Hillary needs to dismantle Sanders' fantasies, but how, without losing the dreamers.

[kennetha]

Sanders' campaign is based on fantasies. Sanders is politics as wish fulfillment.

He is basically telling supporters they can have their heart's desire, with no real costs, if they just click their heels three times, and say "we will have single payer, we will have free college for all."

Challenge is that you can't beat that kind of thinking back just by speaking the disappointing truths. Disappointing truths have no place in dreams or in politics as wish fulfillment.

So what's a truth based candidate to do?

Somehow she needs to pull open the curtain and reveal that man behind it is just a huckster from Kansas, who has no idea how to get back home.

But how do you do that, without seeming to speak only disappointing truth? Well, have to show that the truth isn't so disappointing after all. That grand things are possible. Building on the affordable care act, for example, to both expand coverage and bend the cost curve even more is no mean thing. And it's a doable thing. Okay, it's not the magic of single payer. But do you know what would have to happen to make single payer a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

She also needs to get especially the young to disvalue mere authenticity for authenticity sake as the prime political virtue. Authenticity in pursuit of phantoms in the air is no virtue. A indefatigable pragmatism in the pursuit of the truly achievable is no vice. Yes Don Quixote was authentic and sincere in his search for Dulcinea. Though we can admire his Quixotic devotion to her, that didn't make her a reality or make his quest non-Quixotic.

[Mnemosyne]

1. What horseshit. He clearly states how these things would be done. nt

[kennetha]

4. Really?

Like this:

Sanders doesn’t just call for incremental steps toward single-payer. He’s proposing to shift all of health care to federal taxes in one fell swoop. That’s one reason for the enormous, sudden increase in taxes the plan would require—$1.38 trillion on top of existing federal spending, according to Sanders’ own estimates. As Harold Pollack has pointed out, that $1.38 trillion is just about equal to total federal income and estate tax collections in 2014—in other words, the plan would require doubling that revenue. Sanders insists that he’s shown how he would pay for it through a 6.2 increase in payroll taxes (which he calls an “income-based premium paid by employers,” though the cost will fall on employees); a 2.2 percent increase in income taxes on everyone; higher estate taxes; taxing capital gains and interest as ordinary income; limiting tax deductions for the rich; and higher income-tax rates on the upper brackets (which, combined with other increased taxes he’s also calling for, would bring the top marginal federal rate to 77 percent, as Dylan Matthews shows at Vox).

He's admitted this? Advocated for this? Been up front about this?

[arcane1]

14. If all you're doing is copy/pasting from the American Prospect, at least link to it. Jeez.

http://prospect.org/article/false-lure-sanders-single-payer-plan

[Fawke Em]

17. And Matthews got his info from Kenneth Thorpe.

Who's Kenneth Thorpe?

Bill Clinton's former deputy assistant secretary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html

This should be a game show: Name that Clinton Hack Trying to Discredit Sanders

[kath]

125. "Name That Clinton Hack Trying to Discredit Sanders"

good idea - if we can't make get a game show, we could at least make that a thread in the Bernie Group. Should be very active in the coming weeks...

[beam me up scottie]

42. Paul Starr wrote that and he worked for the Clinton administration.

Is there a reason you didn't cite the source?

[Goblinmonger]

87. As pointed out above--way to not cite your source

Wonder why you wouldn't have wanted to do that? Actually, bigger question is, did you think nobody would take the 2 seconds to look it up?

[roguevalley]

11. amazing. dismantle dreams without losing the people who dream them? WHAT?

Good thing that wasn't the prevailing bullshit during the space program.

[jeff47]

2. Well, step 1 would be to learn to spell his name right.

Step 2 would be to learn which state he's from.

Step 3 would be to learn what his actual proposals are.

Step 4 would be explaining how you actually do any of your fantasies. Building on the ACA requires Congress. They just tried to override Obama's veto of ending the ACA, and you're claiming Clinton will expand it.

Step 5 would be to actually employ the pragmatism you claim to support and actually come up with something that can get through Congress, or a plan to elect a better Congress.

Sanders plan relies on us doing the latter. In fact, he says it all the time.

Clinton does not appear to have any plan to retake Congress, hence this "pragmatism" bullshit. So you're going to have to come up with a plan that spends $0 so that Clinton can enact it without Congress. Get cracking!

[beam me up scottie]

7. LMAO! Well played, sir!

[jeff47]

9. :hattip: (nt)

[kennetha]

13. Clinton has been raising tons

of money for democratic candidates. Who besides himself has Bernie raised money for?

Oh.... no one.


A revolution of one.

You think there is an electable Congress that is going to vote to more than double total Federal tax receipts in one fell swoop? You think there is an imaginable Senate that's going to go that route?


