2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNo matter how much evidence is provided Hillary supporters won't
care. They have an emotional connection to her. As Bernie supporters we need to understand that.
After Obama I decided to vote strictly on policy alone, because I've been fooled too many times by Congressional figures, Governors, state legislators, and other Presidents.
Major red flags on candidates at least for me disqualifies that candidate from receiving my support. Voting for not as bad is tired. I cannot do it anymore.
This country is circling down the drain will continue as long as we stick with more of the same aka status quo.
I understand their connection, I used to have the same kind with other candidates, and I will never do that again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Both Bernie and Hillary supporters.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)taught me that much.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)out to major corporations, I'd drop him like a bad habit.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)about the costs of his proposals and who would have to pay for it (whether just the rich/corporations or everybody)?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)meant everyone gets to benefit, and not just the billionaire class?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)It's like finding an item for sale. Looks gorgeous but there's no price tag.
Bernie should be explicit about the price tag so all Americans can have an informed debate whether or not we like the benefits for the costs.
Do you think he has been upfront about this?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)against your candidate, my guess is you will.
please be explicit...
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)you can't afford it. "
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)explaining his plan and is very upfront how he plans to pay for ss, college and sp health care....taxing speculation, taxing offshore accounts, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and a tiny (less than one percent i believe but would have to check) increase in payroll tax, plus there would be savings in health care because the expenditures now would be less under a single payer system.
i am sure there is much more detailed info online than what i have provided, but he is not hiding anything.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A basic point of his campaign is to stop letting the wealthy and big corporations off the hook of paying their fair share. Make the tax system more progressive again.
I think he will do everything within his power to do that as his main source of revenue initially. It may later get to otehr taxes down the scale, but he'd have to sell them program by program.
Free healthcare. Nope, But perhaps start with an option to buy into expanded Medicare at a price based on income, without the insurance gougers. Maybe eventually Medicare for all -- but only if he is able to sell it to the public.
I don't hear Clinton talking a lot about she'd do for taxes.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)regulate industry.
appalachiablue
(41,113 posts)
RichVRichV
(885 posts)According to the non-partisan congressional budget office the US spent $2.8 trillion on health care costs in 2013. So we would actually save money (and the price tag on health insurance is growing rapidly). BTW, that's the estimated cost of all his current proposals combined, not just single payer.
Right now I spend about $2600 a year for private insurance just for myself. So that's how much my taxes can go up and not affect me under his proposals. And I make less that $30k a year. I'm definitely not one of the rich. None of this takes into account the cost to the uninsured and under insured who get hit with a major medical bill that they can never afford to pay off under the current system. That would be non-existent under his system.
CBO costs
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you wouldn't be able to deduct your cost of insuring yourself anymore, either--it's all taxes.
Take a look at the Vermont model (which included generous federal supplementation) that was abandoned this past year.
MA was the test bed for "Romneycare" which was morphed into "Obamacare" when the GOP decided they didn't like it. We saw DUers on this very board screeching and wailing about how they didn't like their plans and they didn't get enough or they didn't want to pay.
You seriously think everyone's gonna be happy-happy-glad-glad about a program that VERMONT--an ideal test bed due to small size, homogenous population, high standard of living, etc.--could not make work?
If VT, with their better economy than many, couldn't do it, even with all kinds of waivers to get cheap drugs from over the border in Canada, the nation can't do it.
You just can't get blood out of a stone. Those people who don't have a few grand to throw in the government pot to pay 'their' share? You're gonna have to pay for you, and THEM, too.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html
Shumlin’s office estimated the state would need to impose new personal income taxes of up to 9.5 percent, on top of current rates that range from 3.55 to 8.95 percent. Businesses would be hit with an 11.5 percent payroll tax, on top of 7.65 percent payroll taxes employer pay for Social Security and Medicare.
And even those tax increases might not have been enough. The governor’s office estimated the Green Mountain Care program would run deficits of $82 million by 2020 and $146 million in 2021. Shumlin said he feared the tax increases would harm businesses and the economy.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Because it will KILL their economy is why. And then, when the angry taxpaying people being forced to pay double their already usurious state taxes to pay for the program decamp to more friendly states, where's the money going to come from?
The only way to make medical care "more affordable" is to boost the number of doctors in a massive way, and to make "medical care" as common as coke machines....but this means that the end result would be to lower the salaries of doctors--and they aren't having that here in America. It's not just high costs of drugs--though that's a piece, too--or an enthusiasm for using the most expensive, rather than the tried-and-true, cheaper--types of diagnostic tools and medical interventions, or using a sledgehammer when a tweezers works better. The whole system is designed to be dysfunctional, and it's designed to grease palms here, there, and everywhere. People who never touch patients get paid royally when someone gets sick and needs curing.
Until the SYSTEM is reformed--and that has to happen first--there's no hope for national health. The "profit" has to be removed before the "non-profit" can kick in.
That's why every country that implements single payer spends more on health care then we do for inferior results. Oh wait, the exact opposite is true. You do realize there is no one size fits all approach? Some models are more efficient than others. If the rest of the modern world can figure it out I'm sure we're smart enough to also.
MADem
(135,425 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)Your entire post could be summed up in 5 words "Your taxes will go up".
My reply to that is no shit sherlock. When a service is provided it has to be payed for somehow. The government does that through taxes. The non partisan CBO, who has reviewed a previous single payer bill (the one the WSJ gets their numbers from), says we as a country will save money. But we don't just have estimates to go off of. We can look at any country with single payer to see that the system works. It's viable, it's sustainable, and none of those countries are looking to scrap their system for ours. In fact many people from these other countries think we're nuts for tolerating what we have. It amazes me how this system that will crush us under it's weight isn't crushing any of these other countries.
As for why Vermont abandoned theirs. I don't know, maybe a state with a small population (only a tiny fraction of the US market) is unable to negotiate good enough rates to make it viable. You can't compare them with the economic of scales of 350+ million people (100% of the market) in terms of leverage. It's just like unions, the bigger they become the more influence they can exert.
MADem
(135,425 posts)part and parcel of the discussion I was also having with another DUer.
You weren't interested in the whole conversation, you were interested in interjecting and slapping down the "gotcha."
So take your "No shit sherlock" and play that card with someone who falls for that nonsense.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The system is viable the world over. It's proven. There's nothing magical about the US that prevents it from working here. In fact what you mentioned in post 145 is exactly what I covered on national single payer in my last post (but you never made it past sherlock). The system will be reformed because the entire medical industry will have to deal with the same carrier, the government. No more playing one carrier against another. No more in and out of network doctors. No more expecting insurance companies to pay exorbitant costs to cover the uninsured (because there won't be any uninsured). The entire single payer system is much more efficient and stream lined than thousands of insurance companies could ever be. It's all one central bargaining center to set rates for all patients, that are both fair to the citizens and covers the actual costs of the medical industry.
And how did I interject when you started the conversation with me? My first post was a counter to hill2016 implying Bernie has been untruthful about the costs and who will pay for it. Every post I have made towards you here has been in response to your post directed at me. Sorry but faux outrage really doesn't do much for me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)system.
And if you're going to engage in a conversation, it behooves you to read the full thread--I specifically addressed a number of issues with the thread starter before you came back at me, but you didn't bother to read the full conversation before you came at me.
There is no way to make it work without major upheaval that wouldn't happen without a huge fight. We'd have to reduce the salaries of health care workers, TO INCLUDE DOCTORS and NURSES, (how do you think that will go over, putting all those people on the Government Payroll, and ginning up a hiring/certification bureaucracy and a merit promotion system for them? Think that Rome was built in a day?), fire all the Big Pharma Salesmen, tell the pharmaceutical manufacturers that they're going to have to be a bit more altruistic and deal with government-mandated price caps on their products (yeah, they'll go along with that without a fight), cut the health benefits jobs out of the private insurance industry and rip out all the other private medical jobs that benefit from the status quo. You think those people are going to sit quietly while the rug is yanked out? Get real. This is going to be a PROCESS, a long, slow painful and gradual one (and that's if we're lucky), not a decree.
And the fact that VT couldn't make it work is a HUGE setback.
You didn't "cover that" at all. Competition lowers prices--monopolies never have, at least in USA.
You played pick-n-choose when you responded to me--you were more interested in a gotcha moment than following the arc of the conversation, and it shows.
As for Bernie, he's not "untruthful," and framing this thread in that manner is not MY doing. What he is, is he's naive. He thinks that he can overcome serious objections with "the will of the people." What he fails to realize is that the people are not united on this issue. The anti-single-payer ads write themselves easier than the Harry and Louise ones did, and there will be no shortage of "respected" doctors--including the ones that voters are going to right now--who will publicly denounce the plan and tell people that lack of choice means lack of quality. And people will believe it.
