General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (left-of-center2012) on Tue Sep 19, 2017, 09:29 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)FBaggins
(26,754 posts)You must be too young to remember a party with 100+ seat majorities in the House.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)The GOP controls 32 state legislatures and 33 governor's mansions. That is a failure on our part and we have to do better.
greeny2323
(590 posts)hueymahl
(2,507 posts)Because he has more credibility with more Americans as an independent.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... he'd truly step inside the big tent vs just use it when it's convenient.
That's what's irritating about his behavior to me. He really could have much more credibility with those of us who WANT to believe his criticism is coming from a place of love vs a place of sowing discord had he kept that promise.
Instead it feels like he lied to get his major stamp on the platform -- one which he apparently still won't say he supports despite being integral to its creation -- and then backed off to keep making shots at us about "fat cats" when there's a far larger pride of lion-vultures over on the other side to attack.
That feels like betrayal.
Magoo48
(4,717 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)No.
Bernie is very welcome in our big tent, should he ever deign to stand within it.
But that's just one of many things that we stand for. He would be a great leader from the inside to promote that passion of his for true economic justice. He, his ideas, and his passion are needed.
But fuck sacrificing everything else we believe in just for one part of our message that happens to be resonating particularly well right now.
DownriverDem
(6,230 posts)Bernie isn't a Dem. Tell him to join the Dem Party.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I vote for Democrats because they have proven themselves better than the GOP, but I don't owe the party anything and neither does Sanders.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is due to nonvoting, especially in the midterms.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Obviously there is a disconnect with the American public or the damn republicans would not have so much power in the states.
Those facts you state are frightening and the democratic party needs to find the reasons and change immediately.
2018 is right around the corner and may be our last chance.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,937 posts)the House, the Senate, the Presidency, a majority of Governorships, or the SCOTUS.
So, you gotta admit he kind of has a point. Or should we just keep pushing forward with what we've done to get us to this point?
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Why did so many not vote on the ballots that affect governorships, SCOTUS, the House and the Senate?
Why did so many vote for Trump? Why did so many stay at home, why did so many leave so much of the ballot blank?
He can certainly state the obvious, but why won't he address WHY that's the case? The voter suppression? The Gerrymandering? Whoever told a bunch of young people that the parties are the same, and their vote doesn't matter?
It seems that unless we address these questions, no amount of haranguing or attacking Democrats will do anything to change or address the issues that were actually responsible.
Those Trump votes gave us the SCOTUS, Democrats were screaming this left and right, why wasn't Bernie? Why weren't the people who were all defiant and petulant about conscience votes not educated, not told about the consequence of their vote?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,937 posts)you just weren't listening.
And it worked because Sanders supporters voted for Clinton at a much higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama. So he did his job. Better than Clinton did hers.
hueymahl
(2,507 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Bernie could be said to have failed where Hillary succeeded.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,937 posts)So Sanders has his supports vote for Clinton at a significant higher rate than Clinton supporters did for Obama, and this is still Sanders fault?
Maybe she should have come to Wisconsin and worked to get the 25,000 vote gap she lost by here. Did Sanders block her at the border?
Whatever. We are clearly going to lose again if this is the attitude of figuring out why we lost in 16.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)If that's not a neon sign that screams "we're doing something wrong", then I don't know WHAT else is.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)and figure out why so many people were believing strange things, like how the two parties are the same, why they thought their votes didn't matter, why they didn't know the first thing about how to register or the importance of educating themselves on the candidates and the issues, why they were so easily led by propaganda etc.
Trying to shut people up for examining what went wrong, when those investigations lead to uncomfortable areas is a mistake.
Somehow 12% of people who were supposedly progressives and were busy telling us all how pure they were in their progressivism voted for him. In the states that counted, disregarding all the other Republican dirty tricks, the Russian hacking, Crosscheck, third parties etc., they were the ones who handed Trump the victory by giving them their votes.
I'd love to know what went wrong with these people, why they were convinced to vote so poorly and who they were listening to, and what they were being told.
