This scumbag couldn’t bring himself to say that Venezuela’s Maduro is a dictator.
Good luck in Florida asshole. And then his spokesman or whoever, tried to turn it on our Rep. Shalala when she lambasted him about it, talking about her mentality being the the bad US intervention mentality.
I’m pretty sure I’m not going to survive election season on FB. The Bernie Bros are out in full force, aggressive, and condescending.
I saw someone refer to Elizabeth Warren as "Bernie without the intelligence" yesterday, and I think I may have legit blacked out from rage for a second.
That’s just straight up misogyny. I just got through listening to her PSA interview and find her to be extremely knowledgeable and better at explaining her policy ideas than Bernard.
That's an interesting perspective, so I took a minute to think about it. I agree on some of her points; I do think Bernie is a progressive candidate in a lot of ways, but I'm not willing to overlook the (giant) holes in his politics that I can't get on board with, especially when there are better candidates out there, IMO. I don't think Bernie's campaign was uninvolved in invoking misogyny in HRC's case, so while I think there are other factors involved in her loss, he stirred a pot of gender politics, shouted her down on every occasion and made it clear to his supporters that she could not do the same. So after careful consideration, I'm back to go away, Bernie.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
Being dismissive of an argument because she used "alot" is childish. There is plenty in her argument to take apart, and even agree with.
I like and agree with the part where she says that we need to support a candidate that is "prepared to make the systemic and structural changes to end oppressive systems". I just strongly disagree that it is Bernie, because he's had his chance and done nothing.
These are interesting points and I don't want to be dismissive of them. I don't view his record as showing that he's been able to do anything with his ideals, or even tried all that hard other than trying to get the Dem nomination in 2016, but I see how reasonable minds could differ on that issue. He absolutely pushed the platform left and I'm glad for that.
I think he's sowing more divison than he's advancing change. I also, however, recognize that people like me shouting "sit down old man" aren't exactly NOT divisive.
It's good to keep an open mind. But I'm not donating to his campaign.
ETA: I totally screwed up that quote. That's me, not mel.
Post by Dumbledork on Feb 23, 2019 13:51:49 GMT -5
I don't know anyone that says Bernie was THE cause of HRC's loss, but I also don't think you can partially blame sexism for her loss without also blaming Bernie. Most of the not super far left Bernie supporters I know, supported him because he wasn't her. When he left, they voted Johnson or Trump and those votes were largely due to sexism. Not the only reason, but the majority of it.
Obviously, far left voters likely supported Bernie for reasons not primarily based on sexism, and I could understand their falling behind Jill Stein or Johnson, but based on general voter turn out for those type of candidates in the past, I don't think the bulk of his supporters truly were far left, cause-driven Bernie supporters. Maybe I'm wrong though. I also am not omg-wild over AOC. I need to see some impactful changes as a result of her leadership first.
I blame Bernie for causing one of the major divides in our party. I blame Russia and Trump for the election results.
If he stands up to corporate interests, why did he not release his tax returns? I've been hating Bernie for a long-ass time.
Yeah he doesn’t actually stand up to corporate interests as he’s accomplished nothing.
I do think there’s a fetishization of women like AOC and Ilhan and Ayanna, and she does ask an important question there. That said, they get support and praise not just because they are young women of color, but because their words and actions demonstrate that they are in this for their constituents and the country and not trying to built their own personal cults.
For starters, they are actual democrats who are supporting each other. They praise each other’s work and the work of others and realize that standing up to corporate interests isn’t a one man job.
While they are controversial and I’m not endorsing all their views here, the support and friendship that AOC and Ilhan have is actually inspiring and reflects the kind of teamwork driven leadership that is important to the success of any progressive agenda.
Bernie doesn’t praise anyone, he steals the work of others, and he talks about women and people of color like they are nothing but bags of skin and vaginas. He’s not just a shitty politician but a shitty human.
If he stands up to corporate interests, why did he not release his tax returns? I've been hating Bernie for a long-ass time.
Also, I'm tired of these platitudes. He stands up to corporate interests! SHOW ME. HOW? Did he show up at an Occupy Wall Street rally once? Okay, fine, he ran a campaign based on small dollar donations. Obama also got a lot of small donations. What legislation has he gotten passed to help stem the tide of corporate interests? What has he actually done except talk about the wealth gap?
He isn’t that great of a progressive though. He gets painted by that brush but he has some big gaps in his progressive agenda (guns, his own finances, back burnering child care and issues that affect women, endorsing anti choice candidates, wanting to dump nuclear waste in a poor Hispanic community, his votes against immigration reform, his treatment of women on his staff, his treatment of women in general, his refusal to accept that he lost the primary thereby torpedoing the chances of the Ds against satan, his insistance that race and gender shouldn’t matter, etc.). Being a progressive is more than just class and economic issues but you wouldn’t know that by his agenda.
