America today feels like the last days of the Soviet Union

I responded to ONE of your posts - the one that said “… the Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate …”. If you said that, but earlier said something else … well, which one of you do you want me to respond to?

Upon reading your earlier posts I see you make essentially the same point(s) that I would have made, which are:

  1. the Dems did have enought votes to pass it, if they voted en bloc like the Republicans do, but …
  2. since so many of the “Emocrats” are just neolibs who always vote for conservative economic policies, while occasionally throwing a bone at some harmless (to the .01%) bone to “prove” they don’t take orders from the same people who give orders to the Republicans.

So it’s all good!

2 Likes

5 Likes

Yeah but here’s the thing: a Democratic administration won’t happen anymore because they aren’t left enough to actually inspire the massive non-voting bloc. Whenever they get into office it is just civility politics, disappointment, and very little changes for the better, while many things erode towards the worse (and I’m saying that as a gay trans woman – my life would be Significantly better if I had free healthcare instead of gay marriage, if I had to pick). Then a Republican takes power because people get disenchanted with the Democrats and the Republicans actively make things worse. I have heard this called the ratchet effect and I think that is a good model for thinking about it.

Now we’re at the point where Republicans are consolidating their power forever and talking about genocide and Democrats are still talking about how at least they aren’t Republicans rather than trying bold popular socialist ideas in earnest. A Democratic administration would be doing the opposite but materially? They’re just preparing us for the next and eternal Republican administration if they aren’t at least as left as Bernie and AOC.

ETA: Put another way, it is not enough to be better than Republicans in order to distinguish their legacy from Republicans. Democrats need to actively change both the whole political and socioeconomic situation drastically in this country in order to disempower Republicans, otherwise they’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (while simultaneously denying leftists positions of power to do something).

10 Likes

shrug. My fault–I should have known better than to bother engaging on a Bernie-adjacent thread. Enjoy your purity politics.

2 Likes

My dude I am a communist; Bernie isn’t even close to my ideal, but I recognize the forces in motion and the minimum it is going to take to avoid eternal Republican rule. Get with the fucking program before nazis take over and enact actual purity politics.

ETA: Or don’t, just know that people had been telling you for years that it was socialism or barbarism and you argued for barbarism.

6 Likes

https://twitter.com/haircut_hippie/status/806727683195355136

(the following quote is from that Twitter thread)

my first rotation as a med student. Obamacare had kicked in. but I kept seeing ppl coming in far too late, refusing followup care, etc. why?

they had insurance! Obamacare meant that they’d be spared from truly financially disastrous illnesses like cancer. so what was the deal.

talk to guy. fam history of esophageal cancer. guy has severe acid reflux. recommend endoscopy. he refuses. why?

see his deductible: $5000!

for you non-Americans: the first $5000 of his medical care in the calendar year, he pays for out of pocket.

answer is obvious: can’t afford

cost just of scoping to diagnose problem: ~$1500. biopsy, $100. add a $100 specialist followup, and you still haven’t even touched treatment

the doctor works 7am-7pm M-F. Saturdays @ hospital. b/c she sees poor pts, she pays her staff thru her salary. earning ~$10k/year herself

this is b/c she does “long” (half-hour) appts. doesn’t over-book. many indigent patients, even if they have insurance.

i can tell you this story again and again. this isn’t even a particularly poor area, but docs who saw poor pts were taking >100k/yr pay cuts

had multiple child psych docs quit b/c our new guidelines changed to basically: just give the kids drugs. b/c TX social services are fucked

so this is the problem: Obama’s signature accomplishment, Obamacare, had almost zero influence on any of the poorest patients we have

the effect was to transform healthcare from totally unaffordable to totally unaffordable. most ppl still had impossible barriers to care

“what about Medicaid?”

I live in Texas. we refused Medicaid expansion. & even if you’re (magically) eligible, getting it can be a nightmare

In medical treatment, there’s a ~guideline of the simpler the better. One pill a day, OK. Two pills, not good. Three pills, too difficult

Every single extra step a patient has to take reduces the odds that a patient will/can be treated properly. It’s a big deal.

