 6:38 PM

[quote]I will bet in two years 95% of the country will sign up for MFA once word of mouth get around about how great it is.

Why would public and private employers offer health insurance plans if there is MFA? So I would assume that everyone would eventually be on it in some form or fashion. There might be some private plans for the upper middle to the ultra wealthy classes to get certain boutique services or certain extras (like private rooms for hospital stays, certain cosmetic procedures, maybe certain bariatric surgeries, etc.).

by Anonymousreply 232September 17, 2019 7:05 PM

lol at the thread about the Progs pushing the Dems into unpopular positions now being a roundabout on what progressive east coast private-insurance grabber is the most amazing for America: the socialist Jew or the Massachusetts schoolmarm.

Absolutely the Progressives hurt the national party, because they are focused on 100% purity. The national Democratic platform long ago eschewed big tent, 50-state strategies and now has completely shifted to ANYTHING Republican being the most abhorrent, vile, life-threateningly policy position ever, whether it be tax reform, border security, or hosting a Christmas Party at the White House.

Blue dogs are vilified, anyone moderate is dumb and the punditry carries a "we don't need them anyway!" attitude, and Progressives are happy to bitch and moan all day long about just how ~*stupid*~ people are for not seeing it their way.

Lifelong Democrats and the blue-collars and are no fan of the Republican holy rollers. They are the children of the FDR generation, and not of the Rockefeller rich. They didn't care for their lib'rul lady Dem governor in Michigan, but like fucking hell were they going to vote for a DEVOS (Betsy's husband). And that Governor didn't win her second term by calling everyone who disliked her idiot rubes.

Democrats have become such screeching hypocrites that they've supplanted the holy rollers of yesteryear. They're anti-fun, constantly bitch about whites (PLEASE talk more about "white supremacy"! What a winner!), are controlling, condescending, holier-than-thou. "Tulsi Gabbard? She MET with Trump?! What a fucking replublicant secret Putin agent!!!!1" "Nancy Pelosi is fucking old and terrible and out of touch!!!" Nancy Pelosi? lol People HATE Trump but the fact that this is even a CONTEST - like it was when he was against Hillary! - has fuck all to do with anything but the Democrats policies being tone deaf and wildly unpopular. But thank god they have upvotes on Reddit. If only we could silence dissenting voices more. Then people would love us again.

The only thing more tone-deaf than the party of the last decade are those that honestly believe the Republicans have successfully mis-characterized and perverted what it means to be liberal. No, Karen, the Democrats have successfully done that on their own.

by Anonymousreply 233September 17, 2019 7:18 PM

[quote]ANYTHING Republican being the most abhorrent, vile, life-threateningly policy position ever, whether it be tax reform, border security, or hosting a Christmas Party at the White House.

It really doesn't help your case when you lie and blatantly. You'd probably persuade more people if you chose to stick with the truth.

by Anonymousreply 234September 17, 2019 7:24 PM

"lie so blatantly." Dunno where that "and" came from.

by Anonymousreply 235September 17, 2019 7:24 PM

While Democrats wrestle with the best way to cover everyone's health insurance, Republicans have paved the way for insurers to cover less and less: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 236September 17, 2019 7:28 PM

Prior to the passage of the ACA, roughly 25% of people in the U.S. either had no coverage at all or had junk coverage like that described in R236, the kind of policy you'd get if you worked at Wal-Mart or McDonald's, the kind of policy that would pay for a checkup and not much more. The ACA killed most of those junk policies and now Trump and Republicans want to bring them back.

Fuck them.

by Anonymousreply 237September 17, 2019 7:35 PM

That article is delusional. Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are both popular with voters. As often, pundits confuse that which is unpopular with their class with that which is unpopular in general.

by Anonymousreply 238September 17, 2019 7:45 PM

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics, R238.

Yes, the "Green New Deal" is "popular" if you read a dumb statistical top-line. You know what else is "popular"? "Rent Control" and "Supporting Our Troops." Por ejemplo, Yale in this quest to gauge public support asked the following:

"Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy."

Why, yes! A great majority either "somewhat support" (more in this column, but who's counting?) or "strongly support" a leading question in favor of clean energy that will produce jobs and strengthen our economy! Somehow, people do not say they strongly oppose such a proposal! Wow!

That same study says 82% of respondents have never heard of "The Green New Deal."