Even if I wasn’t age biased against him (among many other reasons), Bernie’s stance on guns makes him a hard no for me when there are much better options.
Also this idea that only white women hate Bernie? Come to my house and listen to my husband’s rant against Bernie and his concern for what he means for the Hispanic community.
He isn’t that great of a progressive though. He gets painted by that brush but he has some big gaps in his progressive agenda (guns, his own finances, back burnering child care and issues that affect women, endorsing anti choice candidates, wanting to dump nuclear waste in a poor Hispanic community, his votes against immigration reform, his treatment of women on his staff, his treatment of women in general, his refusal to accept that he lost the primary thereby torpedoing the chances of the Ds against satan, his insistance that race and gender shouldn’t matter, etc.). Being a progressive is more than just class and economic issues but you wouldn’t know that by his agenda.
Even with the issues that make it onto his agenda his policy chops leave a lot to be desired. I feel he lacks the ability to put big ideas onto paper as realistic and nuanced policy proposals. And he doesn’t seem to have hired others who are capable of filling in those gaps. Words are just words. Policy is about making ideas come to fruition and it’s not just his track record in the Senate that is unsatisfying in that regard, it’s his presidential platform as well.
He isn’t that great of a progressive though. He gets painted by that brush but he has some big gaps in his progressive agenda (guns, his own finances, back burnering child care and issues that affect women, endorsing anti choice candidates, wanting to dump nuclear waste in a poor Hispanic community, his votes against immigration reform, his treatment of women on his staff, his treatment of women in general, his refusal to accept that he lost the primary thereby torpedoing the chances of the Ds against satan, his insistance that race and gender shouldn’t matter, etc.). Being a progressive is more than just class and economic issues but you wouldn’t know that by his agenda.
Even with the issues that make it onto his agenda his policy chops leave a lot to be desired. I feel he lacks the ability to put big ideas onto paper as realistic and nuanced policy proposals. And he doesn’t seem to have hired others who are capable of filling in those gaps. Words are just words. Policy is about making ideas come to fruition and it’s not just his track record in the Senate that is unsatisfying in that regard, it’s his presidential platform as well.
Yes.
I realize that candidates don't always have super detailed policies and I think it's important to dream big and put some bold ideas out there. But it's also reckless and harmful to the progressive agenda long term to throw out pie in the sky ideas without some vision for what the policy is, how it might get paid for, and how to get there.
This whole "Medicare for All" bullshit that he started has caught wind, and literally nobody even knows what the fuck it is. The whole stupid phrase has now steered everyone towards a direction that is counter-productive, as it takes away from efforts to strengthen and build upon Obamacare. What's going to happen now is that Harris, Warren, etc will come up with their own interpretations of that, while Bernie continues to play make believe and let everyone think his plan is whatever magic plan they want to be true. His supporters will just think Harris and Warren are selling out instead of realizing that plans are important!
Even with the issues that make it onto his agenda his policy chops leave a lot to be desired. I feel he lacks the ability to put big ideas onto paper as realistic and nuanced policy proposals. And he doesn’t seem to have hired others who are capable of filling in those gaps. Words are just words. Policy is about making ideas come to fruition and it’s not just his track record in the Senate that is unsatisfying in that regard, it’s his presidential platform as well.
Yes.
I realize that candidates don't always have super detailed policies and I think it's important to dream big and put some bold ideas out there. But it's also reckless and harmful to the progressive agenda long term to throw out pie in the sky ideas without some vision for what the policy is, how it might get paid for, and how to get there.
This whole "Medicare for All" bullshit that he started has caught wind, and literally nobody even knows what the fuck it is. The whole stupid phrase has now steered everyone towards a direction that is counter-productive, as it takes away from efforts to strengthen and build upon Obamacare. What's going to happen now is that Harris, Warren, etc will come up with their own interpretations of that, while Bernie continues to play make believe and let everyone think his plan is whatever magic plan they want to be true. His supporters will just think Harris and Warren are selling out instead of realizing that plans are important!
Yes. It also squashes innovation and ideas from other angles. For each of these complex policy areas there are dozens of potential ways to reform and change the systems to better reflect a progressive agenda and achieve our shared aims. We (the left broadly speaking) mostly agree on what we want the outcomes to be. The idea that ONE person’s vague plan is the *only possible solution* is bordering on absurdity, and ultimately really unhelpful because policy is not a zero sum game and legislating requires compromise and flexibility - with the “other side” so to speak, but also with the reality of the complex systems you’re purporting to change and how they operate. Lots of things that sound good verbally or even on paper flop horrible when you try to put them into practice. And every single policy proposal (yes, including precious Medicare for all!) has trade offs and downsides. We have to be willing to openly discuss and acknowledge them and not just shout down anyone who dares to raise a counterpoint.
