2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
The Democratic Primary Ruined My Friendship!
Perhaps if we contemplate how pointless and unnecessary it is for other people to lose friends over their preferred primary candidate, then we get a little perspective on our own situation here on DU...
Why Bernie-Hillary has gotten so personal.
By Michelle Goldberg
A couple months ago, one of my husband’s former colleagues from a progressive digital strategy firm popped up on his Facebook page to castigate him for supporting Hillary Clinton. “Matt, do you remember the exact date when you gave up?” the man wrote. “Was it when Obama turned out to be a damn conservative? Or were you never 100% behind this progressive thing to begin with? Tired of losing, so pick a candidate who, if she loses, it won’t really matter that much? I think it’s the last one. Sellout.”
That was the moment I realized that the Democratic primary, while incredibly high-minded compared with the Republican one, is creating lasting interpersonal enmity. On Saturday, Peter Wehner wrote in the New York Times about conservative friendships fraying in the age of Trump, describing people for whom “differences over the Trump candidacy have caused such a loss of respect that they feared their friendships would not survive, and that even if they did, they would never be the same.” I wish I could feel schadenfreude, but the same thing is happening among some committed progressives. Even now, with the primary season limping toward its foregone conclusion, collegial disagreement has given way to hostile incredulity, as people wonder how those who they thought saw the world in the same way could be so utterly, bafflingly wrong.
A necessary disclaimer—evidence for this is entirely anecdotal. The people who came to hate each other over the Democratic primary are a small, unrepresentative group of political obsessives. Most people never talk about politics online; in a 2012 Pew Research Center study, 84 percent of social media users said they’d “posted little or nothing related to politics in their recent status updates, comments, and links.” Like those Wehner writes about, people who’ve spoken to me about damaged relationships either work in liberal politics or are serious activists. They are part of a fairly minuscule subculture.
Among this little group, however, it’s easy to find people whose ties are being tested. “It has been an eye-opening and heartbreaking election cycle that has revealed some ugly truths about ‘progressive bros’ in my circle that will take some time for me to digest,” says Maryna Hrushetska, a 47-year-old curator and art adviser in Los Angeles who supports Clinton.* In the past, Hrushetska tells me, she’s worked on behalf of Palestinian rights and the environment, and she’s been shocked to see men she knows through those movements repeating sexist anti-Clinton slurs.
Read more at Slate...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uben
(7,719 posts)Not worth wasting your time trying to convince a person to change their beliefs when they don't want to. If your not doing that, then you are just posting to argue about things. Sorry, not fun. Best to wait till after the primaries to engage in this place. I don't care which one wins, just get it done!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,778 posts)during the last decade she argued that the U.S. was already a post-feminist culture.
Hekate
(93,454 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But I do see how people can get emotional in a heated campaign.
MineralMan
(146,954 posts)Will make smart decisions, in the end. Some people will not, but I believe that they are a tiny minority. It has been an ugly primary race. That's regrettable. I think it will settle out, though.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"tiny minority" narrative, my friend.
If they were such a tiny minority, let's say like here on DU, then why did skinner feel the need to free all those who were on time out?
One might imagine that it was to even the playing field since Team H was losing badly.
Just my two cents on that tiny majority.
But on a more serious note...The Democratic (?) party is smaller than the independents that have been disenfranchised time and time again during this election season.
I would be careful that the "tiny minority" that you rush to reoeat may not be so tiny or the minority thst you claim they are.
MineralMan
(146,954 posts)Watch.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)the ability to communicate.
MineralMan
(146,954 posts)There's no point in communicating beyond simple statements at times. This is one of those times.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Perhaps you believe that I am onto something to you just don't want to duscuss.
MineralMan
(146,954 posts)Amazing...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Was it worth it? 
nolabels
(13,133 posts)If you are a politician in need of friend, get a dog
My personal antecedent would be ' With friends like mine, i would be better off with enemies' 
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)he's just a little sick of the constant bleating and whining around here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It'll take a pressure washer to get this off the wellies.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Hekate
(93,454 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Maybe it's her, not us . Just maybe.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
EVERY day.
Hekate
(93,454 posts)
Thaaaank you!
sheshe2
(85,970 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)disagreements, this kind of "You--who have been here for a decade or more--have NO RIGHT to be here" attitude was not on display.
I've only seen this in the Post-DU3 era.
It sucks.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)IT is beyond cute!
We just have a few more months and then it will cool down.....
MADem
(135,425 posts)That cat went from west to east coast to southern Europe and northward, then back to America with me!
I had another cat that lived just as long that I picked up in Asia as a stray kitten.
For the longest time cats were plenty, then I got a bird and a few dogs.
My "pet transport" bills were getting outta hand!
Now I'm down to one dog and she's a handful!
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I feel as though Bernie is once in a lifetime. And you all let him slip away for the status quo candidate. So many people will be left without hope. But so be it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But there was still that old school veneer that kept it from getting Limbaugh-style nasty.
That veneer has been stripped off, and some people are being total assholes. They engage in personal insult, invective, and all kinds of brutal nastiness. They will call you, to your face, directly AT you, ugly names--and their buddies will not hide the posts, so why bother to alert on them? They won't discuss the issues, they'd rather tell you about yourself--it's not all of 'em by a long shot, but the ones that do that kind of thing make it stink for the ones who don't do it like that.
Maybe the only way to play this is Pay To Play. I don't know what else the answer might be. The ability of people to sign up and have multiple accounts (and they get tombstoned often enough for that stuff so we know it happens) needs to cease.
Maybe, if people can't abide by the TOS, they need to take a one way trip to Discussionist.
As for Bernie, I don't see him as a leader at all-sorry. I see him as a guy who recognizes problems, but his "solutions" don't pass the smell test. He has to work WITH Congress--and he's so "popular" with them that his ONE (ONE--after a quarter century on the damn HILL) endorser in the Senate said today "If you're losing in June, you need to QUIT and not pull this 'take it to the Convention' crap" (that IS a paraphrase but the sense is accurate).
Those guys Do Not LIKE Him. You'd think he'd have a few friends after a quarter century between both Houses, but he hasn't gotten any love of note. Obama was The New Kid, but he had no trouble making friends who ENDORSED HIM. Almost NO ONE wants to endorse Sanders.