That neon sign is pointing to something that went horribly wrong and we're seeing that wrongness continue, we need to know what THAT is, expose it, examine it and fix it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)We saw it here first hand, for a long time. They taunted us w "red scare" and calling people "comrade" in order to make the accusations about their real allegiances beyond the pale. Many bought the Wikileaks crap lock stock and barrel. Suckers need to wise up.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There were other causes outside what the Democrats may have "done wrong."
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... he didn't want to commit to me, but he always wanted to "neg" me and control me.
hueymahl
(2,507 posts)as constructive criticism of a political party.
Never let an opportunity pass to criticize Bernie!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)hueymahl
(2,507 posts)Sounds like he was mentally abusive.
Still don't think it is a valid comparison. And I think you know that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Feel free to continue the is/isn't/is/isn't bickering, but I believe we've reached an impasse here.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)the discussion in a big way, whether last year or now or next year, are the results positive?
If not, oops.
Or herself, there is a famous woman inserting herself into the discussions, so far I cant connect her to anything bad, though. Elizabeth Warren, that is.
Promee
(69 posts)Particularly since Sanders has cache value and he knows it.
FBaggins
(26,754 posts)Then there aren't nearly as many of "us" as they think.
ProfessorPlum
(11,267 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)that he isn't
Orcrist
(73 posts)When a man tells me he isn't a democrat I got this funny weird thing I do. I believe him. Are you saying that Sanders is a liar? Bold statement on your behalf there. Careful the Bernie is Jesus Christ crowd may come after you for that.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Given all the foreign bots and friends providing similar messaging, it might be best if we all stay out of the Bernie's not a Democrat brougaha. It's obviously intended by Russia Et all to keep Dems divided
They were REALLY successful at it in the primaries. And they're trying very, very hard to keep stirring up right now. I'm not blaming you or anybody here, but let's try to avoid adding to the infighting.
then why aren't the people who start these threads instantly banned?
LostinRed
(840 posts)Everyday it's either attack Bernie or defend Bernie.
Orcrist
(73 posts)or they don't get their check from the First National Bank of Volgograd. LOL!
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)But you are amusing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)when he becomes one then I will listen to him. Right now I have no interest in placating his ambition and ego.
Response to hack89 (Reply #9)
Post removed
hack89
(39,171 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,267 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)silly posts like yours bring out the worst in me.
pnwmom
(108,988 posts)CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)While times have changed, the message from Bernie never has.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Talking about single payer and doing something about it are two very different things.
Had a family member who was in a novice debater on her team in Michigan that year, the topic was Healthcare (they pick one every year). In the novice year, they create and defend a case, or they attack it. (Later on they switch sides every round.)
My cousin's case was a Single payer Canada plan. Every weekend in the fall, she and her partner would spend several hours a day presenting their Canada plan, and defending it.
Lots of talking about Single payer and Canada, but she as 9th grader and her partner are not credited with effecting any change either.
Talk is fine, debate is fine, reading your 1st Affirmative Case and getting everything in under 8 minutes is great (even if it was sort of torture to you poor family who helped you by timing you every time), but it doesn't mean you did anything constructive, it doesn't mean you owned it, even if you did know the pros and the cons way better than some of those representatives and senators did, or do now.
There is a reason that Canada keeps losing doctors to the US, and why so many patients cross the border for care the frustration with that system is real, talk to a few people and see why it's not all roses, if doing the actual homework is too much.
One needs to get past the superficial sloganeering and delve into what we need to do to fix our broken healthcare system, there are many ways of achieving universal, affordable healthcare, and we need to figure out how to do that sensibly to fit our population.
Saviolo
(3,282 posts)http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
Mr. Evil
(2,853 posts)person that mindlessly repeats those same republican talking points ad nauseam. Thanks for the link.
Saviolo
(3,282 posts)But to be fair, there is a LOT of misinformation about the Canadian system in the USA, so I guess I shouldn't be THAT surprised. Maybe I should make it an OP (or you're welcome to, if you like!)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)DUers have been pretty good about destroying these health care memes over the years, perhaps it's time for a reminder.
Well done!
