• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Pelosi declines to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Because 140 million people currently have employer sponsored health care. That is why. Because attempting to nationalize this large a sector of the economy is not feasible.

This isn't about "a conversation", we've been having those for decades. This is about supporting a plan that will work without putting people out of jobs and trainwrecking the economy.

Those "doomsday scenarios" are not conservative fearmongering.
 

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
784
358
505
I never expected Pelosi to back a Single Payer Health Bill. This comes as no surprise. Some Democrats still want to keep that big donor money and be cozy with Wall St.
 

Condom

Member
Aug 26, 2013
5,864
0
370
Fucking centrists, you can also propose a transition period. As if other countries never had reforms lmao.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Fucking centrists, you can also propose a transition period. As if other countries never had reforms lmao.

There's going to be an implementation period, obviously. Transition period should be minimized though, its more time for the opposition to whip up fear about "what's happening" and derail the whole thing

Do not underestimate the power of the American right wing to throw a horrendous wrench into all of this. This needs to be like the ACA, it needs to happen quickly enough that undoing it becomes almost impossible. It can't spend 6 years vulnerable as its phased in

This is part of why this has always been such a difficult problem to crack: these changes take time to implement, but the more time they take the more time there is for them to get fucked up
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
There's going to be an implementation period, obviously. Transition period should be minimized though, its more time for the opposition to whip up fear about "what's happening" and derail the whole thing

Do not underestimate the power of the American right wing to throw a horrendous wrench into all of this
/|\

We will only have control for 2 years. We have to make them count, and we need to make it stuff that the public won't be immediately trying to get us to reverse.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,949
2,544
1,360
Because 140 million people currently have employer sponsored health care. That is why. Because attempting to nationalize this large a sector of the economy is not feasible.

This isn't about "a conversation", we've been having those for decades. This is about supporting a plan that will work without putting people out of jobs and trainwrecking the economy.

Those "doomsday scenarios" are not conservative fearmongering.

Medicare already covers 55 million people. Medicaid covers an additional 74 million, which means Medicaid is actually the bigger program right now.

You're telling me that the government is already covering almost 130 million people right now, but that covering 140 million people who are on employer-sponsored health care is not feasible?

I'm not saying we kill private insurance tomorrow and switch everyone to Medicare overnight. But I am saying that it's possible to transition to a complete single-payer system which covers every American, we could do it within the span of one generation, and there would be no communist takeovers or economic depressions.

We just need someone with the courage to try and take the first step.
 

Condom

Member
Aug 26, 2013
5,864
0
370
There's going to be an implementation period, obviously. Transition period should be minimized though, its more time for the opposition to whip up fear about "what's happening" and derail the whole thing

Do not underestimate the power of the American right wing to throw a horrendous wrench into all of this
I agree. Politics and big reforms happen when there is a chance for paradigm shifts, you should grab those chances with both hands.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Medicare already covers 55 million people. Medicaid covers an additional 74 million, which means Medicaid is actually the bigger program right now.

You're telling me that the government is already covering almost 130 million people right now, but that covering 140 million people who are on employer-sponsored health care is not feasible?

I'm not saying we kill private insurance tomorrow and switch everyone to Medicare overnight. But I am saying that it's possible to transition to a complete single-payer system which covers every American, we could do it within the span of one generation, and there would be no communist takeovers or economic depressions.

We just need someone with the courage to try and take the first step.
Control of the government has flipped four times between parties in the last 20 years. "Transition in a generation" isn't going to survive
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Medicare already covers 55 million people. Medicaid covers an additional 74 million, which means Medicaid is actually the bigger program right now.

You're telling me that the government is already covering almost 130 million people right now, but that covering 140 million people who are on employer-sponsored health care is not feasible?

I'm not saying we kill private insurance tomorrow and switch everyone to Medicare overnight. But I am saying that it's possible to transition to a complete single-payer system which covers every American, we could do it within the span of one generation, and there would be no communist takeovers or economic depressions.