More to the point, the people who VOTE will believe it. No one likes the idea of medical care of the "take a number and wait" variety, and that's how this will be framed. And not only will you wait, you'll wait for an "inferior" doctor because all the good ones will be off the National Health grid, demanding cash on the barrel for their "private" services.
In effect, a two-tiered system, one for the wealthy, and a lesser one for the serfs.
I think it would be great if we had a viable health care system that took care of everyone, but, along with all those other issues, we don't have enough doctors (or nurses for that matter) --and that's DELIBERATE. Making medical knowledge and expertise a scarce commodity is what keeps prices high. We need way more medical schools in this country, but the AMA makes it difficult, because they like keeping those costs--and those salaries-- up.
We need to modify the infrastructure before we can modify the delivery system.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)I'm not sure why you have such a hard time with that concept. I already responded on one of your two posts not directed at me per your request. The other post seems to be a rofl emote. Not sure how you want me to follow that one up. Are you talking about an alternate identity? What thread arc are you going on about?
Now to the actual post. Of course it will be a fight. Anyone who stands to lose their cash cow or their power will always resist change, it's the nature of humans. That doesn't mean the fight isn't worth having, or that it won't get better as a result of the change. Facing resistance is hardly a reason to stop progress. You seem to think Bernie supporters are naive and think if we can just some how get him elected everything will magically fall into place. Hate to break it to you, we're not. We're expecting a fight every step of the way from the power structure. And it's one we're ready to take the distance long after he's in office. We don't expect a single payer system fast. But if we don't fight for it now (not sometime in the future) we're never going to get it.
Our fairy tale of it can never be done because too much is against it is outdone by your fairy tale of let's stick with where we're already going and everything will just get better. People are no longer buying it. We're tired of the majority getting scraps while a small group gets everything.
Wow, you truly don't understand private versus public at all. You're so mired in thoughts of capitalism that you can see nothing else. Monopolies raise prices because they can charge whatever they can get away with by driving away competition in order to maximize profits. The government isn't in it for profit. It has no side to take. If it lowers prices too much it drives down the medical industry and kills jobs which hurts the economy. If it raises prices too much it puts an undue tax burden on it's citizens which harms the economy. It's in the interest of the government to reach a balance because it's in the interest of the citizens to reach that balance.
Private insurance doesn't care about any of that. It's objective is to meet any regulatory guidelines it must to stay legal and have people buy it, and then make as much money as it possibly can. The two entities cannot be compared because they do not share the same motives.
And I hate to break it for you, the pro-single payer ads write themselves also. There's a lot of respected doctors who are for single payer. For every lie used to attack single payer, a truth can counter it. The concept of not facing tens of thousands of dollars of debt for health issues seems to play with a lot of people for one.
Oh and making higher education tuition free would go a long way towards supporting people in the medical industry going forward. They do tend to wrack up the student debt for their field.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The single payer ads don't write themselves--ask Harry and Louise.
It's a tough sell to demand from people--who don't feel they have enough paycheck at the end of the work week, now--MORE money so some kid that isn't theirs can go to college, and someone who isn't them can get medical care.
It's not as simple as you're trying to insist it is--and if the whole "socialism" v. "capitalism" thing doesn't resonate, why do you think people keep bringing it up?
smh. Wishing and hoping on a Kucinich "Department of Peace" scale. I don't want to die on "Idealism Hill" thanks anyway. I'd rather fight through to Pragmatism Point, and take that hill when we've got the clout to so do. We don't have it now--and hectoring and berating people into "Believing" ain't cutting it.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Obviously you can only see things through the conservative lenses of 'it only matters if it benefit me'. The simple fact is that even with the ACA, many families all over the country are getting thrown into disarray by exploding medical bills. More and more families are starting to see how our medical insurance system is failing them, and it's only getting worse as medical costs continue to rise way above inflation. We have a broken system. Obama tried to fix it with the ACA, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. We need to quit thinking small and incremental changes and recognize the system itself is broken. Profitizing peoples health is not only too costly, it's unethical. Some things capitalism just doesn't have a good solution for.
You speak of single payer causing a two-tiered system. But what you fail to realize is we already have a two tiered system. We have the rich who can afford to live healthy, and the rest of the country scared of getting sick. There may not be a consensus on the solution, but most people recognize that it's broken.
Of course it's resonating. Whoever said it wasn't? Month after month people are waking up and recognizing that the invisible hand of capitalism can't solve all their problems. That maybe we need to look elsewhere to solve some of the issues. Pure socialism isn't the answer to our ills. Neither is pure capitalism, which has created many of them.
All that nonsense you just said aside, you don't gain the clout by waiting and hoping. You don't gain it by being passive. You gain clout by being bold, by taking charge and showing people a better way. You may view what we do as hectoring and berating but it's not. We simply strongly believe in our views as being the correct course of action, the same as you do yours. The difference is we're tired of playing the game where only the wealthy gain. We're tired of waiting for the "sensible people" to fix this countries issues only to watch the problems compound.
MADem
(135,425 posts)at the WHINING that accompanied passage of Obamacare, from people who like to call themselves "More Liberal Than Thou" at every turn. A lot of the 2008 "YES WE CAN" crew became the F-U POTUS" brigade in a rip-roaring hurry. Why? Because they had to part with a little cash. How do you think they'll feel when they have to part with a LOT of cash? Answer--worse, still!
It's all fun and games until their ox is getting gored. And if you think it's only "conservatives" who vote with their wallets and purses, you are woefully naive. I think you'd best check your own "nonsense" meter while you're reading through those archives.
smh.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Most of the complaints were that Obama didn't push for a public option and we were instead being forced to buy private insurance. Had he fought for a public option (which the large majority of the country wanted) a fraction as hard as he has for the TPP we'd likely already have that.
If people truly voted with their wallets and purses then we wouldn't have all this neo-liberal trickle down bullshit. Instead we're all easily tricked by wedge issues and everyone who doesn't think exactly like us is the enemy.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You know, the names of the "convince-ables" who might be persuaded to vote for such a concept.
Wait--no, you are not going to do that, because getting that passed had about as much chance of becoming law as a two day work week.
Gee, Obama doesn't love us--why doesn't he give us more time off? Bad Obama! He's BETRAYED us! He didn't PUSH for something that was a frickin PIPE dream!
All these people who just "love" these social programs would be loving them a lot less if they found their paychecks cut in half--and that is what would happen. Your inability to see this reality--and see that it crosses party lines-- is a real blind spot for you.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Uh huh, uh huh. Carry on. Your hyperbole is so thick it could be cut with a knife. 
The reality is the increase in taxes would be largely offset by the removal of insurance payments from the paychecks.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You seem to forget that you're not going to be able to call that insurance payment a "medical deduction" and get a tax credit on it.
And if you think your taxes supporting your contribution to the medical welfare of the nation are going to equate to your personal insurance payment, do dream on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027698/Ever-wondered-tax-REALLY-pay-Even-basic-rate-taxpayers-forced-hand-40p-pound.html
http://www.expatica.com/fr/finance/tax/A-guide-to-taxes-in-France_101156.html
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The US currently has a top tax bracket of 33%. That's a 12% difference between taxes on highest wage earners. That doesn't count the taxes already payed into Medicare and Medicaid in the US that would be rolled into a national single payer system.
I already pay 10% of my income into private insurance. Many people pay even higher than that. Not even taking into account all the hidden costs of health care in the US.
MADem
(135,425 posts)refrigerator here costs 1200 dollars there) ..... and let us not forget property taxes.
Income tax is just one part of the piece. Americans are not taxed like Europeans and it will take a real sea change to get them to accept handing over a bigger chunk of their pay to the "gubmint" who might not take care in spending it. Plus, so many Americans are in debt up to their ass, they just are not going to accept having a smaller pay packet 'just in case' they get catastrophically ill. They'd rather roll the dice.
You can tell me all about "hidden costs" and who pays more, and what YOU, yourself, do with your finances, but you're forgetting about those who pay LESS and get by on the minimum "bronze" tier because that's all they want to afford (never mind the ones who just "pay the fine" every year). Insisting that people do what is good for the group only works if everyone is equally enthralled with making the group stronger and better. There are a shitload of 'rugged individualists' who have no interest in altruism here in USA. Their attitude is "I've got mine--screw you." Demanding that these people 'eat their peas' ain't the way to sell the program. They are voters too, and while most of them are Republicans, not all of them are. I've seen plenty of selfishness expressed here re: Obamacare--you think these same people are going to roll over (and HAND over their wallets) for single payer? Fuggedaboutit.