Again, progressives just insist over and over "this is right, this is just, people love it, if only people weren't so STUPID to fall for Republican PROPAGANDA!" rather than deal with the realities.

by Anonymousreply 239September 17, 2019 7:59 PM

r239 TLDR.

by Anonymousreply 240September 17, 2019 8:04 PM

Trump has already started describing Medicare for All as stealing insurance from 150 million people and forcing them on a government plan. Democrats think the truth will win the election. Ignoring virtually all recent American electoral history.

by Anonymousreply 241September 17, 2019 8:09 PM

[quote]Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are both popular with voters

Whether they are popular or not isn’t the issue. Sometimes it’s about who is presenting the message and how it is being presented. I’m a democrat so I can say this, sometimes we come across as condescending know it alls and then we are shocked, surprised, and ill-equipped to turn it around when the republican spin machine ramps up and takes our best intentions and twists them in all sorts of unintended directions.

People hate paying taxes. But they especially hate paying taxes that they feel go to help people who are too lazy to help themselves. That is a consistent theme throughout this country, no matter the race, creed, or class. So when you introduce a new program like MFA, the first thing people are going to ask is how much are their taxes going up before they even ask how the program can help them and their family.

by Anonymousreply 242September 17, 2019 8:35 PM

[quote] Progressive Democrats are forcing the party into unpopular positions.

ya think ?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 243September 17, 2019 11:35 PM

I think you're probably correct R243, but I don't get it. I mean why would even the stupidest person mind paying a little more in taxes and a whole lot less keeping those who run medical insurance companies from continuing to make billions by causing great suffering and death to so many? Sure the Rethugs aren't going to put it like that but the Democrats sure as hell should and keep drumming into the heads of voters. If at the end of day you get to keep more of your income and what you do pay out goes to the government instead of private insurance companies and in addition you get better medical care why would anyone have a problem with that?

As for it going to those who they consider lazy, as long as you get to keep more of your money, again, why would anyone have a problem with that? Besides, we all pay for the uninsured by paying higher insurance premiums when they are forced to go to the ER for what normally people would see their private doctor for at a fraction of the cost. So we pay for it anyway. Why do we have to see people suffer more and get much sicker than they would be?

I'm not blaming you for posting this, as I do think you're reading the average American, at least those who won't vote for Warren or someone like her, right. I'm just wondering if there is some way to make the average American less stupid and the Democrats more able to control their own message.

by Anonymousreply 244September 18, 2019 12:19 AM

Because voters didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday, R244. You sound like you’re in your 20s.

“Oh just pay a little bit more and it will all be so wonderful and you’ll save!” From schools to tolls to gas surcharges on taxis to anything else... a tax is a tax then politicians spend it all and then come back asking for just a smiiiidge more.

There’s a reason people get more conservative as they get older. They’ve heard it all before. This is why Democrats constantly talk about the youth vote. Based on all of the youth vote over the ages you’d think there would only be republicans 65+.

by Anonymousreply 245September 18, 2019 12:32 AM

The first thing she has to do is address income inequality in terms of tax cuts for the rich. We need to see her fight and win that one. If the Middle class sees that she is truly going to make the top 3% pay more taxes and the lower end pay way less, they will buy in to Medicare for all. As I have pointed out on other threads, my mother enrolled in Medicare three years ago. It's mandatory. Nothing bad happened to her. She has her doctors, her prescriptions her hospital, etc. She's fine. She also has supplemental private insurance. All is well. Her Medicare payment is deducted from her social security. Nothing scary. The great thing about MFA is that it's portable. Employers really hate providing benefits. And tying your healthcare to your job is stupid. Americans need to stop letting the Republicans scare them lie to them and manipulate them. WTF has any Republican ever done for people. Really.

by Anonymousreply 246September 18, 2019 12:50 AM

Whether a person is 20 or 80 if they get to keep more of their money WTH difference does it make how they get to keep it as long as no one is asking them to break the law for the extra money.

I'm not talking about other candidates but Warren has explained exactly how she will get the extra money for her plans, including increasing SS which older people should love, and that extra money will not be coming from 99% of us even with paying a little and it will be just a little more in taxes.

