2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Rodham Clinton Sounds Like A Realist – Not A Republican
By Rmuse
January, 19th, 2016
Reality is often difficult to embrace for some people and it is curious why seemingly intelligent people continue gravitating towards fantasy. The reality in America today is that one side of the political spectrum cannot comprehend that they are not in charge, have little hope of being in charge, and yet believe one man will put them in charge and transform Republicans into a compassionate, caring, and socially conscious political party. This is in spite of a solid six years of Republican barbarism targeting the American people and a steady increase in their dominance in state legislatures and Congress. All the while, a segment on the left are dead certain that with the election of their chosen candidate, Republicans will magically self-transform into raging liberals and give their undivided support to what many, many Americans regard as socialistic policies; this segment of the left are the EmoProgs.
Yesterday, a particular point of contention between Democrats running for the presidential nomination prompted neo-Democrat candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to claim that former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was sounding like a Republican because she failed to support his monumental healthcare overhaul. So it has come to the point that, like every Republican, evangelical, and tea party conservative is wont to do, not supporting a policy is sounding like the opposition. It is a troublesome practice Mr. Sanders is prone to employ and nearly as despicable as accusing Democrats of endorsing the Koch brothers when they ask the Sanders campaign to receive fewer email requests for donations.
What has Senator Sanders upset with Clinton is because she said her healthcare position is strengthening Obamacare and bringing down costs as opposed to Senator Sanders Medicare-for-all that will raise health care costs for average Americans; something Senator Sanders said is just plain wrong. However, he also said that Sometimes where the discussion becomes really absurd is that we will increase Medicare premiums, that is true. Yes, there will be Medicare premiums, its not free, but we are doing away with all private health insurance costs. Now, forget that Medicare premiums will be increased under the single payer plan because its not free; that is obvious. But doing away with all private health insurance costs is a fantasy unless Republicans suddenly vanish off the Earth.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/19/hillary-rodham-clinton-sounds-realist-republican.html
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)[IMG][/IMG]
Do ya'll hate kittens and puppies too?
Or just anything warm and furry?
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)the candidate of 'no we can't' and the 'party of no' in congress
would probably get along splendidly!
[IMG][/IMG]
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)that explains the National polls. LMAO
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Learn the difference between "the Country" and "the Democratic Party"
morningfog
(18,115 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)THAT ^ is NOT "the country" it's a small percentage of Americans.
Hell, only 29% of the population are Democrats, while 44% are Independents.
So of that 29%, I'd guess that only half of them qualify to participate in any of these
polling numbers we are seeing, and this of course is sans any online polls.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Sometimes the adult in the group has to be the one to say No.
Broward
(1,976 posts)War and Wall Street are two examples.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
mmonk
(52,589 posts)no doubt.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Oh, and did I mention Shapeshifter?...
Beacool
(30,247 posts)If single payer wasn't passed in a much more liberal era, do any of you truly think that it will pass now?????
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)He's more about making statements than anything else.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)It's facing reality and having a historical perspective.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)will only strengthen the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Costs for drugs will still go up far out of proportion to financial need, millions of people will still find it difficult to afford healthcare.
What every other western democracy has found is that only universal, single payer systems remove the profit motive from this equation.
To those who say that nothing can be done with a GOP controlled Congress, you are correct. But add one word to that sentence.
Nothing can be done now with a GOP controlled Congress, but there is an election in 2016, and one in 2018. People can vote for real change, or a continuation of the same system with cosmetic changes.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)liberals to Congress that Democrats will have the huge majority that they would need to pass a single payer plan that would expand Medicare to all and that would dismantle all private insurance companies?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Rather than console ourselves that the country received the best that could be accomplished under the circumstances, why not work to change minds and hearts?
It worked for marriage equality, and Civil Rights.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Pie in the sky is not policy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Absent a truly large turnout that changes Congress, even one chamber, how will any genuinely Democratic agenda get accomplished in the face of GOP obstruction? The GOP ferociously obstructed William Clinton and Barack Obama. Neither was truly radical or progressive, but each was opposed.
So where does "effective" and "accomplish" fit in this narrative? Or, dare I say it, "inspiring"?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We are not going to give up just because we can not win it in the next two years.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Not realistic, but I think that is the assumption his supporters have.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)believe his plans can be enacted in the short run.