I think we'll see the same "space" we saw between Hillarycare and Obamacare when it comes to taking the next step. This is not going to come easy, and it probably won't be as comprehensive as some other national health schemes even after we take the next step.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)And it covers a lot of things besides the health related stuff, such as road repairs in the UK. You are literally trying to lump all taxes together in these countries and use that as an excuse why universal healthcare isn't feasible here. You're trying to compare apples and oranges to win an argument. We don't need to become these countries to implement single payer.
The simple fact is there are lots of industrialized countries all over the world that implement either single payer health care or a public option. They all have different tax structures and tax rates that cover different levels of services. But they all have one thing in common. In every one of these countries they pay less for health care than we do. Every...single...one. That is one fact you cannot spin numbers to make untrue.
You like talking about convincing people who are all about themselves but you fail to mention the people who already support the concept. 70% of the country already supports a public option. There is already widespread support. Further:
"More than four out of five Americans are concerned about the health care costs they and their family might face in the coming years, including 49 percent who are very concerned. Those with lower incomes are more concerned than those with higher incomes, and nearly six in 10 Americans aged 30 to 64 are very concerned. Among those without health insurance, about six in 10 are very concerned."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-back-public-health-care-option/
Sorry I don't have something more recent. Looks like most of the polling on universal healthcare was done back when the ACA went into effect.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And the VAT HAS to be usurious because the cost of health care is so expensive that income tax alone can't cover the cost of providing public services to the people. You can't compare a sales tax of six percent--hell, even TEN or ELEVEN percent (like we see in states where there is no state income tax)--on a tax that is levied at every single point in the production process, from raw materials to manufacture to wholesale to retail--it's why that refrigerator I mentioned has a price tag that is HALF AGAIN as expensive as it is in America. And that goes for that iPad, that flat screen TV, that car, that washing machine, you name it. Look around your house--picture paying half again for everything in it--the furniture, the clothes, everything.... including the FOOD you buy at the market. And picture doing it on your SAME salary.
I've lived in Europe for a good portion of my life, and you can't even compare the level of expenditure on a daily basis. Even Edward Snowden crabbed incessantly about the high cost of living on his first assignment. It's something that hits you right between the eyes--and right in the wallet.
It's not the sort of thing you're going to cram down the Americans' throats without a lot of incremental bullshit. And health care? Even in "managed" societies, it COSTS MONEY.
Once the costs are laid out, support plummets. Everybody LOVES the idea (why not?), but once you tell them that half their paycheck is going to be lopped off before they even see a penny, the tune changes and people are more willling to roll the dice and play the "It won't happen to me" card.
VT abandoned their test bed because there's no way they could do it without a shitload more money coming in--and where was that money to come from? Another sales tax? Please.
Many immigrants from First World Nations don't come here because we are the "land of the free." They've got plenty of freedom where they came from. They are economic refugees--they come for the lower taxes.
Trying to pretend this isn't a HUGE piece of the whole decision-planning matrix on this issue is a non-starter. Denying the reality of it won't make it go away, either.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The picture is finally starting to fall into place. You're obviously jaded by your time spent over there. I've heard this same type of talk before from right-wingers who claim all the people they talk to over in Europe speak of how awful it is over there. They ignore how cherry picked their views are.
The simple fact is the vast majority of Europeans love the systems they have and would never trade it for what we have in the US. This is verified through poll after poll over there and personally through my discussions with hundreds of random people from various countries. This belief that our system is superior simply doesn't exist outside of the far right.
Europeans are fleeing to the US over taxes is a flat out lie (Europe accounts for 12% of our immigration, with almost half of that coming from eastern Europe). There is no mass exodus from Europe to here. If there was we'd have much more relaxed immigration policies. That vast majority of our immigration (documented or otherwise) is from third world countries.
You keep talking about how much health care costs everywhere else but you totally ignore the fact that it costs even more here. That's the one part of the argument you won't engage because you know you don't have a chance in hell of winning it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You plainly don't understand the dynamic, so you are trying to shift "blame" onto me and make this conversation personal.
I have European neighbors. Some are here on green cards (and own homes, pay taxes, and have jobs--for the last few decades) and a few have taken the step to become citizens. They say what I say. This isn't about "jaded" or any other dynamic--it's simple fact.
Of course most of our undocumented immigration is from countries that are desperate--that's a powerful motivator. But even less desperate people will seek advantage.
The reason more people don't come this way from Europe is first, a language barrier--and many people, even if they've taken English, are not comfortable in the language; second, a lack of job opportunity (these people from western nations aren't interested in manual labor); and third, and most importantly, because we have QUOTAS for Western European immigration...not because people don't want to come.
Have you any idea how many "illegal immigrants" (quotes are used purposefully, so no "Waaah"-ing) come from .... IRELAND?
It's a shitload, and the Irish ambassador brings it up every year when the bowl of shamrocks gets delivered to the White House on Saint Patrick's Day.
http://www.thejournal.ie/immigration-reform-usa-ireland-1791566-Nov2014/
The Canadians keep coming, too: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canadian-immigrants-united-states
As for health care costs, they only cost more IF YOU GET SICK. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), most Americans believe--magically--that that stuff will happen to SOMEONE ELSE--not them.
It doesn't "cost more" here--it costs way less--UNLESS you get sick, and then, you're screwed if you don't have good insurance, and you're forced to rely on the GO FUND ME game. So there--I've "engaged" in your little argument, and debunked it.
Would it be nice if everyone had universal coverage? Yes.
Will Americans be willing to endure higher prices on EVERYTHING--from peanut butter to motor vehicles--to make that happen? NO.
That's the problem that has to be overcome--we want it, but we do not want to pay for it.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)I ask because the same points you bring up here I've heard once before, and only once. That was from my ultra-religious right-wing relatives. They claimed that everyone they talked to from Europe hated socialized medicine, felt crushed under European taxes, and wanted to escape to American. In fact they hit the points in your last post almost word for word. It didn't dawn on me until your last post as I haven't talked politics with them in a long time. I wasn't trying to analyze you. It's just that that's the only other time I've heard those beliefs from anyone before.
I wasn't lying when I said I've talked to hundreds of people from Europe, as well as Canada, South America, Australia, etc, mostly online (not counting the many soldiers I know who served in Germany). Some of it was through programming endeavors. Most of it was through gaming communities. The thing about gaming communities is there is no demographic. They run the political and ideological spectrum. I've know people from other countries who would be Ayn Rand worshipers to Marxists. And it's not as young as you'd think. Most people were at least in their late 20s and ranged up into their 60s.
We spent a lot of nights going until 4am my time just sitting in voice chat discussing our various differences, including political. The Brits were particularly entertaining (They're very funny, and mocking Americans is a pastime for them). Everyone from everywhere had issues with where they lived. I can tell you the Brits love complaining about their gas prices for one. Some did complain about cost of living. But none were willing to give up what it gained them, even for lower taxes. Not a single one of the people I talked to hated where they lived. None of them felt crushed under the tax weight in spite of the occasional complaint. None of them wanted to flee here (though many wanted to visit).
The thing is I don't like going strictly off anecdotal evidence (no matter how much there is). I want to see stats that back up one point of view or another. And the stats really back up what I've been told over and over. Western Europe consistently rates highly in any happiness metric polled. What I find amazing is that the Scandinavian countries (which are the most progressive, and the highest taxed) rate the highest year after year in happiness. I don't think it's a coincidence.
If you want to discuss immigration, I'll give you Ireland. But that's not a new phenomenon. The Irish have been immigrating to the US in large numbers for a very very long time. In more general terms, there are many people trying to emigrate to Europe and Canada, just as there are people immigrating here. It isn't a mass influx in one direction. I've seen many expats on this board in fact.
There are many things European countries get right, and many things we get right. Just because they're not right on everything doesn't mean we should ignore what they've done that has worked and try to improve ourselves. Being the last industrialized country to not have a universal coverage means we have the power of hindsight. We can look at what all the other countries have done (that has worked and failed) and come up with the best solution possible based on their successes and failures.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They don't OBJECT to national health at all, but they do object to usurious taxation (and we are taxed in MA--we're one of those blue states that pays more in than we get back). They take the same attitudes that most people do--that "really bad things" will happen to someone else, and they'll carry enough insurance to cover "most" risks. And they'll still have WAY more disposable income than they would have if they stayed in their home countries, taxed up the wazoo, and were insured against every possible difficulty.
Canada won't TAKE immigrants that easily--unless you are a) Rich as Roosevelt and can start a business and hire people; or b) Young, healthy and able to work in jobs that are basic or perhaps rather menial but need to be done, or c) Have a unique and specialized skill (doctor, e.g., scientist, something on those lines) and better still if you're willing to practice your talents in an underserved area. If you're middle aged, or you just might be a drain on Canadian society, they do not want you. Canada is not the welcoming Great White North that it used to be--they're picky. As they've every right to be.
