Fixing the ACA like Hillary proposed now seems pretty damn progressive

[boston bean]

When stacked up against Trumpcare.

If only..........

[tenorly]

1. To say nothing of Hillarycare itself.

Had that been passed in 1994, millions of bankruptcies - and so many lives - could have been saved.

[boston bean]

2. Absolutely!!!!

[StevieM]

128. +1, K&R!! We would be so much better off if that health care plan had passed. (eom)

[tenorly]

129. I still remember those Harry and Louise ads - and the Clintons' very witty attempt to defuse them.

I was in high school at the time, and was, until the last minute, sure it would pass. Ah, to be young and naive again.

[StevieM]

131. I remember that skit. It was really cool. Ultimately, it didn't matter though.

We didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. And we weren't willing to go through budget reconciliation. So the GOP could block anything.

[BainsBane]

3. If that were happening

Last edited Thu May 4, 2017, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

If she were president and fixing Obamacare, we would hear more outrage from certain quarters about how it wasn't good enough than we do now about Trump's effort to deprive tens of millions of healthcare.

[Blue_true]

5. That fact is a weird dynamic, isn't. I just see stone silence from some. nt

[Ken Burch]

6. We have all expressed massive outrage about what Trump did.

There were as many Sanders people at those town meetings as there were Clinton people.

Please stop trying to keep us divided by who we backed in the primaries.

Doing so serves no purpose.

[KTM]

11. +1

[BainsBane]

20. Believe it or not

I don't give a rats ass who anyone supported in a primary settled over a year ago. Your response, however, indicates that you think of nothing else.

Evidence for the point I made is clear in that thread. That someone may have supported another candidate in a primary settled over a fucking year ago isn't an excuse for anything they do or argue now. They and only they are responsible for their own actions, including the comments in this very thread that prove my point.

[Ken Burch]

23. I agreed with the point of the OP

Can't think of anyone who wouldn't when it was phrased that way.

Nobody who supports single-payer WANTS the ACA repealed, for God(s) sakes.

And none would ever have said there was no difference between fixing the ACA and what Trump is doing here, if that is what you're implying.

[BainsBane]

28. Considering you don't even know who wrote the OP

and haven't even bothered to read the few responses to this thread, I don't find your claims of omniscience credible.

I don't pretend to know what the entirely of the human race truly wants. I only know what a limited number of people write.

[Ken Burch]

29. THE OP. Sorry.

Obviously it would have been better. It's not as though fixing the ACA was as far as we could ever have gone.

[boston bean]

49. People like to forget there was a general election where the choice was fix ACA or

Get trumped care.

Nothing to do with the primary.

[Ken Burch]

62. And the overwhelming majority of single-payer supporters

voted and campaigned in the fall for the candidate who favored fixing the ACA.

[NastyRiffraff]

121. So you keep saying

Any data to back up the campaigning? I certainly didn't see it, and I was involved in the local campaign. I know that's antecdotal, as is your statement.

[brer cat]

41. My grandmother had a saying:

"The hit dog yips loudest." You chose to bring up Sanders people and the primaries, not the OP or Bainsbane.

[Ken Burch]

44. I brought that up because the OP was an implicit slam on single-payer supporters.

It essentially blames THEM for Trump.

It's not the fault of anyone on this side of the spectrum that that bastard is in power.

[boston bean]

50. It was about the choice in the GE.

[Ken Burch]

61. And everybody here on this board agrees with you on that.

If this is about calling people out for voting Stein...those people aren't here, and won't read your OP, so why bother/

It sounded like you were blaming everyone who ever supported single-payer.

[NurseJackie]

43. LOL

[Ken Burch]

47. You know perfectly well nobody other than right-wingers wanted Trump to win.

Or would disagree that fixing the ACA would've been better than this.

We didn't have to agree to permanently give up on single-payer to get our nominee elected.

Unity comes through treating people with respect, not through shouting "it's all YOUR fault".

[NurseJackie]

51. No, actually I don't know that at all.

You know perfectly well nobody other than right-wingers wanted Trump to win.

No, I don't know that at all. I'm aware of at least one (so-called) progressive who thinks that Trump winning is a good thing. But then, she can afford such vanities. (LOL)

Unity comes through treating people with respect, not through shouting "it's all YOUR fault".

I've looked and I cannot find anyone saying anything like that in this thread. Can you please link to the thread in question?

[Ken Burch]

56. I don't agree with Sarandon on that and don't know why you're bringing her up.

Nobody on this board defends her, to my knowledge, and she's made herself politically irrelevant now.

[NurseJackie]

65. I never said you did agree with her.

56. I don't agree with Sarandon on that

I never said you did agree with her. Did I ever say that? Did I?!

and don't know why you're bringing her up.

I don't know why it seems to bother you.

Nobody on this board defends her, to my knowledge,

That's quite a disclaimer. LOL

and she's made herself politically irrelevant now.

