2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLots of Bernie supporters take a black-and-white and all-or-nothing approach.
Only Bernie's solution is perfect and good enough (ideological purity). Restoration of Glass Steagall is the one and only true way in dealing with the banks because Bernie says it is. Well what about Dodd Frank?
Many of his supporters don't seem to believe in nuance or limits. They believe that if they try hard enough there's a magical pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Is it really so controversial that free college tuition should have limits as to who qualifies? Either target the smart kids or the lower income ones but nope, can't leave anyone out!
All countries which offer free tuition or health care do impose cost limits at the individual level.
Have his supporters EVER criticized any of his platform as being unrealistic?
The world we live in is complex not black and white. There is no magical FTT tax that gives hundreds of billions a year while only impacting the rich. All the free stuff will eventually have to be paid by the middle class, like they do in other countries.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)uh huh
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)this is perfect
hoosierlib
(710 posts)His ideas / policy proposals are the end goal...
Incrementalism won't work as the Republicans will NOT work with HRC.
The only solution is to swing for the fences and create a national movement in order to gain majorities again...
Sitting and waiting for redistricting in 2020 or 2022 won't work as the DNC has proven time and again that its watered down approach doesn't motivate in off-year elections.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...unless we want it all one year from today. His goals are achievable, though much of it would face steadfast opposition from much of today's Congress, and even from the best possible next Congress.
Nothing there that's unrealistic, and much all of it is necessary for the nation's recovery and survival.
Clinton's platform isn't unrealistic, either. Just not ambitious enough for my taste.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)at the end of the day, the middle class will have to pay for most of it.
And they clearly don't want to.
How are you gonna convince them to pay?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders' proposals shift the tax burden toward the upper tiers, however. As a goal this is not only realistic, it's been done before.
So, more or less the opposite of unrealistic.
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)Why doesn't he submit his plan to CBO for scoring?
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)if I would rather take a non-partisan source like the CBO over Bernie
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)I'm not blind to facts and figures.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Furthermore, I am myself most willing to pay. Many people are beginning to understand, that a single payer or even public option health system would cut costs which we have to pay somehow, be it through taxes or premiums.
With money out of politics, we could also be realistic about the need to fund the size of military that we have, and cut substantial waste there.
A lot of the evils baked into the current system are due to money in politics. It isn't that Bernie is a one-issue candidate, as often claimed. It is that this one issue of campaign finance influences the viability of many other ideas supported by the majority of Americans.
randys1
(16,286 posts)If you mean they dont pay endless amounts for an education, of course not.
Are you implying there are limits to what health coverage you can get in Norway for example?
I would be curious about that, not saying it isnt true but would be curious to hear.
Do you think our current situation works? I pay , or my employer and I pay $1500 a month now for my insurance and only mine, my wife is separate. On top of that i have the usual deductibles and copays.
I happen to know for a fact there is a huge amount of profit built into that for the unnecessary middle man.
What benefit do health insurance agents and companies provide?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)this article on Norway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Norway
Norway’s health system also does not cover specialized care for those above 16 years of age, and anyone needing treatment such as specialized physiotherapy are required to pay an additional deductible. While health appointments themselves are encompassed by the deductible, extra materials and medical equipment are often covered by the patient
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)insurance agents and companies provide is flexibility. Some people want better coverage than a public option or single payer system.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)How is that a problem for you?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)the poster I replied to was asking what is the benefit of the private insurance system
cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)That if we had single payer healthcare, insurance companies would write policies to close any gap, perhaps even covering medical tourism for elective surgery in Mexico, Thailand or Brazil, which I've heard are already doing pretty good work for cheap on weight loss surgery and surgery to remove excess skin after weight loss.
Insurance might also start to pay for amenities such as private rooms or shorter wait times.
Broward
(1,976 posts)
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)His answer on that veteran's bill he got passed explains exactly what his presidency would be like. No revolution, just negotiation and compromises.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)and achieved a great one.
The answer from the Clinton Cabal is you start from the middle and flee to the right instead. That's not change, that's capitulation.
RDANGELO
(4,158 posts)I don't expect him to accomplish everything he wants, but what I do know is that we will have a president who is totally uncompromised by big money, who will be fighting for us.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)to respond to people.
You have the habit of putting words in the mouth of other people and just making shit up and posting it as fact.