You really are a dreamer.

Politics as Wish Fulfillment!

[arcane1]

18. " knowing that every penny could be spent on the Clinton campaign"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/9/1467700/-This-May-Be-The-Reason-Bernie-s-Not-Fundraising-for-the-State-Democratic-Parties

The Alaska Democratic Party has collected more than $40,000 from a political committee tied to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton that raises money from billionaire donors, complicating the party’s message as it calls for campaign finance reform.

The party, in a monthly report filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission, said it raised $43,500 from the Hillary Victory Fund, with $10,000 donations from billionaires, including hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman and Hyatt hotel heir J.B. Pritzker.

In the same report, the Alaska Democratic Party said it transferred an equal amount of money, $43,500, to the Democratic National Committee -- a move that, while legal, helps to effectively “obliterate” federal limits on donations to the national committee, according to one campaign finance expert.

“It just becomes a way to give more to the DNC to support the Clinton campaign,” said Paul S. Ryan, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for campaign finance reform. “It’s effectively Hillary Clinton’s team soliciting Hillary Clinton’s supporters for much bigger checks than they can give to the campaign -- knowing that every penny could be spent on the Clinton campaign.”

A Cuban-born sugar tycoon. A California-based registered foreign agent for the government of Sri Lanka. A Chicago billionaire.

All of them are recent large donors to the Maine Democratic Party via a complex fundraising scheme called the Hillary Victory Fund. The fund exploits recent court decisions and weakened campaign finance laws to maximize political contributions and funnel them to the Democratic National Committee.

[Fawke Em]

21. He will be, now that his Army is running for Congress

https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress

This is how you take back Congress.

[Andy823]

123. The army

The link named 4 people running for congress, and that's his army? How long is going to take before he has enough people in his army to take back congress?

[jeff47]

39. Nope! The money she raised doesn't go to other candidates.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/9/1467700/-This-May-Be-The-Reason-Bernie-s-Not-Fundraising-for-the-State-Democratic-Parties

But all the contributions haven’t stayed in Maine, or any of the other state Democratic parties to which Hillary Victory Fund donations have been funneled. Federal Election Commission reports show that the two October and November transfers totaling $39,000 from the Hillary Victory Fund to the Maine Democratic Party each sat for less than 48 hours with the party before the exact same amounts were transferred to the Democratic National Committee, or DNC.

(snip)

A joint fundraising committee linking Hillary Clinton to the national Democratic Party and 33 state parties is routing money through those state parties and back into the coffers of the Democratic National Committee. So far, 22 of the state parties linked to the Hillary Victory Fund have received $938,500 from the fund and sent the same amount back to the DNC, according to available campaign finance records.

So sorry, Clinton isn't actually raising any money for any other candidates.

You think there is an electable Congress that is going to vote to more than double total Federal tax receipts in one fell swoop? You think there is an imaginable Senate that's going to go that route?

First, you ignore that premiums and deductibles go away. Between those two, I spend $10k per year under the ACA. Under Sanders's plan, my taxes would go up by about $2k per year.

The horror of an additional $8k per year in my pocket.....how on Earth will I deal with that terrible dystpoia?!?!! Or clawing some more cash out of my employer who would actually save about $16k/year on just me! God, it would be AWFUL.

Second, and more seriously, we've been fighting for single-payer for 80 years. You are arguing we should give up because we can't win in the next two years. We are in this for the long haul. You aren't, and we will happily brush you aside as we continue to push forward.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Hillary needs to retire from politics and do snow angels in her pile of corporate cash.

[MuseRider]

79. I am so glad you are back

for a good one.

[AtomicKitten]

109. TY :)

[kath]

127. Agree!

[arcane1]

5. This tired, copied, unoriginal drivel isn't any more coherent the 1,000th time as the 1st.

You guys are in dire need of some new material. Or at least a candidate that stands for something besides insurance industry profits. These empty, content-free platitudes only make you look desperate.

[Bread and Circus]

6. LoL. You are blatantly using right wing frames and memes now.

Sig Heil Fuhrer Clinton!!

[VulgarPoet]

50. *Mutter.

"Fuhrer" is father, and I don't think we're seeing Bill running again any time soon.

Onto the topic at hand, however, lmao no. I've said it before, I'll say it again-- I will have no part of putting a corporate gofer into the White House. Goldman Sachs and their ilk fucked us once. Last thing I plan on doing is putting in someone taking the very same money that was kicked back to Goldman Sachs in the first place. Or someone who voted for a war that crippled an entire region under the guise of "interventionism". Or someone who let two countries descend into terrorist coups. Or someone who is more than willing to maintain an alliance with the same people who created the sect of Islam that is currently claiming that they will destroy us. Me, this has a little bit to do with what you call "dreams", I'll give you that, but I'm also a millennial who took to the streets in 2012 for Obama until I realized that he dismantled his grassroots organizations.

