HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "But we couldn't *po...

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:15 PM

 

"But we couldn't *possibly* have gotten single payer!"

Could we have gotten single payer, a.k.a. Medicare for All?

Well...

Polls consistently found that two-thirds of Americans were in favor of Medicare for All when the ACA was being negotiated.

Two thirds!

Including, IIRC, more than half of Republicans.

Two thirds!

Any political party that can't turn the will of two-thirds of Americans into law either doesn't want what The People want, or they totally suck as politicians. Either way, they ain't getting the job done.

Two thirds!

That's all you need to know. Everything else is a detail, a needless distraction.

455 replies, 91065 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 455 replies Author Time Post
Reply "But we couldn't *possibly* have gotten single payer!" (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 OP
BainsBane Mar 2014 #1
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #4
BainsBane Mar 2014 #5
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #6
BainsBane Mar 2014 #7
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #16
BainsBane Mar 2014 #87
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #91
BainsBane Mar 2014 #94
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #99
BainsBane Mar 2014 #103
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #109
BainsBane Mar 2014 #114
TexasTowelie Mar 2014 #119
tkmorris Mar 2014 #163
philly_bob Mar 2014 #260
SammyWinstonJack Mar 2014 #273
rhett o rick Mar 2014 #188
BainsBane Mar 2014 #197
xocet Mar 2014 #278
BainsBane Mar 2014 #291
7962 Mar 2014 #304
BainsBane Mar 2014 #317
xocet Mar 2014 #305
Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #234
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #380
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #391
BainsBane Mar 2014 #407
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #415
TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #15
BainsBane Mar 2014 #20
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #21
BainsBane Mar 2014 #22
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #25
BainsBane Mar 2014 #42
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #44
BainsBane Mar 2014 #49
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #52
BainsBane Mar 2014 #64
tridim Mar 2014 #85
Post removed Mar 2014 #221
zeemike Mar 2014 #157
BainsBane Mar 2014 #196
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #48
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #67
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #70
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #73
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #76
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #151
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #161
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #167
Common Sense Party Mar 2014 #363
cui bono Mar 2014 #171
cui bono Mar 2014 #328
BainsBane Mar 2014 #286
MindMover Mar 2014 #97
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #170
MindMover Mar 2014 #187
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #189
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #169
cui bono Mar 2014 #335
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #336
cui bono Mar 2014 #345
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #348
cui bono Mar 2014 #357
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #359
Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #204
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #339
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #382
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #384
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #385
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #390
cui bono Mar 2014 #401
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #416
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #402
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #417
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #435
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #420
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #434
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #442
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #443
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #444
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #445
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #447
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #451
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #452
BainsBane Mar 2014 #408
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #418
BainsBane Mar 2014 #419
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #421
Oilwellian Mar 2014 #181
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #208
Rilgin Mar 2014 #294
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #298
Rilgin Mar 2014 #311
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #313
Rilgin Mar 2014 #319
cui bono Mar 2014 #398
Mojorabbit Mar 2014 #344
Autumn Mar 2014 #239
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #301
Autumn Mar 2014 #351
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #352
Autumn Mar 2014 #353
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #360
Autumn Mar 2014 #361
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #23
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #26
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #74
zeemike Mar 2014 #160
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #307
MindMover Mar 2014 #66
BainsBane Mar 2014 #71
MindMover Mar 2014 #75
BainsBane Mar 2014 #77
MindMover Mar 2014 #80
BainsBane Mar 2014 #82
MindMover Mar 2014 #86
BainsBane Mar 2014 #90
MindMover Mar 2014 #93
BainsBane Mar 2014 #96
MindMover Mar 2014 #101
BainsBane Mar 2014 #106
MindMover Mar 2014 #108
BainsBane Mar 2014 #111
MindMover Mar 2014 #115
BainsBane Mar 2014 #117
MindMover Mar 2014 #120
BainsBane Mar 2014 #123
MindMover Mar 2014 #129
cui bono Mar 2014 #174
BainsBane Mar 2014 #198
BainsBane Mar 2014 #198
cui bono Mar 2014 #207
bullsnarfle Mar 2014 #261
laundry_queen Mar 2014 #276
cui bono Mar 2014 #338
AndyTiedye Mar 2014 #453
BainsBane Mar 2014 #198
Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #262
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #392
BainsBane Mar 2014 #397
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #399
BainsBane Mar 2014 #411
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #414
Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #438
truedelphi Mar 2014 #219
passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #138
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #142
passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #176
cui bono Mar 2014 #177
cstanleytech Mar 2014 #186
MineralMan Mar 2014 #252
cui bono Mar 2014 #321
MineralMan Mar 2014 #322
cui bono Mar 2014 #324
MineralMan Mar 2014 #325
cui bono Mar 2014 #329
ljm2002 Mar 2014 #449
cui bono Mar 2014 #168
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #381
A Simple Game Mar 2014 #256
BainsBane Mar 2014 #287
A Simple Game Mar 2014 #332
BainsBane Mar 2014 #395
A Simple Game Mar 2014 #400
BainsBane Mar 2014 #406
Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #277
BainsBane Mar 2014 #302
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #320
JDPriestly Mar 2014 #355
BainsBane Mar 2014 #394
JDPriestly Mar 2014 #431
cui bono Mar 2014 #158
BainsBane Mar 2014 #289
cui bono Mar 2014 #327
BainsBane Mar 2014 #396
jeff47 Mar 2014 #330
cui bono Mar 2014 #333
jeff47 Mar 2014 #337
cui bono Mar 2014 #354
jeff47 Mar 2014 #358
Bonobo Mar 2014 #175
grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #231
MNBrewer Mar 2014 #240
BainsBane Mar 2014 #300
passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #450
MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #422
NYC_SKP Mar 2014 #2
MindMover Mar 2014 #88
MindMover Mar 2014 #3
truedelphi Mar 2014 #218
Hoyt Mar 2014 #8
Vattel Mar 2014 #9
AndyTiedye Mar 2014 #47
MindMover Mar 2014 #61
Vattel Mar 2014 #100
polichick Mar 2014 #10
jazzimov Mar 2014 #11
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #12
Hoyt Mar 2014 #14
Whisp Mar 2014 #29
sheshe2 Mar 2014 #34
steve2470 Mar 2014 #148
redqueen Mar 2014 #257
Richardo Mar 2014 #258
steve2470 Mar 2014 #266
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #284
MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #423
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #424
MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #425
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #427
MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #428
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #429
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #13
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #18
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #24
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #27
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #30
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #36
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #37
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #43
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #51
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #55
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #58
MindMover Mar 2014 #72
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #79
MindMover Mar 2014 #57
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #63
MindMover Mar 2014 #53
AndyTiedye Mar 2014 #65
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #68
MindMover Mar 2014 #105
phleshdef Mar 2014 #83
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #98
phleshdef Mar 2014 #143
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #145
phleshdef Mar 2014 #147
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #150
BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #173
Skraxx Mar 2014 #183
Mojorabbit Mar 2014 #192
Autumn Mar 2014 #241
phleshdef Mar 2014 #194
treestar Mar 2014 #243
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #201
MADem Mar 2014 #235
steve2470 Mar 2014 #267
redqueen Mar 2014 #271
PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #377
Number23 Mar 2014 #362
Number23 Mar 2014 #364
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #367
Number23 Mar 2014 #368
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #369
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #374
tavalon Mar 2014 #17
MindMover Mar 2014 #69
tavalon Mar 2014 #432
JI7 Mar 2014 #19
KittyWampus Mar 2014 #28
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #31
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #35
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #39
MindMover Mar 2014 #46
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #54
AndyTiedye Mar 2014 #121
Skidmore Mar 2014 #232
gollygee Mar 2014 #236
MindMover Mar 2014 #110
MindMover Mar 2014 #33
SidDithers Mar 2014 #41
MindMover Mar 2014 #50
bullwinkle428 Mar 2014 #242
Squinch Mar 2014 #32
MindMover Mar 2014 #40
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #102
MindMover Mar 2014 #104
adirondacker Mar 2014 #56
Squinch Mar 2014 #60
adirondacker Mar 2014 #78
Number23 Mar 2014 #365
brooklynite Mar 2014 #38
steve2470 Mar 2014 #113
KG Mar 2014 #45
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #202
riversedge Mar 2014 #228
jeff47 Mar 2014 #334
jeff47 Mar 2014 #340
iandhr Mar 2014 #59
Hoyt Mar 2014 #127
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #203
pnwmom Mar 2014 #62
Kaleva Mar 2014 #81
steve2470 Mar 2014 #118
Kaleva Mar 2014 #124
steve2470 Mar 2014 #128
MindMover Mar 2014 #122
Kaleva Mar 2014 #126
MindMover Mar 2014 #130
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #205
MindMover Mar 2014 #210
DanTex Mar 2014 #84
MindMover Mar 2014 #92
valerief Mar 2014 #89
MindMover Mar 2014 #95
steve2470 Mar 2014 #107
MindMover Mar 2014 #112
steve2470 Mar 2014 #116
MindMover Mar 2014 #125
steve2470 Mar 2014 #131
MindMover Mar 2014 #135
steve2470 Mar 2014 #137
MindMover Mar 2014 #141
steve2470 Mar 2014 #146
MindMover Mar 2014 #149
steve2470 Mar 2014 #152
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #206
MindMover Mar 2014 #209
BainsBane Mar 2014 #133
steve2470 Mar 2014 #136
MindMover Mar 2014 #140
BainsBane Mar 2014 #292
MindMover Mar 2014 #312
jeff47 Mar 2014 #342
Raine1967 Mar 2014 #132
steve2470 Mar 2014 #139
Raine1967 Mar 2014 #153
TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #193
steve2470 Mar 2014 #195
jeff47 Mar 2014 #346
Thinkingabout Mar 2014 #134
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #144
Thinkingabout Mar 2014 #155
treestar Mar 2014 #154
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #156
GreenPartyVoter Mar 2014 #159
YoungDemCA Mar 2014 #179
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #244
GreenPartyVoter Mar 2014 #372
Maedhros Mar 2014 #285
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #315
Maedhros Mar 2014 #343
gcomeau Mar 2014 #162
steve2470 Mar 2014 #166
ljm2002 Mar 2014 #214
LWolf Mar 2014 #281
jeff47 Mar 2014 #347
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #387
ljm2002 Mar 2014 #412
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #386
ljm2002 Mar 2014 #413
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #433
ljm2002 Mar 2014 #437
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #440
ljm2002 Mar 2014 #441
Chathamization Mar 2014 #233
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #164
Richardo Mar 2014 #165
Jack Rabbit Mar 2014 #172
YoungDemCA Mar 2014 #178
gopiscrap Mar 2014 #180
Skraxx Mar 2014 #182
ecstatic Mar 2014 #223
steve2470 Mar 2014 #227
Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #230
ProSense Mar 2014 #250
Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #297
redqueen Mar 2014 #259
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #263
Number23 Mar 2014 #366
Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #184
blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #185
MADem Mar 2014 #190
MindMover Mar 2014 #211
MisterP Mar 2014 #191
Amonester Mar 2014 #212
moondust Mar 2014 #213
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #215
Kurovski Mar 2014 #216
JI7 Mar 2014 #217
Kurovski Mar 2014 #220
JI7 Mar 2014 #222
Kurovski Mar 2014 #373
JI7 Mar 2014 #375
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #306
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #314
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #393
B Calm Mar 2014 #224
Enthusiast Mar 2014 #225
brooklynite Mar 2014 #237
n2doc Mar 2014 #226
DeSwiss Mar 2014 #229
Babel_17 Mar 2014 #238
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #316
mother earth Mar 2014 #245
Adrahil Mar 2014 #246
Recursion Mar 2014 #247
randome Mar 2014 #248
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #265
Arkana Mar 2014 #288
polichick Mar 2014 #296
Recursion Mar 2014 #409
ProSense Mar 2014 #249
yodermon Mar 2014 #251
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #254
HockeyMom Mar 2014 #253
rock Mar 2014 #255
Progressive dog Mar 2014 #264
Arkana Mar 2014 #269
Arkana Mar 2014 #268
Babel_17 Mar 2014 #270
fascisthunter Mar 2014 #272
leftstreet Mar 2014 #274
harun Mar 2014 #275
certainot Mar 2014 #279
Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #280
polichick Mar 2014 #299
ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #282
Auntie Bush Mar 2014 #283
Rex Mar 2014 #290
adirondacker Mar 2014 #303
ErikJ Mar 2014 #293
lame54 Mar 2014 #295
Rilgin Mar 2014 #308
lame54 Mar 2014 #371
Rilgin Mar 2014 #426
lame54 Mar 2014 #439
Rilgin Mar 2014 #448
Orsino Mar 2014 #309
Mojo Electro Mar 2014 #310
crimeariver1225 Mar 2014 #318
Zorra Mar 2014 #323
jeff47 Mar 2014 #326
Arugula Latte Mar 2014 #331
Divernan Mar 2014 #341
ProSense Mar 2014 #350
Yavin4 Mar 2014 #349
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #376
Yavin4 Mar 2014 #378
ProSense Mar 2014 #356
Zorra Mar 2014 #370
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #383
Zorra Mar 2014 #389
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #403
Zorra Mar 2014 #410
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #436
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #379
IronLionZion Mar 2014 #388
brooklynite Mar 2014 #405
underpants Mar 2014 #404
mvd Mar 2014 #430
krawhitham Mar 2014 #446
woo me with science Mar 2014 #454
AndyTiedye Apr 2014 #455

