Are We Recreating Daily Kos?
It saddens me to see some of the comments and essays here by people trashing candidates other than their preferred choice. In my view, it makes us little better than the bottom-dwellers slithering about on Daily Kos.
For example, recent comments regarding Pete Buttigieg claim that he is a drug dealing scumbag white boy. Other comments regarding Kamala Harris (a sociopath that does not care whether or not she lies) and Amy Klobuchar (Klobuchar is Kambama's twin) and Elizabeth Warren (a bomb dropping regime change neoliberalcon) are just as repulsive.
Are we not true Bern Believers unless we denigrate and libel opposing Democratic candidates?
Do we really want to be like Daily Kos, with purity tests and roving attack gangs and a pronouncement that anyone not supporting the preferred candidates (seemingly Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard) can leave?
I hope not. Repeating nasty memes and mischaracterizations of candidates we don't support isn't something I like seeing on this site. If our preferred candidate so lacks merit that we can't support them without bashing others, why are we supporting them? In the immortal words of c99 member Alligator Ed:
This tolerance for non-uniform opinions, coupled with mutual respect is what makes c99 great. We couldn't do this without JtC and Joe but here we are. Disagree if one must, but do so with rationality. If a decision is based upon emotion, say so. Alligator Ed
Comments
Henh
There may have been a bit of literary license involved in my comment. But just judging by some comments I've recently seen: There was the woman who shamed her daughter for announcing she was pregnant. After all, the world is too FU-ed to bring children into it. Or the person that wrote "If someone wants to destroy you, your family and your whole world should you treat them with civility?"
If a stranger happened upon c99 and read some of the comments here, they'd agree that my exaggerated characterization isn't too far off the mark.
You don't sound too happy here
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Love it or leave it?
Hmmm. Actually, I'm quite happy here. I've written numerous essays and many comments. I wouldn't bother if I didn't want to be here. Don't DKos me -- more than once someone there told me to STFU and get the hell out.
Are you aware of that person's history?
She has detailed what her life has been like a few times, but you took her one comment and held it against her. Bad form.
Congress with the help from democrats are willing to see thousands of us die every year from horrible diseases or from accidents, but you think it's out of line to say what she said about them. If someone doesn't give a sh*t about me when they are in a position to help me you think that I should treat them with civility? Not a chance. This is just giving them power over me and I refuse to do that.
BTW. You aren't the only one who had a crappy childhood. Mine was full of fear daily. The first person you responded to and put words in her comment that weren't there didn't have a good one either. You may have missed when she detailed her life and death struggle.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
wasn't intending to question your own experience,
or understanding of your own experience, just letting you know that whatever exactly OTC was saying, it wasn't what you thought. this is what she wrote 2 weeks ago (be sure to read the followup as well).
https://caucus99percent.com/comment/447675#comment-447675
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Thanks for that.
n/t
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Dem candidates who aren’t Tulsi are normalizing the endless wars
that have directly destroyed Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria and unleashed the ongoing torrents of migration that are destabilizing societies in Europe, where I live.
https://www.apdnews.com/news/970653.html
https://www.africanexponent.com/post/9239-barrack-obama-called-gaddafi-a...
In Defense of Liz
She only voted for two, not three, of Trump's military budgets (and voted to increase them).
It’s like the “Riddikulus” spell in Harry Potter
It’s part of a natural and universal response to fear of powerful threatening forces and figures — using ridicule to demystify them.
Of course, anyone can and does use it — Rush Limbaugh, for example, drew in a lot of men who felt put-upon by feminism, just on the strength of name-calling (“feminazis”) alone.
Concur on
the nickname game being a traditional part of our political discourse. I try to stay on the light and silly side, having my Chris Berman tendencies, while others seem to prefer the heavy-handed "War-so and so" names, which are neither funny nor particularly clever. As these are public figures, however, they are all fair game. I just prefer to try to keep things light when possible.
For me right now, Klobbachair works, as it references her rough treatment of staffers and "Klobbastaffer" doesn't work. Kyle Kulinski's "Bet On My Stork" was pretty good for Beto O'Rourke. But I always try not to go over the line to juvenile, with names or images, or pound on the same nicknames endlessly in post after post as this quickly gets tiresome.
Since you suggest your advocacy for Warren is largely academic
. . . and you want more of a diversity of opinions expressed here, maybe you could consider some kind words for candidate Delaney instead of Warren. Of course, some other folks including me feel this election is our last chance for significant change, change that might get my kids thinking twice about not having kids.