Contemptible.
I know the world isn't backhand white. You? It's clear that your hill adoration has blindered you.
Viva Historians. Viva Marc Bloch. When you disparaged scholars of the Middle Ages, you disparaged one of the greatest historians and a great hero.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Bloch
hill2016
(1,772 posts)I hae never ever heard of him in my life.
What exactly did he do that was so impactful?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
cali
(114,904 posts)His way of looking at history changed historiography; how history is written. In France, he's a national hero for his work in the resistance. He was tortured and murdered by the Nazis.
Your myopic view of education is just sad.
proud of my ignorance, thank you very much.
cali
(114,904 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)of one of the greatest historians ever did something that 99.99999% of people (including me) don't give a shit about.
Let's talk about the people who have really made an impact on our lives like: Wright brothers, Einstein, Maxwell, Crick & Watson, John Snow, Rutherford, Bohr, Ford, von Neumann, Rivest-Shamir-Adleman, Pauling, Turing, Feynman, Planck
Doctors, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, industrialists, etc.
cali
(114,904 posts)Michelangelo, Picasso, (Guernica alone has had an enormous impact) Shakespeare, Yeats, Rumi.
The arts and sciences are both vitally important. If you fucking knew any history, you'd grasp such a basic concept.
Response to cali (Reply #68)
hill2016 This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Artists who 99.999% of the world population do not give a shit about. You don't get to pick winners and losers ex post facto, you have to broadly support the arts and trust that good work will be accomplished.
Modern science funding is the same (I know, I work in scientific research) for the very same reason: you cannot predict what knowledge will ultimately produce the most value.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)I would rather see the next $1b of funding go to the scientists first rather than to the artists. Look at Obama's call for a cancer moonshot. We might have a chance to cure certain forms of cancer, which impacts billions of people (directly and indirectly).
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)But you can make the argument without denigrating the arts. And we have to fund the arts at some point. Once cancer is cured, there will be something else that kills people en masse. So you are talking about 20 or 30 years of cutting Arts funding (talking to scientists--medicine is not my field--I am much less optimistic about cancer research).
What if, due to cutting funding for the Arts, we miss a Michelangelo or a Picasso who becomes a burger flipper? That usually scares me into thinking straight.
Of course, we could cut military funding by 20% and do both. 
hill2016
(1,772 posts)denigrated the arts.
Cali gave an example of a great historian who did something that nobody really cared about.
People care about Michelangelo and Picasso.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Claiming that 99.99999% of people don't give a shit about this great historian is denigrating the arts. I say that as someone who couldn't be further away from the arts professionally, but recognize the similarities between funding the arts and sciences. And that is that 99.9999% of people don't give a shit about the fundamental research in science which unlocks future discoveries. People often don't give a shit within the scientists' lifetime. But the work is preserved in the literature and people often build on it. I am grateful for the unpraised work previously done.
Similarly, for the arts, it is very difficult to predict what will have the most impact.
Edited to add: i cannot name such a historian as I do not work in history. I can however name many many scientists who did important work but were never recognized. That's because I am in science. The nature of them being unrecognized means most will not know of them -- that does not diminish the importance of their work.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I wrote my thesis on Thucydides, Xenophon, and T. E. Lawrence.
I kind of wish somebody had read it around 2002... (I doubt it takes much imagination to figure out where it went, although it was back in '98)
cali
(114,904 posts)It sounds intriguing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)
It also had a lot of Clausowitz because my advisor was a Hegelian and wanted to see that. Though actually Clausowitz was pretty amazing in some ways. Short version: insurgencies are a practical (in the Kant sense) dialectic.
Philosophers ponder about how the world should be
the scientists are the ones who proved how the world actually is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Of course, yes, we do then go and try to "prove" our hunches. For many disciplines, however, nothing is ever proven and we deal with uncertainty in data and modeling.
Some of us also read philosophy. It gives comfort in the face of conflicting information.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)if philosophers proved (or tried to prove) what "should be", they would be the scientists.
Einstein's special theory of relativity started with a thought experiment (philosophy) but he came up with the equations, which had provable hypotheses. Even his theory of gravitational waves could be verified experimentally which we saw recently.
Watson and Crick's seminal paper on the structure of DNA was nothing but a thought experiment that was only proven many years later (e.g. central dogma).