You would probably do better to speak--HONESTLY--with more Americans, rather than get anecdotal online praise from faceless foreigner-gamers. The bottom line is this--everyone LOVES the idea of universal coverage. They LOVE it. They think it is GREAT! Who wouldn't love it? I think the numbers are something like two-to-one in terms of who likes the idea, versus who does not.
But then, when you present them with the bill (the part that they would have to "give up"--i.e. a HUGE chunk of their salary and their spending power), the love affair ends--abruptly, in some cases. You know who stays in love with it? The people with NO MONEY. Make less than twenty grand a year? Hey, this is cheap! Heck, it's just about free~! The people in the thirty K to fifty K bracket? They are ANGRY. They don't have enough paycheck at the end of the week now, and the government wants more? And the fifty K to one-fifty bracket? They're screaming in agony. The cut is just too deep. They aren't having it.
That's just the truth--don't shoot the messenger.
What you just aren't appreciating is that not having nearly half your paycheck to actually spend on stuff is --and has always been-- NORMAL for those European people. It will be a new paradigm for Americans. Sure, they get us with the income tax and FICA and state taxes and so forth, but that's just a nick compared to the CUT that will be needed to make universal health care fly. And it will SUCK for quite a while, while people adjust to it.
But before that even happens, we need a better plan--better than the best possible, cut-costs, most-efficient, plan that VT could come up with. VT spent a shitload of time studying all the angles, and they couldn't make it work. We'll need a test state to roll out a program and run it successfully for a few years before anyone even contemplates going national. After all, before Obamacare was Obamacare, it was Commonwealth Care--aka Romneycare. And, as I said, all you have to do is look at this board to see how many "DU liberals" screeched and wailed about how much they had to pay -- were FORCED to pay, when previous to that, they could just skip it and cross their fingers, or make do with a shit plan.
And if you ask plenty of Americans if those Europeans are actually happier than the Home Team are, they'll say "Naah--they're lyin'....we're Number One!!!"
Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home...!
If it were so doggone easy, we'd have it already.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)It's pointless arguing over other countries income taxes, VAT taxes, etc, when I should have just looked at this countries taxes. We already know that the single payer bill submitted before to Congress would run about $15 trillion over 10 years based on calculations reported. That's an average of $1.5 trillion a year. But what does that actually mean to the average person's pay check?
Well if it's payed for by a flat tax across the board by everyone we have a simple way to calculate this. We already know what flat taxes bring in via payroll taxes of social security and medicare.
In 2014, Social Security was 12.4% (6.2% by employee, 6.2% by employer) and brought in $755.9 billion. That is with the payroll cap.
In 2014, Medicare was 2.9% (1.45% by employee, 1.45% by employer) and brought in $227.4 billion. That was with no payroll cap.
Since Medicare is similar to the single payer healthcare program I'm going with the no payroll cap of Medicare (it would be a Bernie's proposal after all, he's not going to let the rich off easier than everyone else). So we'll use the Medicare numbers of $227.4 billion for 2.9% of payroll. That comes out to $78.414 billion raised per 1% taxed. For a $1.5 trillion program, that comes out to about a 19.2% tax. That can either go all 19.2% on the employee or 9.6% on employee and 9.6% on the employer (like other payroll taxes).
That is what the single payer program will actually cost if split equally among all people. All someone has to do is take their gross pay from a paycheck, subtract 19.2% off of it (or 9.6% if it's a split payment like social security and medicare), and add back what they currently deduct for health care.
A recent average gross paycheck for me was $550. I spend $49.31 a paycheck on health insurance. If all 19.2% comes out of my paycheck then I would spend $105.60 and get back $49.31 (from current insurance) for a total of $56.29 of reduced income. If it's split between employee and employer, like other payroll taxes, then it would cost my employer $52.80 and me an additional $3.49 a paycheck.
That's the real cost to implement single payer health care in the United States. To ensure no person ever worry about the cost of health issues again, for coverage of everyone. Whether or not that is too much is up to each individual, but that is real. I know I can live with that cost to assure no person dies of preventable illness, or goes bankrupt because of medical bills.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You may spend forty nine bucks a modest paycheck on health insurance, but should you take ill, you sure as heck aren't going to consume that amount, and if you get sick enough, you'll never pay back in enough to the system to "even the score."
Of course YOU can "live with that cost" -- the value you'll get out of it is nowhere near equivalent to what you're putting in. It's like paying for a skateboard and getting a Rolls Royce.
People who don't make money love the idea--people who are stinking rich hate it, because they know they'll be the ones footing the bill for the forty nine buck a paycheck crowd.
People like me, who have halfway decent health care (not "free" as promised, but cheap, in the big scheme) as a consequence of decades of military service, can look at both sides and see why one likes it and one hates it.
See, the "real cost" isn't the amount YOU are throwing into the pot, it's the amount needed to give you preventive care and treat you should you get ill--and your piddling little forty nine bucks ain't gonna pay that freight. It's going to come from someone else's wallet, someone who is paying way MORE than forty nine bucks a payday.
Read this--you will start to see the impediments:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/1224/Why-Vermont-abandoned-its-single-payer-health-care-plan
Why Vermont abandoned its single-payer health-care plan
Advocates saw Vermont as the ideal laboratory for hatching a single payer system that might even serve as a role model for other states. But the price tag – $2.6 billion in a state with revenues totaling about $2 billion a year – was out of reach.
......It was against this backdrop that, last Wednesday, in a news conference in the Statehouse, Shumlin dropped a bombshell ;by admitting, in effect, that the state had “screwed up.” He announced that the state would forego, at least for now, any effort to implement a single-payer system.
The reason, Shumlin acknowledged, was precisely what critics had long maintained: The plan was fiscally untenable. According to the governor, the most recent studies indicate a single-payer system would require an 11.5% payroll tax on businesses and a sliding income tax that would tax some wage earners up to 9.5% on top of the existing state income tax. Moreover, some small business owners who do not now provide health coverage would take a double whammy by getting hit with both income and payroll tax hikes. All told the price tag for a single-payer system was now estimated to be $2.6 billion in a state with revenues totaling about $2 billion a year.
Not surprisingly, advocates for a single health care plan felt betrayed by Shumlin’s reversal, and vowed to push forward with the plan through legislative action. Opponents, meanwhile, voiced a loud “We told you so.” As with health care reform nationally, polls suggested the public was divided on the Vermont plan, with approval rates varying depending on how the poll question was worded. The immediate issue, of course, is what impact, if any, Shumlin’s announcement will have on the legislative vote on January 8 to determine the next governor. I have no doubt that Milne is right – Shumlin certainly knew for weeks, if not months, that the numbers would not add up but like any smart politician he withheld the bad news until after the election. By announcing the death of single payer now, however, he may have removed a political weight from the shoulders of many Democratic legislators who probably did not relish having to vote on a single-payer financing system in the coming legislative session. Some are even lauding Shumlin for his political “courage” in making the announcement now. This, in my view, is a dubious claim – real courage would have meant making the announcement before the November election. However, I doubt many legislators are going to vote against Shumlin for governor on the basis of this one announcement, and it might even shore up support among some who are relieved that the issue has been removed, at least for now. We’ll know soon enough.
As for the broader lessons from this ill-fated effort, supporters and skeptics alike are left wondering if a single-payer system lacked political support in a liberal-leaning deep-blue state like Vermont, what chance does it have in any US state? However, I think this misses the real lesson of the Vermont experience. One of the reasons why the Vermont plan proved fiscally unworkable is that the latest estimates showed that in part because of Obamacare, the state would get $150 million less in federal health care aid than anticipated earlier, as well as $150 million less in Medicaid assistance. Other difficulties included how to pay for coverage for non-residents who were employed in Vermont. These problems point to the difficulty of enacting a state-based single-payer plan in a health care system that is inextricably bound up with a national economy and which is struggling to implement a national health care reform plan. As it turns out, many of the factors cited for why a single payer system might work in Vermont – its small population and progressive leanings – mattered a lot less than supporters understood Indeed, Vermont’s small economy might make it more susceptible to national economic forces. The plain fact is that it is going to be difficult for any state, no matter what its ideological leanings and fiscal health, to move ahead by itself with comprehensive health care reform. In the end, health care is primarily a national issue and if single-payer is the way to go, it is likely going to have to happen at the national level. That, I think, is the lesson to take from the Vermont experience.
It's going to take quite a sea change to persuade the nation to take that on without a successful test bed. Even Romneycare AKA Obamacare got oodles of pushback--on this message board, too.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)You are misstating how insurance works. It doesn't matter what it costs when someone gets sick. What matters is how many are sick. At any given time the vast majority of people are healthy. It is all these healthy people that pay for the high cost of the small number of sick in a given pay period. This is how single payer would work. It's also how private insurance currently works. You are literally arguing against the viability of private insurance as well as single payer.