Why take chances? Let's keep her down. Surely you can agree that she's a dangerous character who needs to be kept in her place. I want to make certain that she REMAINS irrelevant. Do you have any objection to that?

[Ken Burch]

69. How much can DU really do to ensure that, though?

Those that agree with Sarandon don't post on this board now...I doubt they read it.

And how much of an effect do you think she really had in the fall?

I find it a little difficult to believe that she personally threw the Upper Midwest to Trump, for example.

[NurseJackie]

71. To ensure what?

69. How much can DU really do to ensure that, though?

To ensure what? That she remains "irrelevant"? You don't mind if I try, do you?

Those that agree with Sarandon don't post on this board now...I doubt they read it.

I'm a bit more realistic about such things, I'm certain that they do. So, we're at an impasse. Now what?

And how much of an effect do you think she really had in the fall?

LOL I guess all her nonstop appearances and interviews were my imagination. LOL

I find it a little difficult to believe that she personally threw the Upper Midwest to Trump, for example.

There's nothing I can do about what you believe or don't believe.

And ... I see you ignored my direct question. Why? So I'll repeat it again: I never said you did agree with her. Did I ever say that? Did I?!

[Ken Burch]

74. You didn't say it directly.

There was good reason to think it was the implication.

If you want to be obsessed with Sarandon, fine-but at least, AT LEAST, could you please make it clear that you're talking only about her?

[NurseJackie]

81. You know perfectly well that I didn't say it at all.

74. You didn't say it directly.

You know perfectly well that I didn't say it at all. Neither directly nor indirectly.

There was good reason to think it was the implication.

No there wasn't. There was a false accusation based on feelings. That's wrong, and that's unfair.

If you want to be obsessed with Sarandon, fine-but at least, AT LEAST, could you please make it clear that you're talking only about her?

HA! There's ONLY ONE PERSON NAMED SUSAN SARANDON, Ken... I think it's pretty clear who I mean when I say "Susan Sarandon", don't you agree?

I mean... seriously now... COME ON! I'm using her FULL NAME... that's pretty specific, right? WHO ELSE could I be referring to??

And in the context of this forum, when I simply say "Sarandon"... it should be clear to most rational and reasonable and intelligent people that I'm referring specifically to "Susan Sarandon" and not her ex-husband "Chris Sarandon". I really have nothing against him.

As I've told you before, Ken... I can't be held responsible for someone's imaginings or grossly mistaken inferences. But I will definitely defend myself when someone falsely accuses me of saying things that I never said.

After all, we're on the same side, aren't we? I'm not your enemy. You have no reason to assume the worst about me. It's unfair to me when you do, and I don't deserve to be treated that way, and I shouldn't have to defend myself against accusations like that.

PS: #FuckYouSusanSarandon

[DanTex]

119. Ken, I respectfully disagree here.

And I do mean respectfully, I enjoy our discussions even though we are at odds at times.

But, you have to know that there were a significant number of self-described progressives or leftists that wanted Trump to win. One reason you know this is because many previous DUers who are now at JPR fit in that category. And there are many others on online media. And no, not just Susan Sarandon.

For example, a significant number of people on TYT were supporting Jill Stein (which is essentially equivalent to supporting Trump), and to my knowledge none of them have stated that they regret their support for her, after now seeing the consequences. Not Cenk, to his credit, but others and also other lefty voices in new media. And TYT is a pretty big joint.

We both know this is true, and it doesn't help the progressive cause, IMO, to pretend that it isn't. A lot of very vocal activists in favor of single payer were also actively in favor of either Trump or Stein. This is a problem in the "new progressive" movement, and they need to get it straightened out.

[Ken Burch]

127. I overstated. Nobody who's kept posting on this site wanted Trump to win.

And while I disagree with the decision to vote Stein by some people who are no longer people, even those people didn't WANT Trump to win. My guess is that they assumed HRC's lead was so large that it didn't matter how they voted.

[DanTex]

132. Yes, but that misses the point.

Sure they aren't here anymore. But it's not about who is on DU and who isn't. It's about voices in the self-described progressive movement.

And I know that you know about them. Like me, you are a progressive. You read and watch progressive media. Right? CommonDreams, Counterpunch, Jacobin, TYT, etc. So you know what I'm saying.

Sure, some Stein voters may have assumed HRC was going to win. But I'm not talking about just those voters, I'm talking about voices in progressive media, who argued that Hillary was so "neoliberal" or "corporatist" or whatever other meaningless buzzwords, that people should toss their votes in the toilet rather than vote for her. Examples? OK. Chris Hedges. Jimmy Dore. And so on. And, yes, many of them (including Jill Stein) argued that Trump was actually better than Hillary. Some, like Slavoj Zizek, explicitly advocated for Trump. And even among the ones that didn't do so explicitly, by my count there are a total of zero progressive media voices who supported Stein or write-in and who have since then apologized for how insanely stupid that was.