We just need someone with the courage to try and take the first step.
Literally destroying business to rebuild it within the government is not a good plan! Businesses will hate you, voters will hate you!

The first step is a public option. Something that Barack Obama supported and Nancy Pelosi got through the House of Representatives. Bernie Sanders has even started talking about this a few months back after ignoring it for a year!

The Dems should have gotten it done in '09 but fucked up. It pushed everything back.
 

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
784
358
505
lol round and round we go

Sorry but it is the truth. They should realize from Bernie Sanders fundraising in the previous election that you do not need big major corporate donors to be a potential and viable candidate. I am not a centrist and do not generally side with centrist democrats on many issues. The Democratic Party needs to make a stand and stop compromising with Republicans. If you give them a finger they take the whole hand later. Obama tried again and again to work with Republicans and they still used that against him.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,949
2,544
1,360
That's why we do baby steps with a public option, expanding the age range of Medicare and increasing the subsidy range for Medicaid.

Yes, absolutely. The other bill trying to expand the Medicare age down to 55 from 65 is a good start, for example.

My point is that if we started today, we could have the entire country on single-payer. Because half the country already is on single-payer right now and no one seems to realize it. Public visibility of this fact would go a long way towards getting the other half on the path to also being on single-payer.
 

Okolonans

Neo Member
May 30, 2016
41
0
0
Mississippi
I hope we can move toward a free market healthcare system. I'm glad Pelosi declined to endorse single-payer but we'll probably end up with it eventually anyway.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Like I understand why incrementalism seems (and is) frustrating and counterproductive on issues like civil rights which don't really have major mechanical components (and usually just mean "treat group X like they were group Y") but in the case of stuff like healthcare where there is an enormous mass of intersecting systems that have to handle the eight million possible edge cases there's very real implementation time (see, the ACA rollout) so you need to figure out what you can lock in place while you have power and defend when it cycles around and you don't
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Sorry but it is the truth. They should realize from Bernie Sanders fundraising in the previous election that you do not need big major corporate donors to be a potential and viable candidate. I am not a centrist and do not generally side with centrist democrats on many issues. The Democratic Party needs to make a stand and stop compromising with Republicans. If you give them a finger they take the whole hand later. Obama tried again and again to work with Republicans and they still used that against him.
Those individual donors die off the moment you no longer have the candidate and their charisma attached. It's why Our Revolution isn't nearly as successful as Sandrers' campaign and why OFA isn't as successful as Obama's campaign.

You absolutely do need big donors to help fund things, and to be blunt- individual working families generally aren't going to be able to spare you a ton of cash!
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Reducing the effectiveness/requirement of money for success in politics is definitely way better than just sourcing similar sums of money but from working class voters instead of wealthy donors, definitely.
 

Dragmire

Member
Jun 12, 2004
3,030
1
0
Ohi-uh
The Democratic Party strategy of (what I would call) remaining weak so Republicans don't attack them is logically fallacious. Republicans' entire platform is based on lying to people to manipulate them. They don't need "ammo" to attack the Democrats. They will, and do, simply lie.

Therefore, the notion that Pelosi is rejecting Medicare for All in order to protect the ACA is, to me, not likely. She receives a lot of money from the private insurance industry, which is the main beneficiary of the ACA. Obama and the Democratic majority that passed ACA also mostly took money from the private insurance lobby. A public option was in the ACA during the planning phase and it was Democrats that removed it. There is a history of Democrats fighting single payer, which happened recently in California.

Single payer has some popularity from Americans on the right, and it polls at something like a 60% approval rating nationally, and going up. Additionally, on another healthcare-related proposal earlier this year, 12 Republicans supported Bernie's proposal of importing cheaper drugs from Canada. It was 13 Democrats including Cory Booker (who received over $200k from big pharma from 2014-2016), who voted the proposal down. So the pressure has to come from the people to pass something like Medicare for All. Weak strategies aren't actually pragmatic, they are merely weak strategies that enable the Republicans to radicalize, and may have helped Democrats lose over 1000 seats at the state and federal levels over the passed 8-9 years.