There's a reason his own damn PEERS aren't rallying around him and lifting him up. It's because he doesn't get along with THEM either. I think he means well, but if he can't bring Congress along as a CANDIDATE, he's not going to bring them along as a POTUS.
And it's all moot anyway, because he has no path to the nomination. None. He can flail and wail and point and yell, but he will not win this contest. It's all over but the rest of the firings...and speaking of those, what an UGLY thing to do!
Maybe if he hadn't run off to Rome he could have afforded to pay them through June instead of giving them ten days notice through Jeff Weaver by phone. Damn, that's how a CAPITALIST, not a socialist, fires people--get the lackey to do it, don't talk to the workers, sure as hell don't look 'em in the eye. That's some cold shit, if you ask me.
See, he talks the talk--but when it came to walking the walk, he turned his back and didn't do right by those people.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I wonder if it isn't the same. It's been a while and you say it was really bad in 08. Yet Obama always had a kinder rhetoric and gave people hope that Hillary just can't seem to muster. Very possibly then and now aren't that different. He turned out to be very Hillary-like and they are both centrist-right candidates now. I don't think anybody believes Bernie would move to center. I'm laughing. That could not happen. He only wanted to move Hillary left when he started but the campaign turned into a flood of desire for him. Too bad they either didn't vote or couldn't vote.
You know, his leadership skills have been tested more than Hillary's. Mayor, House Rep who was acknowleged to be king of amendments and then senator. He knows the ropes. In fact, that was one of Obama's problems. I determined never again to vote for a one term anything. He didn't have the experience. I'm hoping Hillary does. She hasn't done much politically either. Nothing like Bernie. He's fostered relationships, he's administered a town from the top, he knows how to hire, enforce regulations, get things done. I know your side poo-poos it at every opportunity, but truth is he's way more qualified to be in charge. He's had the ultimate responsibility.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I was not happy that she didn't take it all the way, and I thought Obama had less experience than she did. But he was a very smart guy--he picked "avuncular Joe" who everyone purports to love but couldn't get out of single digits when he ran--TWICE--for the Presidency--as his VP. Joe isn't taken all that seriously by the public, because he runs his mouth some times, but that guy is wired in DEEP to the legislature. He knows how to vote count, he knows how to whip-em-good, and he knows where the bodies are buried. So that was a fine pick. And first chair in the Cabinet, the most senior cabinet position ahead of Defense and everyone elsle? SECSTATE wasn't a bad consolation prize for HRC. It all worked out. And Barack and Michelle? They grow on ya--and those two cute kids, and the dogs--hey, what's not to love?
But then, HRC did not waste any time. Once she shut it down, she IMMEDIATELY pivoted and frigging harangued her supporters to support Obama. So we went, sullenly some of us, to the polls, and pulled the lever. Because Obama was better than Romney, and Obama worked his ass off, too. He was gonna make us love him--and he did.
Then came 2012 and Obama's in hot water--he looks like his mojo is lost. Who steps in to bail his ass out and lift him up? Why, The Secretary of Explaining Stuff--Bill Clinton, say what you want about him, saved Obama's ass, re-energized a moribund campaign, and dragged his ass over the finish line. I know Obama knows this and won't forget, because that's how it goes. HRC has been EXCEEDINGLY loyal to Obama, too--everytime she goes Off The Ranch she warns him well ahead of time, so he can be smooth when he's asked. She's not going to blindside him. He's going to HELP her, because he sees her as his logical successor.
I don't mean to be rude, but Mayor of Burlington VT is like being Mayor of Mayberry. It's a "city" because there are no people in VT, but anywhere else it would be called a medium sized TOWN. ANYONE could "lead" there--obviously--that was Bernie's first steady paycheck in a long, long time.
TODAY, there are 40K people there. In the ENTIRE town of Burlington. More than that WORKED at the Dept of State (Close to twice as many, and DS also has responsibility for their FAMILIES as well). DS has over a hundred facilities IN THE US and embassies and consulates and "interest sections" in nearly every single country save North Korea (we have an interest section in Iran, in the Swiss Embassy, I think - and we just re-opened our joint in Cuba) all over the world. It's a joke that you would even compare the level of responsibility of a SECSTATE and a frigging Mayor of a sleepy little city-town--there is NO comparison. Ultimate responsibility? The damn entire budget of that town was probably less than the "Janitorial Services" line item in the State budget. Come on--that turd don't float.
And that Amendment King nonsense? That's spin. He sat on his ass and did very little save collect a paycheck and make the occasional hot-breathed floor speech to an empty room as it got close to election day. He was an INEFFECTUAL legislator. He is an INEFFECTUAL Senator and his (cough) leadership of the VA Committee he chaired was nothing short of disgraceful--I hate to agree with the Republicans about anything, but the House Committee had dozens of hearings about the shit going down in VA hospitals, and Bernie could barely bring himself to show up for seven on the Senate side. The mess over there is partly his fault because he failed in his DUTY of oversight. And when he finally started overseeing, he was so "concerned" about the rights of the senior executives over there that he inserted language in the legislation (that, to our embarrassment, the GOP is having to correct) that made it difficult to impossible to fire even the most fucked up screw ups in the senior civilian ranks over there--and he did this at the expense of the rank and file, who often took the hits unfairly for the big wigs.
If he made it to the general election (and he won't) that would have been a full frontal assault by the other side--and they would have had a point.
As for "fostering relationships?" Why can't he get any of his his PEERS TO ENDORSE HIM? They KNOW him, you see--they have had long "relationships" with him -- and that's why they've said "Hell NO."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm old, I'll be dead soon enough...but I really don't want the next generations to have to refight The Civil Rights Act or Roe v. Wade. I know HRC will preserve those rights for future generations. It matters!
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Just claim that Bill Clinton "saved" Obama in 2012?