Not to defend Bernie, or frankly anyone who is supporting a policy that's more idea than detail, but I think the reason "Medicare for All" works as a concept is because no one (for at least several decades) has claimed that we can't have Medicare or its unworkable. So if we can have healthcare for what is otherwise the most expensive group to insure, why can't we have it for everyone else. I don't think most of the non-politicians are expecting an expansion of Medicare-as-it-is, but rather a basic level of coverage at an affordable rate that can be supplemented by private insurance.
Obviously there's issues with the lack of details and promises that it won't be disruptive or have limits, etc. And the serious folks should be making more progress on addressing those, but it feels disengenous to say no one knows what it means. Where I get irritated is where it seems like no one wants to put forth details because of the risk of being shouted down by old man Shouty Bernard.
Not to defend Bernie, or frankly anyone who is supporting a policy that's more idea than detail, but I think the reason "Medicare for All" works as a concept is because no one (for at least several decades) has claimed that we can't have Medicare or its unworkable. So if we can have healthcare for what is otherwise the most expensive group to insure, why can't we have it for everyone else. I don't think most of the non-politicians are expecting an expansion of Medicare-as-it-is, but rather a basic level of coverage at an affordable rate that can be supplemented by private insurance.
Obviously there's issues with the lack of details and promises that it won't be disruptive or have limits, etc. And the serious folks should be making more progress on addressing those, but it feels disengenous to say no one knows what it means. Where I get irritated is where it seems like no one wants to put forth details because of the risk of being shouted down by old man Shouty Bernard.
No one knows what it means because it isn’t a policy proposal. There is no mechanism to DO this thing that they are talking about. And everyone who parrots the phrase means something different by it. It’s not disingenuous, the lack of clarity follows from the fact that it doesn’t mean anything in particular and everyone who says the same thing is not on the same page.
Regardless of what it’s called, the idea that a universal system must necessarily be single-payer is incorrect, and that the vehicle needs to be Medicare is just a stupid talking point (mainly because the program can’t realistically be changed and expanded in that way and still be functional without entirely overhauling the entire health care system - and everyone needs to acknowledge that there are cons there as well as pros to that.)
Literally the stupidity of this is making it difficult for me to do my job on a daily basis, so if I sound bitter it’s because I am.
I realize that candidates don't always have super detailed policies and I think it's important to dream big and put some bold ideas out there. But it's also reckless and harmful to the progressive agenda long term to throw out pie in the sky ideas without some vision for what the policy is, how it might get paid for, and how to get there.
This whole "Medicare for All" bullshit that he started has caught wind, and literally nobody even knows what the fuck it is. The whole stupid phrase has now steered everyone towards a direction that is counter-productive, as it takes away from efforts to strengthen and build upon Obamacare. What's going to happen now is that Harris, Warren, etc will come up with their own interpretations of that, while Bernie continues to play make believe and let everyone think his plan is whatever magic plan they want to be true. His supporters will just think Harris and Warren are selling out instead of realizing that plans are important!
Yes. It also squashes innovation and ideas from other angles. For each of these complex policy areas there are dozens of potential ways to reform and change the systems to better reflect a progressive agenda and achieve our shared aims. We (the left broadly speaking) mostly agree on what we want the outcomes to be. The idea that ONE person’s vague plan is the *only possible solution* is bordering on absurdity, and ultimately really unhelpful because policy is not a zero sum game and legislating requires compromise and flexibility - with the “other side” so to speak, but also with the reality of the complex systems you’re purporting to change and how they operate. Lots of things that sound good verbally or even on paper flop horrible when you try to put them into practice. And every single policy proposal (yes, including precious Medicare for all!) has trade offs and downsides. We have to be willing to openly discuss and acknowledge them and not just shout down anyone who dares to raise a counterpoint.
So much this! We can't govern by catchy feel-good phrases alone. There has to be nuance and a willingness to understand that these cost/benefit discussions and exchanges are required to enact any policy. Even if we had all the money and all the support in the world, you can't just close your eyes and wish this shit into place. It makes me insane.
Post by seeyalater52 on Feb 23, 2019 20:51:55 GMT -5
Like literally people wanna argue with me on the daily that we don’t need Medicaid anymore because Bernie or whoever is bringing us Medicare for All.
Digest that shit. That is a perspective that is going to totally fuck the most vulnerable people because we are too busy worrying about a really specific segment of the population and what they want or think sounds good instead of applying a true equity framework to policy development. Not to mention the fact that no hypothetical plan that may or may not come to fruition 5-10 years ago (regardless of whether that’s a good or a bad thing) should supplant the need to work with what we have NOW, for the people who need it NOW.
Policies that masquerade as helping the people who need help the most but actually have the opposite effect when implemented are my hill to die on.