It's why Our Revolution isn't nearly as successful as Sandrers' campaign and why OFA isn't as successful as Obama's campaign.
I think a reason it might be less successful is because.... the election is over.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
I hope we can move toward a free market healthcare system. .

What the fuck do you think we had prior to 2008?

Sorry but it is the truth. They should realize from Bernie Sanders fundraising in the previous election that you do not need big major corporate donors to be a potential and viable candidate. I am not a centrist and do not generally side with centrist democrats on many issues. The Democratic Party needs to make a stand and stop compromising with Republicans. If you give them a finger they take the whole hand later. Obama tried again and again to work with Republicans and they still used that against him.

Pelosi not endorsing Bernies bill isn't because of donors.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
I think a reason it might be less successful is because.... the election is over.
It's a general issue w/ fundraising not working the moment you don't have the central figure at the center of things.

You just cannot rely on a network of individual donors like you're doing church communion.
 

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
784
358
505
Those individual donors die off the moment you no longer have the candidate and their charisma attached. It's why Our Revolution isn't nearly as successful as Sandrers' campaign and why OFA isn't as successful as Obama's campaign.

You absolutely do need big donors to help fund things, and to be blunt- individual working families generally aren't going to be able to spare you a ton of cash!

Sanders did it with not much support from large donors. Most of his campaign funds came from working class individuals. Personally, I am in favor of the Supreme Court turning back Citizen's United. That ruling changed everything in regards to campaign donations and permitting corporate donors to have even more influence over candidates.
 

MartyStu

Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,372
0
580
got a counterpoint to go along with this scorching hot take?

The idea that we should ignore a concrete effort by the party to get its shit together, firm up its platform and actually attempt to make a lasting change for instead some nebulous stratagem, is funny.

It is not that I am claiming this bill is unambiguously the right decision, I just think the blind passivity implied by that post is toxic.
 

Trouble

Banned
Jul 22, 2009
15,874
3
0
Certainly not a free market system.

So what, completely deregulate the health care system? That wouldn't be totally catastrophic or anything.

Sanders did it with not much support from large donors. Most of his campiagn funds came from working class don ors. Personally, I am in favor of the Supreme Court turning back Citizen's United. That ruling changed everything in regards to campaign donations and having corporate donors with even more influence over candidates.

Sanders didn't have to run a general election campaign that way, though. There was a lot of legitimate concern that he would have been severely underfunded for the general if he didn't take corporate donations.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,949
2,544
1,360
The Democratic Party strategy of (what I would call) remaining weak so Republicans don't attack them is logically fallacious. Republicans' entire platform is based on lying to people to manipulate them. They don't need "ammo" to attack the Democrats. They will, and do, simply lie.

Therefore, the notion that Pelosi is rejecting Medicare for All in order to protect the ACA is, to me, not likely. She receives a lot of money from the private insurance industry, which is the main beneficiary of the ACA.

Single payer has some popularity on the right and polls at something like a 60% approval rating nationally, and going u p. Additionally, on another healthcare-related proposal earlier this year, 12 Republicans supported Bernie's proposal of importing cheaper drugs from Canada. It was 13 Democrats including Cory Booker (who received over $200k from big pharma from 2014-2016), who voted the proposal down. So the pressure has to come from the people to pass something like Medicare for All. Weak strategies aren't actually pragmatic, they are merely weak strategies that enable the Republicans to radicalize, and may have helped Democrats lose over 1000 seats at the state and federal levels over the passed 8-9 years.

This is a good post.