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:19 PM

1. What did you do about it at the time?

Because it was off the table from the beginning. Why bring it up six years after the fact? Really, what purpose does that serve?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:21 PM

4. People need to understand what was done to them, don't you think? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:24 PM

5. We all lived through it

We don't need to be reminded. We weren't in a coma. We remember the election, the primaries, and how single payer was never on the table. By not answering it demonstrates you did exactly nothing to promote single payer at the time, yet now you raise the issue. Is there some reason you consistently refuse to focus on any current legislation we can actually affect and instead work to further disillusion with the Democratic Party?

I again feel the need to point out that this view of social change you advance where it is bestowed from above by a benevolent leader is completely counter-factual. If people want something done, they can't sit around complaining and expect anything to happen. Government has to be forced to act in the interests of the people. That is the ONLY way anything has ever changed. Complaining years after the fact only serves to depress social activism, not promote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:26 PM

6. Putting words in my mouth again?

 

Creating a rich fabric of nonsense to describe my life because you don't have information?

Seems like SOP for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:28 PM

7. Do you understand the meaning of a question mark in English?

I put no words in your mouth. I asked a simple question. Why are you complaining about this now? What purpose does it serve? Do you really imagine you are the only person with any memory of recent political events? Why don't you focus on something people can act on now?

You consistently avoid answering questions. Why is that? Why is it you refuse to explain your reason for posting what you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:37 PM

16. Let's be clear: you asked a question, got no answer, and loudly determined my answer for me.

 

You can play that game, but I'm not.

To add insult to injury, I *did* explain why I posted the OP, and now you claim I did not! Incredible!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:25 PM

87. Not true at all

but your clearly have a reason for refusing to answer the most simple questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #87)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:27 PM

91. Only true for people who speak English. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #91)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:29 PM

94. Okay, I'll play

What words did I put in your mouth? Provide the quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #94)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:32 PM

99. e.g., "By not answering it demonstrates you did exactly nothing to promote single payer at the time"

 

You have no @#$%ing idea of what I did or did not do.

So #$%^ off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #99)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:36 PM

103. True, I don't know

because you refused to answer. This is the rest of that post:

Is there some reason you consistency refuse to focus on any current legislation we can actually affect and instead work to further disillusion with the Democratic Party?


This relates to your comment about what was "done to people."

I again feel the need to point out that this view of social change you advance where it is bestowed from above by a benevolent leader is completely counter-factual. If people want something done, they can't sit around complaining and expect anything to happen. Government has to be forced to act in the interests of the people. That is the ONLY way anything has ever changed. Complaining years after the fact only serves to depress social activism, not promote it.


If you want to see real change, why not encourage people to mobilize around something we can do right now? ACA has already been passed. Is there something you'd like to see done now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #103)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:41 PM

109. "Yeah, I guess I did make stuff up. But..."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #109)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:43 PM

114. Right after you apologize

for insulting me.

When you refuse to answer questions, people are going to assume there is a reason for it. That is only natural. You deliberately chose not to respond to that or any of my other questions. You gave the excuse of my being rude, when than "rudeness" amounted to interrogating your position about single payer, the public option, and the Democratic Party. You then turn around and swear at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #99)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:48 PM

119. The jury says:

On Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

e.g., "By not answering it demonstrates you did exactly nothing to promote single payer at the time"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4716662

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Clear personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:40 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter made a personal attack in the first reply to Manny's OP. While a bit rude, these two have been going after each other for awhile. Since Manny censored his response it doesn't rise to the point of hiding his response.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Starts a flame bait thread, then hurl abuse when people disagree? C'mon. Hide this juvenile crap.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm afraid so. Hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: IMO, BainsBane is badgering Manny in this thread, insulting him by insinuating that he doesn't understand English. BainsBain should be the one locked out of this thread.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yes it was a personal attack and uncivil. This sort of thing does nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #119)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:28 PM

163. Wait, MANNY is the one who got alerted in that exchange?

Sheesh, I wonder who did that? Juror 5 had the right of it I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #163)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:05 AM

260. Agreed.

OP=interesting point, followed by an ambush of harsh hair-splitting questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BainsBane (Reply #87)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:50 PM

188. Why ask questions? If you have a point, spit it out without Just Asking Questions.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #188)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:39 AM

197. Why not ask questions?

Is your contention that someone should post an OP and then not be expected to discuss his views? I thought the purpose of a discussion board was discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #197)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:04 AM

278. That sounds a lot like something Glenn Beck would say.

Here is a commentary addressing that topic:

South Park slammed Glenn Beck (& Palin)
Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:05 PM PST

...

The basic plot had the kid who did the school announcements being killed in a terrible (and moronically absurd) misunderstanding, and Cartman conniving his way into the job. Cartman being his usual sociopathic self, he abuses the privilege and turns the morning intercom announcements into a radio (and then TV) shock-jock show, which he uses to spread all sorts of irresponsible rumors about 4th grade class president, Wendy Testaburger. She's just doing a responsible job, but to get attention (and because he's an asshole) he accuses her of being a slut, imposing socialist tyranny on the school, murdering Smurfs, etc.... or does he, since, like Glenn Beck, he's "just asking questions."

Cartman does the whole Beck shtick -- the chalkboard with the letters that spell things out, the obnoxious insistence that he's not really claiming anything but only "asking questions" and therefore has no responsibility for anyone believing his lies, selling books filled with slander, acting like a narcissistic lunatic ass-clown... he even starts developing Beck's "used Q-Tip" hair coloring, just in case anybody had any doubts this is a Beck slam. A lot of the stupider kids in the school (including Smurf-loving Butters) believe everything Cartman says just because he has access to a microphone. Just like Beck's real audience.

...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/11/803576/-South-Park-slammed-Glenn-Beck-Palin#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #278)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:05 PM

291. Is your contention that being a leftist

hinges on refusal to interrogate one's own political views or respond to questions about them? Here I have been thinking leftism was based on thought, reason, and evidence and could sustain interrogation, but now you tell me the very act of questioning is itself right wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #291)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:28 PM

304. Sure it is.I get accused of it here all the time. Bring up one point thats not the majority opinion

 

and let the name calling begin. Koch brother lover, racist, tea bagger, etc. Never mind refuting what I've said, just attack me. You see it in OPs critical of Pres Obama. Even in the ones where we have a few who persistently defend Putin & Maduro. Any view different from theirs and you MUST be a right-winger, or a troll, or an alien from where ever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #304)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:14 PM

317. In this case, it's not even a different view

I support single payer. My question is what does complaining about it several years after the fact achieve? How about proposing something we can do now to improve ACA or bring about single payer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #291)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:34 PM

305. Beck, is that you? Just asking.... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:07 AM

234. "Putting words in my mouth again?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 05:50 PM

380. I think you did nothing to promote single payer. Am I right? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:44 PM

391. your reply to BB looks like evasion and blame...

It feels familiar too.

I remember your earlier reply to me when I questioned your trivialising women's objections to hypersexualized stereotyping in a jokey post about prudes. (Puke. Most violence against women, as well as everyday harrassment is sexualized, so of course women have opinions on it. It's not "prudery". Yecch. What anti-woman bullshit.)

I remember you bending over backwards in a different instance to apologize for perceived racism (the gefilte fish kerfuffle), but for my questions, you not only brushed me off, but added an insult as well. Just to make sure the little lady was well and truly put in her place, I suppose.