Honestly, I'm almost insulted that you are pretending not to know about this. Because it's there, and we both know it. It's a problem, and the current leftist movement needs to deal with it. Until it does, unfortunately, it will simply continue Ralph Nader's tradition of helping Republicans get elected and shape right-wing policy, while the left writes furious blog posts about how there's no difference between the parties.

[Ken Burch]

133. Check your pm's. Will respond to your post later.

I want to give a careful reply to the points you make.

[NewDealProgressive]

80. I would so much rather be complaining that her plans weren't liberal enough.

Then having to deal with this fucking piece of shit. I suppose that's the luxury of winning. After all, the right is apoplectic over how they've been sold out and they aren't conservative enough in Congress.

[treestar]

106. No kidding.

Nailed it.

[Honeycombe8]

107. +1. nt

[joshcryer]

116. I would happily live in that universe.

[Ken Burch]

4. No one here would disagree with you on that.

Clearly anything would be better than this.

BTW, it was never a question of fixing the ACA OR going to single-payer(and the introduction of a single-payer bill was never going to cause the ACA to be repealed-ACA would always have stayed in place. It was entirely possible to fix the ACA in the short-term(Bernie would have worked with HRC on that)and it was possible to use the introduction of a single-payer bill as a lever to force Congress to improve the ACA.

[TDale313]

55. Good points.

[bettyellen]

59. "Anything" would be better? Damn us with the faintest praise you've got....

It's that thing when you just can't praise Dems so you say shit like that. Would be better to say nothing.

[Ken Burch]

64. I agreed with the OP.

In doing that, I was praising the nominee of my party, the Democratic Party.

The nominee I campaigned for all fall.

Fixing the ACA would be much better than what happened today.

The term "anything" simply meant that there aren't many things that wouldn't be-it was not a comment on the merits of HRC's proposal.

[bettyellen]

68. God forbid you speak to the merits of the Dem proposals...

It's just too much for you.

[Ken Burch]

73. I agreed that it's much better than what just happened in the House.

I wasn't slamming the Dem proposals...I just meant that, regardless of the specific merits of those proposals, almost anything would be better than TrumpDon'tCare. Not passing any legislation relating to healthcare, by comparison would have been better.

I campaigned for the ticket all fall and did so without hesitation. I wouldn't have done that if I thought there was no difference between HRC and Trump, and I wouldn't have done that if I didn't think HRC's proposals were much better than Trump.

[bettyellen]

88. It's a shame you can't speak to how much better out Dem proposals were- I talk about it w people all

The time. They're often surprised because the media didn't cover it much.

[Ken Burch]

91. I just did.

What do you need to hear me say to prove that?

Are you going to keep saying I don't speak to how much better her proposals were than Trump's until I cite specific provisions?

Her proposals were massively better than Trumps and I wanted her to win.

And they included:

Among other things, her proposals(if passed) would have

Guaranteed women preventative care.

Bring down out of pocket costs and copays.

Expand health care to rural areas.

Incentivized states to expand Medicare.


Since you know that I didn't vote third-party in the fall and that I NEVER ever made the argument that there was no difference between Hillary and Trump, why are you being a stickler about this?

I worked for her in the fall.

I wanted her to win.

I liked the platform both campaigns drafted.

I hadn't mentioned Hillary's specific proposals IN THIS THREAD because she's most likely not going to be president now, what she proposed may not even be applicable in 2020 and I honestly didn't see why the specifics of her proposals mattered now that her proposals may never be introduced now.

That, and nobody else had mentioned them in this thread either.

[Kirkwood]

7. Key word is "seems". nt

[R B Garr]

8. lol, not again

with the hinting at false equivalencies.

[LanternWaste]

9. You'll of course, expound on whatever little point you're attempting to make, yes?

You'll of course, expound on whatever the little point you're attempting to make, yes?

[Kirkwood]

12. I was agreeing with the OP.

Thought that was clear.

[Squinch]

17. No, actually. What you said was "Keyword 'seems.'" That implies that, though it seems

like it would be better, you think it would not.

[zipplewrath]

31. I didn't read it that way

Are you sure you're not reading it with some inherent bias?

The "seems" would appear to be a reference to "progressive" on an relative scale as oppose to an absolute scale. i.e. next to Trump is "seems" progressive, but as you move left of that comparison, the apparent progressiveness of it will diminish.

[Squinch]

58. Somehow I'm not surprised.

[Ken Burch]

25. No, it wasn't at all clear.

n/t.

[JTFrog]

103. Your post was clear.

And you got called out for it.

Now you are trying to squirm out of it.

[Kirkwood]

113. Not quite. nt

[JTFrog]

125. You better believe it! nt

[Squinch]

14. Don't let the figure of speech hang you up. Her plan would have been a world better

than the death plan you are about to be subject to. Her plan would actually not have killed people by the hundreds of thousands.

But you seem to think that is not true. If you have other thoughts about it, do tell. We'd all love to hear them.

[Kirkwood]

36. Well, you're wrong.

I don't mean any of those things.