People always said Bernie doesn't say where the money is coming from and people will get scammed. Well Warren has just about drawn a map, and in terms everyone should be able to understand, of precisely where every dime will come from. To say a person still doesn't get it is that they are incredibly dumb or are pretending to be incredibly dumb to try to hide the hate inside them.

by Anonymousreply 247September 18, 2019 12:54 AM

Wonderful post R246. I hope people take it to heart. Older people should remember what Republicans, especially St. Reagan, said about Medicare in the early 1960s. Socialism, Communism they screamed at the top of their lungs. Now older people wouldn't give up Medicare for anything even if some of the especially idiotic ones (remember 2009/10) don't realize it's government health insurance.

by Anonymousreply 248September 18, 2019 12:58 AM

Haven't Democrats always gone far left in the primary and then move toward the center in the general election? While I am a Democrat, always have been, the Republican have nothing on the Democrats when it comes to pandering for votes.

by Anonymousreply 249September 18, 2019 1:08 AM

We really need to turn off the noise machine and stop allowing the media to hype the bullshit and try to divide us with phony controversies. We already know all we need to know about the Republicans, about Trump, etc. We need to focus on state elections, on voter suppression tactics, and on insuring fair elections. That's the fight we need to have right now. And as for 2020, vote in the primaries for the person you really like. In the general election, vote Blue No Matter Who.

by Anonymousreply 250September 18, 2019 1:21 AM

R249, I think the Democrats more recently have gone center-left in the primaries and then full on center in the general. A losing fucking formula unless you're Obama and have something historical to offer in your election. It's what has allowed the Repugs to go so far right. There hasn't been a real liberal candidate since Carter. They seem to have forgotten that you start negotiations for things like Medicare for All, etc., from your far left position so that after negotiations and concessions are made, the end product is something that is still recognizable as a Democratic position.

For example, what is Biden going to use to bargain concerning health care? He's already in the middle. What more will he give away to Repugs to get a public option? In contrast, Warren can move toward a 'Medicare for all who want it' position like Pete is talking about now. She will have compromised and given the other side something they want (a continuation of corporate health care as an option) and she'll still win Medicare coverage for everyone.

by Anonymousreply 251September 18, 2019 1:22 AM

[quote] There hasn't been a real liberal candidate since Carter.

Uh what??

by Anonymousreply 252September 18, 2019 1:31 AM

There hasn't been a real or great Democrat since LBJ. He was a powerhouse. Yeah Vietnam brought him down but I think of millions he helped to this day. The best Democrat before him was FDR who again saved the lives of millions to this day. Imagine this country without SS, Medicare and Medicaid then say government programs don't work.

by Anonymousreply 253September 18, 2019 1:35 AM

Uh, R252, go ahead and list them.

by Anonymousreply 254September 18, 2019 1:37 AM

R244, the Democratic Party, traditionally, has two things working against them when it comes to crafting a message and swaying public opinoin:

Thing #1: The Democratic Party is truly a big tent party. You have multiple democratic constituencies within one party fighting to steer the party in the direction of their interests. In this thread, alone, there are probably 5 or 6 different types of democrats, because there is no one true way to be a democrat. Some are moderate, some are conservative, some are liberal, some a way liberal, and some are bat-shit crazy. And when you have all of those different interests fighting for the soul of the party, it makes crafting a cohesive and winning message, for anything, that Republicans can't poke holes into that much harder. I wouldn't want Nancy Pelosi's job for all the money in the world. Republicans have it easy: no taxes, white is right, rich is great, yay America, go to church, no abortions. And Republicans just have better discipline. They look for "R" and they vote accordingly. Because to them, any Republican is better than any Democrat.

Thing #2: In the face of years and years of overwhelming proof to contrary, Democrats have never been able to shake the "tax and spend" label. Where was the Tea Party during W's administration? Where is Tea Party now with Trump spending like a drunk sailor on leave and using government dollars to fatten his own bank account?

by Anonymousreply 255September 18, 2019 1:49 AM

R245 people do not get more conservative as they age. That's a myth.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 256September 18, 2019 11:23 AM

[quote] Democrats have never been able to shake the "tax and spend" label.

The debates don't help. Everyone one of them said they would raise taxes.

by Anonymousreply 257September 18, 2019 1:10 PM

R256 - That article is Australian and also fully says there is no way to prove if "getting more conservative" is a product of aging or a generational phenom (times when you were born). "Getting more conservative" may not hold true for SOCIAL issues, sure, and I don't think that either. For example, my late grandmother born before the depression told me before she died she was "ok with gay marriage as long as they're not doing it just to SAY THEY DID IT!" which she definitely would not have held during the 50s when she was a young mother, I'm sure.

