- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
Not if Congress doesn’t flip.
That's true, but then can be said for any Dem - it's more a general comment on the Republicans' attitudes to the Dems as a whole as opposed to any one Dem.
Not if Congress doesn’t flip.
The fact we are talking about Single Payer and other progressive policies tells us he is getting through in spite of the corporate media.
Should he be president, he will get things done.
Not if Congress doesn’t flip.
Warren is progressive, has actually done something in senate (unlike Bernie), and can unite her party. Which is why I believe she will win the primaries.As opposed to what though? He'd still be able to implement modest reforms a more moderate Dem would implement while at least having a chance of pushing through more radical initiatives.
They can try to work with the Republicans but all the evidence suggests the Republicans just aren't interested on most matters - it doesn't matter whether it's Obama or Bernie in office, they just want power for themselves and have correctly gauged that obstructionism is their most effective approach. If you want the Dems to continue making hollow appeals across the aisle, then fair enough, but for the most part it doesn't matter which Dem is doing it - they're about as likely to work with Bernie as they are Biden and Warren on policies that are even remotely progressive. At least a progressive Dem can highlight this instead of pretending the Republicans are actually an alright bunch who just happen to disagree on a few laws here and there.
Sounds like pie in the sky fanaticism to me. The Dems can't even agree on what their healthcare policy should be and don't have control over both houses of congress. So at the end of the day, it wouldn't matter who is elected since none of them can move policy (much less major policy like M4A) in the current political dynamics. There is a pretty decent chance that voting for Sanders would therefore only result in a meager improvement in the ACA - just as it would under Biden or Klobuchar or Buttigieg.
Warren is progressive, has actually done something in senate (unlike Bernie), and can unite her party. Which is why I believe she will win the primaries.
Can you debate without offending? Try it, assuming that you're over 18, it should not be that hard.
Agree that she is not a great orator, and that might be a problem. On the other hand, we don't know how much Right wing propaganda machine will harm Bernie when they will get fully concentrated on him and label him as a commie.She's not a particularly great orator though and there's a concern she'll not be particularly great at handling Trump's tit-for-tat approach when it comes to attacks as has been evidenced in the past. Certainly the second best option for Sanders though, I'd argue.
Are you Jill Stein? In that case, I apologise for calling you a moron.what a ridiculous post from someone who only offends.
Please look how you started your debate addressing me.
But the post you quoted is only offensive to you because you cannot back up what you say.
Again, at least a Sanders presidency would offer the possibility of further and more radical reform - a Biden presidency would essentially be a guaranteed continuation of what we have now.
Agree that she is not a great orator, and that might be a problem. On the other hand, we don't know how much Right wing propaganda machine will harm Bernie when they will get fully concentrated on him and label him as a commie.
Are you Jill Stein? In that case, I apologise for calling you a moron.
Whether it offers a fleeting possibility or not, the reality is that you need certain things in order to move policy, which his election wouldn't provide for. The Dems would still be split on healthcare and various other big ticket issues and the Republicans would immediately entrench themselves to obstruct and vilify in preparation for the next mid terms, which they would likely win. We've seen similar movies with the same plot before. Just 12 years ago, Obama rode to power with an almost messianic fervor and wound up disappointing because you need congress to get things done (along with his own missteps of nothing aggressive in his first two years).
That's true, but then can be said for any Dem - it's more a general comment on the Republicans' attitudes to the Dems as a whole as opposed to any one Dem.
What I would be most worried about in a Bernie or Warren presidency is one where nothing happens because Congress blocks it all. Then the progressives would really get lambasted as not realistic with the added “told ya so” of a lame duck 4 years.Fair point.
There is no indication the Dems wont keep the House against a Trump party. The Dems have a decent chance at flipping the Senate too.
Turnout is crucial of course.
If we have a decent candidate like Bernie or Warren its doable.
Whether it offers a fleeting possibility or not, the reality is that you need certain things in order to move policy, which his election wouldn't provide for. The Dems would still be split on healthcare and various other big ticket issues and the Republicans would immediately entrench themselves to obstruct and vilify in preparation for the next mid terms, which they would likely win. We've seen similar movies with the same plot before. Just 12 years ago, Obama rode to power with an almost messianic fervor and wound up disappointing because you need congress to get things done (along with his own missteps of nothing aggressive in his first two years).
You’re not in a good mood today, please don’t take it out on others.again a moronic post.
Sorry. That only deserved that reponse.
Critical thinking is not your strength.
I don't blame you. That is how your brain works.
But do step back from your hurt.
What I would be most worried about in a Bernie or Warren presidency is one where nothing happens because Congress blocks it all. Then the progressives would really get lambasted as not realistic with the added “told ya so” of a lame duck 4 years.
A good deal of importance is put on who is gonna be in the WH, and I get that... but it will all be for shit if the Senate stays red.