"Academic" is your
characterization not mine. Nothing academic -- just noting the glaring absence. All comments were fact-based, rational and, yes, also not completely indifferent to the promotion of her candidacy as an Acceptable, even as she is not my 1st or 2d choice. Not devil's advocacy -- the comments were sincerely held, were organic and whole-grain based, and didn't add a lot of unnecessary sugar and sodium for the spin taste that some use to sell candidate product.
As for that Delaney guy, not that familiar. Was he once with Delaney & Bonnie, the singer-songwriters back in the 70s? Never a huge fan btw.
Looks like he could be an insurance salesman. Don't like that expression on his face -- like a potential customer has unexpectedly turned him down on the Medicare Advantage coverage. Sorry, I'll leave Delaney for you and others to promote if it interests you.
So your political preference for Tulsi
. . . is based primarily on her foreign policy positions.
Maybe you can direct me to her takes on Israel policies and actions against Palestians? Again, I thank you for hipping me to Chomsky and Finkelstein's (and for that matter Bernie's) position on BDS, which I guess I share although I need to look into the matter more.
The specific context she would use drones? I just read that she approved of Obama's use of drones although there may have been a few provisos on her part not included in the article.
What is her position on the situation in Venezuela?
Has she ever commented about IMF and World Bank policies imposing shock doctrine on so many countries?
I've looked and found nada.
BTW, Delaney and Bonnie were likeable enough and then some when they had Eric Clapton in their band. Delaney seems to have lost a lot of his flowing locks from those daze, tho.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir2eAEhtXvE]
Me, too.
I repaired TV sets back in the days when they were repairable (60s & 70s). I did get zapped a time or two.
But I stand by my view of name-calling. Perhaps it's a holdover from being bullied and called names as a child.
Well said!
The denigrating nicknames are an ancient political tool to ask the honest and necessary question: "Do we want someone with this shortcoming bearing authority over us?" It is an occupational hazard of public political life (even the courts have said so). And yes, if one reads or writes on a free-speech blog with an honesty-based community, you will see these nicknames used. And you should see them. The blog's not doing its job if you don't see them.
I do think they're better used sparingly. But I don't think you can have a republic without them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We're recreating Dkos?
So I guess that makes JtC kos and Joe Meteor Blades.
Who wants to be Armando?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Me me me me me me me me me memememe
Meet Armando dawg
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
snoopy, be careful what you wish for ... /nt /s
https://www.euronews.com/live
Yes, be careful, lest one morning …
http://www.kafka-online.info/the-metamorphosis.html
Gosh, he looks really trustworthy
Top Comment!
Classy response ; ).
One, two, three NOT ME!
I prefer to keep my soul, rather than sell it. Thank you very much!
Not to mention, being an asshole 24/7 would be a conflict of interest with my self-appointed role of one who irritates assholes -- a hemorrhoid.
but i have to say that I have lots of very good memories
about some posters at dailykos. Why would I care about the rest of them years and years later? They are out of my horizon and I keep looking at other sunrises than the ones on dailykos.
As all of it is "Schnee von gestern" (snow from yesterday) my comment might not fit in here, but I add this little tidbit for your amusement.
Having deported to Germany (at least it feels like it to me) I sleep on my wonderful quilt, Sarah from dailykos has made for my niece (she died of cancer in December 2012 in NY) and with it for me.
I look at art from Wing and remember the wonderful Aji warmly and their photo and cards hang over my bed. I remember having met some people in person and won't forget their engagement, I also tried to help some in person, however futile that may have been, but I tried. I remember marches I participated being in company of some very thoughtful folks from dailykos. Why would I trash those, just because there are some "dead-enders" over there?
There are or have been many, many good people over at TOP. Of course I don't know how badly any of you have been hurt by evildoers on that place, but I have to say, I believe, if this site should be recreating TOP (which I don't believe for a minute), then I suggest a change of glasses to look again more carefully. It might be an appropriate advice.
Considering that things have happened to JtC I was not aware of and with my ignorance having had insulted JtC a couple of weeks ago, I wished you all could consider that most of the things happening here, are not recognized, understood or remembered here. I don't know if I am the only real foreigner here and was on TOP. That might explain a lot. And I feel there is a C99percent elite and some don't feel they belong to that club.
Never mind, love each other, folks. Anything else doesn't help either.
https://www.euronews.com/live
The individual must demand a socialist society.
The candidates are all going to represent various species of nonsense because they can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that, as Sanders once suggested, a "political revolution" is necessary.
