a trumpanzee gets backed around a cul de sac.

[mopinko]

so, my kid sis lives in a red suburb. we fb a fair bit about politics, to which she has recently become a lot more woke.
she has an idiot neighbor who is all gunz and drumph and o'bummer.

since the inauguration, he has been a lot quieter. recently, he realized that his sorta grown kids might lose their health insurance. after a few heated rounds about what to replace the aca with, he concluded that the only thing that could possible work better than the aca (which, of course, is a commie plot) is,





wait for it



















single payer.

it think a lot of people are gonna come to the same conclusion from a hella lot of different directions.

interesting times.

[busterbrown]

1. Great Example...

Let them figure it out is the only way.. Of course some accent spices works well if placed delicately..

You know what I mean.. I’m assuming.

[mopinko]

3. i do.

on this, he was treated sorta gently as the aca means the world to my sister and her family.

otoh, he apparently went off on a rant about why black people are such
a "mess". small brag here that 2 of my kids jumped on the dude w both feet and just smoked his ass.
my kids are all warriors.

[Beartracks]

2. Is "trumanzee" what rabid Dewey supporters called Truman voters?

The typo in your title made me chuckle.

===================

[mopinko]

4. subconscious resistance. lol.

[LakeArenal]

5. A day late and probably $20,000 short.

[lambchopp59]

6. Oh god... stop... I can't...

[progree]

7. None of those types thought anything was wrong with Bush II though, even after the Great Crash

that was supposedly the fault of the CRA (the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act that suddenly in the early 2000's began "forcing" banks to lend to "poor people&quot . Or that the Dems took over the Senate in January 2007 (though nobody can name any legislation the Dems passed in 2007 or 2008 that crashed the economy. And they never heard of Bush's "Ownership Society&quot .

And and ... They always have a reason to cling to their idiocy.

So I'm sure they will find some rationale for why the AHCA is not Trump / Repubs fault. Like they have to write something that's not too far different from "Obummercare" in order to get passed via budget reconciliation (thus avoiding a filibuster) in the Senate or some-such.

Interestingly, according to the below article, there is pretty much no way that the AHCA's 30%-of-premium penalty meets the Senate's Byrd Rule and so the AHCA won't qualify for reconciliation.

Trying to force a giraffe through a keyhole': An obscure Senate rule could kill the GOP's Obamacare replacement (The Byrd Rule), Business Insider, 3/10/17
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trying-force-giraffe-keyhole-obscure-154016346.html

[truebluegreen]

8. IIRC party affiliation right now

Is approx 26% Dem, similar % GOP...and independents north of 40%.

The fiasco of the last election, and the moronic cretinous obvious swamp-dwelling pResident may just force a reevaluation and realignment in the political parties.

It might be the best thing that could have happened for progressives and our causes in years IF we are ready to get out in front of the parade.

[progree]

9. Well, we had a moronic cretinous obvious swamp-dwelling pResident from 2001-2009

Last edited Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:47 AM - Edit history (1)

and it didn't much change how people voted. Sure, Obama won two terms after that, but except for 2008 (which admittedly was a Democratic wave election), every election has been either a disaster for Democrats in Congress and especially state legislatures, or slight partial rebounds in Congress in presidential election years -- slightly partially rebounding from disastrous collapses in the midterms. Republicans now have 25 trifecta states compared to Democrats' 6.

The stupidity of most voters is just mind-bongling. Bush presided over the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression, and Obama presided over the recovery from that, and yet everybody complained about the "Obummer economy" and that we need change -- either back to the Republicans (who want to get rid of the financial regulations again and set us up for the next crash), or to Jill Stein or some other throw-away-my-vote-because-I'm-a-wonderfully-pure-progressive candidate.

[truebluegreen]

11. As bad as Dimson Bush was,

he was capable of a masquerade as a "compassionate conservative". Trump is orders of magnitude worse, both in his policies and in disguising them.

