|
VitalSigns posted:The donor class would be. And since they're the reason Democrats would never support an NHS, it's doubtful Democrats would cross them to pass a public option Poor Illuminati, they spent all that money and they couldn’t even keep universal health care and public option out of their party platform. At least they got to include “actually we just included that as a joke” in letters only this guy can see with is true and unwavering power of faith that democrats are bad.
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:The next step is you declaring that we already have a public option. The next step is you declaring we had universal health care until Hillary Clinton took it away by running on providing a public option
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Radish posted:The rest of the post is good but this point here. This is literally what happened with the Dreamers. "Trust us we'll help you, even though we HAD the power to solve this whole problem a few years ago but didn't have the will to actually do it then but totally will in the future." This is what I mean about people that just absorb fox news narrative. This weird alternate history of the democrats playing a trick instead of the actual thing that happened. In the actual world the democrats pushed immigration reform in 2013, they wrote a bill, passed it in the senate and then got all the votes to pass it in the house, then the republicans used procedural tricks to delay the vote until it died as a bill. The obama said "well, bill died, but we are doing this part anyway" and just declared daca as a thing through presidential order. And like, if you had told the story like, oh well, the democrats could have tried harder, if they had played X magic card it could have enacted an untested gambit that I assume would have totally worked to beat the republicans. And fine, that, whatever, maybe. But then it moves past that to "also democrats planned this, also they didn't even try to pass legislation, also they got paid to make republicans win, etc' and that is just crazy rewriting of history.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Radish posted:they will always use bullshit just like they stole a SCOTUS seat and there will always be an excuse. Yeah, they should have learned that lesson in 2016 then sent a terminator back in time so they could apply that lesson to an event that happened pervious to the event you are using as proof they should have known.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Plus you know, you've argued that HRC had supported single payer Universal healthcare and single payer aren't synonyms. Lots of countries provide universal healthcare that isn't single payer, lots of countries provide extremely world class universal healthcare through a system of mandatory insurance, a public option and a system to get it to people that can't pay. If you think we shouldn't have a system like luxembourg has (the best system on the earth) because they "only" have public option subsidized insurance universal health care instead of pure ideologically perfect pure single payer then gently caress you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:is a actually a Republican trying to gaslight you. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964512164865363968
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:A politician who won't support single payer will not support universal healthcare There is three countries on earth that use pure single payers, canada, tawiain and south korea. Like 78 countries or something have universal health care and like 30 have meaningful free health care.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The 2013 bill was loving political theatre from the party that shot down their own bipartisan bill in 2010 to appeal to racists. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964512164865363968
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:If you want to keep supporting people that will happily sell you out in the name of bipartisanship, your more than welcome to, but stop pretending your doing it because you care about women and minorities, because you clearly don't. Who do you vote for to support women and minorities? Republicans? Imaginary people you made up that didn't run?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Fake leftists are the guy in the trump thread posting "If kids are going to die like this, it should be his kids. Let him feel that pain. Let that be his medicine." because they found out of the the florida kid's has a dad who might be republican.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you actually cared, you wouldn't dislike the radical left I don't dislike the radical left, I dislike people that hate democrats more than they hate republicans or try to put on any sort of show of not being able to distinguish the two. Anyone who tries to pull any "I'm so far left I won't vote or help either of them" is not nearly as leftist as they tell themselves. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you supporting the republican party. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you retweeting the latest republican talking point about hillary clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
Like, this is what an actual criticism of a democratic policy looks like. It has specific complaints, actionable issues. It lists out what is between the ACA and an actually good plan. It is something other than "I read single payer is the most left so because I'm most left that is the only thing I could ever support despite other countries having a variety of enviable models"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
It's the people that liked and retweeted this stuff https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/964561472746672129
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also if you've reached the point where you're alleging that support for a superior system that saves lives can only be Virtue Signalling, If your support includes helping republicans win then yes, your claims to be on the left was only skin deep and any claims you made about being the real left was false. (even if you whine the whole time that it's not fair that what you are doing is helping the republicans win as you help them)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I wasn't critiquing the Democrats; I was critquing your & other lazy dems' argument that "other countries" have private, unregulated insurance, provider, and drug costs that mimic an ACA model, when that's not the case at all and our healthcare system in America stands alone globally in bankrupting people in exchange for medical care, or in making costs a litmus test as to whether people receive any medical care at all. I said I liked your sort of criticism? Since it had meaningful criticism about specific things in actual presented policies?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:so why should a leftist support a political party that actively sabotages the campaigns of its own leftist members when they run against the favored sons? gay marriage? abortion rights? expanded medicare? All that stuff