The one currently on the radar is Pete Buttigieg. Note that I don't resort to the name-calling that other commenters here use. At any rate, Buttigieg:
The point of Medicare for All is that nobody will want to pay for someone else's health care unless everyone is paying for someone else's health care. "Choice" is a ridiculous notion when applied to a "health care market." Did your friends who have cancers choose to have them? And today if we are buying insurance we are also already paying for other people's health care, as well as for expensive and competing private bureaucracies designed to deny us health care.
OK?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
What I can't figure out
is why a "drop the age for Medicare to 50 plan" hasn't surfaced? The cost is more manageable and it gets the people with problems off of profit insurance. The big one about that is the people stuck with private insurance won't be happy. Why should old people get all the perks? Indeed. The more people ask that question the better MFA looks.
Most of these plans are much like HER devised. All the goeszintas, from charity to gold plated executive insurance on one side, all the goesoutazas on the other, the services in providing patient care. In the end these big plans are just a huge floating dirigible hanging there with everyone knocking their arrows, waiting to let fly.
Bigger problem is we argue about reactions to the information we are presented, and these days, who presents the information? The reactions and frustration here in trying to find answers always revolve around the narrative of presented "facts", or "1/2 facts" or some other fractional fact stripped out in isolation. We're almost demanded to react. There was that sports saying, something like, to win we need to stop playing their game, and make them play our game. I haven't figured that one out, but every year it's the same frustrations with different actors and "facts" and it's killing us.
As I understand,
Bernie, and maybe Liz, proposes a 4-year phase-in period for M4A. Wouldn't that essentially mean the same as, first phase, lowering the Medicare age to 50? Then another lowering of 15 years in Year 2, and so on?
As for the M4A plan from Liz, it was just rolled out and is quite lengthy and tackles a number of areas in coverage and payment, and I haven't had time but to do more than glance at it. It does seem as bold and robust as Bernie's, perhaps with a more attractive feature of not taxing the middle-class as his does. Devil is in the details, and their slightly differing plans will be discussed more in the days to come, particularly if the race does come down to the two remaining viable progressive candidates.
There's always the likelihood --
that none of such planning will amount to anything. Remember that Obama promised us a plan with a public option and no mandate penalty, and that what we got was no public option and a mandate penalty. This is one reason for the "political revolution": trusting politicians to change the world is probably going to get you lying politicians.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Not just...
Not just get us lying politicians, but get us better liars. Think of new, improved and even smoother Barack Obamas.
We seem to always
We seem to always forget that Congress makes the laws, not the President. The bully pulpit only goes so far.
That is a huge issue for me.
The ACA barely passed and it took some real shenanigans to do it. Bernie is probably the best advocate for M4A we have, and even if he won a landslide popular and EC victory, I am not convinced Congress would pass it.
It's always
good to do a reality check on these proposals, no doubt about it. Of course, sometimes the unexpected, what would have been considered far-fetched fantasy just a few years previously, does happen. Not often, grant you.
But no effort, no gain. Qui ne risque rien, n'a rien. Etc. If people continue to push for it, continue to build momentum and force the hand of their elected officials, they will not dare oppose it. The lesson of the CR and gay rights movements.
That said, I still wouldn't place too much in seeing 100% of Bernie's or Liz's M4A proposals making it through. 75% might be considered a great true victory. See Medicare 1965 -- only above age 65 and only 80% coverage on Pt B, and that was with a 2-1 Dem majority working with a fair number of moderate Rs. Social Security 1935 --again an overwhelming D majority, but only incomplete SS coverage for workers.
Elizabeth Warren’s plan/proposal
I’ve only read summaries, which said she has a 10-year phase in timeline but didn’t specify how this would occur. But, the important thing she said in the “plan” — the point that was reiterated over and over — was that everything is subject to further negotiations with the legislature before any “plan” would be enacted into law. Saying, in effect, “do not expect that this plan, as written, will actually happen.”
In this way I found it refreshingly honest. I’m flummoxed every day about why people are arguing over details of the “plans” the candidates are putting forward. Doesn’t anyone remember that the big difference between Obama and HRC in the 2008 primary was that his plan did not have an individual mandate, while hers did? He was derisive and often amusingly mocked the idea of an individual mandate by saying that “trying to solve healthcare with a mandate to buy insurance was like trying to solve homelessness with a mandate to buy a house.” Hardy har har! Yes, I liked his plan way better than her idea to make us all buy insurance.
Oops, WTF, he lied?!? Well... they said, everyone knows that the president isn’t a dictator, he has to negotiate with congress. That’s real life, not the fantasy of campaigning.
Ok then. Yeah I got it, duh, plans proposed by political candidates do not mean those plans will happen, and every one of them would change their plan as needed to get something passed, or they would “die on the hill” sticking to their exact plan and nothing would change.