So. I'm just noticing your flip response to BB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #391)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:22 PM

407. I see that as common response to anyone

who asks Manny about his views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #407)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 10:48 PM

415. I guess this is his only outlet



Oh, well! I'm questioning my "need" to spend too much time on people that are disrespectful or hypocritical. I see that I do feed into it myself: I get a charge out of trying to give 'em the whack I think they so richly deserve…. (Admitting our own part is half the battle. )

I've put a bunch of people on ignore, just so that I don't get myself all bent outa shape trying to force evolution on 'em. LoL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:37 PM

15. No, he is working to make the Democratic party accountable to the needs of the people by

raising the awareness of the people who may then demand more than bumbling, nonsense excuses to serve the wealthy at our expense.

Fuck off the table, they are supposed to be there to work for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:40 PM

20. That would have been great in 2008-09

What exactly are they accountable for if people weren't demanding single payer in 2008-09? If people want change, they need to get up and work for it. These politicians aren't going to hand you a fucking thing. They never have and they never will. People did nothing and now sit back and complain that congress and the President didn't read their minds. That's not how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:41 PM

21. We voted for Change We Can Believe In

 

Instead, we got The Banker White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:44 PM

22. You didn't vote for single payer

because no one promised it. Not Obama, not Clinton, and not McCain. If you didn't pay attention to the policies the President proposed, you have no one to blame but yourself.

If you actually believe what you just wrote, it appears your memory of the election is worst that most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:51 PM

25. I voted for a public option

 

As did many, many people. And I expected an attempt at that, rather than The Banker White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:04 PM

42. This just occurred to you today?

Not in 2009 when the public option was being debated?

Who was the last president you liked? Have you liked any Democratic Presidents during your lifetime?

Why would you think it's possible to have a government not influenced by big money under the current campaign financing system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #42)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:05 PM

44. Are you a mind reader?

 

Or just a really crappy debater?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:07 PM

49. I may be crappy

but I clearly have you beat, since you continue to evade the subject. Answer the questions. Why bring it up now?
Who was the last president you actually liked? Did you really imagine it was possible to have an administration not subject to big money under the current campaign financing laws? If so, how is that possible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:09 PM

52. I feel zero obligation to respond to impolite people

 

Particularly ones who just make things up about me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #52)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:14 PM

64. LOL

Cornered, I see. I accept your surrender. I know what's going on anyway. I just figured I've give you a chance to try to explain.

Game, set, and match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #64)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:24 PM

85. That was a thing of beauty Bainsbane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #64)


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:19 PM

157. Once again the topic is hijack

And now you make it about Manny.
I guess you can't defend Pelosi taking it off the table right away...and once it is off the table that makes it over in your mind...like the table is what rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #157)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:36 AM

196. Why should I have to defend Nancy Pelosi?

What has she got to do with me? I asked him to explain his views. He chose not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:07 PM

48. And who DID you vote for because YOU didn't vote for a public option because NO one ran on that///

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #67)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:19 PM

70. Thanks for proving my point...

 

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:


I KNEW he wasn't for Single Payer which is why I supported Hillary Clinton....but when he beat her in the Primaries....I threw him my support.

Please tell me you are at least as politically savvy as I was in those days....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:19 PM

73. Which part of "But he touted the public option on his campaign website" are you unclear on?

 

I'm sure we can phrase it another way if that will help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #73)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:21 PM

76. but he didn't campaign on it....even I knew that....please tell me you are smarter than I am!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #76)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:11 PM

151. So he put it on his campaign's web site but... what am I missing?

 

Did he have a tag next to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #151)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:26 PM

161. He didn't campaign on it....I have said that all along.....I told you that is WHY I supported

 

Hillary over Obama in the primaries....but he won....so thats how the cookie crumbles...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #161)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:34 PM

167. So it was on his campaign web site, but he didn't campaign on it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #161)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:32 PM

363. No, never. He never said a thing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #151)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:37 PM

171. Breaking: Presidential candidate forgets "sarcasm" tag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:12 PM

328. It was in his platform, he mentioned it in campaign speeches and he touted it during his first year

as POTUS.

FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours

By Zaid Jilani on December 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

Despite all this overt advocacy for the public option, it appears that Obama was reticent to apply the political pressure necessary to get the plan in the final hours of congressional negotiation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who threatened to filibuster the creation of any new public plan or expansion of Medicare — told the Huffington Post that he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most ardent backers of public insurance, blamed the demise of the public option on a “lack of support from the administration.” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — perhaps the most visible defender of the public option in the entire health care debate — went even further, saying that Obama’s lack of support for congressional progressives amounted to him being “half-pregnant” with the health insurance and drug industries.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/


Regarding Obama saying he never campaigned on the public option:

Obama's latest statement on this is hair-splitting at best and misleading at worst. That's even more true given how often he mentioned the public option after he got elected. And it's a good example of why the left is losing its trust in Obama. Obama could have given an interview where he expressed frustration that the math of the Senate forced his administration to give up the public option but nevertheless argued that the rest of the health-care bill was well worth passing. Instead, he's arguing that he never cared about the public option anyway, which is just confirming liberal suspicions that they lost that battle because the president was never really on their side.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html


The president’s claim that he “didn’t campaign on the public option” is at best on shaky ground, factually speaking. It’s unmistakably true that during the campaign his plan for reform included a public option.

A summary of Obama’s proposal — still up on BarackObama.com — says it “Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.” And a document his campaign put together, “Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America,” says:

The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees

On the other hand, the words “campaign on” have a fairly specific meaning — they imply making some issue or message a particular focus of your campaign, as in, “In 2004, President Bush campaigned on terrorism.” And while it was indeed a pretty weaselly thing for him to say, Obama’s comment was, on that score, accurate.

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/22/obama_public/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #73)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:56 AM

286. Then why is your OP about single payer

and not the public option?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:31 PM

97. Insurance and health in the same sentence does not compute, does not compute ...

I say does not compute ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #97)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:37 PM

170. So you think there is no insurance in countries with Single Payer healthcare?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #170)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:38 PM

187. they do not sell basic health insurance of course there is property insurance and life insurance ...

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #187)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:56 PM

189. Oh yes they do....they sell cadillac plans....

 

so you are wrong....wag your finger at yourself. Check out Sweden for example....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #70)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:35 PM

169. but he didn't campaign on it because HE knew it wasn't possible...

 

perhaps he is smarter than you are....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #169)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:31 PM

335. You were just telling yourself Obama is smarter than you are. hehe...

But anyway, if "HE knew it wasn't possible" why did he mention it in campaign speeches and many times during his first year as POTUS?


FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours

By Zaid Jilani on December 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

Despite all this overt advocacy for the public option, it appears that Obama was reticent to apply the political pressure necessary to get the plan in the final hours of congressional negotiation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who threatened to filibuster the creation of any new public plan or expansion of Medicare — told the Huffington Post that he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most ardent backers of public insurance, blamed the demise of the public option on a “lack of support from the administration.” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — perhaps the most visible defender of the public option in the entire health care debate — went even further, saying that Obama’s lack of support for congressional progressives amounted to him being “half-pregnant” with the health insurance and drug industries.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/


Regarding Obama saying he never campaigned on the public option:

Obama's latest statement on this is hair-splitting at best and misleading at worst. That's even more true given how often he mentioned the public option after he got elected. And it's a good example of why the left is losing its trust in Obama. Obama could have given an interview where he expressed frustration that the math of the Senate forced his administration to give up the public option but nevertheless argued that the rest of the health-care bill was well worth passing. Instead, he's arguing that he never cared about the public option anyway, which is just confirming liberal suspicions that they lost that battle because the president was never really on their side.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html


The president’s claim that he “didn’t campaign on the public option” is at best on shaky ground, factually speaking. It’s unmistakably true that during the campaign his plan for reform included a public option.

A summary of Obama’s proposal — still up on BarackObama.com — says it “Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.” And a document his campaign put together, “Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America,” says:

The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees

On the other hand, the words “campaign on” have a fairly specific meaning — they imply making some issue or message a particular focus of your campaign, as in, “In 2004, President Bush campaigned on terrorism.” And while it was indeed a pretty weaselly thing for him to say, Obama’s comment was, on that score, accurate.

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/22/obama_public/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #335)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:34 PM

336. Yes I am saying he IS smarter than I! Could I have gotten the Affordable Care Act passed...

 

hell no....

could you or anyone else have gotten Single Payer....No they could not...


So what is your major malfunction with admitting Obama is smarter than I am...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #336)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:43 PM

345. You ignored the entire substance of my post. He DID mention the public option while campaigning

it was in his platform and he touted it a lot during his first year as POTUS.

You ignored that while dwelling on my gentle teasing about how you accidentally posted a reply to yourself. Sheesh, it was a tiny tease in good fun, no major malfunction. So let's get back to the point.

Here's the info regarding Obama and the public option again:

FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours

By Zaid Jilani on December 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

Despite all this overt advocacy for the public option, it appears that Obama was reticent to apply the political pressure necessary to get the plan in the final hours of congressional negotiation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who threatened to filibuster the creation of any new public plan or expansion of Medicare — told the Huffington Post that he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most ardent backers of public insurance, blamed the demise of the public option on a “lack of support from the administration.” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — perhaps the most visible defender of the public option in the entire health care debate — went even further, saying that Obama’s lack of support for congressional progressives amounted to him being “half-pregnant” with the health insurance and drug industries.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/


Regarding Obama saying he never campaigned on the public option:

Obama's latest statement on this is hair-splitting at best and misleading at worst. That's even more true given how often he mentioned the public option after he got elected. And it's a good example of why the left is losing its trust in Obama. Obama could have given an interview where he expressed frustration that the math of the Senate forced his administration to give up the public option but nevertheless argued that the rest of the health-care bill was well worth passing. Instead, he's arguing that he never cared about the public option anyway, which is just confirming liberal suspicions that they lost that battle because the president was never really on their side.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html


The president’s claim that he “didn’t campaign on the public option” is at best on shaky ground, factually speaking. It’s unmistakably true that during the campaign his plan for reform included a public option.

A summary of Obama’s proposal — still up on BarackObama.com — says it “Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.” And a document his campaign put together, “Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America,” says:

The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees

On the other hand, the words “campaign on” have a fairly specific meaning — they imply making some issue or message a particular focus of your campaign, as in, “In 2004, President Bush campaigned on terrorism.” And while it was indeed a pretty weaselly thing for him to say, Obama’s comment was, on that score, accurate.