I don't believe in dreams, I believe in gathering a team, and smashing and grabbing, and wheeling people out to guillotines if they get too comfortable in their corruption. The way I see things, this is a better outcome than setting a city on fire, and a hell of a lot better than cold nihilism. Senator Sanders is the reason I'm not an outright nihilist right now, and I plan to go to the wire and past it if it means fixing this country-- but I do not see anything being "fixed" other than the 1% getting more kickbacks if Hillary is the nominee. I don't see anything being "fixed" other than the rest of the middle east that hasn't been fucked up yet. I don't believe in anything being "fixed" other than more American blood shed in the name of profiteering.

So next time, attack the issues themselves, not people who are idealistic enough to actually want to get into the streets and change things.

[rogerashton]

111. "fuhrer" is leader

Though I don't think we should be using that sort of language within the party.

[earthside]

8. Not fantasies ...

Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt:

"The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation," he wrote. "It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Second_New_Deal.2C_1935.E2.80.9336

Sad to know that Hillary's effort has to pursue the notion of not dreaming big, bold ideas for the nation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. "No, We Can't!" is an awesome, inspiring campaign slogan.

I'm sure the young people (and everybody else, for that matter) will find it so motivating that they'll flock to Hillary in droves.

[TwilightGardener]

12. But it's snappier than "Clinton: The Candidate of Disappointing Truths!"

[cali]

15. Bernie needs to call out Clinton making bogus claims

like the ones you're pushing.


You are an excellent representation of your candidate, though not a good representative for her.

[hoosierlib]

16. Fantasy Huh?

Raising the minimum is fantasy?

Removing the wage cap on social security is fantasy?

Forming coalitions instead of acting unilaterally is fantasy?

Rejecting the TPP is fantasy?

Raising taxes on the speculatuon to fully fund college tuition at PUBLIC colleges is fantasy?

SBS has fully admitted that his agenda requires a political movement in order to gain control of the House and Sentate.

How is HRC going to implement her agenda? Through sheer will or her ability to fashion compromises? How did that work for President Obama?

You honestly think HRC will attract more independents and younger voters into the political process? The data says otgerwise.

What's fantasy is thinking that the Republicans will "work" with HRC...

[azurnoir]

61. well they are if Hillary gets the nomination that's exactly what she's saying

[QC]

19. Repeating Republican talking points from the 1980s

is probably not the best way to appeal to "dreamers."

Telling Americans that they have to settle for a lower standard of living and a shorter life expectancy so that the wealthiest people in the history of the world can have even more is no basis for a winning campaign.

[MuseRider]

20. I sure would hate

to live in a world where we were hopeful and speaking about the things we need to do to bring people back into an enjoyable experience of their lives.

Dreams? Hell yes. Hopeful? Hell yes. Can it be done? Once the dialog is changed from mopey, sad, overworked, desperate and depressed to working together to make a better country then it can be done. It has to start somewhere.

It IS possible to get these things done. Will it happen? Probably not for a while but getting the attention of the people, getting them involved because they have cause to be hopeful that their meager lives can be changed will be the way to make certain there is a chance.

I am happy and proud that my dreams are to make a better place for ALL people. I am saddened that there are so many who cannot or will not see the need for this to start the process. Yup, another 4 - 8 years of moping, terrible worry and NO WE CAN'T is going to be just a blast. That will eventually turn things around but it will not be pretty or good for most anyone. THAT is a revolution you do not want to see.

[arcane1]

22. Hillary's own words about an actual Single-payer system:

"If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be."

Even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be. Meaning it may take more than one attempt. Was she peddling fantasies too?

[kennetha]

36. But she was wrong.

Twice the democrats had unified control of the government and they couldn't make it happen. So they tried something different. Hell they couldn't even get the public option passed this last time.
you can just wish it were so and make it so.

[arcane1]

47. Nobody is wishing, we just aren't giving up. That's what they want us to do!

You can surrender to money all you want, I'll keep fighting with my honor intact.

[kennetha]

51. Fighting to extend ACA

isn't giving up.

Why do you think that?

Many countries with universal health insurance have adopted something along the lines of the ACA. Are you aware of that?


http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

[arcane1]

57. "Universal health care" is not the same thing as "universal insurance" and you know it.

It is DISHONEST to pretend they are the same thing, and you know that too.

Stop with the dishonesty already. You're making a fool of yourself.

[kennetha]

60. huh?

the goal is universal coverage.

You've got me seriously confused.

[arcane1]

68. Bullshit. If you can't tell the difference between health insurance and health care, it's hopeless

But I don't think anyone can be that stupid and still know how to type.