This is why I pay little attention to these details. Philosophy, I agree with mandated single payer. Politically I see how wispy-washy people are, how easily swayed by words like “tax increase” or “free healthcare for illegals” and I think, single payer is not going to happen in a sweeping new law, not in my lifetime and that’s true no matter who is president.
I’ve sat and talked this over with many friends and acquaintances, and people here would be surprised, I think, to learn that many people are liking the “public option” idea being put forth by Pete Buttigieg, and are resistant to single payer with no choice. Y’all might think he’s a scum bag, but I’ve found a surprising amount of interest in him out among the general population.
It’s my belief now that if anything on healthcare gets passed (which assumes a democratic president; we know trump isn’t going to lift a finger), it will be some kind of incremental program with an option to buy in, rather than another mandate.
Disclaimer: I’m not a democrat and in AZ that means I have no vote in the party primaries for president. And I’m not sending money to any candidates in the democratic or republican parties. So my opinion of the dem candidates literally does not matter. This is just an observation.
There's some confusion
on the phase-in period. My understanding is the 10-yr figure we see only refers to the CBO-derived cost for the plan over a decade. Their chosen time frame. Her actual plan is for a 4-yr phase-in period to implement fully. I believe this is correct. If so, it would mirror Bernie's plan on the phase-in time. A little longer than Rep Jayapal's really fast 2-yr phase-in. Ten years to phase in would leave the program highly vulnerable to ongoing politics and subsequent mischief and undermining by later administrations. Far better to get it done asap, get it on the books, get people settled in with the new program.
As to practicality, yes it's all a bit of a dream when considering what Congress will do with M4A. But far better to go bold at the outset, negotiate hard for the best possible plan, rather than pull an Obama and ask for a mere slice of bread at the outset and settle for same at the end and disingenuously call it a win.
As for Mayor Pete, absolutely the pragmatist pov appeals to a good number of D voters. It's not only a simple concept for them -- work with some on the other side to come up with a pretty good solution, an improvement -- but it also relieves them of the pain and disappointment that comes with advocating radical proposals that usually end up being blocked or greatly watered down. People generally try to avoid pain when a less painful alternative is available.
PG is enjoying another round of media love, and is showing good in the early state polls, but this will all come back to Earth once states with larger POC populations begin voting. He is destined to be a respectable 3d place finisher once the dust settles, the strongest remaining centrist candidate, Biden having faded badly or dropped out after SC a/o Super Tuesday, but no better than a 3d place candidate.
I mean no offense when I say
I feel sorry for those people.
At the risk of drawing fire, let me say that I, too, would be willing to have a public option rather than single-payer--if it were a strong public option with a provision for opting OUT rather than opting IN. I was supportive of that under Obama.
But there's the rub. We've already seen what happens when politicians tell us they support a public option. We get Obamacare. If we're lucky.
That's what happened under Obama. Do people believe Pete Buttigieg will do a better job than Obama getting a public option? Or do people believe that Buttigieg is more sincere in his support of a public option than Obama was? Because I can't wrap my head around that. Buttigieg does not look more competent than Obama--not by a long shot. He doesn't impress me as being particularly sincere either.
Having worked for a small non-profit and having been on the Hill in that capacity during the fight over Obamacare, it makes me sad to think that those people who like Buttigieg's public option must really believe that Buttigieg will fight for, and possibly deliver, a public option. It's sadder that the thing Buttigieg is touting on the campaign trail isn't even a good public option. It's weak tea.
I'll tell you one thing I learned in D.C. You probably won't get the policies you want regardless--but you absolutely won't get them if you begin your bargaining by asking for the thing you eventually want to accomplish. In other words, if you want taxes on the rich to go back up to Clinton-era levels (55%), don't begin by asking for 55%. As for 70%, which is what it was in the beginning of the Reagan era. If you ask for 70%, you might have some small chance of actually getting 55%.
Similarly, if you want a strong public option, the best way to get it is to passionately advocate for single payer with all your strength. Only if you have the threat of single-payer waiting in the wings will you be able to achieve a strong public option.
Personally, when people object to M4A, I start asking for a National Health Service.
Power concedes nothing without a demand, but you're better off demanding more than you want. Only then will you have a chance of getting it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I guess I'm really just arguing tactics
Clinton had a well thought out plan in the 90's. It was ridiculed and rejected easily by all the republicans and press. Too complex, too radical, too socialist, too...everything! Same as today, but now it's who's going to pay. If the age was dropped to 50-55 it would approach the tipping point where half a persons life they received government aided/provided health care. That leaves the other half wondering "what about me?". It then goes 2 ways. F'ing greedy geezers, throw mom and dad and grammy and gramps off it, or expand it to everyone. If for some reason the age drop plan is deemed a failure, the only answer will be to fix it.
