THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2016, 2017, 2018 ... 2053, 2054, 2055  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 10839

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:27 am    Post subject:

C M B wrote:
PartyMan wrote:
Well that’s the thing with this thread. Anyone who comes in espousing an opinion that doesn’t fit in with the tribe gets attacked and despite me trying to have discussion, it gets nowhere. It’s no wonder nobody else comes here. I don’t cry victim, idgaf. I’m hardly a victim in this world. It is obvious though you don’t want someone in here though that doesn’t believe everything you do.

I’ll give Huey Lewis and Kikanga credit for at least trying to have some dialogue.


You're playing the victim right now. You've done what e v e r y s i n g l e "alternative viewpoint" (conservative) poster has ever done in the last 3 years. It is unconvincing, it's damned pathetic. Why do you have to go that route? Don't you want to challenge the other side? Don't you want to be challenged?

For those of us here who genuinely sympathize with some of the views found on your wing of the political spectrum, your showy, sassy fits of pretend outsider angst only boost the caution with which we engage you people, lest we become captive once more to yet another one of these cranky little meltdowns.


I went back and read the conversation from last night, and this post should be saved for the next time we have some "conservative" or whatever they are these days, come in to offer their unsupported biases, and when challenged, don't respond, or they respond with anger and hatred, generalities and the anecdotal.

I really crave a real dialog and challenging thoughts based on real science and data, historical context and the various moods of the various sections of our country. But we almost always get examples like this conversation instead.

On the other hand, we, that is the collective we who frequent and post in this topic, do tend to pile on, and it becomes one on three or five or ten. We should all want to provide an environment where others can come in to challenge us without being totally overwhelmed with comments, questions, and challenges.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:51 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
PartyMan wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Maybe our children will live in an America with universal coverage. I know that sucks for the DMR's of the world.


(bleep) you you disingenuous (bleep). Never in my time on this board have I seen anyone so blatantly and knowingly misrepresent someone. I have made it clear that I want EVERYONE to have full healthcare. Not only that, I have said I would gladly pay more in taxes to make sure that happens even while I continue to pay for my own premiums to keep my coverage. All I have said is that I would like that not to come at the exclusion of private health care that is working for my children and millions of others who have solid health care.

How dare you attempt to paint me as someone who wants what I want at the expense of others when you know full well that is not the case.


This exchange right here is why I spend so much time on this thread.


It’s more entertaining than the Jersey shore.


Keep your drama boners tucked fellas. He pretty much didn't internalize the sentences immediately following that one.

Quote:
I know that sucks for the DMR's of the world. The 1-2% where Unions negotiate a healthcare plan that won't financially kill most of the rest of us. But it's a necessary evil. The same way coal minors should take a hit for more sustainable, healthier energy resources.


Politically there is no one in this thread I identify moreso with than DMR. For the reasons he just said.

Never said DMR is mad about M4A. But in a very real way. He and his family will be one of the few who are worse off if M4A happens.


I don't care what it said after. If you want to advocate for M4A or discuss the problems with the Public Option, do so without knowingly misrepresenting my position . . . especially in such offensive fashion.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 10839

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:58 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
PartyMan wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Maybe our children will live in an America with universal coverage. I know that sucks for the DMR's of the world.


(bleep) you you disingenuous (bleep). Never in my time on this board have I seen anyone so blatantly and knowingly misrepresent someone. I have made it clear that I want EVERYONE to have full healthcare. Not only that, I have said I would gladly pay more in taxes to make sure that happens even while I continue to pay for my own premiums to keep my coverage. All I have said is that I would like that not to come at the exclusion of private health care that is working for my children and millions of others who have solid health care.

How dare you attempt to paint me as someone who wants what I want at the expense of others when you know full well that is not the case.


This exchange right here is why I spend so much time on this thread.


It’s more entertaining than the Jersey shore.


Keep your drama boners tucked fellas. He pretty much didn't internalize the sentences immediately following that one.

Quote:
I know that sucks for the DMR's of the world. The 1-2% where Unions negotiate a healthcare plan that won't financially kill most of the rest of us. But it's a necessary evil. The same way coal minors should take a hit for more sustainable, healthier energy resources.


Politically there is no one in this thread I identify moreso with than DMR. For the reasons he just said.