My argument is that yes, people become more "conservative" as they age with regard to *taxes and finances* - which is why voters don't cream their pants with glee at the idea of government-run, big-tax programs ([R244]). Call it financially literate if "conservative" is too politically charged. People care about their retirement assets, people are protective of their financial decision-making and investments, and people want to now prepare to pass on to THEIR children and not the greater society.

Meet any millennial who looks at their paychecks and finally go "man, taxes take a lot of my money!" Lots do. I did. I hear it from the younger colleagues at work. We grow up in an era of "What's a penny more per month? What's the difference if it's just the cost of one coffee a week?" But then when the information and reality hits, no bueno. Moderates articulate this reality; progressives shriek that that's conservative-talking-point-hate-speech and once the oldies die out it will all be paradise. Gen X didn't do it in the 2000s. The Millennials haven't done it now. And I doubt Gen Z will do it.

by Anonymousreply 258September 18, 2019 2:46 PM

The Republicans and Conservatives in general, always believed Democrats threatened the Capitalist system and drifted towards Socialism and big government. But that's bullshit. There is no such thing as a pure economy. All economies are mixed with parts socialist and parts capitalist. It's true for every single country all over the world.

The Authoritarian, atheistic Communist model was an extreme the GOP liked to use to scare people even though they themselves were always drifting to the Right and towards fascism. They have always been the very thing they projected on others. The Republicans saw Labor Unions a a huge threat going back to the turn of the 20th century.

Honestly, nothing much has changed about either party. The Republicans have always lied, scared people, demonized "enemies" and manipulated people. They do harm and never accept any responsibility. They have always attempted to restrict the vote. They have always embraced suppression and gerrymandering. They condemn "big government" and too many regulations, but they aren't talking about us. They will get into our business whenever they can telling us who we can or cannot marry, or oppressing women, etc.

I've never understood how so many people can be so fearful and so stupid to fall for their bullshit. Like, let's just look at what happened when Clinton left office. We had a budget surplus. We had low unemployment. Bush gets elected and we have 9/11. We have Katrina and his poor response to it, we have war in the Middle East, we have a financial crisis brought on by deregulation and our deficit blows up. It's a shit mess.

Obama comes in. He reduces the deficit.He restores our reputation and our standing in the world. He rescues the economy, we have the Affordable Care Act. We have 8 years of good government in spite of open attempts to block and sabotage him by Republicans who shit on us only a few years earlier.

So we elect Trump? And he fucks everything up? And we're surprised? And we should be on the defensive because we do things right, and they create misery everywhere they go? WTF should we have to compete against these fuckers? They're losers. They suck.Fuck them. We don't have to justify or defend anything. We should be running their asses out of town. Piss on them.

by Anonymousreply 259September 18, 2019 4:24 PM

[R258] is right.

Have any Democratic candidates put forth comprehensive immigration plans? Condemning the truly awful Trump policies is one thing, but without articulating specific alternative policies, they leave themselves open to being painted as supporting open borders.

I'm for optional MFA. Have the politicians supporting the elimination of private insurance said what they would do with the 2 million workers in the insurance business who'd lose their jobs? I'm not opposed to national healthcare, but that would be a massive amount of jobs lost.

by Anonymousreply 260September 18, 2019 4:37 PM

[quote]My argument is that yes, people become more "conservative" as they age with regard to *taxes and finances* - which is why voters don't cream their pants with glee at the idea of government-run, big-tax programs (R244).

And yet they love Medicare, which kind of destroys your argument.

by Anonymousreply 261September 18, 2019 4:48 PM

Yes to your first question, r260. As to the second, I'll need to see some numbers as to whether 2 million workers will lose their jobs.

And some logic as to why we should be concerned about that when weighed against the massive disadvantages of our current system. It's like asking about whether there is a plan for the buggy whip manufacturers and workers.

by Anonymousreply 262September 18, 2019 4:51 PM

Can you imagine how many jobs will be added getting MFA up and running. Way more than 2 million and they will be safe government jobs with good benefits and pensions. No violins here for the insurance company workers. Let them get jobs for the good of people, not the death of them.