Hillary as Bill's
public point person on his health care reform bill just got hammered in the media and by the health insurance industry-generated Harry and Louise stupid and misleading and endlessly-run ads. She not only got the expected incoming from the MSM and Rs, but even on her own side -- and how typical of the time -- there was lukewarm support and even opposition. Often with undertones of barely concealed sexism -- What's this annoying power-hungry woman up to acting like she's the President?
A huge voice in the senate on this matter, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, had some major objection so was not a backer. And ML George Mitchell and Sen Rbt Byrd both offered unhelpful or unwise advice on process matters. And so on.
No lefty blogosphere back then of course, as the internet was in its infancy. And what other progressive media that was there was smallish, underfunded, disorganized and ineffective. And nothing on the progressive, reform side remotely equal in power to the health insurance industry in opposition.
Hillary's Plan...
was basically Obamacare - a public-private insurance hybrid with an employer mandate for big companies and means tested subsidies.
As someone who paid very close attention to the Hillarycare debate at the time, I can tell you Her plan didn't look any better in 1993 than its successor does in 2019.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
For NHK and Snode:
Please note -- especially for anyone claiming to have great knowledge of that bill -- that it was NOT "Hillary's Plan". This "HillaryCare" is a canard that has been repeated add nozz throughout the years. It is false. A story the MSM likes to tell and repeat, which then goes into the books as unexamined "everyone knows" accepted fact.
It was BILL's Plan folks. Bill Clinton, president of these here Yewnited States. He was the one heading the early campaign and WH discussions on the matter, his wife not present. Hillary was brought in only later, to be the Public Point Person on the WH bill, nothing more. She had to do some quick homework to come up to snuff on the overall and particulars. At the time, incredible as it sounds, she was thought to be a strong voice which could persuade the undecided and bring the bill into being.
Plenty of things to criticize her for, then, later and now. But not so much on carrying water for Bill's Plan. It was an unwise choice of spokespeople, she got most of the blame, unfairly of course, and Bill's admin also took a hit as they failed to bring in a true expert or outside persuasive type who could have promoted it publicly while giving the Clinton WH some political distance and cover.
I guess she was baking cookies?
Seriously? You truly buy the American Prospect (cough) revisionist fairy tale that Hillary was a mere figurehead simply parroting whatever Bill told Her to say? What was she actually doing in those meetings? Knitting onesies for Chelsea's future baby?
Not to mention that blaming an intelligent, empowered woman's failures on Her husband is a bit unwoke, don'tcha think?
And let's not ignore the perennial Clintonite dodge of conflating politics with policy.
Regardless of whether it was Hillary's policy (of course it was), or whether Her was the right spokesperson to sell it (Her wasn't), doesn't change the fact that what came out of the commission that Her chaired was an incredibly crappy legislative proposal that had no chance of passing.
But hey, not like Hillary has EVER owned Her own failures. Her 1993 healthcare proposal is no exception.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It's interesting,
, how some people leap, fully equipped with facts and rationales, to Hillary's defense on what are now arcane subjects. That should definitely be a clue.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
A clue to what exactly?
Snode brought up the subject -- go bark up his tree if suddenly, once faced with the actual facts, you find it "arcane".
Top comment! Holy shit; and thank you! /nt
Did you want to
cite us a rebuttal to the AmProspect piece -- written by a guy who was inside the Clinton WH advising precisely on their health care reform bill -- or just pound the table in frustration?
I think my own rebuttal...
speaks for itself.
Your rebuttal to my rebuttal - not so much.
Unless, of course, specious appeals to obviously biased authorities passes for substantive discussion in your world.
Please feel free to comment on any of the particular points I made and I will be happy to engage.
But simply citing a Clinton apparatchik dishonestly rationalizing his own failure and then expecting me to indulge your gaslighting revisionism is something I gave up when I left Dkos a long time ago.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
A non-rebuttal
rebuttal. Lots of hand-waving and table pounding that doesn't add up to much more than a table that's soon going to need repair.
When you find that good rebuttal piece I asked you for that takes Starr to task for his take then I will be glad to give it a look. After all, if it's all as easy as you say it is, such cites should not be hard to find.