And you can't say the government is incapable of providing health insurance to the population when they already do it. The government already provides 80% of the costs of health care to the highest costing health care demographic there is, the elderly, through medicare. Not only can it be done it already is.
It doesn't matter why Vermont decided to back out, or how other countries do things. We know what it would cost to run single payer on a federal level. We know how much money we can bring in with taxes on the federal level. The numbers I posted in the last post are not a lie. That is what it would cost to implement single payer on a federal level.
Oh and the funny thing about the 1% hating these ideas. They may have all the money to buy ads and try to influence people, but they're still only 1% of the population. They don't account for much of the vote, no matter how much they might hate it. All it will take is the people getting sick of listening to them. Maybe you haven't noticed but this country is already moving that way.
ProgressiveVC
(79 posts)has similar proposals scored each budget session.
In case HRC supporters aren't familiar, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is made up of the most liberal members of congress. Like the Tea Party and other groups, they regularly put forward legislation and budgets.
I admire Bernie tremendously -- for his character, his history, and his understanding of what is is that is ruining this country. If not for these things, I wouldn't be backing Bernie. I wouldn't have authorized his campaign to dip into my credit account for what feels, to me, like a considerable sum of money every month.
I can sympathize with Hillary, but I don't trust her intentions for this country and its people -- at all. I don't consider her a good person.
And I cannot understand what Hillary supporters see in her. The old "She's a Democrat and she can win" seems shockingly short-sighted to me. Anyone can join the Democratic Party; it doesn't really tell you what that person will do for the American people. There must be a better reason than that. I wish her supporters could give a more convincing reason.
Hillary supporters: why do you want her for President? Why did you choose her?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)far surpassing pretty much any politician I've ever seen in that respect. I'd say it's his defining characteristic, and that's an analytical historical perspective, not an emotional one. And my assessment of this is widely held, because Bernie lives it. I can't even believe you're attempting to make this argument, you have the wrong politician to argue that point against.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I may not be artful at presenting it.
IMO Bernie is a truthful man, I agree. But I still believe we all are emotionally invested in our candidates.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I think the OP's point, which I mostly agree with, was that Hillary supporters seem to base their support on emotion rather policy.
As a Bernie supporter, I've got to say that I have a very hard time seeing, on a policy level, why anyone would prefer Hillary, unless they're just a more conservative corporate multinationist type.
Your point was making what I see as a false equivalence, trying to say that we all support candidates based on emotions. There's certainly a component of that for most of us, but a careful reading of DU demonstrates a profound imbalance in that equivalence. And the emotional component probably isn't really the point, the point is that there must be something other than policy, because I just don't see the logic in supporting Hillary based on any kind of policy preferences, except as notedd above, third way corporatist policies.
She's very intelligent and competent, and well equipped to fight Republicans when attacked. For most of us, that's not enough. We need different policies, the ones that are always off the table before debate begins, because that's how the large corporate donors like it. We're apparently supposed to fight over bogus issues like Benghazi, or whether Hillary's emails were a security risk. There are legitimate problems I have with Hillary on both of those things, but again they are off of the table, even when Repubicans are attacking those issues, since of course the same basic interests control their agenda too.
When do we fight about how to redistribute the wealth away from the greedy hoarders, or the virtues of single payer, or why the richest nation in the world can't afford to support its citizens at the level of the much poorer social democratic countries, or why the U.S., which is only under attack occassionally and even then only as blowback from our foreign military adventurism, requires its taxpayers to pay for the largest, most expensive, most polluting miitary and security establishment in the history of the earth, basically for the benefit of multinational corporate interests, or how to stop the construction of the most invasive and far-reaching surveillance state that has ever existed? There are endless other such issues, and going third way, there is no possible avenue for these things to get reversed, at most they are slowed down a little, or have a band-aid applied to stop a little of the bleeding. We need to go completely the opposite direction on all of these issues, and that's not just some emotional knee-jerk, it's the painful result of a lifetime watching our country go the wrong way, and the corporate elements of our own party being complicit.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)You've stated so eloquently the reasons why I cannot back her. She's very bright and that's what makes her so dangerous she knows better.
840high
(17,196 posts)Bernie if I found out he was bad for this country.
840high
(17,196 posts)connection is for what's good for this country.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)What with us all behind democrats, and on the same side here.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I say EXACTLY The same thing about Sanders supporters.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And it does not square with the arguments about the millenials who have to be excited personally before they wl vote! LOL. Which is it ?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)regarding Bernie.
MohRokTah is thoroughly convinced that Bernie is actually the worst kind of socialist and that he will lead us to an oppressive economy like the one run by Hugo Chavez. MohRokTah has also stated that he is "fundamentally against" Bernie's beliefs and would oppose that with "the very last breath in their body."
Here's proof of that...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251713763#post45
Read that post, and follow our conversation from there. MohRokTah "cannot be convinced" otherwise about Bernie.
It's an unchanging point of view.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He keeps repeating "government control over the means of production". I wonder what his screen name is at beck' s web site. What percentage of the hillarians do you think believe that Sanders wants to turn the US into the USSR? Very curious. Thanks for the link. The thinking of the Clinton supporters becomes a lot clearer.
msongs
(67,381 posts)
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)If you want to support your candidate, fine--give us reasons why. If you want to attack another candidate, give us specifics (and links), not bullshit talking points and vague aspersions we've heard from the MSM a thousand times.
But characterizing all of your opposition as somehow deluded, illogical, or otherwise inferior to yourself intellectually ("they" are "emotional", "we" decide on the basis of policy, "they" are secretly "racists", "we" are not etc. etc.) is not only simplistic, it's entirely ineffective.
It's one main reason (family illness being the other) that I've pretty much stopped posting here. These broad-brush characterizations serve no purpose other than to further divide us from each other.
I like Bernie, and am leaning toward voting for him in the primary, in fact I most probably will. This will be despite, not because of, much of what I've read on DU these past months, this present OP included.
I wish the broad-brush attacks on each other would stop.
I imagine, giving the current state of DU, that this plea will be alerted on, but so be it.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)If you are moderate support Hillary if not support Sanders or O'Malley.
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)and not at all an answer to my post.
I see others have responded in ways similar to what I'm saying.
You don't do any candidate any good by calling those who support other candidates "emotional" or implying they are somehow less intellectual than yourself. Surely you can understand that?
senz
(11,945 posts)It could mean anything, it's so vague.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It only has meaning in context to a given situation, which is why it is a terrible descriptor in politics.
I agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues he has put forth and I think his policy solutions are what is needed to solve a lot of those issues. I think a lot of Hillary's policy recommendations were put out in response to Bernie and a lot of them are kind of loose and more about emroidering around our current system rather than comitting to solid reform or enacting new policy.
I don't vote for people that tell me they are moderate. I don't believe people that tell me they are moderate.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)"I like Bernie, and am leaning toward voting for him in the primary, in fact I most probably will. This will be despite, not because of, much of what I've read on DU these past months, this present OP included. "
Amen.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Most people come to the decisions they do because they become curious and seek out answers. If someone comes up to you and asks who is this Bernie Sanders guy then tell them. If they support someone else, let them. Trying to force anybody to change their mind only leads to power struggles and anger and we have enough of that in the world.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Hillary has released tons of policy proposals, has major union endorsements, and numerous endorsements from Dems and civil rights hero's like John Lewis and Gloria Steinem. It's Bernie supporters who have the emotional connection with nothing to back it up.
I'm actually glad some Dems don't like Hillary, I'm so over the cult of personality politics.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Please, let us know when Bernie releases his sweeping Wall Street proposals, until then it's all emotion.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)He's never spoken about that? 
hill2016
(1,772 posts)commercial banks? investment banks? retail banks? brokerages?
Do you even know what Wall Street means and does?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)what about Wells Fargo?
Would you be okay if it got more expensive for banks to fund loans (since they have to spread fixed costs over a lower asset base)? Or much smaller ATM/branch networks?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Because the tone of your responses appears very hostile.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
You realize most banks that went under weren't effected by Glass-Steagall?
senz
(11,945 posts)"Her" very recent policy proposals aren't anything she has ever talked about -- or fought for -- before. They sound like something her paid staff wrote up in response to Bernie's long held beliefs and proposals. They don't ring true.
And I find this statement:
strange and inexplicable.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Are we naive to be asking for a believable degree of sincerity from our candidates? They act like it's unimportant! 
I cannot understand what the other camps wants. I keep coming up with, either they're paid to say this stuff or they're sincere but terribly, terribly shortsighted. It's frustrating, and of course we have to be careful what we say.