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/22/obama_public/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #345)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:50 PM

348. Mentioning it...supporting it....and running on it are very different things aren't they...

 

I am sure he also supports "common sense gun control" and he has even (gasp) mentioned it....but he didn't run on that either did he?

In fact here he is "mentioning" it.....Why hasn't he written gun control legislation since he obviously supports it?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/240211-obama-common-sense-gun-control-needed-for-criminals-and-mentally-ill-

But then...you knew that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #348)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:19 PM

357. He was putting the public option out there *after* the campaign.

So why are you stuck on whether or not he ran on it? And no, they're really not that different. Don't know where you get that idea. People run on things they support, they support things they run on, they mention things they support, etc... etc.. etc... You are just playing semantics now.

It's actually worse that he kept talking about it and saying it would be there when he spoke about it during his first year as POTUS and then never really trying to make sure it was there.

He brought it up many times in his first year as POTUS then never fought for it. Makes no difference at that point whether he ran on it or not.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

I've made my point, the citations are in my previous posts. I'm not going to ride the merry-go-round any more with you this time.

You have the floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #357)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:23 PM

359. I am not missing anything.....he also put common sense-gun control "out there" after too....

 

putting it out there is NOT the same thing is it???


NOW who misses forests and trees....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #70)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:53 AM

204. The president was engaging in some mealy-mouth bullshit here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #204)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:36 PM

339. Is the Affordable Care Act just "mealy-mouthed bullshit"?

 

is it benefiting you? Of course it is....

Then what is your problem? That he didn't have the Single Payer magic wand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 05:54 PM

382. Who did you vote for since there was no public option? Republicans? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #382)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:06 PM

384. I wasn't DEMANDING it.....I was for Hillary at first because I believed she was closer to it than

 

Barack Obama...I told people exactly that. But when she lost the primary to him....I went with who my fellow Democrats selected....because that is how this Democracy works....

and you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #384)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:08 PM

385. Obama, of course. Of the two, Hillary is less to the left. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #385)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:42 PM

390. that is bunk...she is NOT

 

Clinton


Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.


vs Obama


Barack Obama is a Moderate Liberal.

and for good measure and some perspective....


Bill Clinton is a Moderate Liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #390)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:54 PM

401. That uninformative graph was shown a long time ago to have incorrect results

based on not using facts only for the input.

Those mean absolutely nothing because they use quotes of politicians as data. We all know politician's words alone are meaningless, what matters is their voting and legislative record.

If you want to argue about it I'll dig up the thread where it was gone over before. I don't remember if it was you or someone else who thought these were meaningful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #401)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 10:59 PM

416. Uninformative huh? Where is YOUR graph to prove YOUR position???

 

YOU only base it on the one or two issues of concern to YOU...and that is NOT how it works is it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #390)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:16 PM

402. Look, I agree neither is what you and I want, but the way you're going about is not just wrong

IT'S THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY.

In fact, I can't think of a worse way than yours to act on all this, except to go to the polls and vote 100% Repuke. In fact, basically what you are doing is exactly that - voting Republican.

And don't tell me that I'm shutting you up, or that you can't speak your mind. And whatever you do, do not tell me that you're doing the right thing by voting "YOUR HEART" (ha) for candidates that couldn't get elected if their very life depended on it. Candidates that will never, ever, ever, ever be able to inspire the majority of the American nation, and don't now. Candidates that promise lots and deliver exactly nothing. Candidates that are supported by a tiny fringe group who think that the way to get Republican ideology out of this land is by finding new and novel ways of getting Republicans in office by voting for LOSER candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #402)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:00 PM

417. Oh no it is not.....

 

I have NEVER vote Republican....I vote for Democrats...Don't YOU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #417)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:03 AM

435. Across the board. So what's the problem? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #402)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:03 PM

420. Funny I voted for Barack Obama....and he won and not by a "tiny fringe group"

 

I have no idea wtf the rest of your breathless rant was about....incoherent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #420)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:02 AM

434. As did I, so what's your problem? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #434)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:24 AM

442. No what is YOUR problem...I wasn't the one that asked that question now was I?

 

You asked who I voted for and I told you...then you claimed anyone I would vote for would ONLY be a part of a "fringe group". And funny you now hate everything about the party he leads...

You may think that supporters of the President are a "tiny fringe group" on DU (which I don't agree about) but they are hardly a "tiny fringe group" in the rest of the country...

Here is the part that was the most egregious:

Candidates that are supported by a tiny fringe group who think that the way to get Republican ideology out of this land is by finding new and novel ways of getting Republicans in office by voting for LOSER candidates.


I am voting for the Person that wins the Democratic Primary.

I lived in South Carolina as a Liberal Democrat for many years...DO NOT try to tell me about Republicans....I was soaking in them...

But glad you have calmed down now....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #442)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:51 AM

443. Okay, we're on the same side. :) I live in North Florida. I've reached my limit of Repukes

I can't even stand to look at one, seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #443)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:03 PM

444. I used to live in Jax Fla myself....

 

Northern Fla is unreal when it comes to politics....I was shocked (I was married to guy from there). As a resident of N. Fla I know you have it hard too..though you may have found some compatriots in Duvall County but in South Carolina....I was a social pariah! I didn't know anyone that thought like me. I went to Ed Schultz's One Nation rally in DC and cried all day because "I found my people". So I have earned my right to speak my mind here...I will not be silenced and I am sure you feel the same way. I am not one of the "bash all the Democrats" on DU crowd that thinks that is going to work....they have NO idea about the reality that nearly HALF this country has been brainwashed by Republicans. I defy them to go to these places and TRY to suddenly get Teabaggers and rural Republicans to agree to suddenly accept Leftwing policies...they seem to think that they would be easily swayed...I got news for them THAT is not going to happen. Progress is going to happen slowly and incrementally BECAUSE of those people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #444)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:07 PM

445. I know what you mean. It's HARD living surrounded by Repugs and teabaggers. I can't stand it.

I liked what you said:

I am not one of the "bash all the Democrats" on DU crowd that thinks that is going to work....they have NO idea about the reality that nearly HALF this country has been brainwashed by Republicans. I defy them to go to these places and TRY to suddenly get Teabaggers and rural Republicans to agree to suddenly accept Leftwing policies...they seem to think that they would be easily swayed...I got news for them THAT is not going to happen. Progress is going to happen slowly and incrementally BECAUSE of those people.

I honestly don't understand how some libs can possibly not realize that this country has been under a right wing siege for 30+ years. I mean, how disconnected would one have to be to think that way? How out of touch would one have to be to think that fighting these people is magically and not through hard work and strategy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #445)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:05 PM

447. and they are like an anchor around our neck...they are not going to move "leftward" easily....

 

I don't know how some do not understand that. They think if the Dems just go full on far left....that suddenly magically it would just happen. My exposure to THESE people is what makes me more of a realist than the idealists on DU....I would love to be full on Socialist like Northern Europe....but I know...that is NOT going to happen instantaneously because WE support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #447)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:17 PM

451. And the thing is, they've tried it already. It failed more than miserably, but they want it again

They are about as insane as someone who continues to hit his head against the wall because he thinks that eventually it will stop hurting and actually feel good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #390)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:25 PM

408. Clinton is the current target

because she is thought to be the likely Democratic nominee. If another nominee emerges as the likely candidate, that person will become the new target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #408)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:00 PM

418. You can just feel the hypocritical mysogyny heating up...its already palpable...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #418)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:02 PM

419. In this case, I think it goes beyond gender

Though I certainly agree that is part of the opposition to Secretary Clinton more generally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #419)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:05 PM

421. Yeah I agree with you....in this case ...its beyond mere gender...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:59 PM

181. Hmmm







Shall I continue? There are plenty more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #181)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:10 AM

208. and as we see ....it couldn't have been done now could it?

 

but if Obama had that magic wand....we could all have sparkle ponies and rainbows every day....Just because he supports an idea...doesn't mean he thinks it is possible now does it? Perhaps he knew the environment he was in....perhaps he is more astute about it than you are...This is an election year...unless you have a gaggle of candidates to run in it that meet all your champagne dreams and caviar wishes.....I guess you are stuck with what we have then huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #208)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:12 PM

294. Your claims are historically inaccurate

VanillaRhapsody, you are totally making up history. Our health care industry problems were a major public and policy wonk issue and the competing plans of Hillary and Obama were a big part of their respective campaigns. Their plans were similar but had some differences, mostly in the imposition of a Mandate and support for a Public Option.

Hillary's publicly released health care insurance reform plan had insurance reform such as as eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions but coupled that with a health insurance mandate and no public option. It was on her web site and in her materials and when reporters asked her plan, that was it.

Obama's publicly released health care insurance reform plan, had similar insurance reforms (elimination of pre-existing conditions) but explicitly had NO health insurance mandate and HAD a public option.

Not only were these plans broadly and publicly part of their campaigns, it was explicitly debated in the Campaign debates. Obama ran on No Mandate and a Public Option as a way to distinguish his plan from Hilary's.

We lost that campaign plan almost immediately when Obama got into office when it basically morphed into Hilary's plan -- imposition of a Mandate and No Public Option.

Some people here have the Opinion (asserted as fact) that nothing else was possible. It is always possible that Obama could not get more than the ACA which institutionalized the Insurance Companies in the provision of health care in this Country. However, his approach was the failed carrot of false bi-partisanship which did not work and left us with Democrats forcing a modified republican plan on the United States. At the time, he could have mobilized Millions of People to public rallies if he had chosen the alternate strategy of a direct political battle. It is only opinion that such a battle for a better health care system would not have worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #294)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:18 PM

298. He LOST the magic wand?

 

awwwww....If you think you can do better....I admonish YOU to run....or at least present these candidates you have to the left of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren because they BOTH support President Obama AND the Affordable Care Act.....

When you have candidates....please let us know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #298)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:54 PM

311. I do not know what you are addressing

I am addressing your claim that President Obama did not campaign or run (whatever words you want to use) on the Public Option.

He clearly did. You can argue anything you want from that point. You can say he saw the light, he tried and failed to get it, he finally realized it was impossible to obtain. All these are possible arguments. I might disagree with some or all of these arguments. However, your argument seems to be there is no public option because he never campaigned on it so had no obligation to pursue it at all.

This is making up facts to support your opinion. Not a great proposition when other people were there and remember watching the debates where Obama ran, campaigned, supported, released policy statements (any other words you want to use to describe a candidates election stands) on no mandate and a public option and Hilary ran on a Mandate and no public option.