In addition, I know someone who worked for United Healthcare's MLTC division in NYC. Well, UHC decided that the MLTC (which paid for home health aids, dental and eyeglasses and some medical supplies for people on both Medicare and Medicaid.) wasn't profitable enough so they dumped that program and fired the thousands of people who worked for that part of UHC. UHC wasn't thinking, ooh what about those poor employees or about the thousands of members who had to scramble to quickly get themselves a new MLTC.

by Anonymousreply 263September 19, 2019 12:10 AM

New Fox poll out today included a Medicare question. Vast majority wants Medicare for all who want it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 264September 19, 2019 12:20 AM

Same in the earlier Monmouth poll.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265September 19, 2019 12:21 AM

People with experience working in the health insurance industry will be the ones hired to run any kind of universal health system. In fact, I would assume the plan would be to have the insurance companies be contracted to run any universal government system. These people whining about losing their private insurance will probably have nothing happen except the name on their card change and their costs go down and have those costs come straight out of their paycheck like SS and Medicare are currently taken out so they don't even have to worry about paying their premium every month.

by Anonymousreply 266September 19, 2019 12:24 AM

And while the Dems bicker about this or that plan, the Rethugs have the knives out for Medicaid.

Block grants here we come.

[quote]Bill Lee, Tennessee’s Republican governor, unveiled on Tuesday a plan to make his state the first in the nation to overhaul its Medicaid system into a so-called block grant program. Going back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency, transforming Medicaid — the Great Society initiative to provide suitable health care for the young and the poor — into a block-grant model has long been a dream of the conservative right as a way to remove power from the federal government and shift it to the states.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 267September 19, 2019 12:31 AM

Your “vast majority” is a statistical sample of less than 150 respondents (aka garbage). Does no one take statistics anymore? n = 500 should be a minimum!

And your second point about favor (among Dems no less) says right on its face that voters are not clear on what these terms mean (which is why we get bullshit like “fair tax!” or “operation Iraqi freedom!”) but only 22% are okay with private insurance going bye-bye.

No. Voters don’t want it. But this is the problem with progressives: just bitch and shriek that THEY ARE SO RIGHT JUST READ THIS GOD WHY CANT YOU JUST UNDERSTAND HOW *AWESOME* THIS IS YOU FUCKING REPUBLICUNT DEPLORABLE will make their dream a reality.

by Anonymousreply 268September 19, 2019 12:34 AM

Oh, that's not new, R267. Republicans have been trying to gut both Medicare and Medicaid for years. They can definitely cut spending. What they won't tell you is that they cannot, or will not, do a damn thing about the actual demand for health care or about the actual costs. The next effect of what Tennessee is trying to do, and which other states will emulate, is that those most vulnerable, most in need, will no longer be able to get the health care they need.

So they'll pull all of this money out of the system and replace it with ... nothing. The Republican health care plan in two words: "die quickly."

by Anonymousreply 269September 19, 2019 12:52 AM

Actually, yes, they do want it, or rather they want what it provides. The benefit of the policy is unquestionable, which is why none of you have been able to attack it on the merits. Instead, what you're arguing about is the messaging, and that's a manageable problem.

As for this statement:

[quote]Your “vast majority” is a statistical sample of less than 150 respondents,

That's false. The Fox News poll used a random national sample of 1008 registered voters, not "150 respondents."

by Anonymousreply 270September 19, 2019 1:07 AM

Currently, Medicare is for retired and disabled people, and Medicaid is for the poor. What happens to poor people when they hit retirement age? Are they put on Medicare at that time or are they stuck with Medicare?

Also, would Medicare for all mean that Medicaid would no longer be needed and thus would not need to be funded?

by Anonymousreply 271September 19, 2019 1:10 AM

[quote]What happens to poor people when they hit retirement age?

Some people who have worked, but not a lot, may be BOTH SSI/Medicaid AND SSR/Medicare eligible.

by Anonymousreply 272September 19, 2019 1:17 AM

People on Medicaid do not lose Medicaid when they go on Medicare. They get both, at least in NYS. Both together is about the best insurance one can have. I know people in the medical profession who call it the "Gold Standard."

by Anonymousreply 273September 19, 2019 1:30 AM

How dare you ask a serious question on Datalounge, R271.

by Anonymousreply 274September 19, 2019 1:56 AM

[quote]Also, would Medicare for all mean that Medicaid would no longer be needed and thus would not need to be funded?

I assume that would have to be the case since it wouldn't be tied to employment. I haven't read anything about keeping a separate Medicaid system for poor people. Medicare for All is a plan to give ALL Americans health coverage. I'm hoping we end up with something like Canada where, basically, you just show your ID when you go to the doctor. If you are a Canadian citizen, you're all set. Any of you who've ever dealt with insurance in any way at all know how amazing not having to ever deal with an insurance company would be.

by Anonymousreply 275September 19, 2019 2:01 AM

Also, the states who currently are burdened with administering Medicaid would be free of that burden, too. There are, literally, no downsides to Medicare for All unless you are a selfish asshole with lots of money.

by Anonymousreply 276September 19, 2019 2:03 AM

[quote] If you are a Canadian citizen, you're all set.