I don't think I was crapping on HER
for the plan that was presented. It only makes sense to look at all the resources that go into serving all people, of all income levels. Even non profits have to conform to business models to satisfy the IRS. If nutrition is part of "health" then it was part of the plan, if lifestyle choices impact health, that's part of the plan.
It's having to defend all those moving parts with so many "what aboutism's" flying around that bogs down discussion and stalls actual health care. Mostly how are we going to pay for it. Bad bad bad. When it's invading Iraq, it's free!!!
On the other hand
Geezers who are able to retire now that healthcare is affordable, opens lots of slots in the workforce.
That is a far better road to getting M4A than nothing. If this had been implemented ten years ago, we might have M4A now.
Biden is still the front runner
By a significant margin looking at aggregate polling percentage. He hasn't really dipped down that much despite all the predictions here to the contrary. Meanwhile, Warren has gone down since October 9 with Bernie on the upswing:
Rumors of both Bernie's and Biden's political demise are greatly exaggerated:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democrat...! (this link can be used on a daily basis for polling updates)
Warren and Bernie are still unfortunately splitting the left vote.
Bernie has a path to victory only if he does well in the first four primaries and on Super Tuesday. He certainly seems to possess those prospects at this point in time:
.
Also, unlike the other candidates, Bernie has a critical mass of committed activists who will push forward his agenda if elected. There's a reason for the Bernie blackout. TPTB simply don't fear Warren as much as Bernie, and with good reason.
Oh, and there was another big Hillary might run article today this time in the Guardian.
Edit/add: I forgot to here include this trenchant and very thorough critique of Warren's M4A:
.
Again I just
don't find national polls, whether individual or aggregate, very relevant or persuasive. The overall trend line for Biden is down compared to 6 months ago; I believe this is reflected in some of the early state polls, which is the place where the rubber is going to be meeting the road.
As for Bernie, I for one have never written him off -- why would I -- and those sounds are mostly from the anti-Bernie portions of the MSM, which I manage to avoid usually.
We do have a debate coming up in a few weeks -- an opportunity for Liz to roll out her new M4A plan and to present it properly to voters, in contrast to her not very effective M4A presentation last debate. I expect she will be ready for the obvious questions, and should do better.
A possible slight dip in her momentum lately could be from that debate or it could be from Bootajudge's rise as it takes away some of her white middle-class support. The latter will return to her once Boot's exceedingly narrow support is exposed in SC.
I wouldn't sweat Bernie and Liz currently splitting the prog voters -- no voting has occurred yet and the early states don't constitute a large portion of convention delegates.
Meanwhile I'll take a further look later at Liz's M4A plan, the pros and cons. Here's a positive take from one media analyst.
Yes.
Drop the age to 50 AND allow corporations to buy into Medicare policies for their employees in place of private plans. Saves companies money and encourages enrollment, and it helps smooth the way toward covering everybody.
Very instructive to be in former East Germany, where “socialism”
was part of the DNA of two kinds of dictatorship in recent history.
Advocates of “socialism” are obliged to be really specific of what parts of socialism they want to keep and what parts they want to jettison, if results are to be different from those of the “socialists” who ruled in the past.
The electoral success of both the ex-communist Left Party and the right-wing populist AfD could be interpreted as a healthy process — people searching for and trying to salvage the good parts of the socialist systems that really existed here — rather than only as a political phenomenon to be alarmed about.
Those who demand socialism today
are not demanding any "part" of East Germany or for that matter any "part" of any earlier form of dolled-up Czarism. Rather, "socialism" was once part of a vocabulary of 19th-century political thought, in much the same sense in which the US Constitution is a product of 18th-century political thought.
The idea is to extend democracy to cover economic life, rather than leaving it in the hands of privately-run bureaucracies. If you don't want to call that "socialism," that's good too.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Rebranding socialism, yes, but what to call it?
I realized that the word might be irredeemably spoiled just the other day when the children’s movie Sputnik came on the TV.
When the East German kids and their teacher start class by exchanging greetings with the formula “For peace and socialism,” I immediately thought of Scorpio Malfoy in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, unnerved at finding that he is expected to say, “For Voldemort and valour“ to everyone including his own father.
So what do you think of Parecon?
(short for participatory economics)
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Might work in English. In German (or “Denglish“) not so well…n/t
This is what we need to do,
-- find a broadly useful name for the economics we can understand and willingly support. "Parecon" is rather new, foreign, strange to the average ear. If we brainstorm, we can come up with something that fits the broad understanding of how these things work. For starters, how about "trickle up economics?" I'll bet people could figure that one out.