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Here--let me google that for you:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/09/12/160995401/bill-clinton-obamas-new-secretary-of-explaining-stuff-takes-show-on-road
Bill Clinton, Obama's New 'Secretary Of Explaining Stuff,' Takes Show On Road
President Obama has joked that he should appoint former President Bill Clinton to a new post: "Secretary of Explaining Stuff." That's basically the role Clinton played at the Democratic National Convention in telling Americans why — in his view — they should give Obama another four years in office.
Now Clinton is on the campaign trail in the key battleground state of Florida. He's in Orlando today after stumping for Obama in Miami on Tuesday. NPR's Greg Allen reports that in the speech Tuesday, Clinton told the Miami crowd that the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks should remind Americans that part of being a good citizen means exercising the right to vote.
It's a big issue for Democrats this year, who are facing diminished enthusiasm around Obama compared with four years ago. There also are new voter ID laws and other laws affecting voters in several states, Florida among them, which Democrats have largely opposed. Some of the new laws are embroiled in court battles.
"When people try to discourage you from voting, which is happening in a lot of these voter changes all over America, it should redouble your determination to vote," Clinton told the crowd.
During the rally at Florida International University, Obama workers combed through the crowd, working to register voters and sign up volunteers to help with canvassing and phone banks.
Saturday in St. Petersburg, Fla., Obama explained the new Clinton nickname: "After he spoke, somebody sent out a tweet that said, 'You should appoint him Secretary of Explaining Stuff,' " said Obama. "I like that!'"
Obama LOVED BC's primetime speech at the convention--BC took it "on the road" on behalf of the Obama campaign after that.
Further, BHO mentioned it repeatedly when he was out on the hustings.
In fact, invoking Clinton’s primetime address has given him one of the best lines of his stump speech.
Yesterday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said that he received a suggestion that Bill Clinton should be named “secretary of explaining stuff.” He said the same thing in Iowa City later in the day, getting laughs every time.
This morning in St. Petersburg, however, Obama jokingly admitted that he’d censored the recommendation. The original suggestion included much more colorful language, likely of the four letter variety.
“Although, I have to admit, it didn’t really say ‘stuff’,” Obama told a crowd of 11,000 in Florida. “I cleaned that up a little bit.”
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)the story, what I don't remember is anyone taking a cute Obama quip and turning it into the Clintons "rescuing" a man who was twice their equal and then some.
MADem
(135,425 posts)His campaign was moribund and lacking enthusiasm. Clinton re-energized it.
Don't hate Obama for being politically astute enough to recognize what Clinton did for him.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Obama supporters by claiming that Bill's good ol' Arkansas back-slappin is what gave Obama the victory.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Clinton's convention speech goosed the campaign back into life, and Clinton's work on the campaign trail following the convention re-energized Obama's campaign. That's just fact. Sorry it troubles you so.
OBAMA acknowledges this, so I think it's awfully amusing that you call it "patronizing" when the guy who benefited from Clinton's help was so open in admitting it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/politics/bill-clinton-presses-on-in-campaign-for-barack-obama.html
Whoever wins Tuesday, the 2012 campaign has solidified (or restored) Mr. Clinton’s status as the hardest-working man in a game he loves and plays like no one else. “The master, Bill Clinton,” Mr. Obama called him on Saturday, hailing his predecessor as “a great president and a great friend.”
Unsaid, at least here, is that Mr. Clinton has also been a salvation to Mr. Obama. He gave what was widely considered the best speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., rocking a strong endorsement of the president while arguably conveying the re-election rationale better than Mr. Obama or his campaign has.
“He has been our economic validator,” Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said of Mr. Clinton.
Likewise, Mr. Clinton’s presidency exemplifies what Mr. Obama is trying to make a case for. In the early 1990s, President Clinton also inherited a lagging economy, and then he led economic prosperity in his second term. Mr. Obama, who wrapped his former rival in a full-on hug onstage in Charlotte (their recent joint appearances have featured more cursory bro-hugs), said he should name Mr. Clinton to a new position known as Secretary for Explaining Stuff.
Out of public view, the former president has been equally tireless. In a 20-minute car ride Saturday after a rally in Chesapeake, Va., to the Norfolk airport, Mr. Clinton recorded 40 “robo-calls” for Democratic Congressional candidates across the country. In addition to headlining 37 rallies for Mr. Obama over the last seven weeks of the campaign (including events scheduled through Monday), Mr. Clinton is serving as a back-channel strategist for the re-election enterprise.
On the morning after the third debate between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney on Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla., Mr. Clinton met Mr. Messina for an impromptu breakfast meeting in a suite at a Hyatt Regency hotel in Chicago. Red-eyed after arriving from Boca Raton at 3:30 a.m. and subsisting on Coke Zero, Mr. Messina received, he said, a simple directive from former president, who was in Chicago to give a speech: I am yours in the final weeks. Mr. Clinton said he would undertake a heavy regimen in battleground states.
Previously, Mr. Clinton had served as an active behind-the-scenes strategist, speaking regularly to the president, Mr. Messina and David Axelrod, the senior strategist. He made suggestions on what themes the campaign should emphasize and where. He advocated, according to top officials, for Mr. Obama to run advertisements in Florida that portrayed Mr. Romney as a threat to Medicare and Medicaid — something the campaign ultimately did. As he stumped across the state Friday, Mr. Clinton also drove home that portrayal.....
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You only became an Obama supporter when your queen (and king) were beat down on the 2008 primary streets.
Second, YOUR idea that Obama needed the help of a white neoliberal like Clinton to win in 2012 is disturbing.
The Clinton arrogance is astounding.
brer cat
(25,659 posts)Wish that I could rec this post.
MADem
(135,425 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)were abusing the alert system to turn DU into a Sanders echo chamber.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)until it became apparent that team H was in the minority and populated by a number of vocal individuals that didn't know when to stop.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)the sooner it's back the better.
moriah
(8,312 posts)I admit not participating much in this primary on DU once it got heated. It, and DK, seemed to be very pro-Sanders, I was happy with either choice (even though I did make my decision in January). I voted, went to the local Hillary Super Tuesday watch party, was happy, then figured most of my part was over. I did some phonebanking in February and March, but didn't say much on DU.
Then, I had ankle surgery on March 15th, and have been recovering these last six weeks. So haven't been active until I actually felt better.