And if you're not a "citizen"?

by Anonymousreply 277September 19, 2019 2:27 AM

Dual eligibility was the rule in Michigan too. Our mother had to be placed in a nursing home. She had about $60,000 saved, plus her Social Security. The Social Security checks were assigned to the nursing home and her savings filled out the rest of the monthly fees. So if the Nursing home costs $6,000 a month, and she got $900 a month, The nursing home would use the SS then get the other $5,100 from her savings until she exhausted everything. Then she converted to Medicaid.

by Anonymousreply 278September 19, 2019 2:41 AM

That is such a disgusting fact of how we treat getting old in this society that it makes me sick, R278.

by Anonymousreply 279September 19, 2019 5:22 AM

r278, and please tell us of this thing called Medicaid reimbursement.

THAT is truly evil and keeps poor people poor from generation to generation as no wealth or resource is left to the family.

by Anonymousreply 280September 19, 2019 5:29 AM

SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 2:05 PM Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said the United States may have to eliminate private car ownership to combat climate change during MSNBC's climate forum at Georgetown University Thursday morning. He told MSNBC host Ali Velshi that "we might not own our own cars" by 2050 to wean the United States economy off of fossil fuels, describing private car ownership as "really inefficient and bad for the environment."

by Anonymousreply 281September 20, 2019 1:00 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282September 20, 2019 1:35 AM

I think it was called the Medicaid Reimbursement Act which allows Medicaid to get your estate to reimburse costs. But my ma had no estate. For example to qualify for Medicaid you do not have to give up your house if you own a home. But if you die, Medicaid can file a claim for reimbursement before you heirs can inherit. Now in the real world I don't know how that works. Because it didn't affect us.

by Anonymousreply 283September 20, 2019 3:20 AM

People's Presidential Forum was today, with progressives posing questions to Bernie and Pete. Warren and Castro were also supposed to take part, but I don't know why they aren't in this video. Tomorrow, perhaps?

I swear the Bernie Bros hammering Pete are fucking SPESHUL. 😵

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 284September 21, 2019 11:20 PM

I don't really agree with the premise of this thread, but I'll add my own several cents.

I was unusually liberal for a Gen Xer. Most of them took after their parents. My parents were pretty liberal too, very live and let live. They grew up in a communal culture, and had a similar political point of view.

In college, my professors noted that they were seeing a change in their students' stances toward social issues, particularly towards social welfare and poor and minorities. They noticed that the students were not only getting more conservative, but less intellectually disciplined, more ideological, less rational. Some of them were in social welfare, but could only relate to their clients' problems in an immature, sentimental manner.

I went on to grad school, paid for by Bernie's Party. Things were the same there with my classmates. They were reactive, not thoughtful. They were always calling out people and institutions over perceived oppression, but had no coherent socio-economic-political framework for understanding causes and effects of, or effective means of dealing with said discrimination.

Things have gotten more like this but worse since I was in school. I remember having nothing in common intellectually with my classmates, or with the people in Bernie's Party.

by Anonymousreply 285September 21, 2019 11:35 PM

What the fuck is Bernie's Party? He's not even a Democrat. He's an Independent. R285, that is one of the weirdest, self-aggrandizing posts I've read around here...and that's saying something. I'm Gen X, too, and the majority of us are liberal, at least the ones who went to college. You sound insufferable.

by Anonymousreply 286September 22, 2019 12:11 AM

[quote] I went on to grad school, paid for by Bernie's Party

What does that mean? You got some sort of political party scholarship?

by Anonymousreply 287September 22, 2019 12:42 AM

Yes R287

by Anonymousreply 288September 22, 2019 12:48 AM

The elephant in the room no one wants to discuss is Warren's racial heritage issue. If there is nothing there, why did she apologize? If Biden's age is fair game, so are her lies... After all aging is natural and unavoidable - lies are a choice.

by Anonymousreply 289September 22, 2019 1:20 AM

R289, just shout "Pocahontas" and run away, idiot. Trump is actually Drumpf. Nazi fuck through and through and lying about it every day. I love that this bullshit is the only talking point they have on Warren. Repugs at a loss as to what to do with her.

by Anonymousreply 290September 22, 2019 1:23 AM

Warren made a statement that there was some Native American history in her family.