[onecaliberal]

89. Tell that to the mother whose kid is dying and can't get treatment because of money.

Tell her to wait until we can get it done....

[Ken Burch]

118. That doesn't mean the only way forward is settling for tiny changes.

Changes you can't see and feel aren't changes at all.

It would be like the bus boycotters settling for blacks getting to sit in the seat just ahead of the middle of the bus if no white passengers or bus drivers verbally objected.

That's all an increment ever is.

[The Wielding Truth]

23. That's the problem with Hillary.All change starts with a dream.She is not strong enough to hold one.

Bernie will never let go of what we should strive to fulfill, the promise of the Preamble to our Constitution

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..

[JaneyVee]

24. Making extravagant promises to desperate people is the definition of....

Demagogue.

[kennetha]

26. exactly

[JaneyVee]

28. Like "building a giant wall", or "we'll win everything".

[Fawke Em]

33. Making desparate people is the promise of right wingers and third wayers. eom

[JaneyVee]

52. And apparently "socialists" who cant run an economy.

See: pick a country.

[Fawke Em]

66. Wouldn't know. Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, which is almost exactly the Nordic Model.

And Scandinavia is doing just fine.

See: Nordic Model

Also See: FDR

Also See: Red Baiting

And, Finally See: McCarthyism

[JaneyVee]

69. Gee, an entire country with only 5 million people?

My state alone has 25 million. America: 330Mil+

[Fawke Em]

73. And this matters, because?

No one who makes this absurd claim can ever tell me why population matters because it doesn't.

[kennetha]

84. raw population isn't so much the issue

complexity of the social dynamic is the issue. Our system, for better or for worse -- mostly for worse -- partly because of the size and diversity of its population -- has a whole different structure of incentives, a whole different array of winners and losers with a stake, negative or positive, in the way things are.

[Bettie]

25. Hillary is saying

not to ask for anything, because if you ask, they will take everything away.

No hope. No idealism, just keep the status quo.

Let corporations continue to run the show with the .01%.

Don't rock the boat. Just sit in your seat and row to the beat of the drum and maybe they'll loosen the shackles slightly, but probably not.

[kennetha]

27. silliness

Hillary has extraordinarily ambitious and consequential proposals that build on the gains of Obama.

[MoonRiver]

32. She's not saying anything like that.

She and Bernie have very similar goals for Americans. They differ in how to achieve them.

[JaneyVee]

38. Huh, the candidate who has released the most policy proposal from....

Wall St reform to drug addiction wants nothing? Hmph.

[OkSustainAg]

29. The fantasy I see

is the idea that the rich and corporations can't be taxed.

[MoonRiver]

40. And neither candidate is saying they shouldn't. eom

[kennetha]

46. of course they can be taxed

and they have to be taxed more.

But do you really think there is the political will in this country to more than DOUBLE the tax revenues collected by the Federal Government? (And that's just to fund healthcare).

And why do you think that if you do? Cause you would like it to be so, and hence think that it must be so?

[H2O Man]

30. Please stop.

[ViseGrip]

31. So dem principles fostering in other countries not as great as ours, are "fantasies".

I hear this from the republicans. Anything for Hillary? This is outrageous.

[kennetha]

41. you are really confused

You think only repugnants think Single Payer isn't politically feasible? You think trying to incrementally build on ACA is a Republican tactic? Where have you been?

[arcane1]

49. "incrementally build on ACA" = more people paying insurance premiums and copays.

I'll pass.

[kennetha]

53. Many countries have followed this path to Universal Care

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

[kennetha]

56. You may not like it

but it is a progressive alternative to universal coverage.

And accusing people who think that is more feasible given our circumstances of therefore being republicans in disguise is dishonest or stupid.

[arcane1]

62. I didn't say you were a republican in disguise.

Another dishonest statement from you. When will they end?

[FlatBaroque]

34. NO WE CAN'T!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. To-wit:

[thereismore]

48. That's cold. Accurate, but cold. nt

[bowens43]

35. Hillary needs to drop out before she is indicted

[jham123]

43. How long...

How long have you been a Republican? How does it pay working for the RNC? Is Preibus nice?

[Cleita]

44. You mean those fantasies that exist and work in many

other countries of the world including this one? Honestly, the Hillary camp has to stop making Bernie supporters look like children who like fairy tales. Many of us are over seventy and remember free college tuition and when our parents got Medicare. Frankly, every time this Bernie supporter hears this crap, it makes me like the other candidate just a little less each time.

[thereismore]

45. In 1960, you could say that Dr. King's whole life's work was a fantasy, a wish fulfillment.

Readers with trigger fingers, please spare me your righteous anger. Dr. King is my hero, as is Sen. Sanders, for different reasons and at different levels, but they are both dreamers.