Saviolo
(3,282 posts)Mr. Evil
(2,853 posts)with the rapid ascendancy of Sinclair Broadcast Group. They really need to be stopped. John Oliver addresses this.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The talking point about Canada's doctors is used all the time on social media, no matter how many times it's debunked. Right wing memes are like hydras, as soon as you chop off one head ten more take its place.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)referencing my personal experience with doctors and patients in Canada who left for the U.S.
Walk into Henry Ford, DMC or any of the hospitals in other border areas and go learn for yourself. Nothing "Right wing" about the truth you'll find there.
That's a criticism of CANADA's specific issues, not of single payer or universal coverage, which the REPUBLICANS are against.
Please don't spew this hate at me for reporting my personal experience, which is backed up by anyone who has ever spoken to Canadian doctors or had any experience in hospitals in areas like Detroit and other border crossings where reality doesn't match silly talking points from the AARP.
It's not "all", never said it was "all". But it's silly to pretend that everything is perfection in Canada and that we can just copy and paste it onto the US without any thought. Right wing spew is when one chooses to misread things and then ignores nuance of what's being said to advance talking points. I'm not the one doing that.
Also, here are some articles, since the personal experience of people on online post is worth the paper its printed on.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/world/windsor-journal-doctors-eying-the-us-canada-is-sick-about-it.html
(I shadowed one of these guys so some of us know these emigrees pretty well, even if the AARP doesn't and they're both happily practicing in the U.S. I guess all those offers of free hamburgers didn't do much to sway two vegetarian Hindus.)
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/number-of-canadian-patients-travelling-abroad-for-treatment-increased-by-25-study-finds
Please note these new studies are within the last few years, AARP cites one from 2002.
Saviolo
(3,282 posts)But I did want to correct what I saw as incorrect information. I never said that the Canadian system was perfect. I live in Canada, I know it's not perfect. It doesn't include dental or vision, and elective surgeries an procedures have wait times. Also, the National Post is a right-leaning paper in Canada.
I don't like linking the WaPo, because it has a paywall, but there's a good article here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/trumps-claim-about-canadians-traveling-to-the-united-states-for-medical-care/?utm_term=.de7abeba08f8
Some excerpts:
Donald Trump, second presidential debate, Oct. 9, 2016
During the health-care policy portion of the debate, Trump attacked Hillary Clintons health-care plan and said it would end up in a disaster, somewhat similar to Canada. He called the Canadian health-care system catastrophic, and said that in many cases, Canadians are coming to the United States to receive operations because their system is so slow. We checked out whether this was accurate.
There are longer wait times in Canada than in the United States for people to receive specialized care. According to a January 2016 report by the Commonwealth Fund, 41 percent of adults in Canada in 2013 were able to access same-day or next-day appointments when they were sick, compared with 48 percent in the United States. Emergency, urgent and primary care are prioritized for patients.
But when it came to specialists, 29 percent of adults waited two months or longer, compared with 6 percent in the United States. In Canada, 18 percent of adults waited four months or longer for an elective surgery, compared with 7 percent in the United States.
The most comprehensive report on this topic was published in 2002 in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. While the data is 20 years old, it gives us a reference point of how many Canadians who needed medical procedures came to the United States to get them. Of the 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian National Population Health Survey, 90 people said they had received health care in the United States in the previous 12 months. Only 20 respondents said they traveled to the United States specifically to get that care.
The Trump campaign cited research from the right-leaning Canadian think tank Fraser Institute, which found that in 2014, more than 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment outside of Canada. The campaign pointed out that 52,513 people in 2014 represented a 25.5 percent increase over the 2013 estimate of 41,838 people. For context, 52,513 people represent 0.15 percent of the countrys population of 35.5 million in 2014.
The report acknowledges there is no readily available data on the number of Canadians traveling abroad for health care. Researchers came up with an estimate by using data from the think tanks annual survey of Canadian physicians in 12 specialties, combined with data on the number of procedures performed in Canada. The specialized areas they surveyed include plastic surgery, neurosurgery, urology, gynecology and oncology. These procedures were medically necessary elective treatment, the report said, though there is no information about exactly what procedure these patients would have received.