I'm glad you're here, JRLeft, because you make a lot of sense. Which is sorely needed around these parts.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)They are still attracted to "power". The recent hearings and now all the "wow - she was strong" proves that. While I admire that - it has nothing to do with any POLICY and what she would actually support.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Discouraging but clarifying.
I vote policy, that's all. And I appreciate and will stand by anyone with a proven record that closely aligns with my cherished values. Period end of story.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Fool me once - uh, don't get fooled again....
Same tactic. And it will be the same if she wins: the famous "look forward not behind", "bipartisan", "have to work with the GOP" etc.
All for the same wallstreet and corporate owners.
senz
(11,945 posts)Whereas for her, I can't believe she doesn't. Obama did not immerse himself so totally in the oligarchy. I believe he had, and has, a residual allegiance to the people.
Her? Not at all.
I don't think he was as "assimilated" before - but after, well...
And yes - she's been fully assimilated for a long time.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I cannot conceive of an existence where I decide who is good enough for me and who deserves my support. Being thy judgmental never beings anything but unhappiness for me as individual and does zip for the good of my fellow man.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Given the history and the alliances with criminals like Kissinger, et al, and the warmongering votes and establishment connections, it is quite disconcerting to see Hillary supporters continue to deny the Truth that Hillary presents just more of the same old same old that got us into this mess.
Alas, we may be doomed.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)problem with that is those years were a mirage due to the tech bubble. He's also responsible for some of the major damage this country is still going through.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It's a bad dream.
I see the dream as a holding onto flotsam in the aftermath of the ship sinking.
Whereas Bernie represents a lifeboat of democracy; which is a turn away from depending upon the 1% to protect us, which the Hillary supporters cling to.
The 1% dream is, in Truth, a nightmare.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Obama is a 3rd Way example, yeah jobs have been increased, but they do not pay shit.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)I wouldn't take someone else's wrong headed misinterpretations about the Clinton's seriously. It was proven that the tech bubble was not responsible for the economic growth during Bill's tenure. The underlying growth was strong; the tech just added to it, but was not "the" growth.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts) JRLeft
(7,010 posts)I know all about shadow banking played a role too.
this is why I don't bother with these Retro out of context fishing expeditions.
And LMAO that I now support Wall Street because I don't take revisionist retro out of context flamebait seriously -- another example of the pure bullshit being repackaged. Although I should have seen this coming. All the signs were there.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And there was a lot of talk abut how the "economic cycle" was obsolete and the economy was on an endless upward path.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Its the economy, stupid thingie. But all that can be sliced and diced by the Clinton haters, and there is no end to the irrational hatred. No thanks.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts) Armstead
(47,803 posts)We haven't outsourced jobs. Workers are benefiting as much as the CEOs and owners in the benefits of productivity. We still have a plethora of competitive industries that are not dominated by immense corporations. Formerly prosperous communities throughout the country are not hollowed out shells. 2008 never happened.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Out of context hater and revisionist. Last time I went down this path, it turned out the other poster was a Ross Perot voter. What an utter waste of to time to talk to that muddled mindset.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and the 1990's created a fundamentally strong and broadly-based and diverse economy.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)So You can fit your little holier-than-thou phony moralistic claptrap. I won't waste my time with extremists.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)And I'll bet I'm holier than thou too 
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It'll only make your brain hurt 
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)of moralistic comments from you and the other Hillary hater. No one is going to care about your morals. They have their own. Just the fact you would bring up your wrongheaded comments.about the tech bubble tells me you are not credible.
I already explained that to you, as well, so you go back to your phony high horse. I didn't see Bernie running in 1992 or 1996. WTF was wrong with him that he didn't get his ass out and run for President. Lets moralize about that.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)After 12 years of Republicans.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Bill, and Dubya both culprits. Not to forget the democratic and Republican congressional members who voted for those policies.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Maybe its subconscious but theres probably a lot of wanting Happy Days to return
NonMetro
(631 posts)Clinton and the "New Democrats" have had their run, and other than electing Bill in the 90's and Barack now, they're not doing well. Republicans have 31 governorships and control 2/3 of all state houses. We need a new direction, and I don't see HRC providing that.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)because of it and crashed not only our economy, but also the world economy.
He Abolished the Fairness Doctrine and we have lost any semblance of a Fair MSM because of that. Corporations now steer our "news" thanks to Bill Clinton. The further we get from his Presidency, the worse it looks.
Welfare Reform -
A stunning report released by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center reveals that the number of US households living on less than $2 per person per day—a standard used by the World Bank to measure poverty in developing nations—rose by 130 percent between 1996 and 2011, from 636,000 to 1.46 million. The number of children living in these extreme conditions also doubled, from 1.4 million to 2.8 million.
http://www.thenation.com/article/week-poverty-welfare-reform-bad-worse/
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
DanTex
(20,709 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)to someone who politely tells you that you can agree to disagree. You've certainly convinced me.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's not like one day America woke up and suddenly all the factories and jobs were gone to China, and industries had morphed into monopolistic monsters and the financial systems had suddenly been twisted into all of these baroque close-to-criminal financial schemes.
Nooooooo, it was a process, and a lot of the damage was being done while we were having the economic equivalent of a cocaine binge.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)That isn't someone's wild and/or willful misinterpretations. or mischaracterizations. I don't need to agree with someones moralizing about something they evaluated wrong. Taking things out of context is pure sport for anything to do with the Clintons. No thanks.
brooklynite
(94,452 posts)Since, apparently, you know my deep emotional feelings about things?
I have no objection to the reasons on which YOU choose to vote. Have the respect of not making unfounded assumptions about mine.
FWIW - In 2008 I started out supporting Clinton, and switched to Obama when I became convinced that he was actually electable. I'd do the same with Sanders if someone could offer a convincing case for him.
artislife
(9,497 posts)understand that electability is the number one issue.
You are very clear and that is a plus.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Most of us are entrenched with our candidates/issues.
Two switches that I know of... a few still waiting it out. But the ones waiting will be swayed by the candidates themselves, I believe.
We can only stop falsehoods and rhetoric. That goes for both camps.
But lets be honest, there is little conversions going on. What is going on is that we are really building an animosity toward the other candidate.
I came into this election cycle disheartened that there was no real challenge to Hillary. Then not only a challanger, but one who matched a lot of what I personally care for, entered the race. Hurrah!
If it ends up that he doesn't win the nom, I will be back where I started.
Disenheartened that there is no real challenge to Hillary.
And probably angrier about it than I started out.
tblue
(16,350 posts)when she was the only Democrat running. Then came Bernie, whose voting record I have watched for years, and for me there's no comparison.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)I have time and time again posted evidence showing what Clinton's policies and voting record are, and Sanders supporters refuse to look at it. They do not provide evidence to counter it, they either ignore it or respond with trite slogans. Repeating corporatist and Wall Street a million times over doesn't constitute evidence, particularly when they show absolutely no interest in her actual policies or the nature of campaign contributions in this current election.
What is incredible is you think that crap actual constitutes evidence. Sloganeering is not evidence. Evidence is policy and voting record. Repeating empty campaign rhetoric designed to play to the ignorance of the voting public is not evidence. It's just sad, and when people are repeatedly confronted with actual evidence--like the state of the laws, like the existence of Super Pacs for Sanders, including one run by a former high-placed staffer, to retreat to the same tired slogans, it becomes clear that issues and evidence are the least of concerns.
It is not Clinton supporters who freak out at any suggestion that their candidate might not be infallible. It is not they who become angry when someone points out their candidate's voting record. It is not they who detract from discussing that record by making personal jabs. It is not they who post threads saying, what has candidate x ever done for y, and then ignore the responses providing policy positions and prior Senate votes. It is not Clinton supporters who insist everything that doesn't favor their candidate is part of some Byzantine conspiracy theory designed to harm Sanders, whether that is Black Lives Matter or the Benghazi hearings.
What would be nice if people would present actual policy positions by Sanders, and talk about what he has to offer rather than generating one post after another expressing contempt for voters who don't do as they are told.
Then seriously, you really ought to get a mirror because this OP is surreal.
Now, if you do decide "evidence" actual does concern you, have a look at Clinton's policy positions: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Corporations that profit from the killing of 32,000 Americans every year. I do not share your admiration for the merchants of death, and I that you happen to like them in no way explains the disparity between concern for votes in favor of some corporate industries while railing against another.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Not mention her vote lead to the creation of ISIS.
Well, by that logic Bernie Sanders is responsible for the entire carceral society since he voted for both crime bills.
Moving from corporate excess to foreign policy may help you with your singular concern--the elevation of one politician over another--but it does not explain the disparity in both your and Sanders supporting immunity for one corporate industry and insisting another should be reigned in.