And surely we can come up with others. I think it matters.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
seems fair to say that to ask lotlizard that question
@cassiodoris (was meant for him, not lotlizard)
is a bit misdirected. I would say that the former East Germans had very little of participatory economics after the fall of the wall (1989). At least I learned that today through a documentary, I mentioned in another comment.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Buttigieg brought up union health care plans
and said that MFA would deny them the plans that they have fought to hard to get. The huge hole in this argument is that unions had to give up salary increases and other deals to get decent quality health insurance and yet it still leaves them with huge premiums and deductibles. Implementing MFA would give all working Americans a huge pay increase since it wouldn't be coming from their pay checks. That is if it is true single payer not pushing people into privatized medicare that some folks are offering. The bottom line is we have a government that is willing to let millions of us die just because they have other priorities with the money that we have no say in where it is spent. Plenty to bomb other countries so oil and other corporations can get their hands on the resources though.
Bernie brings up this excellent point.
Here he is talking about how he would pay for his plans as opposed to what Warren wants to do. Her plan is so full of loopholes for employers they can drive a truck through it.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
If this site ever gets a female Episcopalian priest
who runs back room discussions with a group of ass kissers who do her dirty work for her and who writes diaries calling for special banning rules for people who question religious ideas and claims... THEN this site will officially become a copy of DKos.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
OTOH, if it meant Tom Tomorrow would start working here and
start doing fresh and funny anti-establishment strips again instead of continuing down the boring worn-out anti-Trump Russiagate road . . .
Heh ;-)
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I must've missed that.
Left in 2016 shortly after the Ides of March. The last minor potentate I recall was a Hispanic lady who led troll gangs against people who disagreed with her.
She has taken her show to Twitter now too
and is still doing that there. Plus for the life of me I can't understand why she is supporting Kamala. She is everything that DoV is against. Especially putting blacks in prison.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
LMAO..here is her roadshow
Just because you disagree with someone is no reason to get them banned. Overdo it on ToP and you get your rating privileges taken away from you. I wonder if Twitter has the same rules?
Seriously not 5 minutes after writing this...oh boy. What there is incorrect?
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
Disclaimer
Just for the record, I am not a real reverend (or person of faith, generally speaking) but if even I was I would never be THAT KIND.
As a former Episcopalian,
I'd love to know who you're talking about, . I kept the Christianity (he's one of us) but dropped the politicized, corrupted, church.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
It's too long of a story to tell...
However, if you are a Kos member you will probably run across Wee Mama. She is highly regarded on that site and is now an official greeter. As long as you don't criticize religion in any way, shape or form, or even DARE to suggest that Jesus never existed or God is imaginary, you'll be fine with her. She used her influence with a large group on site to harass, HR and ban anyone who crossed with her religious ideas and claims. She held a back alley (Help Desk) discussion of how to get me and others off the site, even going as far as accusing me of having a neurological disease. She wrote at least two diaries where she suggested basically that those who commit blasphemy should be punished with time outs or banning... that caused lots of atheist and freethinkers on the site to leave. Beyond that she also used her power to go after those who questioned the Russia did it narrative.
She was what I call a 'smiling stiletto' ... someone who puts on an "is it kind, is it necessary' sweet face while stabbing you in the back.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Well ...
I left the church when faced with the fact that most of the priests could be perfect poster boys and girls for NPD. It's really astounding, and when you think about it -- all the perks of priesthood (status, elevated presence in ritual processions, fancy robes, automatic veneration and trust from laity) are like catnip to a narcissist. That fact has since been acknowledged by the Episcopal and other denominations, and now they've instituted some psychological testing into their "discernment" process, but that doesn't do much for the current bunch. She sounds hideous. It's amazing how some ostensibly "liberal" forums (DKos, DU) permit such egregious, really shocking, internal abuse of the membership. It seems to reflect an underlying contempt for the basic rights of the common person, an attitude that finds its way into their politics. "Wee Mama" sounds about right; DU's worst female henchmen also employed cootchie coo usernames. What a sick environment. Keep what you have here. It's exceptional.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
I agree!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Bashing religion there is wrong....
unless you are bashing the Mormons then it is okay to call it a cult and people who follow it cultists. Just left a diary on the Mormon moms and kids that were ambushed in Mexico. They were members of a polygamist sect of the church and I guess it's okay to bash dead religious people as long as they are Mormons.. Didn't see one comment hitting back on the cult thing. No Wee Mama patrolling those halls.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
She no doubt was lurking somewhere...
sizing up the advantages/disadvantages of commenting. I often saw bashing of religious minorities on that site and never saw Wee Mama speak out against it. She also refrained from defending women and children when the topic of the Catholic church abuses came up.