Unlike in the United States, appointments in Canada for elective and specialist procedures are determined by priority and need, rather than people who can afford to pay more to see a doctor quickly. While it is true that there are longer wait times in Canada for such procedures, there is no reliable, official data on the number of people traveling from Canada to the United States, said Victor Rodwin, health policy and management professor at New York Universitys Wagner School of Public Service.
What we do know is that the numbers of people who come from Canada to the United States for surgery are very small, Rodwin said.
This is a classic case of Trump focusing on raw numbers with limited information to extrapolate a general trend. By one estimate by a right-leaning Canadian think tank, there were 52,513 Canadians (0.15 percent of total population) who traveled outside of the country (not necessarily to the United States) to receive non-emergency medical care. This figure was reported in a survey that asked physicians, rather than patients themselves, to estimate how many patients traveled outside of the country. There is no information about exactly what procedure these patients may have received, and it did not ask specifically why the patients traveled outside of Canada for care.
There is limited reliable information to support Trumps claim. The most comprehensive report uses data from 20 years ago, and found that 90 out of 18,000 people surveyed for the Canadian National Population Health Survey said they had received health care in the United States in the previous 12 months.. Trumps exaggeration of this one data point to extrapolate a larger trend earns him Three Pinocchios.
Please note that the Fraser Institute (where the USNews and National Post article get much of their information from) is a right-wing think tank in Canada, as well. The NYTimes article is also almost contemporary with the 2002 study that the AARP article references and the WaPo article notes (in bold above).
The trouble is, talking about ONLY the pitfalls of the Canadian (or British or whatever) single-payer systems is an effort to discredit the idea of single-payer systems. Millions of Canadians have used the Canadian health care system for life-saving treatment, or even routine treatment without having to go bankrupt or lose their homes.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I was mentioning that talking about an issue isn't much of a bonafide.
I heard way too much about the Canada plan, both the pros and the cons.
I was not repeating talking points, I was relating my personal experience, and those of my friends and family. I grew up in Detroit, and shadowed doctors across the border in Windsor, in MI several other states and a couple of different countries.
This not an easy topic, and one needs to actually get beyond the slogans and get to figuring out how to actually achieve the goals, not just talk about them.
I know doctors in CA who love practicing there, and I know ones who just couldn't take it anymore and moved to the US (including those neurosurgeons in that article). The primary care doc have an easier time of it, the neurosurgeons and their patients were not happy. The ones I shadowed in the U.S. saw a LOT of international patients, including Canadians. I have friends in medicine and nursing in CA who have similar stories.
I wasn't even only talking about the pitfalls so I don't know where the whole "spewing RW talking points" was about, it did read as an attack, I'm sure you can see why.
The point is that what works for Canada won't necessarily work for us, we're a whole different country and population. Millions of Canadians do use it and like it, many more are contributing to the new industry of medical tourism. Saw that firsthand in India, where the private medical facilities are affordable for Westerners, and the care is comparable if not better than they'd get at home, but cheap compared to what they'd pay here (or it was a few years ago).
But that's how single payer systems work for the wealthy, no matter what, if you have money you will always have the option of paying more for care, and you're going to have to with anything based on Medicare as well.
We need to do address how to meet our needs and ensure everyone has care and that can't be done if we're constantly sniping at each other and doing the whole cult of personality thing while ignoring history, reality and simple facts.
Saviolo
(3,282 posts)This:
Is a well-worn right-wing talking point. In recent years, there has actually been an influx of doctors, and more entering Canada than leaving it. You also referenced right-wing newspaper The National Post, and right-wing think tank The Frasier Institute.
The point I'm trying to make is that saying "doctors and patients are fleeing the Canadian system" is disingenuous as an argument, as the proportion is incredibly small. But I'll just leave you with this:
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And before that as mayor in 1988:
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Why won't you join the party that you are trying so hard to lead?
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)and that is a very large part of it. Also Democratic party leadership backed his campaign and fully endorsed him.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He doesn't want the label. It's weird people keep foisting it on him.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)He needs to stop attacking Democrats, it can't be all about Burning down the party and its base, that's the GOP and they don't need help in achieving that goal.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Again and again during the primaries I was scolded that "labels don't matter." Yet Senator Sanders changed his label to Democrat when it suited his convenience, and he changed back to Independent as soon as it suited his convenience.