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it is called anti intellectualism
Marc Bloch is well known, as a national hero, in France. And he is also very well known by those of us who love history.
But what you just exhibited is the kind of attitude that is anti intellectual in the extreme, and very american. Some might call that Republican, but I know better,
By the way, you lover of science and hater of the arts, many brilliant scientists are also brilliant musicians,, The brain of a scientist does develop with some Bach. Oh and music and math have a lot in common.
Not that I would expect your middle brow anti intellectualism to know that. It would require some... ugg, reading.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #100)
hill2016 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Some of the winners of the prize bore me, quite frankly.
But is is you who said that we should not support the arts. So there you have it.
You do not know who Marc Bloch was, fine. But you trying to diminish him is very, very off putting and anti intellectual, and american.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)You're right. Most of the time people don't care about the Nobel prize in literature as well.
I just said that Cali's great historical hero (and yours apparently) is somebody that most of the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about. How does that translate to me not supporting the arts? Music has always been a big part of my life. I'm sure if I talked about a minor composer most people would have no idea who that is and don't care either. Have you heard about Dufay and his plain chants?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am starting to feel pity for you.
I do not expect you to know who Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla was either, or for god sakes, Fray Servando Teresa de Mier, but especially the latter matter in the history of the Latin American Enlightenment. The fact that you do not know who either of these two men is, does not mean they are nobodies, which essentially you are doing about a french National Hero.
I guess in this world you have created neither Jefferson or Washington, or for that matter FDR matter either.
Ignorant petulant people quite frankly are a great turn off.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)French people know who their national heroes are, Latin American people know who their national heroes are. Most people have greatest affinity for their own history and cultural backgrounds. I bet you could ask a random Latin American person or French person about one of our minor Presidents and they would have no clue. So what? It's not their historical context.
You're basically decrying the fact that not everyone knows all the major figures in your background (history/Latin American influence). That's hardly fair or ignorance.
So, tell me, how familiar are you with Asian culture, music, and history?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)have a good day... and night, and rest of your life.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)I thought I was pretty civil there.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so that is petulant, and you bore me.
Have the last word. It is your thread after all.
Welcome to my list of people I avoid on DU.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
lasttrip
(1,013 posts)the Capehart model.
Thanks for the post Cali.
Peace.
LT
cali
(114,904 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's a cottage industry of sorts....
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)We've been told to sit down, shut up, we're not getting anything, now vote Dem because SCOTUS or some other shit. Fuck that shit. 'Incremental Change' is just a euphemism for "Tax cuts for me, austerity for Thee". We're not gonna take it any more, we're not going to sit down and shut up...we're going to stand up and let the corporate establishment Democrats know we're really pissed.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)They're candidate can't beat Sanders on issues. They've got to have something.
OrwellwasRight
(5,312 posts)
ruffburr
(1,190 posts)Look, We are dealing with a system that has been totally corrupted by Corporations, Bankers and Wall street, The candidates who are running for President are all Status Quo candidates with One Exception, Bernie Sanders, So All or Nothing, Is really the only choice, Any Other way just perpetuates the Status Quo, Would I vote for Hillary if the ONLY option is a Republican, Absolutely but I would expect more of the same Status Quo and be sick to my stomach that I had to vote for her
MADem
(135,425 posts)Some of them are divide-and-conquer types, hoping to drive a wedge between Democrats.
It's often hard to tell which ones are simply ardent and genuine enthusiasts, and which ones have another agenda entirely. I guess we won't know for a while.
CentralMass
(16,971 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Or are you simply trying to say, obliquely, "I didn't like what you just said?"
You seem to disbelieve me.
Here, I'll provide links to support my thesis--maybe you can provide links to support your "Harrumph Mirror" thesis, too? Not that I understood your point with that comment, but I'm open to hearing what you meant.
This is not a new issue:
Republicans Should Help Bernie Sanders to Weaken Hillary
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420262/bernie-sanders-republicans-myra-adams
Watch Republicans Get Giddy Over Bernie Sanders' Iowa Surge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-excited-about-bernie-sanders_us_56b128b7e4b08069c7a55397
A right-winger I used to work with is gleefully supporting Sanders because he is convinced that Sanders will be slaughtered in a general election the minute those "Man and Woman" and "Naked children" essays get wider distribution. He predicts a pile-on that will make Kerry's swiftboating look like a garden party. He constantly emails me pro-Sanders articles while maniacally and smugly predicting a GOP rout in a general election. Of course, he's not factoring in a third party challenger, but one never knows what the future might bring.