She's VERY careful.... and not so very much moral.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Great commentary folks...
these kind of discussions are invaluable in weighing the balance of fairness and open discussion.
The nonpartisan open discussion policy of this board makes the job of moderation a dicey endeavor wrought with doubt and second guessing. It would be so much easier to just proclaim this or that ideology as official site policy with a flat set of rules that can't be transgressed, and simply banning anyone who disagrees. The internet is loaded with sites like that. We, from the very beginning, wished to bring the 99% together rather than further fracturing, an undertaking that's proven to be Sisyphean but none the less is worthy of the effort.
Moderating a site set up as this one can never be perfect, mistakes have been made and will be made as we are all bound by fallible human nature. But let that not detract us from the ideals we strive for.
Thanks folks.
Here is Jacobins article on Warren's HCP
in case people missed when it was posted previously.
Elizabeth Warren’s Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
For the record:
As a teen I did some stuff for the JKF campaign. Since then I've only really supported Bernie, and not without some concerns. I had o car in high school, so no JFK bumper sticker, meaning that I've only ever put 3 candidates names on a vehicle:
1) Pigasus
2) Pat Paulsen
3) Nobody
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I lied, I forgot Dick Gregory, but I put that on other people's
cars (with permission), not having one of my own at the time.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
What about Joe Walsh?
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Never was aware of any out there.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Here ya go:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAoaGpizA4s]
He also claimed to be running in an earlier election. On the Eagles Live album, Glenn Frey introduces him as "The next President of the United States". The crowd goes wild, and Walsh thanks them, says, "Thank you, I am running for President, I'd appreciate your vote, and here is an industrial love song," then cuts into Life's Been Good.
Curiously, a very different Joe Walsh -- a Tea Party loony former congressman from Illinois -- has announced that he's going to primary Trump.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
One shouldn't undervalue
The value of a life time of toilet paper. At least we'd have something to use for wiping up the bullshit spewing out of the mouths of subsequent politicians.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Very weirdly (I had never heard that clip before),
just yesterday my daughter and I were discussing the nature of capitalism, and whether obvious and inevitable necessities -- such as toilet paper (her example) -- should just be free.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Seems she's inherited your sense of humor
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
the last one was the best, I know that for sure/s
https://www.euronews.com/live
I don't think so.
People have some disagreement sure. But at TOP the tone was toxic with posters going rather quickly to insults. I have not seen that here. Maybe on poster several days ago. Hatred is deeply ingrained in that online culture. Again, I don't see that here. Some of diaries there are like the 2-minute hate sessions of the novel 1984.
This maybe one of the few sites where posters are allowed to question the Russiagate conspiracy in the last 2-3 years. And the questioning has been justified and shown to be true.
Great comment, Mr. Webster. n/t
One thought ...
All of the candidates have something important to say, some more than others. One of the problems as I see it, is that the whole system is designed with the intention of having only one ‘winner’. It’s exclusive and very limiting by design. Can you imagine, if a few of the important voices were given the opportunity to work cooperatively for the good of the whole, where that might lead?
There’s a bit more of that kind of representation in governments that have mixed-member proportional representation. It’s a better system, but is also hindered by the necessity of competing for a voice. I think it would also be helpful to add to the council, a talented psychotherapist and an insightful artist. That would be my dream at the moment. So what do you do with what you have? From my perspective, you stay open to possibility and do what you can in your personal lives to encourage change for the better, which also translates well into online life. What I especially enjoy about c99 is the maturity of thought and communication. Thank you all for your individual perspectives and respectful intentions.
Insightful comment.
Dismissing any candidate too easily or too early may shut important ideas out of the public space, and that's unfortunate.
Yes, to me
the advantage of insisting on a voice, despite the media's effort at silencing some, became very obvious with Sanders original and ongoing campaign. Why not add to or refine it with others?
I never have said bad things about candidates until...
after elections. Not primaries but after general elections. I didn't even state my support for Sanders until after Trump won. It's counterproductive. I don't want anyone not voting for Clinton or whoever the Clinton is in 20 because of something I said. I will say I liked Sanders positions on issues eight years ago a lot better than today. He did a 180 on a couple of things that he had to to stay electible in the primaries and I've a difficult time. Oh well, still best of the bunch. I wish there were others, guy deserves a rest and some vacations.
TL;DR: no. But: German elites *are* turning *Germany* into DK
in their eagerness to suppress any opinion anyone claims to be even remotely reminiscent of Germany’s guilt-laden past.
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-freedom-of-speech-in-germany-be-mainstream...
Pages