If the good people of Vermont couldn't endure Sanders as a Democrat, one naturally asks why the hell not? If it's just a label then it's just a distraction, and he could put an end to it with one tweet.
What does Sanders gain by playing this label game, except to get the spotlight shone on him whenever he wants it?
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)He was elected by Vermonters as an independent/he ran for president and received votes in the presidential election as a Democrat.
It's splitting hairs/there's no real difference.
This is why so many Democrats won't accept him. He's yet to provide an honest answer to the question.
My bet - he simply doesn't want to be a member of any party. He just wants to be Bern. To do what he wants, when he wants, vote how he wants with no party ties or strings attached.
There's nothing wrong with that. But there is something hugely wrong with working to lead a party that you refuse to join. If he sees himself as too good to join the party, well then, most Dems will conclude he's not good enough to lead their party.
At least, that's how the nominating vote went in 2016.
It's a hypocrisy that most Democrats won't accept.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Orrex
(63,219 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Joe941
(2,848 posts)H2O Man
(73,577 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Thank you.
George II
(67,782 posts)..."Chair of the Senate Democratic Outreach Committee"
He's Chairman of Committee Outreach for Senate Democrats. That is an entirely different position as is being portrayed by wikipedia.
FBaggins
(26,754 posts)I doubt that the point was a specific position... it was that Senate Democrats selected him for a leadership position within the party.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I said I want him to join the party, especially since he wants to start dictating party policy... Why is that so difficult?
greatauntoftriplets
(175,747 posts)DownriverDem
(6,230 posts)Just join the Dem Party Bernie. And do it sooner rather than later to avoid the mess like in 2016. We have a 2 party system. This is how we move on.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)with the Democratic Party. He's not going to caucus by himself or with the Republicans because he would only have a say in a 49-50-1 congress w/ a VP of the minority party. Our issues align from time to time and Bernie is either quiet or supportive. When they don't or when in front of the right crowd, Bernie is shouting about the ills of the Democratic party to anyone who will listen.
As for 2018/2020, I am under no assumption that Bernie would support house candidates that beat Bernie backed candidates in primaries because he's not a member of the Democratic Party and for many folks, that is the bare minimum for being considered a leader of the party. I'm hoping to be surprised.
still_one
(92,307 posts)"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday night that he still does not consider himself a Democrat despite taking part in a Democratic National Committee (DNC) unity tour with the party's new chairman, Tom Perez.
"No, I'm an Independent," Sanders said when asked by MSNBC's Chris Hayes whether he now identifies as a Democrat."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329418-sanders-i-do-not-consider-myself-a-democrat
grantcart
(53,061 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Sanders say the Democratic Party isn't working the way it is now.
(GOP controls the House, Senate, White House, ans Supreme Court)
And people scream:
"SHOOT THE MESSENGER !"
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)There. I've said it. And meant it.
beastie boy
(9,385 posts)What I say is he is not the leader of my party. Otherwise, he is welcome with open arms to join us any time he feels like it.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)And I have absolutely no problem with that, I'm not one of them either.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)But I'm with you.
I'm your Democrat just as long as I need to be.
With friends like that, I'll take the enemies. At least I know they're going to fuck me.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)chillfactor
(7,578 posts)THEN he is part of the Demcratic Party.....until then he is not a leader in the party.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders has been mighty convenient for decades when we've needed to squeeze something past Republicans but we get all exclusive when he flexes that seniority muscle. I suggest chilling the hell out--even just a little--for a week or two, long enough to halt a GOP ACA repeal effort.
He's one of us sometimes. It's instructive to remember when he is and when he isn't.
mountain grammy
(26,640 posts)Willie Pep
(841 posts)Sanders is a good ally to have especially now that he is so popular. Sanders has galvanized a lot of people, including many young people. I don't agree with all of his ideas but having Sanders on our side of some issues helps to get the word out about Republican policies very effectively because many people really listen when he speaks on an issue.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He wants to have his cake and eat it too. That annoys the hell outta me.
COMMIT FFS.