Bernie I believe is quite vulnerable though. Commie tag will hurt him, and they will show all day long him praising USSR in the eighties. Him also having done feck all in senate for 12 years will probably hurt him.The right-wing propaganda machine will savage any Democrat though, and considering Warren is one of the most progressive candidates in the running they're likely to apply much of the same criticism to her as well. I'd imagine most people know of Bernie's policies by now, and yet in national polling he still does alright when he comes up against Trump. A proper campaign could turn sour but there's no evidence this is anymore likely than it is for Biden or Warren.
EA’s won’t get done what you want done.The main stumbling block is the Senate.
Warren has spoken of getting rid of the filibuster. Bernie has not.
But Bernie can do a lot via Executive action.
You’re not in a good mood today, please don’t take it out on others.
You’re doing it again.
These discussions may be over your head.
EA’s won’t get done what you want done.
Bernie I believe is quite vulnerable though. Commie tag will hurt him, and they will show all day long him praising USSR in the eighties. Him also having done feck all in senate for 12 years will probably hurt him.
I don't think that current polls against some particular Dem vs Trump are super useful. Mostly cause at the moment Trump and his cronies aren't fully focused on anyone in particular. But when someone will win the primaries, they will target him.
Saying that, I believe that Bernie is more electable than Warren, though that is primarily cause he is a man.
With all due respect Obama did not have the courage to fulfill his promise.
You’re doing it again.
They'll do this irrespective of who's in office and irrespective of what policy proposals are on offer when it comes to anything remotely progressive. Irrespective of whether it's Biden, Sanders or Warren.
It doesn't matter whether or not you think Obama didn't or Sandars does. The political conditions to move policy aren't there, which means a continuation of the status quo.
Any condition or situation can be changed.
Its people who determine this.
It starts a t grassroots level. Local and State governments.
To be fair here you are only able to see your side of things. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, change to the left needs to be gradual. You are not going to get Dems to suddenly embrace left wing policies, much as you might wish them to. Unless something drastic happens within the US in the next year or so of course.Again.
You do not understand much of what has been said. I'm not being insulting.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368370601054894Please, link me to these studies...
Ok, then you can vote for people you support at the local level. But don't expect any of that to change anything at the national level over the next cycle.
To be fair here you are only able to see your side of things. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, change to the left needs to be gradual. You are not going to get Dems to suddenly embrace left wing policies, much as you might wish them to. Unless something drastic happens within the US in the next year or so of course.
True, but that doesn't resolve the bit that the Dems don't have the political capital to deal with such a situation if they themselves are split on big policies like healthcare and beyond. In order to overcome a GOP blockade you have to be unified - and the Dems are anything but unified, so the likeliest scenario is that nothing happens other than what is possible through EO.
They were unified under Obama though and kept on losing congressional elections, followed by Clinton's 2016 defeat. Again, it's doesn't matter. The Dems need to play to their own prospective strengths instead of worrying about an obstructionist GOP who will thwart them either way.
It’s not wrong to speak of left and right. They may be policies that benefit everyone but not everyone who votes thinks as you think. They have their own ideas of what benefits them and paying for someone else’s medical care is not a policy that is embraced by all. Far from it.You are simply wrong to speak of Left and Right.
Its policies that benefit everyone. It is about information. People don't understand.
Trump voters want the same thing anyone else does.
Good health Care for example. Decent paying jobs.
That was due to a tactical mistake Obama made, which allowed the Repubs to regroup during 2009-10 and launch an assault on the house. Had he been a bit more ruthless, he would've got a lot more done and the effects on 2010 would've been mitigated by some degree of accomplishment.
It’s not wrong to speak of left and right. They may be policies that benefit everyone but not everyone who votes thinks as you think. They have their own ideas of what benefits them and paying for someone else’s medical care is not a policy that is embraced by all. Far from it.
Frankly I’d vote for the village idiot if he was going to bring in Med for All but the US is a country where people focus on their money (what’s mine is mine) more than anywhere else in the world probably. They can’t get their heads around any policy that is being branded as “socialist” and the members of the Senate/Congress are unlikely to pass anything too extreme.
We all know what would benefit people but it will take time for people to adjust to a different way of thinking.
Yes it is lack of information, but it’s long-standing and won’t be changed easily. They have fixed ideas and it’s deeply embedded. Whilst everyone is so obsessed with their own wealth and themselves it will be a struggle. That’s why you are the only “civilised” country left (so to speak) with this pretty appalling health care system.I have addressed this.
Lack of information. For example. People think if you have Single Payer you have to go to some poor public clinic, which is not true.
People want the same thing as I have said. And it can be paid for easily. Its called reallocation of resources.
We are a huge economy where you get economies of scale as compared to Denmark for example.
The media is hell bent on disinformation for obvious reasons.
btw I will be in a bad mood only if United don't take advantage and win by 2 goals to go top.