Medicare for All is a bill that needs to be put forward so people understand first of all the current system is not good and then they can think about better systems. Such as the ones which already exist for Americans over 65 and also low-income Americans. The ones which already cover almost 130 million Americans today. I mean that's awfully interesting don't you think, there's a couple of government programs already paying for the health care of nearly half of insured Americans, why can't we do something to try and get the other half covered too?
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Sanders did it with not much support from large donors. Most of his campiagn funds came from working class don ors. Personally, I am in favor of the Supreme Court turning back Citizen's United. That ruling changed everything in regards to campaign donations and having corporate donors with even more influence over candidates.
The Dem party position on Citizen's United is pretty clear! As was Hillary's!

But you can't start playing by invisible rules and bring knives to gunfights. That's how you amplify your losses. Obama put fundraising restrictions on the DNC and it caused real issues for them because the GOP did not reciprocate.

David Sirlin has a famous section on "The Scrub" which is relevant here - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Sanders did it with not much support from large donors. Most of his campaign funds came from working class individuals. Personally, I am in favor of the Supreme Court turning back Citizen's United. That ruling changed everything in regards to campaign donations and permitting corporate donors to have even more influence over candidates.
Sanders was a central, charismatic candidate. You're literally making his point for him.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
The Democratic Party strategy of (what I would call) remaining weak so Republicans don't attack them is logically fallacious. Republicans' entire platform is based on lying to people to manipulate them. They don't need "ammo" to attack the Democrats. They will, and do, simply lie.

Therefore, the notion that Pelosi is rejecting Medicare for All in order to protect the ACA is, to me, not likely. She receives a lot of money from the private insurance industry, which is the main beneficiary of the ACA. Obama and the Democratic majority that passed ACA also mostly took money from the private insurance lobby. A public option was in the ACA during the planning phase and it was Democrats that removed it. There is a history of Democrats fighting single payer, which happened recently in California.

Single payer has some popularity from Americans on the right, and it polls at something like a 60% approval rating nationally, and going up. Additionally, on another healthcare-related proposal earlier this year, 12 Republicans supported Bernie's proposal of importing cheaper drugs from Canada. It was 13 Democrats including Cory Booker (who received over $200k from big pharma from 2014-2016), who voted the proposal down. So the pressure has to come from the people to pass something like Medicare for All. Weak strategies aren't actually pragmatic, they are merely weak strategies that enable the Republicans to radicalize, and may have helped Democrats lose over 1000 seats at the state and federal levels over the passed 8-9 years.
The GOP has been running for nearly a decade on a self-destructive idea (repealing Obamacare) that their lawmakers knew should never pass because of the incredible damage it would do to them and their country.

They got in office promising to do it. And they were left with two options.

a) Repeal it, and face mass backlash from voters across the country
b) Don't repeal it, and face mass backlash from their own party

This is a very bad position to be in! Mirroring the GOP is a quick path to getting two parties uninterested in actual serious governance instead of just one!
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
So what, completely deregulate the health care system? That wouldn't be totally catastrophic or anything.

I'm actually upset at myself for replying to him. How anyone who thinks they support free market principles can turn around and act like healthcare is a true market is beyond me. There is virtually no choice to the consumer.

This is assuming libertarian economic principles aren't a crock of shit in the first place
 

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
784
358
505
The Dem party position on Citizen's United is pretty clear! As was Hillary's!

But you can't start playing by invisible rules and bring knives to gunfights. That's how you amplify your losses. Obama put fundraising restrictions on the DNC and it caused real issues for them because the GOP did not reciprocate.

David Sirlin has a famous section on "The Scrub" which is relevant here - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub


I'll check that out, thanks for the link. The GOP has no scruples about where they get campaign funds primarily because they are the corporate interest party. All they know how to do is deregulate , privatize, and give tax cuts to maximize corporate profits and help them concentrate even more ownership and wealth at the expense of everything else.
 