I admire the people who fight fiercely for the candidates they believe in. I feel badly for people who had disappointments -- truthfully, reading DU and DK in January, I thought it was going to be Hillary supporters in this position, again, like in 2008, and just hoped we would behave better this time and there not be significant PUMAs.
Seeing it the other way isn't creating shadenfreude ... no, quite the opposite. I really feel badly for people who wanted Sanders and believed in his vision. I just can't see the math for him now.
That doesn't mean he should shut up and go away, nor should his supporters... he, and they, can still work to influence the ticket and platform. But the people calling and harassing Superdelegates, for example, is not the way.
vintx
(1,748 posts)You remind me of what DU used to be like. 
moriah
(8,312 posts)... I exercise my option not to see posts from users that would drive me to incivility. (I have always been one to purge my Ignore list regularly, because people deserve second chances, but I would rather just let people who post things that push my buttons too hard have their DU and their free speech rather than argue with them or suppress it.)
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)At least you can try to understand where we're coming from.
I must be honest and this is not in regards to you but if I hear from someone who voted for Hillary in the primary this time then complain down the road about not having a more ideologically pure candidate in the next primary for the general...well, I will scream at them, literally scream at them and be tempted to throw something at said person.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)They in the minority of Democratic Party voters.
Passion can only carry you so far and the whole hate of the Establishment thing is just funny. The Bernie supporters, of which I kind of count myself, want to become the new Establishment. Establishment is just another word for winner.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that the GOP is beholden to.
That needs to change or we are all screwed.
Prism
(5,815 posts)The reason I say is, there's a prominent, highly disruptive Hillary supporter who has been "flagged for review" for going on a month.
Flagged for review seems to be the equivalent of "At their majesties pleasure". I was flagged (two hides in a day) and nipped for a week. But keeping someone sidelined for a month?
They're basically just overriding the jury system and overtly modding.
Which is fine. Skinner seems pretty even-handed about it so far.
But, yeah, letting the asylum loose was a fairly bad idea. GDP plunged immediately and hasn't recovered. But, they are watching at least.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Doesn't matter, but I just pointed out to someone in my last thread where I was one of the jurors who voted to hide something that I could have easily rigged. I'm not inclined to rig ANY jury... Yet, here's one of those threads that are SO focused on Sanders supporters ruining it, when the reality of the Democratic party RIGHT along with all of those who turned away from it to become Independents have carried Bernie in every state.
When they don't like who the majority becomes, they change the playbook. Skinner really has not proven he is running a democratically driven discussion board, and we're supposed to stand up and take this?
The Hell I am...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Frankly I am tired of this shit.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Seems fair. Then we can all support the nominee, and the people who have run up a whole huge list of hides can have some time to do other stuff, like phonebank, or ponder how they can be more unifying.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Fair for both sides.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)said will not be until either someone drops out or the last vote is cast. Since end of the primary is connected to the new jury process I bet that all hides will be wiped out so people can start fresh.
Just like people who were banned from jury duty were allowed to start fresh when Skinner gave amnesty to all those on timeout.
I think the Admins usually lean towards being less rather than more punitive.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But it'd be funny to see the people who took the removal of the time out function as a green light to spread some of the most toxic garbage I've EVER seen on this board, all over it like creamed carrots on a baby's high chair, to have to face some unexpected consequences for the crap they threw down.
Yeah, that would be worth it.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Except it seems they are incapable of doing that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think if you're objective you'll come to the conclusion that some of the hides were bogus, but a metric fuckton of them were not.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)They, after all, are the ones who posted about having "our juries" on DU. They were the ones who posted about alert stalking cali and boasting about prodding her into a hide. Funnily enough, they are the ones with the most vile OPs and the rudest posts, and therefore the most hides.
If only they would grow up and reflect. But as you stated, it seems they are incapable of doing that.
.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)just since the start of the amnesty are just swell, even handed posters???
Raster
(20,999 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And they just can't admit either, but we know the score.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And the guy I responded to ... perfect example.
Pick a month ... unhinged.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was wrong, it was February.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110759836
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... since people get hidden for the most trivial things around here, usually if it's something supporting Hillary.
You're just upset because, while you can still game the system, it's never permanent ... unless it's WillyH of course.
The independents weren't disenfranchised. They are the same independents that should have been supporting an independent candidate. If Bernie hadn't tried to pretend he was a Democrat to ride on the coattails of the party, he wouldn't be in this mess.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)after team Hillary, with their noxious posts, wind up on the diwn and out.
When that happened the scales fell from his eyes...
Cur heavenly music.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Bernie people love to drag out religious symbolism. I think that's the part I'll miss the least when he scuttles back into obscurity.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)Who was banned from here around the same day you joined. Strange.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)So, I've been a loser, slow, sock puppet, paid Brock troll, and, what, now I'm WillyH?
I'm not obsessed with him. I simply find him a rather relevant example of how far Trump has moved the meter of the kind of racism acceptable in today's political discourse.
But thank you for the laughs. This place never ceases to be amusing. I do sometimes wish it would become more entertaining though. There is a difference, you see. Entertainment is a trip to Disneyland. Amusement is the carnival that comes to the local downtown parking lot.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)Almost like personal animosity. One would think you had had personal interactions with him, but that wouldn't be possible as you only joined arond the time he left. Strange.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I am the love child of WillyH and Cher.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Sorry, I don't understand why people even argue that point. Bernie said today in Oregon that 80% young didn't vote. I think if I heard right that 80% minorities didn't vote. Our campaigns are too long, too opaque, too much money, and too little substance. It is all about David Brock and his tactics regardless of which side he's on. Why should anybody fall for the notion it is better not to talk about politics? Politics decide our democracy. We need to talk more politics and get engaged. But it will not happen as long as we have two exclusive clubs limiting who can vote in this country.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)on DU.
In a somewhat similar way that obnoxious bro behavior is prevalent among online gaming communities.
The internet is a powerful lure to bullies who can use anonymity to get away with bullying.
And it's interesting that you tacitly admit to the extent Sanders supporters abused the jury system to censor other DU'ers.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
n he has us "freed from time outs" is because that tiny minority is over represented hereOkay, that must be it.