[H2O Man]

54. Right.

He even delivered a speech about a dream.

[thereismore]

55. No kidding. "Dream" is a bad word now. nt

[kennetha]

58. Dreams are good

fantasies that you don't realize are fantasies are bad. Selling a fantasy to a dreamer is not admirable. It is cruel. Setting your followers up for bitter disappointment sets back the cause, doesn't advance the cause.

[thereismore]

64. I give you that. However, how do you know in advance that something is a dream or a fantasy.

That's where we disagree. Peace.

[kennetha]

70. Start by acknowledging

the array of forces on the ground, and what's possible given the array of forces. Start out by acknowledging real costs and benefits. By acknowledging what tools you do and do not have at your disposal. Start out by talking about your real gains and losses.

Go from there. Ask, given the realities, what can I do to come closer to my dreams. DOn't pretend that you can just wish the realities away.

That's what Clinton is doing.

Sanders is selling a vision of an ideal that is unconditioned by any bow to the realities on the ground.

[thereismore]

74. I hear you. But the difference between us is that I don't think it is such a fantasy.

I lived in Europe for a while. I know that these things can be done.

I am also sure that Dr. King had many detractors, telling him Martin, this is futile. You think you can change white people's racism into understanding? Look at how many there are, look at all the forces against you. Jim Crow lasted 90 years, this is how the system works, you can't get a political revolution!!!

[kennetha]

80. Europe made different decisions early on. Plus Parliamentary Democracy...

and presidential democracies are inherently different.

If we had it to do over again, I hope we wouldn't write the same constitution, with the same vast number of veto points.

But for now we are stuck and that seriously constrains political possibility.

Dr King was a super-duper pragmatist and not just a dreamer.

[thereismore]

92. See, now we are having a very substantial discussion!

You bring up a good point about systemic differences between Europe and the US. Europe actually had a worse starting point than the US right now, wrt health care. Europe was ravaged by war when all the health care systems started. You might think that doing something substantial is easier in a war-torn country, but we would disagree again.

Regarding the US constitution, I would say that it was institutionalized slavery that is the greatest wound from which we are still healing. We are not there yet.


Can you tell me when was Dr. King a super-duper pragmatist?

[kennetha]

98. Precise legislation

King wanted precise legislation passed and he understood what it would take to get the legislation passed. He understood his part. he understood the politicians part.

He also was a tactical and strategic genius. He WANTED the segregationist to call out the dogs, etc. and he wanted it to be seen on Television. If demonstrations didn't provoke a backlash, he regarded them as failures. He wasn't about just expressing a view or making his demands known. He was about marshaling forces to get them realized.


I do think war-ravaged Europe did make various decisions that they might not have made had they not been war-ravaged. And those decisions were extremely consequential for the differences that grew up between them and us.

Depression ravaged US was in a similar boat.

[thereismore]

130. Thank you, I will read some more on the legislation.

A thought: Do we need a war/depression-ravaged country to get any social progress? Look at what happened after the Civil War here. Major progress. Not enough, but major progress. After the Great Depression: major progress. Not enough, but major.

I am getting depressed at this realization!

[kennetha]

136. It's the structure of the American Political System

It is built for stasis.

What the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom (hah) didn't quite foresee is how this inertial system would behave when it was combined with extreme partisanship. They didn't even foresee the rise of political parties, let alone the rise of very very ideological distinct parties, each with a separate and independent mandate from a distinct and divided set of voters.

[DonCoquixote]

135. parilamentary democracy has virtues

But all we have to do is look up North where Harper managed to control Canada despite never getting more than 40 percent of the vote. Yes, Justin is there now, but Harper did a LOT of damage.

[kennetha]

138. agreed.

no easy form of democracy. But I think our's is among the worst. Too many veto points. Too much stasis. Too little accountability, since all parties can be blamed equally for the stasis.

[thereismore]

146. Here is an example where Sanders proved to be super-duper pragmatist for the benefit of all:

When Sanders and his allies lost their push for a single-payer system during the debate over health care, for example, he relented and voted for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, negotiating $11 billion in funding for community health centers in the process.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/02/05/his-most-radical-move/


Bernie knows when it is time to get the deal, even if it's not perfect or ideologically pure.

[TIME TO PANIC]

59. I guess the rest of the industrialized world is living in Oz.

[kennetha]

65. The Industrialized world has taken many different paths

toward universal coverage. Some actually modeled on the ACA

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

What we are debating is what is possible here in the US, given where we are now, not what we should have pursued back in the 1940s. Tragic mistakes were made then, IMHO, but the set us down a certain path.

