What is the democratic message?

[Fawlty]

We already have it. He's just not a Democrat.

I wouldn't call him a unifying voice at all. He's a discordant, radical voice within our politics. Rightly popular, but he's not building a coalition, he's leading a crowd.

 

[franklinstower]

I wouldn't call him a unifying voice at all. He's a discordant, radical voice within our politics. Rightly popular, but he's not building a coalition, he's leading a crowd.

He has the majority of the population FOR almost every issue he stands for...... I can't understand the argument unless you think politicians and corporations jobs are to lead the people and not the other way around

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I wouldn't call him a unifying voice at all. He's a discordant, radical voice within our politics. Rightly popular, but he's not building a coalition, he's leading a crowd.

He's leading the causes that almost everybody agree on. The discord originates from the 2 parties that want to hold onto their monopoly.

 

[Fawlty]

He's leading the causes that almost everybody agree on. The discord originates from the 2 parties that want to hold onto their monopoly.

America is strongly divided on healthcare still. The strongest group still wants something like the ACA, give or take a little government cheese. Far from agreement on the biggest issue. Single payer will eventually be a majority belief, but support for it only surges now and then, and drops as soon as the tax realities are brought up.

There is nothing like a consensus on increased wages, worker's rights, and unions- obviously.

Major divides on women's rights. Major divides on freedom from/religious freedom.

Again, he's the dissenter from the system, the populist advocate. The Pied Piper, not the coalition builder. A different style and takes power in a different way.

 

[franklinstower]

America is strongly divided on healthcare still. The strongest group still wants something like the ACA, give or take a little government cheese. Far from agreement on the biggest issue. Single payer will eventually be a majority belief, but support for it only surges now and then, and drops as soon as the tax realities are brought up.

There is nothing like a consensus on increased wages, worker's rights, and unions- obviously.

Major divides on women's rights. Major divides on freedom from/religious freedom.

Again, he's the dissenter from the system, the populist advocate. The Pied Piper, not the coalition builder. A different style and takes power in a different way.

I would argue that support for single payer arises from within the hearts and minds of people and falls BECAUSE both parties do there damn best to misrepresent it to the people every time it does arise in the people.

UHC is what the majority of people want until.special interest groups and their paid stooges scare them out if it.

Living minimum wage is the same most of the issues are the same.

It will happen eventually. Its what the majority of people really want when they.are not being.scared away from it.

 

[Fawlty]

I would argue that support for single payer arises from within the hearts and minds of people and falls BECAUSE both parties do there damn best to misrepresent it to the people every time it does arise in the people.

UHC is what the majority of people want until.special interest groups and their paid stooges scare them out if it.

Living minimum wage is the same most of the issues are the same.

It will happen eventually. Its what the majority of people really want when they.are not being.scared away from it.

I think those things are what people should want, if they want to live with appropriate morals for our level of national development. I think you're right that a lot of people have been scared and dissuaded from believing in those things. I also think the country will keep moving in those directions (if we can stop this skid to the right). But Bernie isn't out there repping a majority, but instead repping what the future should be.

 

[franklinstower]

I think those things are what people should want, if they want to live with appropriate morals for our level of national development. I think you're right that a lot of people have been scared and dissuaded from believing in those things. I also think the country will keep moving in those directions (if we can stop this skid to the right). But Bernie isn't out there repping a majority, but instead repping what the future should be.

Thanks for that kind thoughtful reply.

Very respectfully I think his positions are in the majority. When polls stating otherwise are broken down like in the link provided in my earlier post the culprit is manipulative language used to sway the answers away from such positions and then presented dishonestly.

That to me is the great tragedy of the states. We are ready.for this but the people with power are not.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I'm not sure how that would even happen before the next pres. primary. And I would be suspicious of any unifying voice right now, like if Cory Booker all of a sudden got put up as the voice of the Democrats.

you see the same few in the news time after time. I would like too see more of a rallying type person instead. I don't dislike the man but Schumer isn't the rallying behind type.

 

[Fawlty]

Thanks for that kind thoughtful reply.

Very respectfully I think his positions are in the majority. When polls stating otherwise are broken down like in the link provided in my earlier post the culprit is manipulative language used to sway the answers away from such positions and then presented dishonestly.

That to me is the great tragedy of the states. We are ready.for this but the people with power are not.

I think when issues are broken down along the lines of actual opinions and arguments that you hear, Bernie's opinions are frequently a plurality (single payer is an example of this). Basically, more people are "on message" with Bernie on many things than they are "on message" with any other one person or faction. America's politics don't always do a good job of accounting for plurality beliefs.

 

[Fawlty]

you see the same few in the news time after time. I would like too see more of a rallying type person instead. I don't dislike the man but Schumer isn't the rallying behind type.

We've still got some time ahead of us. I think the real jostling for position will start after the midterms. I don't really love Booker, Gillibrand, Schumer, Biden, Gabbard, Warren or the rest as candidates or "voices." I was hoping for Franken...fuck. I guess we need another principled, cool firebrand like Obama. A lot of people could play the role of executive and do a good job, but I don't see anybody who can get people excited about it.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

We've still got some time ahead of us. I think the real jostling for position will start after the midterms. I don't really love Booker, Gillibrand, Schumer, Biden, Gabbard, Warren or the rest as candidates or "voices." I was hoping for Franken...fuck. I guess we need another principled, cool firebrand like Obama. A lot of people could play the role of executive and do a good job, but I don't see anybody who can get people excited about it.