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Do you have any response to said criticism? Do you have a defense for the argument that is being attacked, or are you conceding the point? You can't just say "I like this kind of criticism" as your only response and expect me to take you seriously when you say that you're only attacking leftists because the discourse isn't good enough. Be the change you want to see and have this great argument that you were mourning the loss of in this very thread. I literally said that is the good sort of criticism and the guy going single payer or nothing is the bad and dumb kind that hurts people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So you agree with Willa? Yes? If you think I don't you haven't understood any of what I've said.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Getting Luxembourg's system would be a perfectly acceptable compromise Look who the centrist is now. DIdn't you say "[not] supporting the literal best version of universal health care for Americans, an illogical, evil, and insane position to have"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, well Willa is a "fake leftist" according to you because she criticizes the Democratic party criticized it with a coherent factually correct list of reasons. Not a bunch of weird conspiracy theories and attacks. I would bet she even is a democrat and votes in primaries!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:God, you're so loving dense. The democrats are coming from inside your house
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And you'll go through life, happily content to yell at people who demand better things out of life, so assured in your rightness in the truth that the Democrats are the Good Guys and better things aren't possible. You saying you aren’t a Democrat and don’t vote democratic and don’t participate in primaries? Or are you saying you are a democrat but somehow secretly you winked when you signed up so it doesn’t quite count?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:A democratic neoliberal technocrat. I'm not going to beat the drum on the weird way people use the phrase neoliberal because whatever, close enough, but what do people even think "technocrat" is at this point? some weird "cell phones are bad and this has the word techno in it so it's bad"? Are people in this thread not technocrats? Like you are against climate scientists running climate stuff and economics experts setting economic policy and stuff? That seems really wild.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Is “people shouldn’t know things about the things they set policy on” seriously a thing people consider a leftist value?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No try again Several people in this thread have used the word “technocrat” as a negative. I can’t tell if anyone actually thinks that or if it’s just people not liking the word techno and not looking up what the word refers to.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Technocratic policies are when you get a bunch of establishment democrats and health insurance CEOs to come together and write this is lieu of an actual policy proposal: A politician or ceo making a policy decision is literally the opposite of a technocrat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:freshly minted MBA So like, specifically the opposite of someone who has experience or training in a field they are managing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:This is a really selective telling of what actually happened. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in 2010 and the DoJ declared DoMA unconstitutional in 2011. From early on, Obama's presidency was the most gay friendly presidency in the history of the United States. You're also ignoring that it was pretty much agreed upon that Obama was full of poo poo when he said he was against it in 2008. He had been in favor of gay marriage for over a decade at that point, and a lot of the word we heard after the fact was that he wanted to announce his support as POTUS even earlier. Also there is no way to argue that being in the 2000s before recognizing gay rights is anything but too slow, but democrats in the US legalized gay marriage before the majority of europe did. only 13 of 28 EU countries have full gay marriage now, only 14 of 28 let gay people adopt. Finland requires transgendered people get sterilized, the US has let people change their gender since the 60s. The democrats should have favored gay rights 50 years ago or in the 1700s, or from the start of time, but the US has generally been in the first 5 or 10 countries making progressive moves for LGBT rights. There is a lot of things the US is behind on, but it is case by case, there is lots of things democrats are right of the right wing parties of other first world countries on, but that isn't some absolute universal rule and the democrats are sometimes to the left of things going on in other first world countries. Women couldn't fully vote in all elections in switzerland till the 90s! Even most (but not all) republicans are the left of that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:there is lots of things democrats are right of the right wing parties of other first world countries on, but that isn't some absolute universal rule and the democrats are sometimes to the left of things going on in other first world countries. Women couldn't fully vote in all elections in switzerland till the 90s! Even most (but not all) republicans are the left of that. If you want to have a really sad thought in this vein, the US is usually ranked relatively high in immigration freedom, ease of legal immigration and rights of illegal immigrants. Never ranked first, but in the top ten on a lot of metrics and in the top half for almost everything. Like that is another topic where there are even some republican policies