The rest of all of these debates are all opinion. BTW, if you just admit the basic facts, you can still use your unicorn and rainbow analogies (like in your response) no matter how dismissive of other people but at least you will not be making up facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #311)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:58 PM

313. supporting it and believing it and campaigning on it are very different things...

 

I am sure he also supports stronger gun legislation....but he didn't run on that either...

Can you see the difference now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #313)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:19 PM

319. You have a wierd definition of campain and support

What are you talking about. What does it mean to campaign on something other than to put out policy statements, answer questions put by reporters, debate, put your solution to issues that you will decide after the election other than campaign on. Anyone paying attention to the race knew that Hilary was campaigning on a Health Insurance Mandate and Obama was campaigning on a Public Insurance Option.

In the debates with Hilary they were both asked about their respective health care plans. He explained it as being No Mandates and a public option. That plan persisted in his campaign against McCain.

Think about what you are trying to say. You are really trying to say that a CANDIDATE who gives speechs and puts out policy statements and plans on issues is not campaigning on that solution to that issue?

It only took me a few minutes on google (obama mcain health care plans) to find this from 2007 where Obama released his health care plan in 2007.. It is not a perfect link but I didnt want to spend too much time on something that is just too obvious. You really should just stop contesting this point in future posts.

http://alankatz.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/senator-barack-obamas-health-care-reform-plan/

Supporting something is completely different. President Obama did NOT run on single payer. That is 100% accurate. The OP had it wrong. Obama has publically said that even though his plan is not single payer he supports it and would want it. That is "support" for single payer without it being part of his campaign.

You on the other hand have it wrong on the Public Option. He clearly ran/campaigned whatever word you want to use on the Public Option as part of his Health Care reform plan. Just admit the historical fact and you can continue to dismiss all the rest of the discussion of why we did not end up with a Public Option as opinions using magic wand unicorn cake analogies to describe people who you disagree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #319)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:47 PM

398. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #294)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:43 PM

344. This is how I remember it also. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #181)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:38 AM

239. None of that counts you know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #239)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:24 PM

301. supporting it ....and belief that you can pass it through both the Senate and the House...

 

in this environment are 2 very different things aren't they?

I am sure there are other things he supports but knows that won't pass the Senate and the House...don't you? Do you think he opposes gun regulations for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #301)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:07 PM

351. Do you think he supports the TPP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #351)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:10 PM

352. and that damages the Affordable Care Act how?

 

He HAS passed the ACA.....has TPP passed yet?

But if you and the clique think you can pass Single Payer in this climate even if Obama couldn't....please proceed as no one is stopping you. Good Luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #352)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:12 PM

353. Are we supposed to be looking for something that damages Obamacare?

Do you think think he supports gun regulations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #353)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:25 PM

360. Yeah I do....but he didn't run on that either...

 

like I said.....supporting it and running on it are 2 very different things....

If YOU think you can pass Single Payer...please run....America NEEDS YOU!

lest you forget Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders support the ACA so you are going to need to look further left...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #360)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:28 PM

361. So he lied when he campaigned? Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:45 PM

23. So is this President the same as George W Bush?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:51 PM

26. Yes, that's exactly what I said

 

in an alternate reality.

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:20 PM

74. Yeah in an alternate reality....the one in that noggin of yours...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:25 PM

160. They do love their dichotomy.

And use it every chance they get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #160)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:44 PM

307. What dichotomy....

 

You mean like ranting and railing against President Obama and his feature legislation....while obviously benefiting FROM said Affordable Care Act....THAT dichotomy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:16 PM

66. they all work for the oligarchy ..... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #66)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:19 PM

71. So it's all the same?

Might as well have a Republican controlled Senate and Ted Cruz as President? Do you believe that? What's the point in participating in debate about Democratic Party politics if they are all the same anyway?

By the way, I don't dispute the government primarily serves the moneyed interests. That's the way it has always been. I must say I find myself perplexed by the fact people seem to attribute to Obama in particular something inherent to capitalism itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #71)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:20 PM

75. he was brought in to quell the disrupters ... and proved a point, that this government is totally ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #75)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:21 PM

77. So what's your solution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:22 PM

80. we are using the future right now ... this instant ... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #80)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:23 PM

82. That says nothing

How do we improve things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #82)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:25 PM

86. we are still able to converse instantaneously on this medium which certain oligarchs ...

are trying to limit in the very near future ....first we have to stop them from changing this medium ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #86)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:27 PM

90. In other words

Sit around surfing the web and eating Cheetos, and then complain about how congress didn't deliver what you wanted but couldn't be bothered to work for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:28 PM

93. that might be your method, while others around the world are changing their world ....

by organizing thru this medium ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #93)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:30 PM

96. You do know that the revolutionaries

in the Muslim world used the web only as a means of communication. They actually got out of the house and demanded change. I twice asked you what your solution was and you made some oblique reference to oligarchs working to control the internet. That doesn't tell me what you seek to change or how you plan to bring that change about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #96)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:35 PM

101. First, the will of the people should be how our representatives vote, not the will of someone who ..

just gave me 50.000 ...

This is what this thread was started on, the idea that we have representation ... honest representation, not this garbage we have now ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #101)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:39 PM

106. Unfortunately, Citizens United and related rulings make that impossible

There are two possible ways to change that: constitutional amendment or supreme court appointments that will overturn the ruling. Both take time. We can all agree that government should represent the people. But saying it doesn't make it so. People have to act--we have to act--to change it. One way to ensure it will not change is suppressing the Democratic vote by arguing that they are all the same. That way Republicans will win the Presidency and Senate and control SCOTUS appointments and ensure Citizens United remains the law of the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #106)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:41 PM

108. money will never leave politics ...

but we can vote electronically and let it be known worldwide thru this medium ... when our representative does not follow the will of the people, then the whole world knows it instantaneously ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:43 PM

111. and thus the oligarchy's power increases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #111)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:44 PM

115. so you are one that believes Snowden should be hung by his balls ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #115)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:45 PM

117. No

How does that follow from thinking we have a responsibility to act rather just sit around and complain? You do realize inaction and the belief nothing can change concedes power to the oligarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #117)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:49 PM

120. You said we lose to the oligarchs if we communicate thru this medium to our reps

what is your timidity in regards to openly showing the world and our representatives what the will of the people is ... ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #120)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:53 PM

123. That is not what I said

Conceding that government will always be beholden to big money is losing. You complain about a situation you choose not to do anything about.

I said we lose by doing nothing. Sitting around on the internet is not enough. It's lazy. Look, I'm as lazy as the next person, more so, but I'm not naïve enough to believe my laziness is revolutionary. You can write letters to your reps (though phone calls are more effective) and organize meetings and protests online, but ultimately you need to get out and act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BainsBane (Reply #106)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:44 PM

174. But we keep voting in people who pretty much are the same for the most part.

That is why we have a constant shift to the right. We now have a right wing party and a centrist party. Where are the left candidates? Where are the politicians who will give us what we want and what we voted for?

They run on something then they don't follow through.

If the people are apathetic it's not the people's fault. It's the politicians' fault for not giving them a reason to be excited to come out and vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #174)


Response to cui bono (Reply #174)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:46 AM

198. I believe the reason we have the shift to the right

Is because the right makes their voices heard. They mobilize. They vote every single time. They control the primaries. If the left were as determined in their organization and political pressure, American politics would look very different.

It may indeed be the politicians fault. So what? What I don't understand is why people expect politicians to act on their own accord. It takes sustained pressure to get them to support any position. What I'm saying is I see a lot of complaining after the fact and little action. Rather than bemoaning that we don't have single payer six years after the election in which it was clear that wouldn't even be on the table, I'd like to see Manny exercise his influence to bring about positive change from here out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #198)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:02 AM

207. The right's leaders get a message out though. They know how to frame things so that they

sound reasonable and work as sound bites - I'm thinking of how they come with names for bills. They know how to message things to get people to react emotionally. There was a book about this but I can't think of the title or author...

So their base gets excited, they get their base excited.

Dems give their bills complicated names. They don't message well. The leaders are the ones who are supposed to be working for the people, they should be leading. If the Dems could get it together and not be so weak maybe they could rally the people. If they went out and spoke about things and informed the public maybe the public would get more involved and tell their reps how they want them to vote, what they want them to accomplish. If they don't have a clue what's going on they don't know what to demand.

As to single-payer, we might have ended up with the public option if the Dem leaders had demanded single-payer from the beginning. Well, they should have demanded medicare for all actually. But no, Obama doesn't know how to negotiate so he never asks for more than what he will settle for. Seriously, he didn't allow single-payer a seat at the table, had secret back room deals with insurance companies, ignored the public option and Emanuel told the left to STFU. Do you think the people could have turned that around? Seems to me Obama was working for exactly what he ended up with. That's not good. He should have been working for more than that, by more I mean something that was better for the people.

It's not the people's job to make a politician make good on their campaign promises. It's not the people's job to oversee those who they elect to do their bidding. Should we be involved? Of course, but I feel that you are giving the politicians a pass and blaming the people. I don't think that's correct.

We voted for change. We got very little of it. Some of it in the wrong direction.

Manny sschmanny. It's not about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #207)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:06 AM

261. Ding Ding Ding!

You nailed it - negotiation FAIL.

Rule #1 - you always go into a negotiation demanding a ton more than you are willing to settle for. Hell, you purposely demand all kinds of over-the-top shit that you know would never fly, stuff that will make them mad, it tends to throw them off their game.
Then, little by little, you give in on the "red herrings", screaming all the while that is just KILLING you to give them up.

Bottom line, you never START a negotiation at the point you are willing to settle at...or in this case (apparently), quite a bit below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullsnarfle (Reply #261)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 10:26 AM

276. BINFUCKINGGO!!!

I think that's the part that enrages me about this whole debate. There was NEVER an honest negotiation attempt. Never. Either that, or the democrats are the biggest negotiation dumbasses on earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullsnarfle (Reply #261)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:36 PM

338. Yes, and the R's come in with their crazy demands and Obama meets them halfway

before negotiations start!




That's why the left should be cherished rather than shunned, we can push for the ideal and then we can at least get something halfway decent. Here's a hilarious New Rules talking about how the left needs to go batshit crazy just like the right does.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #198)

Thu Mar 27, 2014, 12:03 AM

453. The Right Wing Owns the Media and the Churches

Those who get their news from the Tee Vee are being pulled further and further to the right.
Many churchgoers are now being subjected to open electioneering from the pulpit.