Okolonans

Neo Member
May 30, 2016
41
0
0
Mississippi
I'm actually upset at myself for replying to him. How anyone who thinks they support free market principles can turn around and act like healthcare is a true market is beyond me. There is virtually no choice to the consumer.

This is assuming libertarian economic principles aren't a crock of shit in the first place

In a free market you would have choices between providers and plans. You would also have the choice of not buying insurance if you wanted to exercise that freedom.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
I'm actually upset at myself for replying to him. How anyone who thinks they support free market principles can turn around and act like healthcare is a true market is beyond me. There is virtually no choice to the consumer.

This is assuming libertarian economic principles aren't a crock of shit in the first place
The endgame goal of Obamacare-style reforms is to eventually create an actual competitive marketplace though.
 

Dragmire

Member
Jun 12, 2004
3,030
1
0
Ohi-uh
The GOP has been running for nearly a decade on a self-destructive idea (repealing Obamacare) that their lawmakers knew should never pass because of the incredible damage it would do to them and their country.

They got in office promising to do it. And they were left with two options.

a) Repeal it, and face mass backlash from voters across the country
b) Don't repeal it, and face mass backlash from their own party

This is a very bad position to be in! Mirroring the GOP is a quick path to getting two parties uninterested in actual serious governance instead of just one!
I agree with you about splitting the Democratic party on healthcare. It's not a good idea, and they do seem split on Medicare for All. Which is why they should go strong and unify behind the legislation. The Democratic party would not stop talking about unity but they are not unifying on the most important issues. I hope we can push them to.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
In a free market you would have choices between providers and plans. You would also have the choice of not buying insurance if you wanted to exercise that freedom.

In an actual free market, one wouldn't get sick and NEED medical attention. Thats the point. Consumer choice is an illusion in healthcare.

The endgame goal of Obamacare-style reforms is to eventually create an actual competitive marketplace though.

Does anyone want to stop at this endgame goal though? That's why we discussing single and multiplayer plans. A monopsony is more efficient in driving down costs than a half assed market where people have no option to prevent getting sick. Any semblance of actual competition doesn't exist until that public option comes anyway.
 

Grug

Member
Sep 12, 2005
7,682
0
0
41
Brisbane, Australia
I'm actually upset at myself for replying to him. How anyone who thinks they support free market principles can turn around and act like healthcare is a true market is beyond me. There is virtually no choice to the consumer.

This is assuming libertarian economic principles aren't a crock of shit in the first place

Not to mention that the success of healthcare must be measured in terms of quality of care and patient outcomes, not the quest for shareholder profit. The invisible hand doesn't give a fuck about whether you are treated well, and if anything, provides incentives to screw you over in the name of saving money.
 

AmayaPapaya

Banned
Jul 20, 2013
692
0
0
California
Pelosi not endorsing Bernies bill isn't because of donors.

Then what is it? It certainly makes sense that it is.

You don't think the fact that drug corporations give tremendous amount of money to Dems has anything to do with it? The uncontested reason that Pelosi has been considered a good leader, by anyone, is for one thing: She gets money. She mentions it. Articles will lavish her in praise for it. It is largely her identity. Is the single largest fundraiser in the democratic party gonna just be fine with a bill that greatly threaten one of their biggest donors? Even if is symbolic? It may be symbolic for their voters, but it's also symbolic for their donors, after all.

Otherwise, it makes strong political sense to do it. It's the politically smart decision, without a doubt. It is extremely popular with her constituency. She is not in Texas, she's in SF. She's not a Republican, she's a democrat. Why should she not do it?
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
I agree with you about splitting the Democratic party on healthcare. It's not a good idea, and they do seem split on Medicare for All. Which is why they should go strong and unify behind the legislation. The Democratic party would not stop talking about unity but they are not unifying on the most important issues. I hope we can push them to.

This strikes me as a post that seems to have not read the post it responds to at all.

Kirblar is not talking about splitting the Democratic Party. He's talking about the dangers of campaigning on policy goals that you know are unworkable, but deliberately pretend otherwise.