See, this is what I'm saying. Some of the names you listed I like, some I find only okay but I agree, I don't think they are the "voices."

Your last point is exactly my feelings as well. Lots of "qualified" people but you need that ability to get people pumped up.

 

[Fawlty]

See, this is what I'm saying. Some of the names you listed I like, some I find only okay but I agree, I don't think they are the "voices."

Your last point is exactly my feelings as well. Lots of "qualified" people but you need that ability to get people pumped up.

I just want a boring, competent, deep thinker who cares about Americans and doesn't care about cameras...I'm fucked.

 

[Trotsky]

I wouldn't call him a unifying voice at all. He's a discordant, radical voice within our politics. Rightly popular, but he's not building a coalition, he's leading a crowd.

His entire Senate career disproves this appraisal. He regularly wrangled members from both within the Democratic Party and across the aisle to support causes that benefit the everyday citizen and workers.

 

[Trotsky]

you see the same few in the news time after time. I would like too see more of a rallying type person instead. I don't dislike the man but Schumer isn't the rallying behind type.

Schumer is also a worthless piece of shit. Completely hollow.

I don't know how anyone could listen to the guy, let alone after reviewing his record, and come to any other conclusion.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If you actually look at Obama's policies, it is quite clear that he was far from "bought and paid for corporate shill" and that he was much, much better for working people than Mitt or McCain would have been.

What impressed you most: Obama's refusal to punish Wall Street execs for tanking the economy? His refusal to advocate in any way for Card Check, a law that would have been an unbelievable boon to the labor movement? Or using the NOC to direct the aggressive police crackdown on the Occupy movement?

With perhaps the exception of positions on a few social issues, the policy differences between Mitt and Barack are indeed negligible.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Schumer is also a worthless piece of shit. Completely hollow.

I don't know how anyone could listen to the guy, let alone after reviewing his record, and come to any other conclusion.

I don’t hate the guy personally but he comes off as a wimp and a bit of an empty suit.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I just want a boring, competent, deep thinker who cares about Americans and doesn't care about cameras...I'm fucked.

Well I think that time has come and gone decades and decades ago. You do need some camera appeal in this day and age. It’s just the state of things.

 

[Fawlty]

His entire Senate career disproves this appraisal. He regularly wrangled members from both within the Democratic Party and across the aisle to support causes that benefit the everyday citizen and workers.

But where was the coalition when he ran for President? That's a really interesting juxtaposition- you're right that he was good at getting people to work together. But when it's his "radical" platform against the much more agreeable Hillary platform, he doesn't have the coalition that she has. He has a big chunk of the voting public, and he ran on popular, plurality rhetoric that doesn't win over independents.


Interestingly, that rabbit hole takes some strange turns where Hillary gets a lot of the far left primary support while Bernie gets the more conservative Dems...but that's more about race and gender issues- even in Dem world, there is a fuckton of latent racism and misogyny.

 

[ChainFlow]

I’m not going to respond to your post point by point because I don’t have the time right now, but I have to point out something obvious: your first argument isn’t an argument against universal healthcare; it is an argument against all public services, in general.

Are you entitled to the services of a policeman if you are the victim of a crime? Are you entitled to the service of a fireman if your house is on fire? Are you entitled to the service of a teacher if you are a child? Are you entitled to the service of the military if our nation is under attack?

If you answer affirmatively to any of these questions, then so too could you be entitled to the services of a medical professional when you are ill— as people are in every developed nation on Earth save America.

Once again your argument— that one person can never be entitled to the service of another— is an argument for libertarian anarchy in general, not against universal healthcare in particular , and I feel that your argument deserves to fail for all the obvious reasons that a libertarian anarchy is an untenable and unsustainable form of society... which our Founding Fathers clearly recognized.

He also uses weasel language to try to make it seem as if doctors are being accosted and forced to provide medical care to anyone they cross paths with.

The government guaranteeing medical care for all does not guarantee the medical care of any one particular doctor, nor obligate any one particular doctor to perform his profession in a way that he has not contractually signed on for.

It, much like your example of police forces, simply guarantees the presence and availability of medical professionals to the citizenry without making it conditional upon their individual ability to pay for their services. No one argue that public highways mean that road workers are being press-ganged into service by gubmint soldiers; it just means that the government will pay for the road workers to do their profession.

The civilized world has long since realized the horrific folly of permitting private police forces (see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
+ many others)
But, at least he’s consistent in that I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him argue for privatizing the police as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

 

[ultramanhyata]

Do you agree that Russia's interference is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor and 9/11?

In my opinion Russian interference in the elections only becomes legitimately troubling if it's eventually also proved that Russia has leverage against Trump. And so wasn't just trying to aid the candidate Russia thought would act in the best interests of Russia. But was, in fact, attempting to help install a controlled, Putin puppet.

We shall see.