are to the left of policies some other first world nations have. And absolutely I am sure someone now is going to quote this post and say "oh, so you are making excuses for how bad immigration is? if it's better than some other country that makes it okay!?! awful!" and that is not it at all, it's also important to identify places where the US is progressive and push on those too, not just the places it's regressive. If there are democratic or us policies that are worse than the rest of the world it's important to fix those, if there is places the democrats have better policies than most countries it's possible to push those advantages as well, not just incorrectly declare everything bad forever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The fact that you can't actually pinpoint a single policy or ideological position expressed by the left that you disagree with should set of warning alarms in your head regarding how rational your feels about this issue are. The same isn't true for the inverse; the radical left has a long list of specific things they want the the Democratic Party either isn't accomplishing or doesn't even support in the first place. I agree with the left because I am on the left. The people who are not on the left is anyone who does not vote democrat, who try to stop anyone else from voting democrat or seem to display even the slightly hesitation in being able to instantly name that the democratic version of any policy is almost without exception incalculably better than the republican policy. If you ask about voting for the lesser of two evils and come to any conclusion but "I'm gonna vote democratic, of course, DUH" you are not on the left. "which party do I vote for" should not be a question for anyone even slightly to the left.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dude, you think uber is good for labor. I think that the driver getting 80% of the fare and the company getting 20% is much closer to an ideal system than a driver getting a wage. Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful (no one gives you insurance, there is no safety net if you don't make enough, ect). But the ideal company in utopia would run way more like uber than yellow cab.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah I really don't get how you get "leftist" from "I think it's better for individuals to absorb all the risk and take all the gains as free rugged individuals beholden to nothing and nobody" as opposed to "workers collectively hold employers to account via unionization and their collective work is used to guarantee the welfare of all members of the company as best as possible" I mean that is why I said "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful". Without unions, socialized benefits and a bunch of safety nets a gig economy is worse than what we have. But if you aren't on your own, I'd rather 80% of the company profit goes to the worker than the company. (and then to taxes and dues, to pay for all that stuff).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:So long as they are slightly better than an increasingly white nationalist alternative, I will never waiver I edited out all the parts you don't need.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Because the “gig economy” model is so loving atomized that individuals working have no collective bargaining power. Yeah, you have convinced me: "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:You do realise that by default Uber drivers make less than minimum wage accounting for depreciation of their personal vehicles, rigt? yeah: "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, like, it's pretty disingenuous to say that uber is good because, if you discount everything about it except for the fact that it pays via commission, it's actually giving more money to the worker. yeah "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's basically an admission that the claim is completely meaningless, though. Sure, I didn't bring up uber, someone brought it up at me. People can keep trying to convince me the gig economy is bad and I can keep copying and posting that I think the gig economy is bad. I think a company where most of the money that goes to the people that works there and only a small percentage goes to the company is really cool, but the reality of 2018 america make it actually very bad. The ability to now run companies with such thin overhead will probably do some cool things in countries that are better than the US or hopefully in a future US that is better than it is now. If you are looking for a taxi job in the next ten years don't go with uber unless you live in one of those cities where taxi drivers were already mistreated so extremely that even uber is better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This is true too, for all that I think it's better to vote for the lesser evil, you really are just perpetuating all the stuff they're complicit with, and it might turn out better that they were broken sooner, rather than far too late. Accelerationism is very dumb and you should vote for democrats in every election that they are even one centimeter better than the republicans. If you want them to be more than 1 centimeter there are primaries to vote in, there are candidates you can support or donate to, there are organizations you can work at, but when you go to vote if you ever think "maybe I should vote for the worse guy and hurt people to prove a point" it doesn't prove any point to anyone except that you are now a republican voter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
If you step on a flower it might displace a bee that goes on to have it'd decedents murder a baby a thousand miles away. If you can somehow know that then don't step on that flower. Otherwise you gotta judge the reasonable consequences of all your actions and if you feel like the likely outcome of what you are doing is more aid to republicans than to the causes you want then change your tactics. If you are running a campaign that can win, go for it, if all it will do is lose horribly and win for the republicans work towards your goals in more effective ways, if you legitimately don't know until you try then do what you can to minimize harm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I think the best way to minimize harm is not voting for people whose policies do not serve to enrich the wealthy while loving the poor in the rear end And that is why you help republicans win?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 22:33
|
|