This IS what some Republicans are saying and thinking--and they aren't keeping it a secret, as you can see from the links.
CentralMass
(16,971 posts)You can get caught up in the fight. You find yourself counterpunching and explaining or defending Hillary or Bill. I think you convince yourself that you can live with it.
Since similar terms have been bandied about I'll call it
Hillarysplaining.
I've stepped back and am looking at the issues and the candidates and how the non-elite base is being treated snd taken for granted by party and its changed my viewpoint.
There is a lot of bullshit being slung at Bernie. However, there us not much to go after to him about. He's clean and has been consistent and unwavering on his stances filor decades.
His Civil Rights chops are being muddied with falsehoods, MSNBC and the Washington Post are involvrd. The CBC has obviously been "influenced " and we have had several civil rights leanders taken shots at him in the lead up to the Southern primary season.
So I just ask, hoe much bull shite can take this time. Do you put the blinders on and fight to elect your candidate at all costs ?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Just because you're not vetting the guy doesn't mean he's "clean." He just hasn't been researched as well as some others. I think you're going to be in for the shock of your life when you come to understand he is no more pure than any other politician who has been on the Hill, back benching and glad-handing, for a quarter century. He has a lot invested in that status quo--it's why he's worked so hard to raise money to keep the machine fed.
BlueMTexpat
(15,690 posts) 
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)And can anybody who wants to "break up the banks" name the banks that have been broken up under Dodd-Frank?
(Hint: there are four of them. Hint 2: the phrase "systemically important" is an operative one here.)
Yes, I agree with you: this is a complex world which does not admit of simplistic solutions.
Now. Let me present you a bit of ancient philosophy, from Plato in fact. But I'll present it in webcomic form:
Twenty-four years ago, the "serious" Democrats, the Tsongas supporters (and 15 year old me was among them) tut-tutted Clinton's husband's primary campaign as a "CNN flash in the pan" that was only based on facile rhetoric with no real substance.
We were right then, too.
But being right is not enough. Clinton is right. She would be a better and more effective President than Sanders or than any of the GOP. But she can't win more votes than they can, at least as I see it.
Sanders is offering an easy falsehood, in which a unified cabal of one-percenters is responsible for all of our ills (never mind that the global 1% line starts at $34K; nobody will ever go there other than me, and I'm actually pushing Sanders in this post). It's really a mirror image of Trump and the Muslexicans. But the awful fact is that this is what wins now. If you propel the message you control the message. The world no longer runs at the pace of CNN but at the pace of Twitter.
I know why Sanders is running for President ("we need to beat the 1%"
. I know why Trump is running for President ("America isn't as white as it used to be" . Clinton doesn't have a simplistic bromide to give people. Honestly she'd be better off if she had said "I am going to be the first woman President; that's why I'm running." That's a bromide. It would work. It's not her best plan but it's better than where she is.Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You respond to this nonsense as if you understand it. So what is the objective of doing sermons against others in politics?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Remember I'm a Sanders supporter now too. Sanders's message is based on hollow bromides that focus group well. It works. It's (inshallah) going to keep working. It's our one chance to win.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Look, the OP here does nothing but characterize Sanders supporters. You responded as if the OP struck you as sensible. Thus I'm asking you what you think is the objective of threads trashing the supporters of a candidate? Your response is not a disagreement with the OP, nor do you seem to mind that it is all about 'those terrible others'. So what do you think OP's like this hold as their objective? What outcome do they hope for by ranting about how stupid and flawed other people are?
You don't have to respond, but that is what I ask myself about DU threads. 'What is this poster wanting?'
I read 'you people are just simple minded' OP's and I wonder what they think that will get them. So I asked. If you don't know the answer, ponder the question.....
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, if I had to characterize it, it would be that: he (he? I think? no idea honestly) wants to shame Sanders supporters into giving up on their unrealistic insurgency and support the obvious nominee who will carry us to victory.
I do agree with him (again, gender assumed with no basis) that Sanders's proposals are basically pablum to thrown out to a credulous press and a coterie of credulous supporters.