And once released from their well-deserved time outs...IMHO...the camp weathervane disruptirs went to work to get even more hides.
I never said any such thing. I mentioned that team Hillary was losing...as in they were acting like aholes and meriting
hides for it.
But please, so your best to get any exercise you can by jumping to conclusions.
pandr32
(11,951 posts)It is hard to see that on the horizon just yet.
MineralMan
(146,954 posts)places than here for a while.
pandr32
(11,951 posts)...but hopefully not for much longer!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But I guess that it begs the question that I have been meaning to ask.
Is what you have posted a preamble or rationalization to a forthcoming purge?
I noticed some tasty plumbs in the above...
Progressive>>>Castigate>>>Hillary>>>Obama>>>damn conservative
Conservatives>>>Committed Progressives>>> Hostile incredulity
Ugly truths about progressive "bros">>>sexist>>>anti-Clinton
Yes, I guess that there is two sides to every story, but this article just magnifies the salivating by certain types in certain groups of an impending purge.
If that were to come to pass I might imagine DU becoming a much smaller, much harder, more insular and conservative shade of its former self.
Of course I could be very wrong, but we all have seen progressive voices silenced: falling into a chasm between what is said and what is done.
But I digress. Interesting article.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I don't know why people talk about a "purge."
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Perhaps you should bring it up with them.
But since there have bern purges in the past...whose to say?
I'd imagine that the same charitable freedom of revoked posting privileges may not be bestowed on certain individuals...or whole groups once a descsion is made to look firward and not back.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Disingenuousness is rather unpalatable...
Fairgo
(1,571 posts) 
musicblind
(4,558 posts)It is enforcing the rules that request posters not to disparage the democratic nominee once we have a presumptive nominee. This won't happen until after the final states vote on June 7th.
At that point, the rules simply as that all posters refrain from disparaging the democrat who came out ahead until the general election is over.
There are many forums on DU. There are many reasons to post on DU other than the democratic nominee. If you cannot exercise an adult level of control and not bash whoever the nominee is, and that goes for either side, then you will likely have posts deleted and if that doesn't work, you will eventually be told to leave. It won't be a purge. It will be a request for common decency and to get along as we work to put a democrat in the White House.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Call it a ham sandwhich if you want if it gives you comfort, but it will still amount to the same thing.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Seemingly camp weathervane (sic) loves to talk about it. Perhaps you should bring it up with them..."
You will of course, point us towards the relevant posts illustrative of a collective sentiment in regards to this so-called purge you allege, yes?
Or (and I find this more likely), your response will be anything other than relevant.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)People will simply have to dial back the right-wing bullshit they're promoting.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)be considered right-wing bullshit?
pkdu
(3,977 posts)TOS they signed on joining.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,648 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If you can't follow the TOS, why do you think you should be here?
You don't have to support Clinton. You just have to follow the rules.
IMO, Skinner has been damned generous so far.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)when it pleases them to; as one might imagine without too much difficulty.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)oh wait...he wasn't a Democrat, was he?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If you are going to make a historical reference ... at least TRY to make it relevant.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)But the Bernie Brigade has to duel with the likes of the Trumpeters and the Cruz Missiles over that way--those guys aren't polite like Team Hillary--they'll tell those who are full of their own smarmy sanctimony right where to stuff it.
They like to bully--but they don't like being bullied so much. They could really have a good old Hammer and Tongs time over at Discussionist--but they might be bested by some of those wingnuts...or they might find they have more in common with them (see the bit about misogyny, above, in the OP) than they are willing to admit over on this side of the Internet fence.
Thing is, though, those wingnuts will never love Bernie...so that's where the fights would break out. If they had the guts to migrate over there (and, like I said, it would take guts because those guys aren't polite at all), it would probably be a good spectacle to read every so often! Kind of like a Gallagher Show--fun every once in a while. But messy...very messy! Sloppy! Wear old clothes if you're gonna sit in the front row!
polly7
(20,582 posts)
I enjoy reading there ........ often there is more real news and many times even better discussions. Most of the conservatives there don't seem to have that much of a problem with Sanders, from what I've read.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Once his backstory went on blast to the nation, he's easy to beat.
Middle America doesn't know a lot about him, because the Democrats supporting Clinton have been too polite to say much about it.
The right wing wouldn't hold back. But only if he won. Not before.
Now, why bother?
Use him as a wedge.
polly7
(20,582 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)All those pervy writings, all those photos of him with "commies," all that crazy "medical advice" -- he's like manna from heaven.
But now, that he's not going to win, they'll just have to use him as a wedge. Tell angry supporters that Trump understands them and they should vote for him.
LOL! Plenty believe they're sincere.
DUHHHHH--Make America Great AGAIN!! Mexicans Build That Wall!
What a guy--right up the angry and vengeful Sanders supporter's alley...?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)
And no, you didn't say anything but "Not surprising that the right wing wouldn't mind Sanders. nt."
You edited to add the rest after I replied.
MADem
(135,425 posts)original post and the edit--go back and check.
polly7
(20,582 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Clintonites are hardly polite. Middle America is learning about him fast. And it isn't middle america but minorities and poor people. You are someone that keeps the anger going. It's a form of passive-aggressive behavior.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's clear that I got "bro'd" on more than one occasion, and an honest perusal of those threads proves it.
You seriously think pointing out your team's bullying makes it all look better?
LOL!
dsc
(52,481 posts)I admit I earned some of mine, I think some of mine were bullshit. You had one, maybe two, that were earned in that bunch.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That's why they get hides.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They don't get them, they give them.
That will end soon. Can't wait until Bernie finishes shutting his campaign down and we can pivot to the general.
Then maybe you'll stop following me around, talking about me.
Some music for you:
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)
is following you around. Why don't you just claim stalking instead?
On edit: I will be happy as well once you come back from your copious amount of hits and redume the more centrist incremental you...or do you still want ti be called "meeeeee?"
MADem
(135,425 posts)He is a PUBLIC FIGURE. He is not a saint, and he is not immune to well-deserved criticism.
I don't find him as impressive as you do-- but that doesn't give you--or anyone here--license to attack me personally.
Yet you do--you just can't help making this shit about ME.