What do we have to counter this? A few web sites?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #174)


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:07 AM

262. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:44 PM

392. 24,000 posts in 2 years. I'm glad to hear you're not sitting around and surfing the web. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #392)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:24 PM

397. Clearly writing isn't as challenging or time-consuming

for me as you imagine it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #397)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:47 PM

399. Oh, no doubt.

 

You're an efficient and prolific writer. But since you're browbeating another poster about activism, I know you must post about it a great deal. If only one half of one percent of your posts are about the activism you engage in, gosh, there must be about 120 posts you've written about that activism. But I'm not able to find those. Would you mind helping me out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #399)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 10:38 PM

411. Clearly you've missed the context of this discussion

as usual.

My point is sitting around and complaining about the absence of single payer years after the fact serves only to depress Democratic votes and activism. Congress doesn't bestow gifts on to the American people. Change occurs only because people force politicians to accept it. People like to complain but accept no responsibility for helping to bring about change themselves. Of course they are entitled to do so, but they should not be surprised at the results. Sitting around waiting for congress to do what people think should be their job is an exercise in futility. Change comes from below, from politicians being forced to implement policies. That's how it happened in the New Deal, in the 1960s, and it's the only way it will happen in the future.

As for activism, I helped found the gun control activism group. I've posted a number of threads encouraging people to contact their representatives about getting an expanded federal background check bill passed. Yesterday I also posted something on ten steps to end rape culture. Now you may not find lessening gun violence or rape something worthy of attention, but I do. You have made clear repeatedly that you see my concerns for human equality as objectionable. That, along with the fact you seem to care about cultivating personal animus more than anything of substance, is one of the reasons I long ago quit caring even a little bit what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #411)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 10:45 PM

414. "you see my concerns for human equality as objectionable"

 

Good christ, i've seen it all now. You badgered another poster. I called you on it and blammo, I suddenly love gun violence and rape culture. This is what losing looks like, by the way (and I'll leave that wide-open for an 'I know you are but what am I' response if that'll help you feel better).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 04:31 AM

219. Well it took him a bit longer than Bush to get his

Military mojo up and at 'em. Then suddenly he became all about the war budget, and the drones, and his pleas last summer asking us to tell our Congress critters we wanted a war in Syria, Jeez, something right out of the Cheney/Bush play book.

And now the Crimea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:00 PM

138. But we did not support him after we voted him in.

We let Republican's take control of the house in 2010. Actually by then they already had control of the house. We voted for a dem in the white house, but we didn't support our dems in congress.

We can work for change, but until and unless we actually do, the change we want is not going to happen. Or it will happen very slowly, as in the ACA first. So how do we work for change?

We work with grass roots groups to protest and FUND the people who are fighting for what we want.

Where was the money and the footwork to keep dems in control so we could actually get something done? We voted in Obama and then we sat back to watch him fight it out all alone.

Right now we can work for change by supporting the pacs that are working to get/keep majorities in the house and senate. We can work for change by helping our local dem offices to get dems out to vote.

WTF is wrong with this country and it's apathetic voting history? Why can't dems get people out to vote like republicans can?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #138)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:02 PM

142. If Democrats had gotten the job done in 2009-2010, we'd have elected more of 'em

 

They fought mightily to save banker bonuses while serving the rest of us gruel... and here we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #142)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:49 PM

176. Yeah...I guess you are right

The republican'ts had nothing to do with it.

We only had a majority in the house a couple of months, IIRC. And we never had a solid majority (enough to force our hand) in either the senate or house.

I think I will stick with blaming the apathy of dems more than the POTUS for our failures these past five years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #138)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:50 PM

177. We did not "let" the Republicans take the house.

They gerrymandered themselves into it. Dems outvoted R's by (I don't know how many, I think a million more) votes but the districts were gerrymandered so the R's are the ones who got elected.

Also, Obama did not support us. Emanuel told the left to STFU.

Obama put Wall Street in the White House. Obama abandoned the public option without a fight. Obama had back room deals with health insurance companies that he tried to keep secret.

If Dems can't get people out to vote it's because they don't know how to frame things and how to message things. They also don't play offense, they play defense. If they ran on expanding SS and single-payer they would get people out in droves. And they would force the R's to run against both those. So why aren't they doing that?

If they did we could get enough people excited to overcome the gerrymandering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #177)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:21 PM

186. Yes they gerrymandered the hell out of varies states but thats our own fault really.

Why do I blame ourselves? Because we are to focused on whos gonna be president or whos gonna be our senator or congressman but we overlook the state level elections which is where the republicans focused on for the past 30+ years which is how they managed to gerrymander the districts and seize control over more and more of the elected offices.
If we want true change then we need to pay attention and start working at our local level such as school boards.
It wont be easy and it will take years to do but really its the only way we are going to fix the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #177)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:30 AM

252. Any gerrymandering did not take place until after 2010.

2012 was the first national election after the 2010 census. And, in Minnesota, we Democrats took back the state legislature majorities, despite redistricting following the 2010 election which gave Republicans control of the state legislature. Minnesota has an excellent system for redistricting so gerrymandering didn't happen.

The 2010 election was completed before any redistricting took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #252)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:43 PM

321. Okay, maybe I'm mixing the years up with the gerrymandering but

I know that low Dem/left turnout for 2010 has been debunked. Perhaps it was low indie turnout?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #321)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:47 PM

322. It was low turnout, period.

Mid-term elections are an opportunity. Whoever manages to turn people out and get them to to polls wins. In 2010, low turnout gave control of the MN legislature (both houses) to the Republicans. We took it back in 2012. In the meantime, Repubicans did everything they could to trash this state.

I don't care who didn't turn out, but the Democrats lost in 2010. It is up to Democratic election activists to GOTV and make sure that crap doesn't happen in 2014.

Blaming Democratic losses on gerrymandering is just an excuse. The reality is that we can win if we're willing to do the work required to win. If we're not willing, the Republicans win. Personally, I prefer Democrats winning to Republicans.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #322)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:57 PM

324. I don't agree that gerrymandering is just an excuse. Yes, it can be overcome considering the number

of people who might not vote available to come out and tip the balance, but it wouldn't be done if it weren't effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #324)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:03 PM

325. Well, if people don't turn out because of gerrymandering,

then that's just an excuse. What it means to me is that we need to double or treble our GOTV efforts where gerrymandering slants the results.

Note: There isn't really any gerrymandering in Minnesota. Redistricting follows strict rules that prevent it from happening.

Redistricting is a state-by-state thing. Only in really egregious situations does the Federal government have anything to do with redistricting. It's up to the people in each state to control their own state's policies.

Still, even where gerrymandering exists, there are always districts where a district can be flipped by turning out voters en masse.

I recommend that we do that and in spades.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #325)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:15 PM

329. Gerrymandering doesn't keep people from turning out, it makes the district unbalanced to

ensure a win for whoever gerrymandered it.

Gerrymandering absolutely affected the elections where more than a million more votes for Dems but more R's got elected. That's just a fact.

I agree we need to get as many people out to vote as possible, that's a given. Doesn't mean gerrymandering isn't a real reason for election results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #138)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 02:44 PM

449. Wait, what?

You say, "But we did not support him after we voted him in."

It was Barack Obama who chose Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff.

It was Rahm Emmanuel who made sure Howard Dean was ousted from his position as DNC chair.

As you may recall, it was Howard Dean who had promoted the 50-state strategy, and who had demonstrated its effectiveness in the previous election cycle.

Under the new DNC chair, the Democratic Party abandoned the 50-state strategy, and we lost the 2010 midterms.

Those moves were made by Obama and Emmanuel.

I think those moves were big factors in what happened in 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:35 PM

168. Politicians who do the work of the people will hand you something.

Sanders, Warren, Kucinich...

It's the ones who do the work of the corporations and the ones who care more about their own careers that won't. Too bad we elected way too many of them that won't. But we only had two choices for president and unfortunately we got the best that was offered and he didn't care to even pursue the public option, which he claimed to want.

It's not about them reading our minds. How about they do their damn jobs and run this country as a true democracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 05:52 PM

381. No, actually, he's whining and wanting 1 person to reverse the damage done over 33 years by him (the

poster) and by Republicans. Republicans damaged the country, and the poster clearly did absolutely nothing but whine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:50 AM

256. Yes we do need to be reminded, how do you think it will get fixed?

So if now isn't a good time, when is? During the negotiations didn't seem to work out well for those that were arrested for daring to bring it up, or did you forget about that? Did you think no one tried? If we don't remember why it failed in the first place we will likely fail again. Can you understand that concept, history repeating itself and all of that, it's a fairly common saying?

You did hear about how we would "fix" the problems as they manifested themselves didn't you? So when the perfect time comes up to start thinking about making some "fixes" to the ACA you'll be sure to let us know, won't you?

Or do you think the ACA is perfect now? I really would like an honest answer to this question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #256)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:58 AM

287. I would love to talk about fixes

and how to bring pressure to improve healthcare. That's not what this OP is about, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #287)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:24 PM

332. I read the OP as a reminder that we have to put more pressure on our elected officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #332)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:13 PM

395. Then why when asked how to exert that pressure?

or in what ways he would like to see people act, does he become so angry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #395)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:50 PM

400. Maybe it's the way he is being asked. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #400)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:20 PM

406. I see

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

So actually wanting single payer passed depends on how one is asked? I have yet to see Manny respond to a single question, without deflection, put to him by anyone. Most people who post on an issue have no problem elaborating on their views because they are anxious to share their ideas about what they believe in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 10:36 AM

277. Because that particular talking-point is still being used.

The "didn't have support" or "was never going to pass" is still the rejoinder used when discussing alternatives to the ACA.

So, it appears that some of you still need to be reminded of the actual reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #277)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:26 PM

302. expanded background checks have 93 percent support in the polls

They weren't passed, and that was despite a great deal of effort by gun control groups and the White House. Popular support doesn't mean something can pass congress. Public opinion and congressional votes are very different.

Also, where are these talking points? On DU? Or are you talking about in the broadcast media?


Here is my basic point. Sitting around complaining after the fact does nothing to further single payer. If people aren't willing to work for it, nothing will change. The reason the right , like the Tea Party, has an influence is because they get shit done. They don't mistake sitting around complaining years after the fact on a message board for activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 01:20 PM

320. Is Manny in Congress? Shouldn't you be asking what his Rep in Congress did

about it.