We aren't the morons you pretend we are.
We are well aware that his plans are not going to pass any time soon. Sanders, and these plans, are step 1. We know it will take a long time to get to step 247.
Single-payer healthcare is a battle we have been fighting for 80 years. We are well aware that it will not be won quickly.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)There aren't enough votes in Congress to pass single payer. If Sanders did become President and was unable to pass single payer, his supporters would turn into haters in a minute.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Obama, a more centrist and open to compromise Democrat, was beaten over the head over and over by the Republicans in Congress. Sanders is more Left leaning than Obama and less likely to be open to compromise. What exactly will he get accomplished? I find it amusing when I read here that Sanders has no enemies in Congress, but they fail to mention that he also doesn't have that many allies. Congressional endorsements by his Democratic colleagues have been overwhelmingly in Hillary's favor. Which is understandable since she is an actual Democrat. He just joined the party recently.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Her accomplishment in the Senate was renaming a post office. You are now claiming she will get the Republicans to stop their attempts to repeal the ACA, and get them to expand it. To call that claim delusional is an insult to those with delusions.
There will be gridlock no matter who is elected.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)where they were going to start the next war.......
Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)Even if she wins and bring in a minuscule amount of Democrats into Congress, there will still be a Republican run House of Representatives and Senate. There will still be gridlock either way.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)It's the burn down the house to save it attitude abut politics. Sanders beliefs may be lofty, but are just as improbable as Trump's bombastic proclamations that serve to rile his supporters. Trump is a carnival barker while Sanders is authentic in his beliefs, but either way, neither are basing their policies in the reality on the ground.
I think that Sanders is a decent man who strongly believes that the system works against people, but it's what he proposes that I find problematic. As much as it's hard for his supporters to face, single payer will not pass through Congress in the near future or in years to come. The 60s were the time to attempt to pass that type of legislature, not now. This is a more conservative country than it was then. Most Republicans of that era couldn't get elected today. A while ago, both McCain and Dole made that point. Heck, Nixon would be too liberal for the current Republican party.
Why I think that Hillary would be more effective is that she would attempt to make piecemeal changes. Yes, that would anger the Left, but incremental changes is how we got most entitlements through Congress. She proved very good in the Senate at reaching out to the other side and working with them when they found common ground. She was one of the most sought after senators to co-sponsor bills. She has always said that she prefers to be a "work horse" and not a "show horse". She does her homework and knows the details about even the most obscure pieces of legislation. As SOS, dignitaries of the countries she visited were surprised at her depth of knowledge of their countries' issues. I think that a Hillary presidency would continue to advance Democratic goals.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And Republicans would vote for those piecemeal changes because............
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Eat your peas.
A realist you say?
fascinating.
I didn't know realists were chameleons.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)That kind of optimism is just what the voters want to hear!
bowens43
(16,064 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Let the hit pieces come, we knew they would eventually. Fuck that shit.
Yes we still can!!!
I refuse to yield to a corrupt Democratic Party Establishment,
I refuse to be ok with lying, deceptive, weathervane-driven candidates in a Democratic Primary,
I refuse to be intimidated by insinuations of self-proclaimed, preordained "inevitability",
I choose to steadfastly support the candidate who exudes authenticity, honesty and who's willing to
fight tooth-and-nail for a future we can believe in, a future to leave my children and grandchildren,
a future built with visionary hard-work hell-bent on creating the change needed to salvage & restore
Democracy, justice and Liberty for all in America.
rsexaminer
(321 posts)My issue is when people say Hillary can work better with Republicans than Bernie. But if the GOP HATE her like they say, why would anyone thing they will work with her?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's just all they can come up with to oppose proposals from the Sanders campaign.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And capital punishment.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Let's just go for it and get totally nihilistic.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Bernin4U
(812 posts)Hillary's temporary pivot to the left was getting old.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)But poorly written, almost to the point of incoherence.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The reality is that we need to move towards a single payer system. Any other point of view is simply wrong.
Maybe we won't get there for decades, but choosing to simply stop moving toward that goal is defeatism, not realism.