It is convenient to say that Bush presided over the crash and Obama led the recovery, but that omits some uncomfortable facts: de-regulation signed by Clinton led to that crash, Obama didn't prosecute anyone over it and gains during the recovery went almost exclusively to the top.

In January 2009 Democratic affiliation was almost 40%; now it is more like 25%. Why do you think that is?

You can blame our situation on stupid voters or purity freaks if you like; that has certainly been working well.

[progree]

12. And you can blame it all on Clinton and Obama, that has certainly been working very well too

Last edited Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:42 AM - Edit history (5)

and plenty of people on DU have been doing it, especially right before every election. And then they wonder why we lose.

Blaming Clinton for the Housing crash. Whew! As if 7 years of Bush's Ownership Society and his other policies had nothing to do with it. And inequality -- as if Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly favoring the wealth had nothing to do with it (in contrast, Obama got rid of the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket -- actually increasing them to above pre-Bush levels when the Net Investment Income Tax and the 0.9% Medicare surcharge on the top bracket are added in). At least you didn't blame Carter and the CRA for the housing crash.

As for Bush being the "compassionate conservative" -- yeah that worked in 2000, but in 2004 only an idiot would think of him that way.

It's also clear that Obama and the Dems attempted at least some reregulation (Dodd Frank -- which the Republicans worked to make that as watered-down as possible), while the Republicans and Trump campaigned for re-deregulation, returning us all the way back to what led to the crash. And they won. So when I blame the stupid voter I have my reasons. Trump being a "populist" that was going to bring back our jobs (sigh), and a 4% economic growth rate again. And fix healthcare by simply by repealing Obamacare with no hint of what he's going to do in its place besides let insurance companies sell across state lines and let people save in Health Savings Accounts .

Tell us again why voting for Trump or Jill Stein is not stupid?

[truebluegreen]

13. Running as "not as bad as the Republicans" is not a solution.

Are you saying that Clinton did not deregulate? That Obama tried to prosecute? Seems to me that when we are responsible for costly mistakes, we need to own up to that. Why should anyone believe us if we don't?

And here we all are again, blaming lefties for voting for Jill Stein. I've got news for you: it wasn't her fault, just as it wasn't Nader's fault in 2000 (people point at his 74,000 votes in Florida...but NOT at the 200,000 Democrats who crossed over and voted for Bush? How convenient). Hillary ran a campaign aimed at moderate Republicans, going on and on about how terrible Trump was, but not about her liberal policies. Gore campaigned largely on continuing Clinton policies, which frankly were not liberal: welfare "reform", NAFTA, Wall St. deregulation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, etc. They both lost. And Kerry was cut from the same cloth.

What was the definition of insanity again?

[progree]

16. If Nader had not run, Gore would have been president. There is no denying that.

Officially, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Even accepting Nader’s dubious claims that,

"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

that still means a net of 13%, or 12,665, more votes would have gone to Gore than to Bush.

This Voter News Service exit poll has 21% would have voted for Bush, and 47% would have voted for Gore, for a 26% gap, or 25,347 more votes for Gore than Bush

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

Yes, yes, I know there were a number of reasons Bush beat Gore -- all of them were essential to Bush's victory (if even one of these elements had been missing, Bush would have lost),

e.g. Kathleen Harris purging the voting lists of supposed felons, Gore running a poor campaign, media dubbing Gore a serial liar (Love Story and all that), the butterfly ballots giving Gore's votes to Buchanan, the U.S. Supreme Court stopping the recount -- yada. But it doesn't wipe out the fact that even with all that, Gore would have won if not for Nader drawing thousands more votes away from Gore than from Bush.

It took ALL THESE FACTORS together to result in Gore's 537 vote defeat. If ANY ONE OF THEM had been missing, any of them, Gore would have been elected president. ANY ONE OF THEM includes Nader.