[Squinch]

60. Then it would be best not to say them.

[BainsBane]

15. Case in point.

[Kirkwood]

37. What the hell does that mean? nt

[BainsBane]

75. Your post is evidence for a point I made

in another post in this thread.

[zipplewrath]

10. Well if you set the bar low enough

almost anything can be made to look good if you set the bar low enough.

[BainsBane]

16. second case in point.

[Squinch]

18. And besides, her emails. Amiright? Huh? Amiright?

[R B Garr]

19. yeah, low enough like fake news about false equivalencies.

Really low.

[BainsBane]

21. You must be relieved

That the country isn't faced with anything so "low" as expanding healthcare to all Americans. Thank god Trump and the GOP intervened to stop those efforts you find so repugnant.

[zipplewrath]

27. Wrong basis of comparison

The bar is what Trump has done, not the ACA, nor any of Hillary's plans.

[BainsBane]

30. You mean the actual options voters faced in November

is the "wrong basis of comparison"? No, I disagree. It is the ONLY basis of comparison.

[zipplewrath]

33. No

The basis of comparison that would make a plan "seem" progressive.

[JHan]

24. cool story bro

[Gothmog]

40. So are you happy with Trumpcare?

Does the adoption of Trumpcare make you happy?

[zipplewrath]

83. Oh hell no

That's what I mean by a "low bar". You can't get much lower.

[ismnotwasm]

13. Yup

[workinclasszero]

22. But she wasn't pure enough and...emails

[Kahuna7]

26. Hillary is a pragmatic realist. A doer, not a talker. nt

[mcar]

32. I can't even think about it today

I'm too angry and disgusted.

[golfguru]

34. Obamacare is failing because of one reason

it is a half ass system, neither totally run by government or totally run by the for profit health insurers.

A single payer system would succeed better because no one would have to pay high insurance premiums, double digit increases in premiums, or affordable deductibles, any higher than their income level can afford.

[Gothmog]

39. There was no way to get single payer in the real world

Are you happy to see the ACA go away?

[Ken Burch]

54. At present the votes for single-payer aren't there in Congress

We all know that.

But that can be changed through old-fashioned hard work, the kind we all do.

Remember, in 1960, there was no way to end Jim Crow in the real world.

And it's not the fault of single-payer supporters that Trump got in.

HRC's showing in the fall would have been exactly the same even if everyone in the country agreed never to support single-payer again for the rest of eternity. And the vote in the House today would have been the same as well.

[Gothmog]

63. Not in the real world

In the real world we should fight to preserve the ACA and not waste time on proposals that have no chance of passage.

[Ken Burch]

66. We fight to save the ACA now, then work on single-payer long term.

We don't have to give up on ever getting single-payer just to save the ACA-single-payer is for later, after years of mobilization and after electing a non-psychotic Congress.

Nobody was saying we should be trying to get a single-payer bill this year, with THIS political lineup, for God's sakes.

Everybody's with you on the immediate emphasis on saving the ACA.

[Gothmog]

79. Our hands are full just trying to save the ACA

Two out of three of the GOP congressman being targeted by the DCCC voted for the bill. Will Hurd voted no because he is the most vulnerable in that his congressional redistrict is one of the districts that will be argued in the trial starting July 10.

Right now, we need to build pressure on the vulnerable house members now that we have then on record for voting for this horrible law.

[Ken Burch]

86. I agree with you on that.

The only difference we have there is that you appear to think, if I'm reading you correctly, that we have to basically agree to never even mention single-payer again, even in the future, in order to do that.

We don't have to renounce the ideal of the next day to fight in the moment of today.

[golfguru]

93. "Real World" is a smoke screeen

Single payer could have passed using exactly same tactics Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid executed in passing ACA, in the REAL WORLD, with zero cooperation/votes from republicans in congress to pass ACA.

Repugs would have given zero votes for single payer.
As ACA proved, we did not need their votes.

Let's be honest with ourselves, SOME of the democratic politicians were under control of the health insurance lobby, and thus resisted single payer.

Single payer eliminates all the problems associated with high deductibles and high premiums in ACA. Because Single Payer premiums would be be based on each person's income. Say 10% of your gross income. After that you pay nothing more than a nominal co-pay to discourage those suffering Munchhausen by proxy. If you make $1 million in a year, you would pay $100k. If you made $10k, you would pay $1k. Take 10% of gross income of all Americans, and it would add up to more than sufficient to pay all medical bills of every living person in USA.

[Gothmog]

96. I live in the real world

Single payer failed in Sanders home state. There is not sufficient support in the real world and the JPR BOB and stein voters gave us trump

Again, are you happy with Trumpcare? That is what happens when people do not live in the real world

[golfguru]

97. Neither Trumpcare or ACA affects me at all

I am on Medicare for 12 years already and like it a lot. I would prefer either Medicare for all or no government involvement at all in healthcare, with fierce competition in the healthcare insurance industry. ACA is a mixed bag. That is why it is in serious trouble. If the republicans had any brains, they would leave ACA alone, and let it collapse on it's own. If they repeal ACA, then they own Trumpcare. Then they will face the same debacle as the democratic party has faced since 2010 elections. We have lost 1000 seats nationwide since ACA became law, for crying out loud. That is THE REAL WORLD.

[JTFrog]

105. Well you might get upset when they come for your Medicare then.

Last edited Fri May 5, 2017, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

They are already planning on it.

Most of us have never had the option of Medicare and don't think we'll ever get it now. But the ACA saved millions of lives during a time that insurance had become a fucking joke and Medicare for all has never even come close to getting passed.

Fuck we all want Medicare for all, but "leave ACA alone, and let it collapse on it's own" is a recipe to kill millions of Americans. THAT is the REAL WORLD I live in.

But I'm glad you like it a lot.



If it were funded and states couldn't opt out of expansions, it would be heaven compared to the hell they are proposing now. Yes, universal healthcare is the only sane option, but good luck with that with these assholes in charge. Sometimes the perfect really is the enemy of the good.

[golfguru]

130. If you were as old as I am,

You would have experienced great healthcare at very affordable prices in the 1960's & 1970's. Very low premiums and very low deductibles was the norm.

In 1980 we had a hospital bill of $31,000 and our out of pocket cost was $250! If you really want to know why healthcare costs so much, and is the no. 1 reason people go bankrupt, do intensive research on what new laws were enacted beginning around 1982 and on.

[JTFrog]

134. Again, bully for you.

Yet you want them to let the ACA collapse and let millions die at a time that we don't have the options you had. We can't get Medicare for all right now. At least with the ACA the majority of people have coverage and can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions. If it was funded as proposed, it would be a good system while working on getting universal healthcare. Trumpcare is designed to kill off as many poor people and sick people as possible.

My first child being born in 1983, I know exactly what it was like between 1985 and when we got the ACA. And I would never want to see the kind of death and suffering that would come from letting ACA collapse or the Trump death panels. That is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment. That's not a progression to universal healthcare I can support in any way.

[golfguru]

135. I never said that...

I never said we could get Medicare for all right now.
Time to do it was 2009-2011 when we had full control of the legislative process. If we could get ACA passed without a single repug vote, we could have passed single payer for all. The problem was some democratic congress critters were in control of the health insurance industry and did not want single payer because that essentially takes business away from the health insurance industry.

Forwarding to current situation, ACA is in trouble due to high deductibles and millions opting to pay penalty instead of signing on to ACA or other insurance. It does not look like it will get better, because the repugs will not help fix ACA.

[lunamagica]

35. Yes, if only...

[Gothmog]

38. Agree-fixing the ACA is looking very good right now

[NurseJackie]

42. TOTALLY AGREED: If only.

I imagine that there are MANY who now regret their actions and/or votes.

But, some like Susan Sarandon can afford to be smug and still don't regret it... no matter what the cost to others. It's easy to feed one's own ego and vanity when you're rich and have an Academy Award.

[Ken Burch]

45. (on edit)hardly anyone here defends Sarandon. A few, but too few to really matter.

Last edited Fri May 5, 2017, 03:11 PM - Edit history (2)

I was wrong to say it was no one at all.

I don't read every single thread on this board, so it's entirely possible I'll miss some things some people say.

And we need unity, so no purpose is served by baiting people on the Left, which is what some of the posts here sounded like before Sarandon was mentioned specifically.

I don't like her any more than you do...she was wrong to vote Stein as was everyone who did so this year...but do we really need to make a willingness to repeatedly denounce her and them a test of everyone's party loyalty?

I'd rather work on building unity for the future by creating a good program and a winning strategy to elect people on that program.

[NurseJackie]

46. Do my comments about her bother you?

[Ken Burch]

48. What bothers me is your attempt to associate people with Sarandon

when you know perfectly well she has no apologists here.

We are all loyal Dems and everyone posting here now worked hard for the ticket in the fall.

[boston bean]

52. Umm the world does not revolve around du and only du members.

[NurseJackie]

67. I know, right?!

[NurseJackie]

57. I can't be responsible for the what anyone imagines my motivation to be.

What bothers me is your attempt to associate people with Sarandon

I can't be responsible for the what anyone imagines my motivation to be. That's pure speculation. I don't deserve to be treated like this. I'm not the enemy. It's wrong to accuse me of things that I haven't done. Please stop.

when you know perfectly well she has no apologists here.

No, actually, I don't know that at all.

We are all loyal Dems and everyone posting here now worked hard for the ticket in the fall.

So, why do we have "MIRT" if "we are all loyal Dems"... answer me that, huh? Why is there a MIRT?



#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[BainsBane]

76. Seems pretty obvious the association is self-imposed

by, for example, insisting that any criticism of her amounts to "baiting."

Why should anyone read your post and assume it was about them?

[NurseJackie]

82. I have no idea why that would be. It's a very odd assumption to make. I mean...

... my ridiculing or needling "Susan Sarandon" or my saying #FuckYouSusanSarandon is pretty damn specific. Nothing vague about that at all, is there?

Besides, who would be "baited" other than Sarandon supporters and defenders? If that were they case, why would anyone object to Sarandon defenders being "outed"? People like that have no place at Democratic Underground dot com, right?

None of his objections or accusations make any sense to me at all. It's like I'm being targeted for no good reason, and it's not fair. I'm not the enemy and I don't deserve to be treated this way. It's hurtful.

[BainsBane]

87. Exactly.

[Ken Burch]

117. Twisting my words.

Criticism of Sarandon is NOT baiting.

I don't care what anyone says specifically about her or Stein.

Just make it clear that it's aimed at them and the tiny handful who worship them.

[NurseJackie]

120. Where exactly was the point of confusion? I imagine somewhere AFTER "Susan" but BEFORE "Sarandon"?

Just make it clear that it's aimed at them and the tiny handful who worship them.

Are you suggesting an asterisk after "Susan Sarandon" followed by a footnote disclaimer at the bottom of every post that mentions her name? LOL!

[BainsBane]

72. "Nobody"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017432212

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028509887

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028657403

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028658411


My search came up with dozens more.

And if people weren't determined to defend her, why on earth would you conclude that criticizing her was "baiting the left"? Putting aside the point that she is a fascist and not a leftist, what no one would so is insist criticism of her amounted to "baiting" unless they felt she should not be criticized--which is the same as defending.

[Ken Burch]

89. Even with the threads you mention, most people here aren't defending Sarandon OR Stein.

It wasn't obvious to me exactly who the OP was aimed at. As written, it could mean anyone from third-party voters in the fall to people you didn't see eye-to-eye with before Philly(the large majority of whom did support the ticket in the fall).

A lot of people could read it as an indictment of everyone who were on the opposite side of you in the primaries-MOST of whom did work for and support the ticket.

If you had specified Sarandon and the Stein crowd, I'd have said nothing. I agree with you on the stupidity of their analysis.


It's just that I also think that what's important NOW is bringing people together on common ground issues for the future rather than calling people out over the fall result-that we need a big coalition for change and need to be creative on bringing people into it.

[NurseJackie]

92. LOL

It wasn't obvious to me exactly who the OP was aimed at.

So you just assumed the worst and made the worst possible accusation? Nice.

A lot of people could read it as an indictment of everyone who were on the opposite side of you in the primaries-MOST of whom did work for and support the ticket.

Well, they'd obviously be wrong. And whose problem is that? The OP? Yours? Theirs? (HINT: It's not the OP's problem.)

If you had specified Sarandon and the Stein crowd, I'd have said nothing.

Maybe there's a lesson to be learned about not jumping to conclusions. Let's hope anyway.

It's just that I also think that what's important NOW is bringing people together (blah blah blah)

Yeah, anyone who truly and honestly believed that, wouldn't be IMAGINING things to be "insulted" at and making false accusations about their fellow Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

95. You're not entitled to belittle or mock people personally.

You do that to lots of folks, and I can't think of anything anyone here has done to deserve that from you.

Why do you feel that what you do is an acceptable way to treat people on THIS side of the spectrum?

Do you really think what you do helps the Democratic Party recover? If so, why?

No party anywhere has ever won elections by disrespecting people into conformity and silence.

Yes, some people here spoke critically of HRC and did not support her for the nomination from the very start.

That wasn't why Trump won, though.

We didn't fall short in the fall because there wasn't 100% unquestioning adulation for the nominee from all sectors from the moment she declared her candidacy. If that was all that was needed, Al Gore would have finished his second term in 2008.

And you've cynically misused Keith Ellison and what he calls for in your fixation with trying to silence people or drive them out of the party. Keith Ellison simply asked Dems to interact with each other in a positive way...he didn't tell anybody to stop fighting for their principles. "Be Like Keith" never meant "shut up and do what you're told". It meant "stand up for what you want, just don't be a jerk about it".

BTW, if you don't want people to assume the worst, YOU need to stop assuming the worst. For example, you've never had any reason to doubt my party loyalty OR to accuse me of defending third-party presidential voting. I was as loyal to the Clinton-Kaine ticket this fall as you were. If I defended third-party voting, I'd have quit posting here months ago and never returned.

All I've ever said is that the party's tactic of simply DEMANDING that people who vote third-party in presidential elections DOESN'T work. All it does is make those people dig their heels in and refuse to listen to us. Instead, we need to run positive ads directed towards those voters(it would have been easy to do that this fall) emphasizing where we agree with them and how the platform had been influenced significantly in their direction. What would have been the harm of saying "what some people who hold your views in the spring did made a difference. Give us your votes and work with us, and YOU will have a better way to make a difference yourselves"?

It could have won us the Upper Midwest and therefore the White House. What's not to like?

[NurseJackie]

101. ROFL! I'm sure Susan Sarandon will survive the snarky comments about her. :-D

She doesn't need to be defended by anyone here. She'll get over it, I'm sure.

#BeLikeKeith

[Ken Burch]

112. Not talking about Sarandon.

Talking about people here.

Leave US out of it.

We aren't the problem.

And I AM like Keith.

[NurseJackie]

114. Yes you were.

112. Not talking about Sarandon.

Yes you were. You went to great lengths to tell me how you felt that the mention of "Susan Sarandon" was some sort of code-talk that meant "Ken Burch". You also let me know how upsetting it was to you that I was "obsessed" with her. You advised me to be more clear in the future so that you wouldn't be confused that when I mentioned "Susan Sarandon" I didn't actually mean you.

Talking about people here.

I don't know why, because I haven't mentioned people here. You're the only one who's done that.

Leave US out of it.

... out of what?

We aren't the problem.

LOL! You know perfectly well that I never said that you were.

And I AM like Keith.

LOL! You know perfectly well that I never said you weren't.

"#BeLikeKeith" is a friendly reminder. It's as harmless as saying "Have a Nice Day". It's a way of challenging ourselves to rise up be better.

Now... if someone chooses to be offended by something as trivial as the "Be Like Keith" reminder, then that person is not really being like Keith at all, are they?

That would be like someone getting upset and huffy because I said "Have a Nice Day!" For example...

ME: "Have a nice day!"

GRUMPY CAT: "What do you mean by that? I don't need anyone telling me what to do! Don't you think I can have a nice day without being TOLD to have a nice day? And define "nice"... maybe what's nice for you isn't what's nice for me... did you ever think of that? And I resent the implication that you think I'm NOT having a nice day! Because I AM having a nice day!"

WWKD ... What would Keith Do? Would Keith allow himself to be so overwrought and get so upset by a friendly reminder? I don't think so. Keith would probably say "buck up" and encourage someone move on. (#BuckUpAndMoveOn)

[hr] #BeLikeKeith #VoteDemocratic #DemocratsFirst [br] #SupportTheDemocraticParty #StrongerTogether [br] and, oh yeah... #FuckYouSusanSarandon

[Ken Burch]

115. I don't need to be told to Be Like Keith.

And no, it wasn't clear at the start that you were talking about Sarandon...I accept that you were, and don't want to belabor this, but that wasn't all that specific at the start.

[NurseJackie]

118. So, the words "Susan Sarandon" weren't obvious enough?

And no, it wasn't clear at the start that you were talking about Sarandon

So, the words "Susan Sarandon" weren't obvious enough? LOL!

115. I don't need to be told to Be Like Keith.

LOL! That's almost the same thing that "Grumpy Cat" said!

ME: "Have a nice day!"

GRUMPY CAT: "What do you mean by that? I don't need anyone telling me what to do! Don't you think I can have a nice day without being TOLD to have a nice day? And define "nice"... maybe what's nice for you isn't what's nice for me... did you ever think of that? And I resent the implication that you think I'm NOT having a nice day! Because I AM having a nice day!"

Personally, I believe that anyone who takes offense at seeing the "Be Like Keith" hashtag isn't being like Keith. But, we can't all be like Keith. Only Keith himself can literally be like Keith... the rest of us poor schmucks can only strive to achieve his greatness and his optimism and his warm and heartfelt sincerity and love of mankind.

I accept that you were, and don't want to belabor this, but that wasn't all that specific at the start.

What else would you recommend? How should someone refer to Susan Sarandon so that it's clear to you that we're not secretly referring to you? What do you think a rational, and reasonable, and practical real world solution would be? How can I help you to get past the confusion of who I'm referring to when I call-out Susan Sarandon, or when I ridicule Susan Sarandon? Any rational suggestions and input will be greatly appreciated and given serious consideration.

[hr] #BeLikeKeith #VoteDemocratic #DemocratsFirst [br] #SupportTheDemocraticParty #StrongerTogether [br] and, oh yeah... #FuckYouSusanSarandon

[Cary]

109. Really?

I love NurseJackie. A little self actualization can go a long way.

And please vote Democratic.

[Ken Burch]

111. You know perfectly well that I do.

Nothing I've posted here could possibly call that into question.

When I express a dissenting view, I always do so constructively and with respect, and do so solely in the spirit of wanting the party to do better.

BTW, it doesn't count as "always winning" to re-elect Rahm Emmanuel, an Occupy-hating centrist who had the municipal election laws changed so that the mayor's race is now non-partisan. Rahm was re-elected by a coalition of Republicans and the most conservative Dem voters.

I'm a Dem, you're a Dem, neither of our party loyalties are in question.

[Cary]

122. Show me where I ever said you didn't vote Democratic

My message is positive. Vote Democratic Ken.

Not everything is about you.

[Ken Burch]

123. You posted it in response to me.

And in an earlier post when I affirmed how I vote, you asked why you should believe it.

[Cary]

126. IOW you cannot show where I ever said you didn't vote Democratic.

Case closed.

[BainsBane]

98. You're the only one calling people out

You haven't followed what was written or who you are even talking to. Yet that doesn't stop you from insisting any thought uttered that doesn't meet your approval is a personal indictment of you. If I have something to say to you, which happens extremely rarely, I will say it directly. I think many here will have observed I don't exactly have a problem being forthright. Unless I am responding directly to you, my posts are not about you. If you wanted to focus on the GOP, unity, or anything else, you wouldn't spend your days scouring posts to pounce upon because you have imagined that somehow there is some cryptic attack against you.

This sub-thread went as follows. Jackie expressed her contempt of Susan Sarandon and those like her who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in November. Her comments were OBVIOUSLY about the general election. (That is, after all, when people voted for Trump.) You lambasted her and insisted that while "no one here" defends Sarandon, her saying something negative about her was "baiting the left." (The absurdity of that fallacy has already been addressed). I then posted links to threads in which some members did defend Sarandon. Virtually every thread about her has them. Instead of acknowledging that you were mistaken, you decide to play victim yet again. Somehow daring to point out that you were wrong amounts to "attacking all Sanders supporters." You are not "all Sanders supporters," and pointing out that you are factually wrong is not a "call out." You, not Bernie or anyone else who voted for him in a primary resolved more than a fucking year ago, are responsible for what you post.

This thing you do has long since past the point of disturbing. Whatever the issue, take it somewhere else. I am not responsible for your emotions or sense of persecution. Nor am I interested. Consider that state of disinterest permanent.

[Ken Burch]

100. I have no issue with you in this thread.

And I'm sorry I thought it was you who wrote the OP, I was wrong about that.

I didn't realize that the OP or Jackie were talking about Sarandon.

Sarandon herself I don't feel strongly about. Nor Stein and the Greens(who should both just go away)

What bothers me is what threads that are presented as anti-Sarandon or anti-Green but which, as worded, could often be seen as call-outs of other or implications that other people are NOT Democrats unless they join in on that.

We should be focusing on ourselves and making OUR party better. That's something we can do something about.

And I acknowledge that a tiny handful of posters have defended Sarandon. If that bothers you, alert on them.

[Thrill]

53. All I can say is if you want to be President

You better be on every channel you can this weekend.

That goes for Booker, OMalley, Howard Schultz, Cuban, Biden, Kaine, Warner, Jay Inslee, etc...

[workinclasszero]

70. No doubt!

We will see who's a leader immediately!!!

[wildeyed]

77. We should be gearing up for a fight for a public option right about now.

Well maybe not. We know that the GOP congress would never have allowed it. Sigh. But yeah, I feel ya.

[Demsrule86]

84. Right, if we lose ACA kiss single payer goodbye...all those who secretly wanted the ACA to fail

because they though the single payer fairy would arrive...it won't happen. And those Dems that introduced single, perhaps a better strategy would have been to find a mike and defend the ACA...and maybe instead of unity...we should be worried about how many people Trump will kill before he is done.

[wildeyed]

85. I'm just praying that if me or one of my kids goes to hospital,

we won't get bankrupted. I live in NC. I guarantee that my general assembly will adopt the most draconian healthcare rules possible for the general population while keeping their cushy state-run policies safe.

I should get elected to something just to get the healthcare. That would serve them right. Karma. Crazy-ass liberal in their faces all the time because they f'ed up my insurance so I took theirs. Imma run on repealing THEIR insurance. Spotlight how hypocritical and corrupt they really are.

[Demsrule86]

94. We are all screwed ...good luck...we will need a super majority to fix this.

[Ken Burch]

90. That can be part of our policy offer for the midterms.

We can build support on that by MAKING the Trumpites either keep voting it down in committee or dodge questions about it at the NEXT town halls.

[riversedge]

78. The Repug House bill is not a fix. It was -and did demolish many good aspects of ACA

[Ken Burch]

124. Absolutely true.

n/t.

[Blue_Tires]

99. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary officially owns a piece of what happened yesterday

Bravo, well done...

[Orsino]

102. So do those of us who did vote Clinton...

...but who failed to do all we could to GOTV.

It really is a national failing.

[JTFrog]

104. We got out the vote to the tune of 3 million more votes.

That we know of.

Then there were the stolen votes, crosscheck, gerrymandering, the Russian hacking and interference, Comey and the media.

But yeah, let's blame it on those who "failed to do all we could to GOTV".

The only problem with the Democratic party is the hate of half a nation stoked on by the Republican party and the media.

That's the real failing. We live in a time when Citizen's United rules and the millionaires who run the corporations and media conglomerates have control. It's like blaming David for not beating Goliath every fucking election. The game is pretty stacked against us from the beginning.

But hey, it's all those GOTV people's fault. Despite the dumbing down of America, it's really not that simple.

[Orsino]

108. I own my own GOTV failure.

I encourage others to do the same.

[Blue_Tires]

110. I spent multiple weekends in 100-degree heat in the summer

and through a monsoon in October...

My conscience is clear