All this wonk bullshit in Obamacare? I’ve seen grown adults cry b/c they can’t figure out wtf is going on w/their care. it’s a nightmare

if me, the doc, the nurse, a social worker, the patient, & the insurance co can’t figure out what’s going on, maybe your bill sucks

if you need a team of economists, Vox, and two hundred men wearing lanyards to explain how you’re helping the poor, maybe you aren’t

b/c for the poor, in the case of Obamacare the test came when they went to the doc for the first time & it was still hellish & unaffordable

oh, and I can’t tell you whatever happened to the reflux + family history of esophageal cancer guy. b/c he never came back

(back to me)

To spell it out: health insurance with a deductible of more than a few hundred dollars is essentially null and void for most Americans. It provides zero benefit outside of extraordinary circumstances.

Forcing people to pay for functionally non-existent healthcare does not help them. It hurts them.

The pre-ACA situation was diabolical. The post-ACA situation is still diabolical.

If you’re going to socialise healthcare, as you should, you need to do it properly

16 Likes

Working on it. Sorry it’s not fast enough for ya.

3 Likes

Or maybe we can just enjoy winning politics, as evidenced by the amazing way Sanders won over the Fox News viewers at the Fox town hall the other day.

The way things are going with the centrist Democrat hatred of Bernie, he’ll get more votes from Republicans than from the PUMAs.

4 Likes

I’m not the one who needs the apology.

12 Likes

Also, I hear he does well in North Carolina fundraising, and polls above 30 percent in a sample of 1700 Hispanic-American voters. How could he POSSIBLY lose?

Did you vote for Hillary in the 2016 general election?

I don’t hate Bernie. I think he’d be a pretty terrible president, because the people I know who have had to work with him, and whose opinions I trust, think he’s intellectually lazy and more concerned with populist soundbites than policy details. Nevertheless, I don’t hate the guy. He has policy goals I agree with, even if I’m pretty sure he has no better idea how to achieve them than Trump has about his goals. If the Democrats nominate Bernie for president, I will vote for him, because the alternative is far worse. I’d rather have a guy who tries to be kind but is incompetent at it than a guy who is both cruel and incompetent.

I do, however, get reaaaaaal sick of the folks who continually leap to the attack whenever anybody isn’t entirely in his camp. Continually harping on how well he’s doing with small, carefully selected samples of voters, even if those voters watch Fox News, is not a convincing argument for his ability to govern effectively.

3 Likes

You:

Also you:

So, which of the great, non-barbarous communist regimes do you hope the U.S. emulates?

1 Like

You can sugar-coat this, as Ron Paul tried to, by suggesting that private charity will step in to help.

Maybe the question was asked and not reported, but I very much want to know how Paul squares this conclusion with the immediate reality of his own supporters cheering at the prospect of this hypothetical young man dying. After decades of encouraging neoliberal schadenfreude over issues of allegedly neglected “personal responsibility,” where is all this charity supposed to suddenly come from?

It strongly seems as if we would be reliant for this charity on people who otherwise think Ron Paul is a petty, mean-spirited prick anyway.

5 Likes

Nevertheless, @DukeTrout isn’t the one who needs to make it.

Some of us Americans are trying hard to fix things, Wander.

O_o

10 Likes

What a laugh!

At the time, he’d spent 25 years in Congress, and they’ve cherry-picked these 13 “accomplishments,” all of which are amendments to other bills, two of which are procedural notice and reporting requirements, and one of which is Kirsten Gillibrand’s accomplishment. Let’s look at just one of the others: his LIHEAP funding request is, he concedes in his floor remarks, “$42 million below the President’s request.” He’s so “effective” that he managed to get 1/3 of the funding that George W. Bush wanted for LIHEAP. Oh, and with the same amendment giving $22 million to LIHEAP, he cut $26 million in funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.

These are the best accomplishments that a Bernie puff piece could come up with. Maybe he’s done more since 2015? Because these do not give me any confidence at all that he will be able to get complex legislation like Medicare For All through Congress.

1 Like

He regularly attracts thousands to his speeches. He is extremely popular. Yes, he will have problems with the republicans and most of the democrats (these days mostly DINO). But as his (and BTW AOC’s), popularity shows, progressive policies are wanted by a vast majority of Americans - even republican voters. There will have to be constant pressure reflecting this put on the lawmakers by the public after he is elected.