It is not necessarily clear to me that universal healthcare is that, but wholesale and immediate transition to single-payer sounds...pretty unworkable, and the bill being offered doesn't seem to do much to detail it or present a reasonable path forward for it.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
Not to mention that the success of healthcare must be measured in terms of quality of care, not the quest for shareholder profit.

Yes this too. A valid criticism. There's no money to be made in coming up with new anti bacterial meds that are able to beat those super resistant bugs until those super resistant bugs become a huge problem for example.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Then what is it? It certainly makes sense that it is.

You don't think the fact that drug corporations give tremendous amount of money to Dems has anything to do with it? The uncontested reason that Pelosi has been considered a good leader, by anyone, is for one thing: She gets money. She mentions it. Articles will lavish her in praise for it. It is largely her identity. Is the single largest fundraiser in the democratic party gonna just be fine with a bill that greatly threaten one of their biggest donors? Even if is symbolic? It may be symbolic for their voters, but it's also symbolic for their donors, after all.

Otherwise, it makes strong political sense to do it. It's the politically smart decision, without a doubt. It is extremely popular with her constituency. She is not in Texas, she's in SF. She's not a Republican, she's a democrat. Why should she not do it?
She personally supports single payer! She doesn't support the legislation because she's minority leader.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
Then what is it? It certainly makes sense that it is.

You don't think the fact that drug corporations give tremendous amount of money to Dems has anything to do with it? The uncontested reason that Pelosi has been considered a good leader, by anyone, is for one thing: She gets money. She mentions it. Articles will lavish her in praise for it. It is largely her identity. Is the single largest fundraiser in the democratic party gonna just be fine with a bill that greatly threaten one of their biggest donors? Even if is symbolic? It may be symbolic for their voters, but it's also symbolic for their donors, after all.

Otherwise, it makes strong political sense to do it. It's the politically smart decision, without a doubt. It is extremely popular with her constituency. She is not in Texas, she's in SF. She's not a Republican, she's a democrat. Why should she not do it?

You think those donors want her to support a public option? Lol

I realize donors create a need for skepticism. But they're not the end all. Obama got shitnloads of cash from Wall Street but passed Dodd Frank as an example.

If Pelosi didn't support a public option or any other meaningful ACA reform, I would be right there with you.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
Then what is it?

It's because she's the House Minority Leader. Her signing on to a bill immediately puts pressure on every other Democrat in the House, as well as every Democrat running for office, to match her position, because if Democrats take the House Pelosi will be Speaker and have the power to put forward legislation.

Pelosi is pretty clearly trying to make sure she doesn't pressure any Democrats who might face a tougher election if they have to talk about whether they support single-payer. That is actually her job! Since this bill cannot pass, there is no reason for her to put her members in a bind.

People need to understand that Bernie and Pelosi have different jobs which cause them to take different approaches to problems, but ultimately work for the same organization.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
This is a good post.

Not really. If it were a good post, it would take into account the graphs I posted on the last page, which show that the support for single-payer is very uncertain at best.

What you mean to say is that it's a shallowly informed post which happens to agree with you, which seems right in your wheelhouse.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
Not really. If it were a good post, it would take into account the graphs I posted on the last page, which show that the support for single-payer is very uncertain at best.

What you mean to say is that it's a shallowly informed post which happens to agree with you, which seems right in your wheelhouse.

I was going to link em to your post on the last page but I'm too lazy to deal with another person / convo heh
 

nelsonroyale

Member
Sep 16, 2006
21,980
0
0
Democrats still seem to have a massive credibility problem in terms of what they actually represent. They can't even seem to convince themselves...The idea that pragmatic politics alone will solve complex problems is naive and not borne out by history. The establishment within the party need to present a credible alternative to the Republicans and demonstrate some political backbone. They are still playing a losing game and fail to inspire any genuinely positive vision of the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.