Additionally, if you look at Sanders foreign policy record, you would see it is far from dovish, and he in fact voted for the authorization of forces resolution as well as measures funding the war in Iraq. https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/32/foreign-affairs#.Vivu6rerQfM
The irony, of course, is that your OP purports to be about evidence, yet you yourself show no interest in any evidence whatsoever.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)we wouldn't have more people in prison than any other nation in office. By that same logic as you employ, we can thank Sanders for that.
You miss several key steps that led to the development of ISIS, like the El-Malaki's Sunni purges, the rebellion against Assad, and much more, but that might lead to actual understanding, and we certainly can't have that.
Also, ever stop to think that if Bernie hadn't voted to fund the Iraq War effort so many times we might not have had ISIS either?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)
vote and the war, but your refusal to read or respond to any of my points shows the effort will be pointless.
Shorthand: the war killed. Her vote was one vote. The war was Bush's, not Clinton's. There were many votes that enabled it, including the funding that Sanders voted for.
Another point: more Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 alone than in all the wars in US history. How is it those lives don't concern you? Bernie voted against the Brady bill. He voted to allow ready access to guns and has promised to never vote for a waiting period for buying a gun. Yet those deaths seemingly don't count because they don't fit your bumper sticker slogan.
Wall Street bad, gun corporations special. Deaths from Iraq War bad, deaths from guns not worth commenting on. I'm not seeing much consistency in your position, but then you take your cues from a candidate that shows the same contradictions, contradictions that lead me to question the entire argument for supporting him.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Its like the Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 never existed. The 2003 AUMF there was only two options on the table and the third option of doing nothing was not one of them. On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on three factors:
1) The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)·
2) Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today
·
3) Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·
60 Words And A War Without End
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons"
Congress voted to give the president this broad power to authorize force on Sept. 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks. California Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat, was the only person — out of both the House and Senate — to vote against it, despite its potentially broad implications.
“I said, 'This is too broad. It’s not definitive.' It was open-ended,” Lee told Radiolab. She wanted to show unity with the President but worried about the ambiguity of the AUMF.
“This is the legal foundation for everything the U.S. has done from Guantanamo Bay to drone strikes to secret renditions to Navy Seal raids. It’s all been hung off these words. One lawyer, who was in the Bush administration, said 'Look, this sentence is like a Christmas tree. All sorts of things have been hung off of this,'" said Gregory Johnsen, Buzzfeed's inaugural Michael Hastings Fellow and the author of "60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)I've yet to see an explanation why taking up to $2700 from someone who works in a bank on Wall Street is worse than giving $800 billion in corporate welfare to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 or granting immunity for gun corporations. There seems to be a clear sense that one kind of corporation that operates on a single street in NY is the only one the needs reining in. Meanwhile, Biden's consistent voting record for the credit card industry somehow makes him less "corporate" than Clinton, whereas Bernie's votes in support for corporations in the MIC and gun industry that profit from killing as opposed to usury is so much better. So really, explain that to me. Why does profiting from murder make a corporation better than a bank on Wall Street? And why would I see that glaring disparity and take his rhetoric about corporate excess seriously when it clearly is so selectively applied.
I see a lot of innuendo and absolutely no concern for actual policy, or even the voting record of their own candidate.
If you actually looked at Clinton's policies, you would see they are far more detailed and substantive than Sanders, INCLUDING on Wall Street reform. Yet I can tell by the length of time it took you to respond that you didn't look. Meanwhile, you provide no evidence, and I would bet anything that the evidence you would come up with would be nothing more than someone else's opinion, which is not in fact evidence at all.
See, I know one crucial point many of you ignore. The problems of our campaign finance system are not about one politician running for president vs. another. They are systemic, and their influence runs throughout our political system and into the writing of legislation. It is in fact more problematic at lower offices than the presidency. The insistence that if only Clinton is kept from being President and Bernie instead is the nominee that will all end is without any evidentiary basis and shows a profound lack of understanding of the extent of the problem and how it is supported through a whole network of laws, not just Citizens United. The absurdity that the contest between Sanders and Clinton is a difference between the US being a democracy vs. an oligarchy shows is absurd beyond comprehension. It shows no understanding of the role of the presidency. Imagining the holder of that one office is determinative of our entire system of government and class relations in society more broadly is bizarre. Add the conspiracy theories that proliferate here among Sanders supporters, and you really ought to think more carefully about using terms like evidence and emotion. Glass houses and all.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)What do you mean by industry? Do you mean people who work for some industry, any industry? Or do you mean corporate donations?
Your question suggests you don't have the level of familiarity with the nature of campaign finance law to even pose a meaningful question.
would also be good if Sanders supporters lay out exactly how his policy positions are paid for since that's the big elephant in the room.
katsy
(4,246 posts)let alone politicians.
That is reality for most of us.
But we evolved with each generation. And I'm willing to vote for placeholders (democrats I srsly don't agree with) for 2 reasons:
1: so my kids have a chance to do better and for the reactionary bastards to just die off.
2: because I have a rare disorder linked with ms and if the gop get their way I will die. Simple. I will die if they get rid of ACA. We are smack at the cutoff for subsidies so we pay 1200 per month BUT at least I have care. If the GOP dismantled ACA no insurer will take me. Is the ACA good? Not for me but I'm treading water and may get to see my 14 yr olds get to college. Then who cares.
So yeah.... I can weigh the good and the bad and gladly vote for placeholders until the country evolves some more.
Walk s mile in my shoes and no one... Not one of our candidates suck. Trust this.
artislife
(9,497 posts)when I waiver on how I will vote in November 2016. Thank you.
I know a lot of people who have care now, that couldn't before.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)do that. I personally cannot vote for Democrats who I believe will take lobbyists money and make laws favoring the 1% over the middle class and the poor, but that is my reasoning for voting the way I vote. If you have different reasoning for voting the way you vote then I have no problem with that.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Many people stay home during midterms and look at the cluster fuck called the House.
How great if dems like me didn't vote for corporate Obama right?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)I just get scared of what may ultimately have to happen. IDK
I first came to DU in 2001 and had to defend my position which was much like yours.
Over the years I lost my health and can't even afford star membership any more.
The gop scare me. More than anything.
Didn't mean to offend. I respect your position and wish I could afford to not have to always compromise my values. Peace.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)believe the politicians do. I think sometimes government gets so bogged down moving big chess pieces around in order to win the game, sometimes we get sacrificed like pawns.
katsy
(4,246 posts)
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)My medication is very expensive luckily I have insurance due to my employer. There are still people without insurance, this is why we need medicare for all or a public option.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)$4000 hospital bill I cannot afford to pay. My husband is legally blind and on Medicare. Because of Medicare and supplemental insurance we never receive medical bills for him.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)We need medicare for everyone, we need to eliminate the beauracrats.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)that bill would have been had he not been on Medicare. His father had a heart attack the year before, had a bypass, and ended up with a $200,000 medical bill. Sadly, he did not make it long enough to have to deal with the bill. Who the hell besides the very wealthy can afford a $200,000 medical bill?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm sorry about your father in law it's a disgrace we have a for profit health care industry. Full body scans should be required for every American and it should be affordable.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)continue to circle until we elect an actual progressive government. If we don't it will be the end of our empire.
senz
(11,945 posts)Republicans use the term almost exclusively for government employees, and for them it's always a bogeyman phrase. Medicare is a government program, so of course it's administered by bureaucrats. What we need to eliminate is the middle man of private industry who inserts himself between the patient and the provider, skimming off a profit for himself while deciding who gets to live and who doesn't.
The nice thing about medicare is that it is funded by our taxes and keeps operating costs at a minimum, so we collectively pay for our health care. Which is, of course, how it's done in northern Europe and Canada (as I'm sure you know).
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)So logic cannot penetrate the bubble.
I have high hopes for Bernie and I will donate to him until it hurts. But if he shows a clear pattern of pandering to the wealthy or powerful, or selling his soul for personal gain, I will throw him under the bus in a heartbeat.
So far all I see is someone who is honest, fair, and steadfast in his belief in democratic principles.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)I will gladly support Hilary.
The cost of a republican President would be devastating. A republican President would mean another one or two Supreme Court justices put in place by a republican. For that reason alone, I would vote for and support any Democrat nominated. As Bernie Sanders has pointed out time and again, we also need to win the House and Senate back, or we will see more of the same sabotage of every piece of valuable legislation. Citizens United is the enemy I have my eye on!
Go Bernie!
Go any Democrat that wins the nomination!
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)and their lives are not being affected by the problems Bernie rages against. That is why Bernie supporters should just spread the word and hope that those who feel they have no say or have lost hope will vote in the primaries and send a true representative of people to the White House.
emulatorloo
(44,096 posts)I am drawing on my experience working on political campaigns.