My goal, what "I want" for this post, is to point out to the OP and others like the OP that I think by the standards of practicality Clinton is the worse choice: she will not be able to defeat any Republican nominee other than Jeb Bush. She has twice now absolutely failed to take hold of the messaging in a primary election where she had all the advantages, and I have to conclude this isn't a coincidence.
convincing Sanders supporters to support Clinton is far too ambitious and will NEVER be done by appealing to facts/reason/logic.
Lots of Sanders supporters support Sanders because of a combination of: faith (he is honest! he is the only one who tells the truth!), his message (the 1% are responsible for all the ills in this country), and their own personal experiences.
The Sanders movement does have messianic overtones and you can NEVER argue a person from or to (religious) faith. I fully get why Sanders message resonates with many of his supporters. Many of them are looking for someone to lash out at (1%) and want "hope and change" that things could get better.
The best I can do is to convince some of his supporters to take a critical eye towards Sanders by questioning his platform, whether they are realistic, what the costs are and who pay for them, and what are the limits. Like his failure to use his bully pulpit to get Vermont to fund single payer healthcare. Like the fact that many mainstream economists say his numbers to fund his platform don't add up. Like the fact that in every country which offer free college or universal health care, there are ALWAYS limits on who qualifies and what is covered.
Unfortunately Clinton for good or bad is a policy wonk. She knows fact and figures better than anyone else. Hence she proposes plans that have a realistic chance of passing but probably not what people are looking for. Telling Sanders "your numbers don't add up" is EXACTLY what you expect from a hard nosed policy wonk and is unfortunately not the dream people are looking to latch on to.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)THAT is the question, when electing a person advocating "compromise" to "get things done". The key is where you are compromising and from what perspective and who has your ear in determining what you will ask for and what you will give.
Bernie's more answerable to us than big money by not having a PAC that would feed him what THEY want at our expense. Hillary's not demonstrated her ability to be independent of those money influences determining HOW she would compromise to "get things done".
THAT is the fundamental question.
I'd much rather things not get done rather than things "get done" that screw us more.
Ultimately if you draw a firmer line that doesn't given in on core principles, the negotiation won't screw us more than it will benefit us.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)when the social security trust fund runs out in 2034, there will be a -25% cut in benefits.
That's the baseline we are working with.
A chained CPI for Social Security (if it could be preserved) may be better than the baseline.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm glad you are supporting Bernie, I know he's not your natural inclination but I think your reasons are also spot on and valid, he can win.
And this is American politics. Any person running for office who is willing to talk about raising taxes in order to accomplish social goals might be speaking of long term goals but that sure ain't pablum or useful bromides. That's so gutsy it's nutsy. It has substance and it's the last thing you'd say if you were about making empty promises and easy solutions. Pablum would be the habitual political version 'We can do all this without raising taxes simply by cutting the fat in government, $60,000 hammer!!!'
OP's like this one just puzzle me.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)giving everyone health insurance AND saving them $5k a year?
Sounds like an empty promise to me.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)You don't know what any of us are thinking. You CLEARLY don't have a clue why so many of us are drawn to Bernie's campaign. You're not going to win anyone over or change any minds by posting this condescending claptrap, so really, what is the point?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The physicians and other healthcare workers in the US make nearly twice of any other nation if not more.
Unless all doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, psychologists etc. agree to take a 50% pay cut, his program will be dead.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We fail to appreciate the nuanced approach, the nuances of which led to the war in Iraq, and bailed out the banks, and allowed creative little things like derivatives. Where was Dodd-Frank on that one? Yes, there are limits. I see that now. It is very true all the free stuff has to be paid for by the middle class. All the free military hardware, subsidies and tax breaks for corporations that make big contributions to certain foundations. Your post makes me see the light. We should keep going exactly as we have been going. It's the responsible thing to do. I'm only going to be around another 20 years, so I should just relax and enjoy watching my party sell America down the drain.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Think about it.
Meanwhile people are dying in America from not having access to health care.
In Europe, not.
The European system is vastly superior.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)only account for 10% of health care spending.
how much can you really cut?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There are several.
And people die in every European country for lack of medical care.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And yes, it could only target the rich (above millions, let's say). That can be set at any level that's wanted.
Btw, during Eisenhower's (Republican) presidency, the top rate was something like 87%, and guess what, the world didn't come to an end.