This 'what did you do about it' meme, is the WRONG question when one understands what the role of a citizen is as opposed to the role of the person/people they elect to represent them.

Here's what I assume Manny and most Democrats I know did about it:

1) Worked pretty damn hard to elect Democrats to speak for them in Congress.

It worked, we got a majority.

2) Called those Reps and wrote to them frequently to let them know the will of the people.

3) Watched the process closely and contacted them to let them know they had the support of the people.

What did THEY do?

Well some of them were WONDERFUL, they knew that a PO was a compromise, but perhaps the first step that was possible.

If you were watching too, you know who fought for it and who didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:15 PM

355. Single payer advocates were plentiful. They asked to be seated at the table during the

negotiations, and Obama turned them down.

Single payer advocates were plentiful -- and silenced and excluded from the debate.

And that is what I despise about third way, DLC politics. They know the can't win in a fair debate so they exclude and ostracize proponents of better solutions. They do it over and over. The Hillary got the election already, no need for anyone else to try because it is mine. It's my turn after all crowd don't just want to win. They want to silence those who disagree with them.

Had single payer advocates been given their turn to speak in favor of their ideas, we would at least have a public option. I remember that Obama claimed until just weeks before the bill was decided on that he favored a public option. He knew how popular the idea was. He just didn't have what it takes to really sell that idea and insist on it.

So much for DLC, third-way politics. Should be called "sold-out to big corporations politics" because that is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #355)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:11 PM

394. What do you we do about it?

Does electing Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush as the next president and electing a Republican controlled senate improve any of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #394)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:32 AM

431. No, but people who figure that Democrats don't respond to their interests, their problems, their

needs really don't care because they (right, mistakenly but try telling that to them) think that Democrats and Republicans are, when all is said and dumb, the same.

And to some extent, they are right when we nominate DLC types and pretend to the public, the potential voters who could vote if only they believed they had something to vote for but have decided they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:24 PM

158. Those who don't remember history...

There's an OP right now trying to convince us that the public option was unattainable, even though elected Dems never tried.

If the people understand the numbers are there as far as the citizens are concerned and get riled up enough, perhaps they will demand what they want and demand that the numbers be there in congress as well.

Knowledge is power.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #158)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:03 PM

289. Yes, well it seems the OP is a bit fuzzy on his recollection of history

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:17 PM - Edit history (2)

and as a result changed his focus from single payer, the subject of the OP, to the public option, when reminded that no one actually ran on a single payer in 2008 so that couldn't have been part of the "change you can believe in" Manny says he voted for.

I would love to see single payer brought about, and I would love to see a discussion of what we can do to bring that about. What I'm not so keen on is depressing the Democratic vote and activism in order to allow the GOP to gain even greater control of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #289)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:11 PM

327. The public option was in Obama's platform and he "touted" it during his first year as POTUS.

The thing is, regarding the history, since no one ever tried to get single-payer we'll never know. Same with the public option. No one tried to get it so no one can say with any certainty that it was not possible.

Here's info about Obama and the public option:

FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours

By Zaid Jilani on December 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

Despite all this overt advocacy for the public option, it appears that Obama was reticent to apply the political pressure necessary to get the plan in the final hours of congressional negotiation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who threatened to filibuster the creation of any new public plan or expansion of Medicare — told the Huffington Post that he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most ardent backers of public insurance, blamed the demise of the public option on a “lack of support from the administration.” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — perhaps the most visible defender of the public option in the entire health care debate — went even further, saying that Obama’s lack of support for congressional progressives amounted to him being “half-pregnant” with the health insurance and drug industries.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/


Regarding Obama saying he never campaigned on the public option:

Obama's latest statement on this is hair-splitting at best and misleading at worst. That's even more true given how often he mentioned the public option after he got elected. And it's a good example of why the left is losing its trust in Obama. Obama could have given an interview where he expressed frustration that the math of the Senate forced his administration to give up the public option but nevertheless argued that the rest of the health-care bill was well worth passing. Instead, he's arguing that he never cared about the public option anyway, which is just confirming liberal suspicions that they lost that battle because the president was never really on their side.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html


The president’s claim that he “didn’t campaign on the public option” is at best on shaky ground, factually speaking. It’s unmistakably true that during the campaign his plan for reform included a public option.

A summary of Obama’s proposal — still up on BarackObama.com — says it “Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.” And a document his campaign put together, “Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America,” says:

The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees

On the other hand, the words “campaign on” have a fairly specific meaning — they imply making some issue or message a particular focus of your campaign, as in, “In 2004, President Bush campaigned on terrorism.” And while it was indeed a pretty weaselly thing for him to say, Obama’s comment was, on that score, accurate.

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/22/obama_public/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #327)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:15 PM

396. I am well aware of that

I see now my previous post to you inadvertently said public option when I meant Obama nor anyone else campaigned on single payer. I think you'll find that substitution is the only way my post makes sense. The OP posted about single payer, not the public option. He only turned to the public option mid-thread after having it pointed out that no one ran on single payer in 2008, so that was not part of the "change we can believe in" he so consistently mocks. The OP has made it clear he opposed this Democratic administration from before the inauguration. He won't name a single Democratic President in his lifetime that he has liked.

Some here may believe the two parties are the same, that we might as well have Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush as president. I do not. I help the Democrats win elections because I believe they are better. As flawed as ACA is, it is the only national healthcare legislation in American history. Some are determined there be no national healthcare and will do everything they can to help Republicans regain power to ensure that ACA is overturned rather than improved. I don't share that goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #158)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:16 PM

330. Your memory seems rather clouded.

To get single payer, you needed Lieberman's vote.

How, exactly, do you get it?

If the people understand the numbers are there as far as the citizens are concerned and get riled up enough

Doesn't help. Lieberman knew he could not win re-election. Rile all you'd like, angry voters are not a threat.

Committee assignments? His goal was to get on TV as much as possible. Yanking committee assignments just gets him more TV time.

Lieberman killed his own proposal for a 50+ Medicare buy-in. You are now claiming you could get his vote for single-payer or public-option for all.

So explain how you would have gotten that vote. And then we get to move on down the list of blue-dogs.

Or does history only count when you want it to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #330)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:25 PM

333. No it isn't. No one tried for the public option, let alone single-payer.

If you don't try to attain something there's no way to know that you couldn't have done so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #333)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 02:35 PM

337. Yes, LIEBERMAN tried for a public option. And then he killed his own proposal.

Early in the debate, Lieberman proposed a Medicare buy-in for 50+ as a compromise instead of the entire ACA.

After Kennedy's death, Democrats started pursuing it. Lieberman said he'd never vote for it.

That is the guy you need a "yea" from, in order to pass a public option or single-payer. So how could we have gotten his vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #337)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:13 PM

354. So killing something is trying for it? mmmkay.... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #354)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:23 PM

358. Apparently you don't understand the concept of "time"

Which might explain why you're having so much trouble understanding history.

January 2009: Lieberman tries to get a public option for 50+ instead of the ACA.
November 2009: Lieberman says he'll never vote for his own proposal.

Once again, the question you are desperately running away from:
How do you get Lieberman's vote for a universal public option or single-payer? He's so against it he killed his own proposal.

Because that's what you have to do in order to pass it. If you don't have a plan to get his vote, then no one is going to believe you are really trying to get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:45 PM

175. I thought you hated the idea of people "silencing" each other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:46 AM

231. Because that is still our goal. Right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:43 AM

240. What could, or should Manny have done about it at the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #240)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:21 PM

300. For anything to come about

People need to work for it, to make their demands heard. During the primaries, neither Obama nor Clinton proposed single payer. Democrats never put it on the table during the negotiations when Obama first took office. For it to have been a possibility, we would have had to work hard to demand it, just as we will have to do for it to be an option in the future. Sitting around and complaining that Obama didn't deliver something he never promised or proposed, something that people wanted but did little to nothing to bring about, is pointless. It only serves to depress activism and Democratic votes. If anyone wants to propose an idea of how we can actually take steps toward bringing about single payer, I'd love to hear it. I, however, am suspicious of efforts to spread disillusionment with the Democratic Party rather than proposing steps for actual change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #300)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:59 PM

450. I agree that single payer was never on the table

as a matter of fact, the majority of citizens in the US were not in favor of it, since dem and rep alike had insurance at work that they were pleased with and did not want to lose it. That's why Obama said in the very beginning he was in favor of a public option but it would not be able to get it right away..it would take time. But he did pass the ACA and that is a huge step in the right direction (especially considering the expansion of medicaid), because now everyone is talking about single payer and the majority of people want it. It is the push we needed to get people to wake up to the real cost of health care in this country. And if Obama had not gotten ACA passed, I'm not sure we'd be were we are today, with the majority now favoring single payer.

I found the OP irritating and frustrating, however, I think the way you are attacking Manny in this thread is very unpleasant and unnecessary. Even if you disagree with him, you don't have to be so insulting. You do keep putting words in his mouth and you really cannot speak honestly for anyone but yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:19 PM

2. Look, Manny, you're talking to the wrong group. And, as you know, what Americans want means nothing

 

It could be 198% and still not happen.

Not sure, then, what you suggest we do about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:26 PM

88. we use the tools we have to organize and disorganize the oligarchs ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:21 PM

3. We are an O L I G A R C H Y ...

That is the answer to your question and the reason why not ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 04:27 AM

218. Totally agree. Although in matters of military might and natural resources, we

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:28 PM

8. I think you recall incorrectly.

 

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/22/796045/-How-High-is-Public-Support-for-Medicare-for-All

And Congress was not for it, although they should have been for a plan that would have resulted in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:31 PM

9. Obama was green and apparently had just learned why mandates were needed.

 

So don't blame him too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:06 PM

47. Obama Never Had a "Mandate"

He may have won by a landslide, twice, but he never got anything resembling a mandate either time.

Funny how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:12 PM

61. nothing funny about an oligarchy unless you are on the inside .... looking out ...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:35 PM

100. Actually I was talking about mandated health insurance

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:34 PM

10. You must confuse ours with gov't of, by and for the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:34 PM

11. But those "distractions" are what make all the difference.

First of all, most people don't know that that Medicare for all IS single-payer. Look at the polls for Medicare for all and for single-payer. Medicare is well-known and popular. Single-payer is seen as "gasp Socialism!"

We couldn't even get a Public Option through the Senate. Largely because it was promoted as a back-door to "gasp Socialist" single-payer.