I'm not talkng about YOU "keeping the anger going." (PRO TIP--this is a political DISCUSSION board, not a CHEERLEADING SQUAD--it is a place where DIFFERENCES are discussed--you want RAH RAH? Head to the protected groups). I am not calling YOU "passive aggressive" -- yet you, and your peers, just can't RESIST telling me what you believe I think and feel, and giving me a little psychoanalysis, all because I have committed the crime of the century of not engaging in an overt display of lips-to-gluteus maximus re: Senator Sanders.
You routinely engage in insult--you just did it in your post above.
237. Your silence and now your comments are all about denigration of Bernie. Why?
View profile
Clintonites are hardly polite. Middle America is learning about him fast. And it isn't middle america but minorities and poor people. You are someone that keeps the anger going. It's a form of passive-aggressive behavior.
The proof is in the damn pudding. Anyone can read these posts and see what's what. I talk issues--you and your buddies talk about ME.
Over, and over, and over again.
It's all you got.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm not going to bring it up, but you can find it if you look. 7DAYS have covered a lot of it, so has VT DIGGER, if you're interested.
It doesn't cover him with glory, but it just doesn't matter, because he is not going to be the nominee.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't live in cow country but there are plenty up that way.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:49 AM - Edit history (1)
You definitely seem to be a purveyor of bovine back end produce.
But I already knew that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)429. Nope, what you dropped stinks to high heaven
View profile
You definately seem to be a purveyor of bovine back end produce.
But I already knew that.
I'm not sure what you "knew," but I'm not the one with the shovel, here.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Your art generally requires a dump truck.
TY for being the spelling police. At least you had some usefulness today.
MADem
(135,425 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)But, you know, I'm too polite.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm proud of that page--it shows quite clearly how unfair the HIDE system is when the swarms are out!
Those swarms are the reason the admins changed the HIDE rules--you've only yourselves to blame!
Keep talking about meeeeee, if you must! It's not a party platform, but if it's all you've got....?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Disruptors always tend to gravitate to their own BS, and then play the victim with words like "swarm" to fool themselves into believing that what they do is justifiable.
They tend to use words like meeeee a lot.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But you keep talking about MEEEE, with a curious fixation.
Not sure why, but I imagine it's telling.
And as for disruptors, you need to look in your own mirror, there, sport! It looks like I'm not the only one you goad and bully in this fashion!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)what do you see?
You will not see meeeeeeeeee
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)OK, now you owe me a keyboard.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You forgot the sarcasm tag. 
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's been Hillary supporters who have been silenced far more than anyone on the other side and it's literally via the jury system.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Observed by Rider, 11 year member with 1 hide ever...
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)People are getting hidden on this site left and right if they support Hillary.
I also thought the jury system wasn't 11 years old. Maybe I misunderstood that point but I thought they used to have admins.
If you were running around calling every Bernie supporter an "enemy," I'm sure you'd have been hidden by now, but you've got the power of the majority on your side.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
(Psst, there are many thousands of Hillary supporters here who don't have a single hide but please do keep playing the martyr role here. We can even see your hides...lol)
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)And they're bogus.
One of them, the person I was responding to actually said she didn't think it was hide-worthy either.
Another one was VERY clearly playing along with the premise set by the person I was responding to.
The only hide I can sorta see being valid, even though it, too, was said in jest, I wish I could still say because now what I said in humor I actually believe.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)The main reason any one of us is on here rather than a knitting social is because we want our ideas and candidates to win. Well, mine's winning. How's yours? Nuff said really, don't you think?
Number23
(24,544 posts)But I have three hides, including one for gently (or so I thought) telling WillyT exactly what he was and another for responding in kind to a loud mouthed, know nothing with serious race and rage issues whose entire contribution to this site is starting shit with everyone on it to basically fuck off.
Those are two I don't mind having at all. I'd do it all again, actually.
But I can see why your post about Sanders and rape was hidden. That was kind of careless and needlessly provocative.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that the jury system worked, and that those who found themselves on the outside should change their tone...or something like that.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... seemed to be pretty clear that the system needs an overhaul.
Either way, I think a creative use of the jury pool block is probably helping me a little.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We have a serious election in November.
This place should be about that!
With two horrific candidates. That will be fun...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)you don't want to be my friend.
That's a shame.
It didn't have to be like this.
Hekate
(93,454 posts)You just seem so unhappy at how this one is run.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Then he'd have not much of a website left.
Johnyawl
(3,207 posts)Good insights in that article.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)This one was told from the Republican side.
It was about friendships being tested (and lost) during this particular primary. I can't remember who wrote it, but I know he was a part of the Bush administration.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)None of them have a problem voting for Hillary,they just preferred Bernie. This internet outrage is done by the very few and will be gone and forgotten in a couple of weeks.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I've only seen this animosity here and read about various internet pockets of poutrage.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)I just don't put all my self-worth into my candidate winning or losing. Neither do my friends.
I was very disappointed as a Hillary supporter in 2008, but I sure didn't get all wild-eyed and angry about it. I even have FB friends who are probably tea-partiers from what I see them post, but I know them in real life as good friends. We simply don't discuss politics.
Life is too short.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)What the Bernie folks here (and on other political websites) never take into consideration is that not every BS supporter is a rabid, BoB, I'll NEVER vote for Hillary!, fanatic.
Most BS supporters in real life looked at the two candidates, preferred Bernie to HRC, and voted accordingly. They do not see themselves as part a "Revolution", nor do they see HRC and BS being that far apart on important issues. They will vote for HRC in November - just as the vast majority of HRCers would have voted for Bernie had he won the nomination.
The Bernie = Everything Good, HRC = Everything Bad bullshit is just that - bullshit. And it is, for the most part, confined to political discussion boards.
I have many FB friends who are staunch BS supporters - and I've never seen a single one of them post anything anti-HRC. They post nothing but pro-Bernie articles, statements, etc. But then, most of them don't post on DU or other political sites, which leads me to believe they've never been caught-up in the vitriol that is common among BS supporters on sites like DU.
SalviaBlue
(2,992 posts)I wonder why Skinner is pushing the meme
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... with few exceptions and those are the typical online crazies you find here.
musicblind
(4,558 posts)Heck, I voted for Bernie and I have no problem voting for Hillary. Outside of DU, I would struggle to name Bernie supporters who legitimately hate Clinton.
Dem2
(8,175 posts)Most were like "I never thought he would win anyway". However, one posts some pretty hot stuff on FB, but is quiet as a mouse or backs down when confronted in real life.
I think that one person is the somewhat typical of the internet warrior who can't find a better way to express their frustration IRL.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)who may even vote Trump (they are Republicans so I am assuming this - I hope they will sit out). If only everyone I cared about thought just like me the world would be perfect. 
Relationships are way more important to me than politics.
uponit7771
(91,090 posts)blm
(113,714 posts)The alternative is too horrific for words.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)A little more tightening of the rules here could have prevented the blood war at DU.
I have never had a cross word with any of the many Bernie supporter I know in real life here in Philadelphia.
Maru Kitteh
(28,704 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and most obnoxiously lose friends. Maybe they don't like themselves enough. Or maybe they have trouble seeing the value of both incrementalism and bold moves toward positive change. The more you extend kindness to yourself, the more it becomes your automatic response to others.
Thanks for the article.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The Conservatives are selling the party to the Big Banks and Wall Street. People are literally dying from poverty and lack of adequate health care while some Democrats are dancing with Goldman-Sachs.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)
It only matters if the few and their chosen, children...friends...wives, get a seat at the table.
The can talk about great things and try to fool the majority that they do good things, but only in baby step incrementalism, while they spare no expense to go to war, give money to rouge states: killing the innocent in the process.
Hekate
(93,454 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'm sure that you're werken it overtime.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd rationalize accuracy as something else too were my candidate of choice dependent on it.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)All so sweet and nice. Politics don't matter. Our democracy matters to us, doesn't it. The poor and the immigrant. Children in poverty. A trillion dollars taken back from the rich could pay for a lot of education, mental health, infrastructure and support a lot of jobs. I guess in the end there are two different kinds of voters: those who really do like the status quo and are probably living quite comfortably in nice neighborhoods or even working from home. They don't have to see the squalor in which so many are now living. Then there's the rest of us. Who see it and feel it and care. We are the Bernie people and we are important and smart and compassionate. And when TPP has finally emptied the US of jobs, fracking has caused more earthquakes, climate change has caused more flooding, and the uber rich finally own it all, maybe our comfortable little friends will get engaged and wonder how it all came to be.
It takes passion to make change. I'm sure Bernie is feeling the same frustration and let down that we are. When Amy Goodman gets a show on MSM, it might change. But I'm not holding my breath for that. And our Hillary friends probably wouldn't watch anyway.
BTW, this is not an HRC bashing. I'm sort of bashing apathetic voters who still don't get it. We no longer have the highest standard of living, you all know. And it can get a lot worse. Thank you.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)The ACA is useless? People dying from poverty and lack of adequate health care?
Is that what I'm reading?
Well, just wait if a Republican gets in then, because that ACA will be gone in a skinny minute.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Millions still don't have coverage. And yes people are dying of poverty and lack of health care. Those living in their denial bubbles don't care, but we have 16,000,000 children living in poverty, more American infants die in the USofA before reaching age 1 than any other modern nation. 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty and 2,500,000 children are homeless.
And your rationalization is, "it could be worse with a Republicon." And it could be better if we elected progressives.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Dem2
(8,175 posts)
Across income groups, the greatest decline in the uninsured rate has been among lower-income Americans. Among those with an annual household income of $36,000 or less, the uninsured rate declined 8.8 points since the fourth quarter of 2013.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188045/uninsured-rate-fourth-quarter-2015.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_HEALTHCARE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
Yep, that's a horrible failure.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And you should really worry about the slight upturn at the end of your graph. It might not look like much but I think it means the insurance companies are bailing from the exchanges.
Dem2
(8,175 posts)and a "guess" based on looking for something negative in something positive, it's all too predictable. Be a little less glum once is a while!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I said the ACA was failing and you show a graph that shows that it's starting to fail. The insurance companies are bailing. Millions are still not covered.
Pragmatism, the excuse to ignore those struggling around us.
Dem2
(8,175 posts)You should try it sometime.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If Clinton wins it will be a huge setback. 50 million living in poverty and climbing.
Dem2
(8,175 posts)You're trying to trick me! I get it!
but seriously...
Must you play the 'woe is me/us!' card?
We all struggle every day. We do the best we can to keep a positive outlook.
Things will never be perfect, but we struggle to do the best we can to help those around us.
Politically we vote for the best person for the job who we hope can get something accomplished. We know that no president will eliminate poverty so long as one party is perfectly happy holding people down for political gain - and that party is NOT the Democratic party. I am cynical, but I am also an optimist and the latter is a better overall way to view the world than the former. YMMV, but I have hope.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I have asked why a number of times and the answer always comes back some version of "we want a strong, tough authoritarian leader that will kick ass and take names." They don't care if she kicks asses and fills our prisons or kicks the asses of the 99% by siding with deregulating Wall Street or sends our family members to die in wars. As long as she tells them what to do and how to think.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)There's no there there. No understanding. No substance. He got the person he likes but he doesn't know why. Insurance is going up. It's been documented. And the poor middle class cannot afford it. Rates are very good for the very, very poor. But a guy earning $15 an hour, not so good. He's in a $30K a year range and he is bearing the brunt of obamacare. But "I'm an optimist" should make that lower middle class guy feel really, really good.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Dem2
(8,175 posts)I'm an empty vessel with no compassion for anybody but myself.
I vote based on some shallow lack of understanding of the world, my brain is just a place to put a hat on.
I apologize for caring and for wanting better for everybody.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And the "presumptive nominmee" isn't really interested in fixing the problem with single payer. She just wants to tinker with ACA.
Amid rising drug and health care costs and roiling market dynamics, the spokesperson for the nation’s health insurers is predicting substantial increases next year in Obamacare premiums and related costs.