When people say "unrealistic" they mean "hasn't been done lately".
thereismore
(13,326 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nuance and limits got us where we are today. Sanders isn't a half measure moderate. He is all in.
Vinca
(53,992 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I don't.
Don't bother answering, since I don't think you want to think how this approach truly turns them off. Hey, at least you are not writing for the WaPo... some of their pieces these days are just as funny as what you just posted.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)(copied from my post above)
convincing Sanders supporters to support Clinton is far too ambitious and will NEVER be done by appealing to facts/reason/logic.
Lots of Sanders supporters support Sanders because of a combination of: faith (he is honest! he is the only one who tells the truth!), his message (the 1% are responsible for all the ills in this country), and their own personal experiences.
The Sanders movement does have messianic overtones and you can NEVER argue a person from or to (religious) faith. I fully get why Sanders message resonates with many of his supporters. Many of them are looking for someone to lash out at (1%) and want "hope and change" that things could get better.
The best I can do is to convince some of his supporters to take a critical eye towards Sanders by questioning his platform, whether they are realistic, what the costs are and who pay for them, and what are the limits. Like his failure to use his bully pulpit to get Vermont to fund single payer healthcare. Like the fact that many mainstream economists say his numbers to fund his platform don't add up. Like the fact that in every country which offer free college or universal health care, there are ALWAYS limits on who qualifies and what is covered.
Unfortunately Clinton for good or bad is a policy wonk. She knows fact and figures better than anyone else. Hence she proposes plans that have a realistic chance of passing but probably not what people are looking for. Telling Sanders "your numbers don't add up" is EXACTLY what you expect from a hard nosed policy wonk and is unfortunately not the dream people are looking to latch on to.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is rather ineffective in the art of persuasion, but if it gives you some kind of weird pleasure, to quote President Obama "please proceed governor."
I must say, your answer to this is even funnier and less self aware than the OP... thanks for the laugh.
Now back to mass incarceration. Ah to feel almost human after being sick. Now I can deal with some serious shit.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I've been saying that for years. If Bernie or Hillary doesn't do it for you, someone else does. It's good to call it out.
amborin
(16,631 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,533 posts)The OP is rebutted quite nicely here:
The Clinton pragmatism frame is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless Republican obstruction, even labeled a “socialist dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support from Hillary, President Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare, enacted a deeply compromised crime bill, and reversed bank regulations (something Hillary is OK with even after the financial crisis).
No matter where a Democratic president is on the spectrum, Republicans block and push rightward. In her campaign, as in the past, Hillary Clinton has compromised her agenda before the political battle even begins.
...
Change is not, as Clinton has claimed, a matter of “magical” thinking or waving a “wand”—it is about pushing ideas, building movements, and challenging the status quo. Even before the general election, Clinton is campaigning on a deflating and defeatist politics of half-a-loaf “pragmatism,” aiming lower on minimum wage, opposing free college, opposing single-payer health care. With Sanders, there is no question he will push for meaningful progressive change. No candidate can guarantee passage of their platform—but at least Sanders makes change possible.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Or you end up with very little. Or nothing.
asuhornets
(2,427 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)"Well what about Dodd Frank? "
Dodd Frank is weak as water. By the time you are "using" Dodd Frank, it is already too late. The entire concept behind Glass Steagall (and the reason it worked for so long) is because it didn't allow the combination of risk taking entities with secure entities. What Clinton keeps falsely asserting is that it was AIG, Lehman Bros and Countrywide that took down the economy.. but that isn't true. They aided and abetted, but the real problem was that institutions that actually held our money (Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, etc..) were next in line b/c of the cascade effect.. that is WHY the government had to step in. The "speculative side" of these entities were all about to collapse like the house of cards they were and take down the main part of the institution with them. This only happened BECAUSE they were allowed to consolidate.
'try hard enough there's a magical pot of gold at the end of the rainbow"
There is.. it's called a GOAL. We understand you can't click your heals together three times and make it happen, but when you start the health care debate by "taking single payer off the table".. you've already lost the fight.