She took a DNA test, which found SOME NA DNA, but not a lot.

She apologized to the NA community for suggesting otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 291September 22, 2019 1:30 AM

Yeah, there is no "elephant" there, since everyone knows about the story. The only people who care are conservatives desperately trying to come up with something, anything, to attack Warren with. Oh, and a few deluded Bernie Bros and Biden supporters.

Sorry, but this just isn't going to work, R289, no matter how hard you try. Everyone has moved on. It's long past time for you to do the same.

by Anonymousreply 292September 22, 2019 1:32 AM

I can't wait for the Repug ad where they reuse the crying Indian with the single tear from that 80s commercial.

by Anonymousreply 293September 22, 2019 1:45 AM

I don't care if there is only 1000th of 1% NA blood in her. If it's there she wasn't lying and the elephant has left town.

I'll also bet when she was a kid her parents, especially probably her dad, told her stories of her NA ancestors the way parents tend to do, most likely with exaggeration. She probably believed every word she said and in the end she wasn't lying.

by Anonymousreply 294September 22, 2019 2:08 AM

She wasn't lying, but this country is so obsessed with race, she was stupid to not be able to prove it from the get-go. Before she even opened her mouth to say she had some NA ancestry, she should've had documentation. She let herself be wide open for criticism when she didn't have to.

by Anonymousreply 295September 22, 2019 2:14 AM

WARren is not likable in swing states

by Anonymousreply 296September 22, 2019 2:35 AM

Warren is doing fine. Fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 297September 22, 2019 2:43 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 298September 22, 2019 3:00 AM

She should have had the proof first but I'll bet she learned and won't make a mistake like that again.

My only complaint about her campaigning is the Aunt Bee story. I think she's told it enough. I'm starting to feel like I'm watching a rerun of the Andy Griffith Show.

If Warren gets the nomination, any ideas who she should pick as VP. I don't think it should be another woman, or at least not another white woman. It doesn't have to be anyone currently running. It could be any Democrat you can think of. I would have said Bernie but I think that will be Liberal overload and freak out anyone we can win over from the dark side of 2016,

by Anonymousreply 299September 22, 2019 3:17 AM

Hillary, R299. The deal's already done.

by Anonymousreply 300September 22, 2019 3:30 AM

Warren/Buttigieg 2020

by Anonymousreply 301September 22, 2019 4:56 AM

Because it's no big fucking deal, R289. Nobody fucking cares, except for Cyrillic shit-stirring trolls like you.

by Anonymousreply 302September 22, 2019 4:58 AM

I'd be okay with either Warren/Hillary or Warren with Mayor Pete. Personally I'd be okay with Warren and Bernie but I think for most voters it would be overkill.

by Anonymousreply 303September 22, 2019 3:20 PM

Warren/Hillary, yes!

by Anonymousreply 304September 22, 2019 3:51 PM

Fucking stupid trolls.

by Anonymousreply 305September 22, 2019 9:14 PM

I would vote for Warren if she got the nomination, but I would not work on her campaign or donate money. I think she’s a huge loser of The Dukakis/Kerry mold.

by Anonymousreply 306September 22, 2019 10:07 PM

WTF does Mayor Pete even give Warren? He has no chance to win his state; she'd be better off with another potential VP who could at least give her something substantial on the electoral map in 2020.

by Anonymousreply 307September 22, 2019 10:10 PM

R307, people have only consistently voted on one thing for the last 30 years...change.

by Anonymousreply 308September 22, 2019 10:40 PM

Elizabeth is going to lose for the same reason Hillary did. They and their handlers believe what they read in the NYTs and Washington Post.

by Anonymousreply 309October 13, 2019 10:10 AM

If voters are DUMB enough to vote on outrage topics they have been trolled to care about - pro or con - then they get what they deserve. Also election year platforms of both parties are rarely realistic. It would be far better for the progressive dems and the centrist dems to like each other, respect each other, and vote for the Dem candidate, rather than eating each other alive.

by Anonymousreply 310October 13, 2019 10:15 AM

Elizabeth is going to lose for the same reason Hillary did.

I agree but I've put down cash betting her Real Clear Politics average will rise after this debate. CNN will tip the scales.

by Anonymousreply 311October 16, 2019 1:17 AM

Did you see the debate, R311?

by Anonymousreply 312October 16, 2019 1:20 PM

Warren or Sanders for the Democratic presidential candidate. No one else is worth the time.