As for the Supreme Court -- if the vote count on election night and the days and weeks after the election had put Gore ahead by 12,000 or 25,000 votes instead of down by 500 or 600, it would unlikely have gone to the Supreme Court; and even less likely that they would have declared the 12,000 vote count loser to be the winner of Florida's electoral votes.

[truebluegreen]

19. Um, no.

You want to know who really drew thousands of votes from Gore? The one factor you omitted in your comprehensive overview? It's kinda important:

In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! Again, Gore couldn’t hold his own base and because of this, he lost. The Democrats don’t say one word about the fact that 13 percent of their own party members voted forBush.

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

Gore couldn't hang onto his own party, just as he couldn't hang onto his home state. Blaming Nader is just a convenient way of avoiding that fact.

[progree]

21. Still if either one of my exit polls is true, if Nader had not run, Gore would have been president.

Last edited Tue Mar 14, 2017, 03:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I cited 2 exit polls that said Nader drew a net of 13% more from Gore than Bush in one poll, and 26% more in the other. That article of yours cites one (without a link) that says he "drew the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent". And "1 percent" of 6 million votes is 60,000, so something as small as 0.1% difference is 6,000 votes.

So we have two exit polls that say Nader's impact was way more than 537 votes, while one is simply inconclusive on the matter.

And that doesn't count Nader's constant tearing down of Gore, much more than of Bush.

Yes, I said Gore ran a poor campaign and all that. I didn't say Nader's presence was the biggest factor. Only that it was a large enough factor. Like ANY factor that exceeded 537 votes in its impact.

As far as Gore being so incredibly awful that he lost his base and all that, well, he still got more votes than Bush. Gore won the national popular vote by 500,000 or so, and got more votes in Florida too, according to the news consortium that counted the ballots about 6 different ways.

[progree]

17. "Running as 'not as bad as the Republicans' is not a solution" -- I didn't say it was

Nice strawman argument though. Actually I supported Bernie in the primaries. As for the general election, I voted for Clinton for reasons that should be obvious to any progressive.

As for Stein -- I don't think she made the difference in this election either. Unlike Nader, who beyond question did in the 2000 election (see #16 above).

[font color = blue]>>Are you saying that Clinton did not deregulate? <<[/font].

Where on earth did you get that from? Another strawman?

No, I said it was stupid to blame only Clinton and not Bush for the housing crash -- as if 7 years of Bush's Ownership Society and his other policies had nothing to do with it. It was Bush at the helm for 7 years after the 2000-2001 crash when he could have learned the lessons of that crash and pushed for some re-regulation. He did not; he went in the opposite direction. So I blame him much more than Clinton for the 2008-9 crash.

It's also clear that Obama and the Dems attempted at least some reregulation (Dodd Frank -- which the Republicans worked to make that as watered-down as possible), while the Republicans and Trump campaigned for re-deregulation, returning us all the way back to what led to the crash.

[truebluegreen]

20. If it was a straw man "argument"

it wouldn't be framed as a question.

[progree]

22. It was a straw man argument framed as a question implying I said or thought something stupid.

[font color = blue]>>Are you saying that Clinton did not deregulate? <<[/font]

If you can find anything anywhere in what I wrote before indicating in any way, in any shape, or in any form that I didn't think Clinton did any deregulating, please show it to me.

[hay rick]

10. Had a similar experience before the election.

The local Unitarian church asked the local Democratic and Republican parties to participate in a debate on issues. When we got around to health care, their speaker spoke about repealing Obamacare then concluded that..."we probably need some kind of single-payer plan." I almost fell out of my chair.

[TexasBushwhacker]

14. I encourage him to write his Senators and Representative n/t

[mopinko]

15. my sister is a precinct captain, and in indivisible.

i am sure she encouraged him to do so.

she probably laughed her head off when she did. they have been hounding ro-scum for a meeting for a while now. i am sure she offered him a seat on the bus.

[lindysalsagal]

18. It's a painful learning curve. But once you lose voter trust, you don't get it back with more lies.

Idiot gop.