"Is it really so controversial that free college tuition should have limits as to who qualifies?" Yes. We are talking about PUBLIC COLLEGES. You do know we USED TO HAVE free college in some cities in the US, right? If you lived in NYC you could go.. my dad went to Hunter College.. FREE. No complicated paperwork, no pre-qualification other than living in New York City. No one is suggesting Harvard must be free. We are just talking about the public colleges.. so if Trump chooses to send his kids to SUNY Albany instead of Cornell or Harvard or Yale.. then yes, he gets the free tuintion, the EXACT SAME as if he chooses to send his kids to PS123 instead of Collegiate school he doesn't pay a dime. Right now I am sending my kid to public school in LA and not paying a dime.. but I am trying to get him into Crossroads, which will cost something like 30K per year. It's a choice I get to make. I don't want a voucher.. but that same choice should apply to college as well!
All countries which offer free tuition or health care do impose cost limits at the individual level.
No
Have his supporters EVER criticized any of his platform as being unrealistic?
What in his plan is unrealistic? Every single element of it has MAJORITY support. Single Payer (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds) Free Public College (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-support-making-college-free/article/2572333) Raising the minimum wage (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/polling) Getting rid of Citizens United? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/citizens-united-john-roberts_us_560acd0ce4b0af3706de129d) Raising taxes, doing away with unearned income loophole? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/05/05/gallup_52_percent_of_americans_think_we_should_use_heavy_taxes_on_the_rich.html, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/23/poll-most-americans-support-raising-investment-taxes-for-wealthy.html) Infrastructure rebuilding (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/01/infrastructure-spending-is-a-top-priority-for-americans/384686/)
Can they all be done on day one? No. Some take more work than others. However, one thing Bernie will not do is employ the Obama model of taking the goal off the table or abandoning the public option when he could have gotten it through.
All the free stuff will eventually have to be paid by the middle class, like they do in other countries.
Another just completely misleading statement. The middle class PAYS MORE HERE than they do in other countries, because of how we do it. Of course.. Nothing is "free". You pay a higher payroll tax and then you don't have to worry about health insurance... so yes, you are still "paying" for it.. but the middle class is paying LESS than they used to. Free public colleges is paid for with a FTT, just like we had from 1918 to 1966. So yes, you "pay for it" when you buy stocks, but not nearly the same as the amount colleges currently cost. And studies have shown the .5% FTT Sanders is proposing has 0 impact on trading. (http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/research_brief/PERI_FTT_Research_Brief.pdf)
Bernie has never promised "free stuff" he has proposed a different method of paying for certain things which will have far less impact on the middle class than the current system does.
Clinton has no plan for universal healthcare... she has one of universal HEALTH INSURANCE. So her goal, her pot at the end of the rainbow is to still have us beholden to those blood sucking leeches that stand between our doctor's and us. Clinton has a plan for "debt free" college, which is so incredibly naive. Do you have ANY idea how easy it is for someone who owns their own business to easily and legally game a system like that? You want to drop your "income" so you qualify for free college, just re-invest more money back into the business instead of taking salary.
Clinton's goals are pathetic and sad and simply slows the path to hell that we are currently on. We need to FUNDAMENTALLY rethink the damage the first Clinton administration did.
We haven't even DISCUSSED the Telecommunications act of 1996 and how it allowed for media consolidation and led to companies (ie, News Corp) gaining such control over the media. Now of course, blaming that ALL on Clinton isn't fair, b/c it really started under Reagan with the elimination of the fairness doctrine, but 1996 put it over the edge.
You wonder why we don't support another center right candidate like Clinton (Bill), like Obama?? Because they are complicit what is destroying this country.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)but you certainly are good at regurgitating hills ridiculous, irrelevant talking points...good for you!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He's striving for very high goals. If he moves toward those goals, even if he doesn't reach them, he's heading in the right direction and will do good.
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)that Hillary is an untrustworthy corporate sellout or the fact that Sanders is getting my vote. Keep your "lesser of two evils" garbage and your "NO WE CAN'T" attitude, we're not buying that crapola anymore.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)voter suppression unless they are actively prevented from voting.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)You don't care what the voters may want. All that matters to you is that Hillary wins.
And that is the important takeaway for too many supporters of Hillary.
AOR
(692 posts)spouting of right-wing libertarian and republican talking points about "free stuff" and "leeches." The Sanders campaign greatly thanks you for doing your part in bringing struggling disaffected voters on board. More of these posts please hill2016.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)When primary season is over, democrats will get behind a candidate, but for now, all the voices need to be heard. Some on the democratic side have been squelching certain voices, like labor, for a long time, and now, labor is taking a moment to push it's agenda. It's not the end of the world.