[TIME TO PANIC]

71. We are the wealthiest nation in history.

We can get it done.

[kennetha]

75. Not at this point

not without a lot of disruption. We made some stupid choices in the 1940s and we have been living with the consequences. Trying to unwind the stupidity and short sightedness of our early decisions would be a monumental undertaking, disrupting things for very many stake holders -- not all of them wealthy by any means -- think middle class people with outstanding employer paid health insurance, for example.


The ACA didn't try to rewind the clock. It tried to control the forward evolution of the system, extend coverage, bend the cost curve. IF the repugnmant governors would go along, if the Supreme courted had given them the option to opt out, it would have been even more effective. Even with that it does a lot of what it promises to do.

But it would not be nearly as big of a fight to improve it than it would be to replace it.

[TIME TO PANIC]

86. Sometimes disruption is a good thing. n/t

[workinclasszero]

63. How do you beat a liar at his own game?

This is the problem Hillary has.

Bernie will say anything to get elected. His platform is fantasy with absolutely no plans of ever becoming reality.

All Bernie has to do is speak the magic word "revolution " and all of his sweet dreams will come to pass!

Lolololol, I guess PT Barnum was right SMH

[kennetha]

67. K&R

[Fumesucker]

78. Lying?

[DonCoquixote]

145. Hillary has a lot of Barnum in her

when she keeps claiming she will "fight" for us, we all know that she has already made concessions before to the GOP, and by her own words, talking of compromise, she is willing to give them the store again. How the hell is she going to protect social security when one of her main patrons, Lloyd Blankfeld of Goldman Sachs, is on record as sayign we need to get rid of it? That is some bunk ol PT would be proud of.

[grntuscarora]

72. The aura of smug, self-satisfaction that pervades the HRC campaign makes me puke.

Bernie did amazing things for Burlington, VT, and for Vermont state, through hard work, creativity, perseverence, and the wonderful ability to inspire the talents of the best minds.

Your idea that Bernie is an impractical dreamer incapable of accomplishing things in the "real world" is simply untrue. And that's the most polite thing I can say about your OP.

[kennetha]

77. Nothing against Burlington.

But trying to export from governing a City of what 40 thousand now and like 35K or so during Bernie's tenure, to how to Govern the US is, well,......

[DirtyHippyBastard]

140. Because Hillary has experience running what city/country? Do tell...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

82. Yes, but those are the *sensible* people. The grown-ups.

The people who know it's pointless for the proles to dream of anything better than the occasional crumb falling from their masters' tables. Maybe the crumbs will get a little bigger, and wouldn't that be nice? But don't expect to pull up a chair and eat at the big peoples' table because that's just a silly dream. Now go lie by your dish and don't bother your betters, the people who really know how the world works.

[kennetha]

83. Were not talking about crumbs from the table

We are talking about real and consequential change and how actually to achieve it.

[grntuscarora]

102. You've got to be kidding.

HRC. Real and consequential change?

If she's for change at all, which I'll allow she might be, it's for change at a glacial pace, so slow that I probably won't notice it in my lifetime, or my children in theirs. Continents will drift at a faster pace. But hey, no need to upset the apple cart, things aren't all that bad, we're supposed to accept.

Good lord, I've had it with that crap.

[kennetha]

106. So you think ACA is

just crumbs from the table?

[grntuscarora]

122. Yes.

nt

[basselope]

76. Getting people to turn out and vote is hardly a fantasy.

If Obama had followed through on his promises from his campaign and not dropped the public option, he wouldn't have lost the congress in 2010.

[99Forever]

81. The only gawddamn thing she is dismantling is the Democratic Party.

Aren't you proud?

[Ken Burch]

85. Not true. Bernie has laid out real strategies for achieving change.

HRC's tiny increments aren't the way to achieve anything. No dispossessed person ever benefited from an increment.

[whatchamacallit]

88. "How can Hil keep the idiots?"

This kind of shit is like begging democrats to stay home.

[Ken Burch]

90. How do you expect HRC to be able to ask for Sanders votes(if she IS nominated)

if she does what you ask and treats the Sanders movement with total disrespect.

Why do you hate the idea of the party having ambitious goals?

It's not like we can get anything done if we announce, at the start, that we'll settle for nothing but tiny increments. If we do that(as you and HRC want us to do)we won't even get the damn increments. We'll be forced to pull back from those.

[kennetha]

103. Not the movement

Just him.

Tiny increments, achieved over and over, eventually get you past the goal line.

[Ken Burch]

116. You are attacking the movement in calling Bernie's ideas delusional

You are dismissing the people of that movement and saying you don't care about what they care about(which is what settling for small changes means).