America is sick of getting shafted by the people who give orders to 100% of the republican legislators and 85% of the democrats.

I say “my problem with Bernie is that he does not appear to be all that good at governing,” and you respond with “here are the handful of governing accomplishments AlterNet found five years ago.” I respond with “those do not seem to show that he’s very good at governing,” and all you’ve got is “… he’s popular.” That’s what we call a non sequitur.

Again: Bernie Sanders does not appear to be very good at governing. Nice guy, I’m sure, trying to do good stuff, but overall not doing it very well.

Donald Trump also “regularly attracts thousands to his speeches.” Donald Trump, somehow, remains “extremely popular.” Donald Trump got a lot of votes from people “sick of getting shafted by the people who give orders.” Donald Trump raises a lot of money. Donald Trump polls very well among certain groups of voters. And Donald Trump is very bad at governing.

My problem with Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with his popularity, or his lack of popularity. It has nothing to do with the likelihood or unlikelihood of his getting slice X of votes. It has to do with the fact that he seems like he will be bad at the job if we let him have it. If you have a real response on that topic, fire away. Otherwise, please don’t bother.

1 Like

I see your confusion about Sanders; the last time he was in a governing position was when he was a mayor. He has been a legislator for decades now. He hasn’t governed in many years.

Semantic mistakes aside, there are many variables to judge effectiveness. A congressperson could sponser milquetoast bills that will pass, and thus add to their “success” total. You see this commonly done for Federal Office renaming bills. For example, in the 8 years that Hillary was in the Senate, she sponsored just 3 bills that got passed - and all three were to rename various government offices, roads, or sites. Although she isn’t running (yet?) in 2020, that record is not atypical of the other candidates so far.

Or they sponser anti-progressive bills like Biden did with his 2005 bankruptcy bill to protect banks. Bernie has never done anything like that.

So if you want to condemn Sander’s for his “ineffectiveness”, understand that he’s actually better at advancing progressive ideas than his competitors - most of which, BTW, are now embracing his “loony” ideas from 2016 like a $15 dollar minimum wage and Medicare For All

BTW: if you think he can’t get M4A thru, I guess you’re admitting the others will have either less success with it (since Bernie started the ball rolling on it), or it’s just empty rhetoric for them.

You mean, like sponsoring an amendment adding $10 million (that’s million with an M, not billion with a B) to appropriations for the National Guard? Like sponsoring an amendment adding $22 million to LIHEAP funding? Literally the entire list of legislative accomplishments you cited earlier was “milquetoast.”

Yeah. He’s a pure progressive. Bernie would never vote against the Brady Bill, or vote to give gun manufacturers immunity, or vote to mandate a life sentence for anyone convicted of three drug crimes, right?

… Just not at getting them enacted into law, which is his job. But I will happily concede that he has been effective at moving the Democratic Party’s platform to the left.

If popularizing an idea and enacting that idea into law were the same thing, your “logic” would make sense. Luckily (in the case of, say, building a dumb wall at the southern border) or unluckily (in the case of, say, net neutrality or federally legal pot) they are not the same thing.

1 Like

Better than a record bereft of anything except renaming post offices or helping banks at the expense of the 99%

If you want to cherry pick individual bills Bernie was behind like gun bills (which are popular with his Vermont constituancy), go right ahead. We’ll go down a list of the anti-progressive bills each candidate was in favor of. I’m 100% confident Sanders will come out a distant last on that score. (Tulsi and/or Warren will be close)

My logic makes perfect sense. The person who originated the idea will have the bully pulpit on it, and can get America energized to bug their legislators. It will have to be a grassroots effort since all the republicans and most of the democrats will be against everything helpful to the public. Bernie will continue to hammer on progressive ideas once elected.

In contrast, the other Dems, most of which are just mouthing empty words about those ideas will either let the issue die or say “thanks for electing me! Oh, and that ------ thing? I know I made lots of promises about it, but can’t do it now. Remember how much I talked about it before Bernie brought it up? Me neither!”

Rinse and repeat that for all of his ideas (which are all endorsed by more than 50% of the public according to polls)