“I’ve been asked, what are the premiums going to look like?” she said. “I don’t know because it also varies by state, market, even within markets. But I think the overall trend is going to be higher than we saw previous years. That’s my big prediction.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/21/Get-Ready-Huge-Obamacare-Premium-Hikes-2017
More Bad News for the Remaining Obamacare Co-ops
A Government Accountability Office report released Thursday cautions that four of the 11 surviving non-profit cooperatives that were created as part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act have recorded sub-par enrollment figures and could be in trouble, despite substantial federal start-up loans and grants.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/18/More-Bad-News-Remaining-Obamacare-Co-ops
And apparently Obama admin knew about this in 2012.
Nearly Half of Obamacare Co-Ops Are Closing
Nearly half of the 23 non-profit insurance plans created under Obamacare in 2011 at a cost of $2.4 billion have announced they will close by the end of the year.
Obamacare’s Dirty Secret: 31 Million Still Can’t Afford Treatment
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/20/Obamacare-s-Dirty-Secret-31-Million-Still-Can-t-Afford-Treatment
Dem2
(8,175 posts)Sorry I don't believe anybody on the internet
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)accessible. There are millions who are now covered but still cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles. They flat out cannot afford to pay for their medication or doctor visits, let alone a hospital stay. That forced purchase of insurance that they cannot afford to use, is useless. They are paying for nothing. And yet, they are forced to pay.
A very close friend of mine works as a volunteer for an organization which tries to help people navigate around ACA, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal, and it is heartbreaking work. She is only able to help about 15%-20% of those seeking help. Prior to ACA, her numbers where higher because she could steer them to Medi-Cal (CA's enhanced version of Med-Caid) but now, with Federal ACA regs, there is a big donut hole.
For a lot of working poor, it is a clusterfuck.
Response to Dem2 (Reply #98)
passiveporcupine This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)The ACA guarantees insurance coverage, but if you can't afford to see the DR, or the meds they may prescribe what's the point?
I know of plenty of people who have insurance but haven't seen a DR in years. Can't afford it.
Yes, the ACA was a good thing, but it's not the be all to end all. It should be the "incrementalism" they speak of towards universal healthcare.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We were told it was a first step. Bullcrap.
pnwmom
(109,356 posts)And we would have millions more in coverage if the Supreme Court hadn't allowed governors to reject the Medicaid expansion.
Twenty million more Americans have coverage now. That's a huge achievement for President Obama and the Dems in Congress.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I have a family member paying $300 a month for a plan she will never be able use because it has a massive deductible.
Calling the ACA the "Affordable Care Act" is a sick joke. There is nothing affordable about it. We need single payer.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But hey, let's toss it out, and start over.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)pnwmom
(109,356 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Was and is a huge huge gift to the insurance industry..In the last year alone I have seen bills for a few hours in the hospital of 40-50,000$ one over night stay went to over 60k so you bet they have not done a fucking thing about actually lowering health care costs they just gave the insurance industry a few hundred million or more so they would not be so mean
Hekate
(93,454 posts)After all the commiserating over the evil done was over, some of us who were of a more questioning mind teased out the info that it was a compound fracture requiring a lot of surgery and a hospital stay.
I may have forgotten some of the details. If so, I apologize. Bottom line: it was not a simple fracture, which is how it was originally framed.
I completely agree that we have a long way to go to fix this system. If you want the ACA repealed so we can start over, contact all those House Republicans who voted dozens of times to do just that. Brilliant move.
Also, reflect on the fact that Democrats/Progressives stayed home during the first midterm election after Obama was elected and allowed the GOP to take over the House and Senate. It is one of the wonders of the world that Obama got anything done at all, with the opposition he he has faced since Day One.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We got 90% coverage, we ended refusal of coverage, we ended denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, we got extensions of coverage for our school-aged kids to 26. We got subsidized premiums for lower income families and workers.
More people getting healthcare and treatment and medicines? What geniuses thought that would be cheaper? I guess the ones who believe NOW we can have free healthcare?
Hekate
(93,454 posts)I was just kind of taking a poke at the person I was replying to, and others, who seemed to be following up on the notion that since ACA is not 100% perfect we should scrap it.
We have a sarcasm smiley -- maybe we need an irony smiley, too.
God, some of the stories I read while Obama was trying to get it thru Congress.... One that really haunts me was about the young woman who was a Type 1/ Juvenile Diabetic. Her health care was always covered under her parents' plan until she graduated college, then poof. It's a very expensive disease and one you cannot mess around with, and she could not find a job with sufficient medical coverage. So she tried to economize on her insulin. By not taking her bedtime dose. Godsdammit I am a mother myself and this literally makes me She fell into a coma and died.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The ACA is not perfect, but it is a plenty good start.
I was one of the ones who were saying in 2010, while the Democratic Party was lecturing us that a) the ACA was just the first step on the road to single-payer, b) that it would save Congress for the Democrats in the 2010 midterms, c) that once the ACA was in effect, and people were experiencing the clear benefits of it, public opinion would turn in favor of it to validate it, and d) that because of c), it would thereafter be politically suicidal for the Republican Party to try to repeal it, that the opposite of each point was true.
It was an ineptly constructed Republican health care plan from the 1990s, passed not by taking on the private health insurance industry (which is the problem itself) but by co-opting them in its writing. Having passed a Republican plan with no Republican votes, now the Democratic Party owns it lock, stock and barrel.
Here we are in 2016, and how did the points above work out?
a) The Democratic candidate the party is lined up behind and tried to clear the field for is holding up the ACA as the reason single-payer is impossible, and in making the case against it regurgitates Republican talking points (Eek! Taxes! Not going to mention the savings of the elimination of private health insurance costs!)
b) The Democrats had a historic slaughter in the 2010 midterms
c) The ACA has been underwater in public opinion since Day One because, having left the problem and cost of private health insurance unaddressed, people were not impressed, and
d) Since it is unpopular, the Republicans have tried to repeal it 60 times at no political consequence to them, because, as mentioned in c) it has been underwater in public opinion since Day One. Meanwhile, they have never tried to repeal single-payer Medicare because it's publicly supported and popular, and therefore there *would* be dire political consequences for that.
I'm not qualified to be a six-figure Democratic strategist, clearly. They've got it all figured out.