We would never have had the victories of the freedom movement in 1964 and 1965 if everyone had taken your advice and settled for nothing but increments. The passage of those two bills only happened because the freedom movement said "We Can't Wait".

Settling for increments would have meant letting it go at getting to drink out of the whites-only fountain on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 2 and 2:05 pm.

And settling for increments in the labor movement would have meant hanging it up after two or three states passed the eight-hour day.

Incrementalism is giving up.

Nothing that takes generations to achieve is a victory at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. She'll continue to try the "not as bad" fear ploy as usual.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[Fumesucker]

93. Yes, the only dream that counts is Hillary's dream of being the first woman President

We little people should be happy to sacrifice our dreams of medical care and fair treatment in order that Hillary can have her big dream.

[Ken Burch]

94. The problem is, nothing HRC supports that's to Bernie's right is even worth doing.

No small gain is anything. No increment is anything.

[RobertEarl]

95. Hiilary is the one with fanatsies

She thinks she can get elected!!

Sanders has vision and is wise. He knows what the people need and want.

H just wants power for herself.

[nichomachus]

96. That's why I'm so glad more "pragmatic" heads stopped MLK from his "I Have a Dream" speech

Hey, Martin, civil rights it just too darn hard. We'll never get it through Congress. Let's just be happy with what we have and make the best of it.

[Ken Burch]

97. "the truly achievable" is never worth achieving.

Nothing you can get without a fight could possibly be worth getting.

And the only kinds of change that ever help anyone are big changes.

Increments are meaningless. They just vanish in the air.

[MelSC]

99. Bernie reminds me of another Jimmy Carter

Both good men, with great integrity...but Jimmy didn't fare very well in the WH. Anyone see the Hell the Republicans gave Obama these last 8 years? Right now they see Sanders as a JOKE. If he gets into the WH (which he won't sorry guys) all these things he is promising will never come to pass...never. Seriously...dreamers wake the F up!

[Ron Green]

100. SUCK OF THE DAY!!!

Maybe of the Week!

[Binkie The Clown]

101. Have we really become yet another "party of NO"? n/t

[kennetha]

105. no

that's not the point. Not being the party of politics as wish fulfillment is not the same as being the party of no.

Not at all.

[Binkie The Clown]

112. Well...

"George Bernard Shaw, speaking as an Irishman, summed up an approach to life, 'Other people, he said, see things and say why? But I dream things that never were and I say, why not?" --John F. Kennedy in June 28, 1963

?t=4m12s

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

104. She will lose the dreamers if she craps on their dreams.

That's because she has nothing to replace those dreams with except platitudes and the offer of weak, incremental improvements (maybe). So, it's her dream of attracting Sanders' supporters that is the unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy. That's the dream that can't happen.

[kennetha]

107. Don't crap on their dreams

crap on the flimflam man who is selling them delusions in the name of dreams.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

108. LOL

[Fumesucker]

110. What do we want? Incremental change

When do we want it? In due course

[grntuscarora]

128. Bahaa!

I can hear the crowds chanting

[EndElectoral]

113. She's already lost the dreamers.

[kennetha]

114. the battle has just been joined.

[Ken Burch]

121. Settling for increments means that, after eight years

no one will notice any real changes at all.

That everything will vanish into the mists.

Incrementalism means having no dreams at all.

It's not possible to be an incrementalist and still have any passionate ideals.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

134. It's kind of like Zeno's Paradox.

A runner will never reach the stationary goal line of a racetrack because must first reach half of the distance to the goal, but when he gets there he must then cross half of the remaining distance to the goal, and having done that, he has to cover half of the new remainder, and half of that, and so on. So he never gets there.

[kennetha]

141. Except Zeno was wrong

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

142. Just as wrong as incrementalism.

Zeno's math was wrong, but the point is that if you try to accomplish something without any big aspirations, all your steps will be tiny and you won't go very far.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

115. I have a dream.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream today.... Oh, wait. Never mind. That's not gonna happen. How about some reasonable incremental change instead? Maybe they'll give us nicer, cleaner separate drinking fountains, and some better upholstery on the seats at the back of the bus. We can dream about that, OK?

[grntuscarora]

129. Nailed it, TVO!

nt

[speaktruthtopower]

117. VP

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

119. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade

and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone.... Oh, hell, we can't do that. Never mind; maybe we can make some better weather balloons or something.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. "Disvalue mere authenticity for authenticity sake" - fucking CLASSIC

Ah, but how to do that? There's the rub.

How exactly does one 'disvalue authenticity'?

Especially when one is apparently incapable of displaying authenticity themselves?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

124. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be,

we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender... On second thought this is getting to be a lot more trouble than I thought, so maybe we should just hang it up.

[Jefferson23]

126. A huckster from Kansas? You might want to be careful with that language, your candidate

Clinton, might get BERNED.