As for boasting about being “on the right side of history”, people accused those who aided the Jews in WW Two, participants in the sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement and those who fought and continue to fight in the feminist movement. The right side indeed. Nothing wrong with choosing to improve the quality of life for the downtrodden.

by Anonymousreply 313October 16, 2019 3:58 PM

Warren, but I'd be happy with Sanders too. That said, whoever gets the nomination, gets my vote.

by Anonymousreply 314October 16, 2019 7:51 PM

r313 The voters in the primary process will decide who is "worth the time."

by Anonymousreply 315October 16, 2019 7:58 PM

You know Klobuchar and Mayor Pete might actually do well in Iowa and New Hampshire. But once the primaries start in North and South Carolina they will fade. Biden Warren, Sanders will dominate. Candidates who have problems attracting support from people of color will not do well when people start actually voting. Only one poll counts. The one with the voters.

by Anonymousreply 316October 17, 2019 3:59 AM

Exactly r316, that's why these new polls every 5 minutes are ridiculous. The ONLY poll that matters are the ones taken once people start actually voting in the primaries; the ones now mean next to nothing.

by Anonymousreply 317October 17, 2019 12:30 PM

Buttigieg needs to take his elitist queeny self to Provincetown and have a seat. No one cares about how many languages he speaks. The incident when as Mayor, he fired the black police commissioner is a millstone around his scrawny neck. He reminds me of one of those queens that hang out in bars reading books or writing in journals-so they don’t have to talk to anyone.

by Anonymousreply 318October 17, 2019 3:50 PM

The other thing to keep in mind: The constant polling benefits no one more than the news media. THey are hyping this like a horse race and acting like this is business as usual for 2020, with the whole "who can beat Trump" narrative. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, turn away from all this noise. Don't by into the hype. Don't let them divide us, or give the impression that Biden is damaged by the smears, or Elizabeth is unrealistic, and mock her "plans" or that Amy or KAmala or Booker or Castro or WTF ever is not a viable candidate. Check them all out on your own (C-Span is your friend) and if you have an opportunity to see any of them in person do it. They are surprisingly accessible at low dollar fundraisers and community events. Once you've decided , vote for the person you like in the primary, and focus more attention on local elections. Not just Congress or the Senate. But your state elections and down ballot races. And join the fight against voter suppression and gerrymandering. Insist on free, fair, elections.

by Anonymousreply 319October 17, 2019 4:06 PM

[quote] Once you've decided , vote for the person you like in the primary

No matter who?

by Anonymousreply 320October 18, 2019 12:56 AM

R320,yes, you vote for the person you like best in the primary. Then in November, 2020, you vote for the Democratic Nominee...no matter who.

by Anonymousreply 321October 18, 2019 1:17 AM

If yu think Trump's happy band of domestic assholes are putting together his re-election strategy without help from experts on an international scale you'd be wrong. They have never stopped campaigning and every single thing they do is designed to help him stay in office. We have to out smart them by being more disciplined and tougher. We can do it. But not if we get all negative and run around like chicken little allowing ourselves to be manipulated and buying into the strategy of the media, because they all want a big payday. We have to fight them all the time.

by Anonymousreply 322October 18, 2019 1:36 AM

Putin is putting together Trump's campaign.

by Anonymousreply 323October 18, 2019 2:46 AM

What would The Young Turks do?

by Anonymousreply 324October 18, 2019 2:05 PM

Hillary, in an interview with David Plouffe on Russian interference in American elections:

"I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians."

by Anonymousreply 325October 18, 2019 3:53 PM

r325, and she's right (again), and we ALL KNOW who she's talking about.

by Anonymousreply 326October 19, 2019 12:10 AM

[bold]Half of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far left[/bold]

[quote]Asked whether the "Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, too far to the right, or would you say the Democratic Party hasn't moved too far in either direction", nearly half -- 47%! -- of respondents say that the party has moved too far left. Asked hat same question of the Republican Party and just 37% say it has moved too far right.

[quote]Almost 6 in 10 men (57%) say Democrats have moved too far left as do 55% of whites with a college degree. Whites, generally speaking, are much more likely to say the party has moved too far left (53%) as compared to Hispanics (33%) and blacks (17%).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 327October 24, 2019 6:59 PM

Hmmm, are they saying that the Republicans are moving too far to the right? Nope.

Vote Progressive

by Anonymousreply 328November 2, 2019 3:44 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!