Ridiculous? Yes. Meaningless? Hardly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:35 PM

12. and 2/3rds of Americans are not in the House.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:56 PM

29. my thoughts exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:59 PM

34. Bingo!

He just stirs the pot here. Manny just loves to do that.

No plan, just rustle up some outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:53 AM

257. Yeah, but that kind of blunt political analysis doesn't get a bunch of recs and attention. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to redqueen (Reply #257)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:47 AM

284. and this is YOUR "blunt political analysis"

 

you mad? I (and others) seem to think it is succinct....

Fanclub angry....Fanclub smash!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:12 PM

423. I believe this would be one good example of statistics and representative forms of government

2/3's of Americans polled are mis-represented. They couldn't all be concentrated in small states, could they?

Perhaps part of the frustration of a do-nothing congress is the way districts are drawn so that it doesn't matter what the majority of Americans say.

That's when people disengaged in activism. That's what should promote debate here. Personally, I can't just hold my arms up, walk away and claim, "we'll they're not represented by the House…. sooo… there ya go!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #423)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:15 PM

424. And what makes you think we are doing what YOU described? You don't know that to be the case do you?

 

this is your interpretation....but hardly the definitive ONLY interpretation...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #424)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:27 PM

425. Who exactly is "we" in your sentence?

It does not make sense to answer the question this way.

Please separate yourself from any need to reply with a nasty comment and just say something, or just ignore me, if you don't really want to answer. I'd rather have a conversation about what the majority of Americans feel and how their congressional representatives respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #425)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 11:44 PM

427. whoever it is you were describing...

 

and please do not tell me what to do...

You said...

That's when people disengaged in activism. That's what should promote debate here. Personally, I can't just hold my arms up, walk away and claim, "we'll they're not represented by the House…. sooo… there ya go!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #427)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:07 AM

428. You don't even know who I was describing...



I'll tell you what you can do. You can quit pretending you are follow a thread of conversation here.

I'd explain further, but I'm afraid the boat has sailed…

This is what my "ignore" list is for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #428)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:16 AM

429. I don't even think you know what you were describing....

 



as I said "interpretation"...its just your interpretation of the situation...that doesn't mean it is the only one..or how someone is actually reacting...No one said anything of the sort like "throwing up arms" What they are saying are FACTS...at the moment....not that it cannot be changed...but what the current climate IS....no one said anything about "giving up" at all did they? Therefore it is YOUR interpretation....and not necessarily the only one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:36 PM

13. They could not give us background checks after Sandy Hook

 

and 90% wanted them. So if they cannot do that for 90% polls, 75% even less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:39 PM

18. Or they didn't want to do it.

 

Or didn't want to work hard, or take a risk.

Any way we slice it, they aren't getting the job done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:47 PM

24. if buts and ors were gold you would be rich...

 

WE don't have a majority in the House...therefore WE don't get to decide what they vote on...and guess what.....

If WE don't get out the vote.....we will see a repeat of 2010....what are YOU doing to prevent that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:53 PM

27. We HAD a majority in the House.

 

And two-thirds of Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:58 PM

30. Only until Ted Kennedy passed away...

 

or are you conveniently forgetting that bit of info? He was also ill for a while before he died....Also Gabby Giffords was shot...


you are grasping at straws as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:00 PM

36. Did you know that Kennedy was a Senator, not a Congressman?

 

Closely-held secret, but Snowden let the cat out of the bag last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:02 PM

37. Okay true...but still we only had that filibuster proof majority for about 2 months....

 

and it has to pass the House AND the Senate...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:04 PM

43. 2 months. How long did it take to pass a gargantuan banker bailout?

 

About two days?

And what's stopping the Senate from returning the filibuster to what worked for many, many decades?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:09 PM

51. Harry Ried HAS changed the filibuster rules....or did you miss that fact?

 

You do realize that fully 1/3 of the Stimulus was tax cuts for the Middle Class right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:10 PM

55. Not back to the way it was before. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #55)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:12 PM

58. And your point is....

 

its called strategy...perhaps you have heard of it? Someday the Dems may very well be in the minority in the Senate...then you will have your "representative govt" run straight up your...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #58)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:19 PM

72. instead of it being lubed like it is now , huh ....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:21 PM

79. its not....you just like dreaming about that....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:10 PM

57. should be no tax for 50,000 and under, everyone else pays more ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #57)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:13 PM

63. Where is the cutoff point now?

 

I found this...
When the economy's at full employment, as it was in 2007, it's usually only about 40 percent of U.S. households that aren't paying income taxes....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:09 PM

53. and all those bleary lying eyes lining up to tell us we had to do it or else ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:14 PM

65. We NEVER Had a Filibuster-Proof Majority for a Public Option

Aren't you forgetting who the 60th vote was?

Joe Lieberman, D? Insurance companies

NO WAY was he going to let that pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #65)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:38 PM

105. and we even know who and why they vote crooked ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:23 PM

83. Manny, you really need to stop ignoring the math.

 

Either you have the votes to pass something or you don't. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #83)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:31 PM

98. "they implored LBJ not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since "

 

they implored [LBJ] not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since it had no chance of passing. "The presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn't to expend it on this," said "one of the wise, practical people around the table". Johnson, who sat in silence at the table as his aides debated, interjected: "Well, what the hell's the presidency for."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/what-is-barack-obama-presidency-for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #98)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:02 PM

143. Which means absolutely nothing because the math was there for LBJ...

 

And math trumps everything, even platitudinous, false historical equivalency commentary from the Guardian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #143)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:05 PM

145. No it wasn't. That's *exactly* the point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #145)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:07 PM

147. Actually it was or it wouldn't have passed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #147)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:10 PM

150. He *made* the math happen.

 

He worked hard, very hard.

Her gave speeches. Twisted arms.

He didn't sit on the couch and mutter about "those on the Left". He got the thing done, even though the "smart set" told him it was impossible, that he shouldn't waste his time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #150)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:39 PM

173. Well, at least you don't call him a piece of shit used car salesman who sits on the couch muttering

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #150)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:07 PM

183. So, LBJ Worked Hard, Very Hard, Huh? Guess You Think Obama Isn't "Working Hard"? Then? So, He's...

Lazy?

Sitting on the couch, muttering, not getting anything done, listening to the "smart set"...Interesting framing their, pal.

You couldn't be more transparent if you were made of glass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #183)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:05 AM

192. I remember LBJ and he did know how to get things done.

I think your attack on Manny is unwarranted in this particular case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #183)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:46 AM

241. I loved watching LBJ in action. The man was a bulldog , an in your face

intimidating bulldog. It didn't bother him a bit to intimidate a senator or two to get what he wanted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:18 AM

194. Wow, that post is full of dog whistle, even if you didn't mean for it to be.

 

Actually the same thing happened to Obama with passing ANY health care reform. He gave speeches. He kept at it. He did work very hard to see it through. As close as the votes were and the "seat of the pants" way the bill got passed was a pretty good indicator of the fact that it goes as far as what was likely politically and legally possible at the time. Anyone with a feel for the political environment of the time, especially considering the opposition set out from day 1 to block anything they could and people like Joe Liebermann who had immense power at being the 60th vote and had just spent the past election season campaigning for McCain and coaching Sarah Palin on foreign policy, should see the reality of the situation for what it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #194)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:48 AM

243. OP has proven time and time again

He wants to judge our Democratic president as harshly and unfairly as possible. And hide behind using other Ds to do it. In the process he makes LBJ sound like a sociopathic thug wannabe dictator.

Your post is spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:48 AM

201. LBJ sat around on the toilet.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 07:13 AM

235. Come off it it. LBJ was the MASTER OF THE SENATE.

He was a protege of Rayburn in the House and Russell in the Senate. He was a whip, a minority leader and a majority leader. He had enormous power and experience on the Hill. He was the product of a system that does not exist anymore.

By the time he got to the Oval Office he was an old man with YEARS of "arm twisting" under his belt. He knew how to count votes--it's a skill that takes years to develop. He knew where every body was buried and he knew how to make deals.

To suggest that a green, junior senator elevated to the White House could have that same skill is, frankly, naive. Obama had slightly--and just slightly--more experience in dealing with Congress than a governor elected to the Presidency might have.

See Robert Caro if you have any questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MADem (Reply #235)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:40 AM

271. Thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #235)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 05:08 PM

377. Indeed, Johnson had incredible Senate experience. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:32 PM

362. So LBJ worked hard and got shit done while Obama sits on the couch muttering

Post Edit

Let's just say, there will be fiestas. There will be parties. It will be grand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:33 PM

364. You are exactly right. That was my first thought as well which the OP conviently overlooks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #364)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:40 PM

367. And you are overlooking that in both cases the majorities were with them

 

this is a problem in representative democracy. Who are they working for, because it is NOT the people that elect them to serve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #367)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 03:50 PM

368. So in agreeing with you, I am somehow "overlooking" something?

Itching for a fight, are you? I may not be the best person for that.

When a president, a VP and Congress can't even enact a law that is supported by 90% of the population, it's obvious that something is wrong. And unlike Manny's OP, that 90% number was not cherry picked from one poll. Just about EVERY poll had the amount of support for background checks and extended gun control at around 90% and that was months after Sandy Hook. And still nothing happened.

My point and why I (mistakenly, I now realize) agreed with you was that you seemed to also recognize that if 90% supported background checks and nothing happened months after a monstrosity like Sandy Hook, then 75% supporting single payer is practically nothing and that yes, Congress has ignored the will of the people many, many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Number23 (Reply #368)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 04:55 PM

374. "Cherry picked"?

 

Did you click the link I supplied?

It was based on something like 10 polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:38 PM

17. We could have, we didn't and now we need to work our asses off to

push ACA to the next step and the step after that. We are not a people who make things easy on ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 09:18 PM

69. yeah, we need to knock on doors and get the vote out and change this country ....

vote for this democrat no matter what .... any democrat is better than a repuke ...
.

well look at how well that worked in Florida ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #69)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:56 AM

432. Which time?

This year or the year the SC committed treason. Long time ago, but I never, ever forget that one. Never will.

Yep, gearing up to go out and remind folks to vote. No need to offer rides, just reminders. We do mail voting. I don't know exactly how I feel about that, so I won't go into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:39 PM

19. then they shouldn't vote for people like Bachmann, Issa , Gohmert etc to Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:54 PM

28. NEWSFLASH- this is a Representative Democracy. But when your goal is to be divisive on a

 

Democratic message board who gives a crap about facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink