Reply With Quote
I'm not really stating an opinion on what he pushed for. I'm just saying he couldn't get it through if he wanted to; therefore it was pointless to try. They had to fight incredibly hard just to get the watered down bill they got passed.
He didn't have the votes
I'm not really stating an opinion on what he pushed for. I'm just saying he couldn't get it through if he wanted to; therefore it was pointless to try. They had to fight incredibly hard just to get the watered down bill they got passed.
He didn't have to fight that hard, just gave Ben Nelson some welfare. He got the health plan he wanted since he knew it would be hard to attack him in 2012 on signing Romney's plan into law.
That can't possibly have been the bill he wanted. For example, and important element is medicaid expansion and that's basically left up to the governors to accept or block for their states, and of course that means states like Texas get it blocked.
It's *Enightened Progressive* to you, peasant.
People who about "snobbish elitism" feed into the anti-intellectual, anti-science sentiment on the right.
You can't build a great nation on ignorance and stupidity, although it seems that many seem to want to try.
What bothers you about "snobbish elitism"?
How do you define it?
I never said a nation should be built on stupidity and ignorance. I'm not a fan of people who stick their noses in the air and think they're just smarter than everybody who disagrees with them. "We Democrats are smarter"... Things like that. I'm not suggesting you personally aren't smart.
My issue with it is that that it's usually unfounded. Psuedo-intellectualism is as bad of an issue on the left as anti-intellectualism is on the right.
There is where you might want to re-look.
I didn't say "smartER", I said "smart enough", and also said the GOP would be just as smart if their field was as limited as the Dems.
If someone thinks that vaccines cause autism, or the earth is flat, and I disagree with them, that doesn't make them a dumbass, simply because I disagree with them.
Am I fully justified in believing that they are dumbasses for believing things are true for really, really bad reasons?
I agree, mostly.
I think the danger of glorifying ignorance is far more dangerous than that of being a bit of a pretentious prig.
Wallowing in ignorance can lead to outright dangerous outcomes at the worst, and expensive policies at best. Quick example: opposition to clean needle giveaways that save tax money in the long run.
Single payor is the logical solution to a lot of the inefficiencies that plague our current health care system.
Any pragmatist will tell you that won't fly, because you have the nutters that worship the free market thinking, erroneously, that health care rationing is better done through free markets than otherwise.
I would be willing to bet if you asked Obama, who was probably given a LOT of information on it,he would support it as an ideal.
Of course he'd say he would, it sounds good to his base and he tells his base nice things in his speeches. He'd be a lying mother er though, just like he was when he talked about reigning in Wall Street in his 2008 campaign and then once elected built a financial team that stretched from Goldman to Sachs.
I'm not sure there's a ton of difference between being willfully ignorant and being flippantly confident in your intellectual superiority while still being wrong. The biggest issue with people is that they are too easily manipulated, and that issue doesn't have political boundaries at all.
Also pretty much agree.
I'm glad you understand my side of things, because I think that we're seeing a lack of critical thinking going on for the Democrats too. Black people are to Clintons as the US is to Israel -- it's a permanent alliance regardless of what the issue is. I have family members who don't even know what Sanders' platform is. They just "know" he isn't going to look out for them like Hilary is. That kind of unthinking allegiance to a candidate based on their name is almost as bad as people voting for Trump because they believe the things he says. Now, that doesn't mean Clinton isn't a better choice than Trump, but she didn't sweep the South last Tuesday because people were voting strategically with the general election in mind.
Obama/Dems have not had any solid control since 2009.
Joe Liebermann/CT was an independent who caucused with Dems, like Bernie.
And it was Lieberman, who said he would oppose any Medicare for all/public option since CT has lots of huge insurance companies owning him.
And Max Baucus, Dem/MT, hired an health insurance exec/lobbyist to write ACA, and would certainly have not voted for medicare for all/public option.
That's the most pompous and delusional thing I've read in a long time. All the polls say that Sanders has a much better shot against Trump. Shilary winning the primary isn't some collective, well-planned effort across the Democratic party. It's a bunch of low information re s who don't research where the candidates stand on issues so they vote for the name they recognize the most.
I know this isn't really your point, but the Clintons employ plenty of anti-intellectualism.
The thing with ISIS is that if they have a few successful attacks then Shilary's neo-conservative foreign policy stance might steal votes from Trump's non-interventionist stance if people get scared
OTOH, Trump's racism might help him with disenchanted white Democrats who are pissed off that a bunch of uneducated n!ggers/super-delegates are getting Hilary the nomination, especially if he moves to the center on economic policy during the general.
He's positioned himself well to the left of Hilary on three big issues (foreign policy, campaign finance reform, and free trade/unions), so a general between the two would be really interesting.
What's non-interventionist about Trump wanting to go to war with ISIS?
He's specifically against putting boots on the ground in Syria. He's only talked about bombing ISIS which is already being done.
His war with ISIS includes putting power in the hands of secular dictators like Assad and bombings as Pelicans78 said. Shilary is a Project for the New American Century type who wants to continue W's legacy of nation building in the middle east.
IDK, Bill didn't do that like Bush did. Is she any different from Bill minus the charisma he had?
It's not like she was just a passive supporter of the War in Iraq, she was out there with Bush banging the drums for it. I think she'd be worse than her husband and would try to invade Syria.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