Lead with Bernie's positives, not HRC's negatives. Give reasons to vote for Bernie, don't focus on reasons to vote against HRC. Highlight policy differences in a cool rational manner, pointing out why you feel Bernie is the better choice. Painting HRC as a "bad person" is a non-starter.
As to presenting evidence, these things are other non-starters if one is trying to convince them to switch. I have seen these tactics used on DU:
- Armchair Psychoanalysis and demonization of HRC, especially when they echo right-wing memes either unintentionally or intentionally
- suggesting that HRC supporters are ignorant or evil. Or suffering from mental conditions.
- pointing to Republican Hillary Hate and manufactured scandals as a reason to vote for Bernie.
- naively aligning yourself with right-wing voices and taking them at face value.
- asserting that HRC "is a Republican"
- trash-talking Obama
- arguing that HRC is "unelectable"
- Jargonistic acronyms and terms
These tactics will alienate both undecided voters and HRC persuadables.
randome
(34,845 posts)Make America great again! Talk about emotional investment in a candidate. First, the office of the President is the weakest one of our government. Secondly, who the hell cares? Sanders has some negatives. Clinton has some negatives. Until one of them is actually in the office, we won't know what they can get done or what they will try to get done. The office changes the person. We've seen that every time.
So how about relaxing and live your life and adopt the philosophy of 'live and let live'? You may find that being less bitter can have positive effects around you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Shouting down at the sinners from their perch on high.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)principles and that'd get in the way of the political stratum cashing its checks every 2 years
mythology
(9,527 posts)Scientific polls or that Sanders and Clinton voted the same way 93% of the time in the Senate?
Both sides have emotional supporters who don't believe evidence. The very fact that you believe you are only fact based in your decision makes me even more certain that you aren't. Very few people can take emotions out of decision making.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)forced me to pass on republican lite.
betsuni
(25,441 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
riversedge
(70,176 posts)Going on now in Iowa
Hillary for Iowa Retweeted
Nimita Uberoi ?@Nuberoi2 15m15 minutes ago Des Moines, IA
Twins for Hillary!! #twins @HillaryforIA #theyrewithher #madamepresident
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Clinton bashers repeatedly make stuff up and repeat it ad nauseum in certain echo chambers until it becomes their gospel. If you need to make stuff up to justify your position then you have a problem. For some people it is just not enough to be FOR a candidate, they have to diminish, demean and degrade the competition no matter the veracity of their claims.
Response to JRLeft (Original post)
Post removed
zappaman
(20,606 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And her answer to the last question she was asked a the debate, it would seem that this race is not one of issues, but one of gender. When Clinton was asked how her administration would be different from the current one, and she answered, "I'm a woman," I could not believe that it was her first concern.
So my only conclusion about this Democratic Primary is that it is no longer about the issues, it seems to be more about gender.
Gender and status quo vs. issues that concern WE THE PEOPLE, and a candidate who has a long history of standing up to the little guy and gal.
Yes, the country is circling the drain, and if we do not get Bernie as our candidate, I am afraid that the oligarchy has won, and it's over for us little folks. We might as well just call ourselves serfs, because that is all we are.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)ie basically if the Democrats wanna be Conservative and stand with the 1 % thats okay with them. Not me. So technically the party left me. Bernie is trying to bring it back. Course in civics one remembers that Lincoln was a Liberal. Republicans used to be Liberal. and Democrats used to be Conservative hence their racist past. So until you figure out there's a Liberal Party a Conservative Party and a Tea Party (which is basically National Socialism ) ahem ...
you get what you vote for.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)But she is an outstanding candidate. I am apparently not alone in sincerely believing this. And, of course I have an emotional connection to the candidate I support the most. Why shouldn't I?
Frankly, I find OPs like this to be quite patronizing.
Do you honestly think that a lifelong and liberal Democrat like me, who has seen the GOPer candidate win FAR too many times (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 - yes, I endured every one of these), in part due to unrealistically purist stances on the part of some who call themselves Dems, has not come to an honestly sincere conclusion about Hillary, after considering all the options?
That being said, if Hillary is not the Dem nominee, I will gladly support whoever is.
Who the heck are you even to suggest that ANY of the three outstanding Dem candidates (and, of course you mean only HIllary) could be worse than any GOPer? What planet do you live on? 
katmondoo
(6,454 posts)Hillary meets my criteria, I like Bernie but on some issues he is not strong enough. There is a war on women and I wish Bernie would address this with passion
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
Gman
(24,780 posts)and emotion has nothing to do with it? Since all I ever hear is how superior and ideologically pure and in general so much better people Sanders supporters are, I doubt that's possible.
Ya think, just maybe?
Didn't think so. Too much to ask.
What a condescending OP.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... quite "emotional".
Gman
(24,780 posts)Often as a defensive action.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The OP projects his emotional state onto Hillary supporters, and then speaks down to them as if he's their superior.
The OP lacks an irony meter.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)One of you thinks president Sanders will engineer a government takeover of every business in the US. Makes me wonder if this feeling is prevalent, or just a few are really nutty.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
RandySF
(58,660 posts)I've seen far more slurs, insults and f-bombs hurled by Sanders supporters than anyone else.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)events with your own biased spin. They are not facts as they are generally presented by Clinton haters. Thats where you are confused and why you can't see why people won't bother with the spin. They know better the context of the events you misrepresent and don't appreciate the retro makeover .
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)I suspect the number of Hillary supporters in the real world who have an emotional connection to her is much smaller. They support her because they are familiar with her or they think she can win. The Democrats I've spoken to in New York (Hillary's adopted state) don't particularly like or trust Hillary but many support her because they are afraid of the Republicans and have brought into the conventional wisdom (which is probably wrong) that she will be a stronger candidate in the GE.
The people I've spoken who know Bernie tend to like Bernie. They feel he is more genuine and cares more about ordinary people. They agree with Bernie more on the issues while they feel Hillary changes her positions. The one obstacle that Bernie has is getting more voters to believe he can win. If he can do that he will win the primary. I think that Bernie would be the stronger GE candidate for a number of reasons and it would be a shame if Democrats throw away their chance for real change to nominate the weaker candidate.
A note about New York. Although New York is very liberal on social issues the Democratic establishment tends to be more centrist on economic issues. Populism hasn't played well and we've never had any one like Bernie in my lifetime We tend to get Democrats who need to raise a lot of money and are beholden to Wall Street. Last year we had our first real populist/progressive challenge to the establishment when Zephyr Teachout running an underfunded campaign managed to receive about 35% of the vote against Andrew Cuomo.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I'll be leaving the US again, probably for good, if either Clinton, or a republican, are our only options for the next POTUS.
I left after Bush stole the 2000 election, and refuse to support, in any way, the consolidation and permanent institution of US oligarchy that will occur if either Clinton or a republican becomes President in 2017.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)may end up doing.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
If Bernie is not nominated, it's over. I had so much hope and optimism for America back in '67, but the oligarchs are just a few more lies away from snuffing them forever.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)they go back to being corporate sell outs.
oasis
(49,365 posts)
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)For sure.
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)I believe she has the best chance, by far, of winning the general election. She is a Democrat. That's why I support her in the primaries. That's the only reason. I see no reason to change that support and plenty to maintain it.
Given the limited power a President has, my primary concern is to have a Democrat in that office, and I will support the candidate I feel has the best chance of election.
My primary focus is legislative. That's where the real power is in this country. There, I focus a lot more on positions and policies. The President has to win nationwide and in enough states to get 270 electoral votes. That's the only thing I'm looking at.
In 2008, I supported Obama over Clinton, for the very same reason. This year, I support Clinton. No emotions are involved. Its all a calculation of odds.
tblue
(16,350 posts)My decision making doesn't function quite that way and I am voting for Bernie in the primary for my own logical reasons, but I appreciate that you took the time to share your thinking without tearing down anybody else. Thanks, MineralMan! UNITE BLUE!
MineralMan
(146,281 posts)whether I agree with it or not. I may respond with my opinion, but I won't be responding with attacks, either on posters or on candidates. I support Hillary Clinton in the campaign, but understand that not every DUer does. I have my reasons, and they have theirs. There is no reason whatever that we cannot discuss our differences civilly here.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Response to shenmue (Reply #186)
Post removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm sure. lol.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...sometimes a good reminder. Wanna look into the mirror and try that op from a Bernie supporters perspective?
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)with that circling the drain comment you have progressed to old man on the porch shaking his rake at passers by status
Dem2
(8,168 posts)This is not helpful at all.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While another Sanders supporter has an op up "There is nothing anyone here could ever tell me..." You just can't make this stuff up. Comedy gold.