I'm on a mission with Sanders, btw..no dreaming required.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

131. I disagree with your characterization of Bernie Sanders, but what Hillary and her campaign MUST do

is recognize the very large percentage of Bernie's support is coming from the "yoots"

and if she does win the nomination, she and her campaign best have a plan for convincing those "yoots" to vote for her.

May actually come down to those "yoots".

[Warren DeMontague]

132. "authenticity" and "truth based" are the same thing.

[DonCoquixote]

133. OK, let's insert a variable in or two

But do you know what would have to happen to make single payer a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

now, let's apply other variables

But do you know what would have to happen to make INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.


But do you know what would have to happen to make GAY MARRIAGE a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

But do you know what would have to happen to make THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

But do you know what would have to happen to ENDING THE VIETNAM WAR a reality.... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

But do you know what would have to happen to make WOMEN"S SUFFRAGE a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

You see, there are always the "realists" who in reality are the privilege upper middle class, or those that think they can become that class, who always wag a finger and show concern. Yes, most things worth fighting for are long shots, but when those long shots come in, they are what we all benefit from. The problem is that those who define what can be a "reality" are very often people who can take their prejudices and privileges and define reality, as if they were facts. I am not saying you are, but you may want to scrutinize those that are attempting to define your reality.

The United States of America was built by people who did not accept conventional wisdom.

[kennetha]

137. well these took quite a lot more than magic pixie dust

But do you know what would have to happen to make INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

well that one took prolonged war and even after it, the independent nation came crashing to a halt when first the articles of Confederation proved inadequate and then the Constitution, as originally designed, proved inadequate in different ways for achieving a "more perfect" (certainly not absolutely perfect) union.

But do you know what would have to happen to make GAY MARRIAGE a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

Well that took decades of social change, include the rise of new generations with entirely new attitudes toward gays and gay rights, but it also took the dying out of the old attitudes and those who held them. It also took a narrow and tenuous Supreme Court victory that presages many many battles over religious liberty and the true extent of Gay rights, probably for decades to come.

But do you know what would have to happen to make THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

That took a massive and bloody all out Civil War that is still the deadliest war in American History, in which an incomplete victory was achieved, as reconstruction failed and gave way to Jim Crow in the South, essentially reintroducing Slavery by another name. The South may have lost the war, but unfortunately, it won the peace. And we still live with the consequences of the South's post war victory, many, many decades later.

But do you know what would have to happen to ENDING THE VIETNAM WAR a reality.... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

The war didn't end until the communist overran Saigon and sent Americans scrambling home in 1975 under the Ford Administration. The anti-war movement didn't end it, unfortunately. Nixon outsmarted us. He ended the draft with the ulterior motive of taking the fuel out of the anti-war movement so that he could prosecute it more brutally and illegally from the air. He pretty much had his way, after the draft ended. Fewer American ground troops, to be sure (Vietnamization of the war, he called it) but he engaged in a relentless ultimately futile air war, and the South Vietnamese Army proved incapable of holding off the Vietcong.

But do you know what would have to happen to make WOMEN"S SUFFRAGE a reality..... That's not going to happen. That's wishful thinking. But we don't need wishful thinking.

Well that took decades and decades of struggle, with women rising up and being willing to lay their bodies on the ground.

What's your point?

[DonCoquixote]

144. The point is

that at everyone of these events, there were people saying that change was not practical. Yes, none of those took magic pixie dust, and I have no illusions about how ugly and nasty it will be to get the nation back where it should be, but when the finger waggers and naysayers are there to kill the dream before it could even start to grow, then we will have sentenced ourselves to tragedy. And, let's be honest, part of the reason that the finger waggers and self-appointed realists are screaming so loudly is NOT because they have a sure lock on things, but we are at the point where so much of their punditry has been proven horribly wrong. They are afraid that the native will stop throwing virgins into the volcano and will start throwing the shamans in, and yes, that includes Pal Krugman aka "it was pragmatic of me to fight Obama tooth and nail from the left, but now I have to move to the right so Hillary will finally make me treasurer."

[winter is coming]

139. She can't, because people don't trust her.

That sort of thing tends to happen when there's video proof that you're a liar.

[sadoldgirl]

143. So we go with a person that has proven

to show bad judgement as well as an incrementalist,
who does not even want a new Glass Steagall law?

We go with a person, who lacks a vision for the good
of the people, but protects WS and corporations?

If we elect such a person from either party, don't be
surprised about the pitchforks coming out or in
other words a new civil war.

What you don't want to see is that people are really
angry and are asking for strong changes, and those people
cannot be only called "dreamers".

This election is not a "normal" one. Start to understand
that, please.