Never said DMR is mad about M4A. But in a very real way. He and his family will be one of the few who are worse off if M4A happens.


I don't care what it said after. If you want to advocate for M4A or discuss the problems with the Public Option, do so without knowingly misrepresenting my position . . . especially in such offensive fashion.


Your anger is understood and many of us, if not most, would feel the same way if misrepresented. There is nothing to be gained (unless you are Trump or most, if not all, Republicans) from misrepresenting another's viewpoint, whether in here or elsewhere
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:09 am    Post subject:

PartyMan wrote:
Well that’s the thing with this thread. Anyone who comes in espousing an opinion that doesn’t fit in with the tribe gets attacked and despite me trying to have discussion, it gets nowhere. It’s no wonder nobody else comes here. I don’t cry victim, idgaf. I’m hardly a victim in this world. It is obvious though you don’t want someone in here though that doesn’t believe everything you do.

I’ll give Huey Lewis and Kikanga credit for at least trying to have some dialogue.


Let's be clear,I didn't go at kikanga for having a "difference of opinion". He and I have disagreed many times before and it's been quite civil. What I was responding to was his implications that I desire a Public Option at the expense of others ability to get HC. That is not the case and I have made that clear before, as I explained above.

So save the false narrative that differing opinions are not tolerated. They are welcome and that is why most of us are participants in this thread. But if one is going to express an opinion, people should do so without intellectual honesty and without misrepresentation.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:17 am    Post subject:

PartyMan wrote:

It’s just funny when the guy who continually misrepresents others gets upset and starts throwing out expletives when he is misrepresented.


That has never happened. I make it a concerted point to always debate someone on the facts, merits and with intellectual honesty. Which is why I expect others to do the same. And when they don't in such a fashion, yes I will respond.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:18 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
PartyMan wrote:
It’s just funny when the guy who continually misrepresents others gets upset and starts throwing out expletives when he is misrepresented.


I'll blame myself for that failure in communication.

And at the same time, I'll be paying close attention to the the Nevada caucus. There are alot of unions there.


I genuinely appreciate that concession.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:22 am    Post subject:

PartyMan wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Yup, that’s what I thought. Phase two and three complete.


Trump is going to win in 2020 and it’s stupid (bleep) like you is why.


The hypocrisy is strong in tis one.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35331
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:52 am    Post subject:

The Onion seems to be going a bit dark these days
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:03 am    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
The Onion seems to be going a bit dark these days


The only direction available at this point.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:05 am    Post subject:

Moderates Worry Klobuchar Splitting People-Who-Will-Vote-For-Anybody Vote (The Onion)

Quote:
Noting that the Minnesota senator could be a potential “spoiler at the convention,” FiveThiryEight released a report Wednesday finding that moderate Democrats were worried Amy Klobuchar could split the crucial people-who-will-vote-for-anybody vote. “Klobuchar has a real path to the nomination if she can lock down this constituency of voters who just kind of support anyone whose name they heard recently,” said editor-in-chief Nate Silver, referring to the demographic as the Democratic party’s most consistent voting base. “We all expected Biden to consolidate this group, but he has surprisingly struggled to connect with people who don’t really want to consider why they’re casting a vote. Instead, it’s Klobuchar who looks to be the one speaking to their issues—which are vague and ill-defined. She’s definitely an appealing choice for Democrats who blindly vote for any random candidate with a ‘D’ next to their name.” The report concluded by citing Hilary Clinton’s stronghold over the voting block on her path to the 2016 nomination.


Woulnd't have found it without Hector's link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 13313

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:10 am    Post subject:

I grieve for America.

I think the Founding Fathers' experiment has failed.
_________________
Ceteris paribus, Donald Trump should be in the Federal Prison Camp, Pensacola, serving out his sentence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 8434
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:21 am    Post subject:

Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?
_________________
КОБЭ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3478
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:25 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
PartyMan wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Maybe our children will live in an America with universal coverage. I know that sucks for the DMR's of the world.


(bleep) you you disingenuous (bleep). Never in my time on this board have I seen anyone so blatantly and knowingly misrepresent someone. I have made it clear that I want EVERYONE to have full healthcare. Not only that, I have said I would gladly pay more in taxes to make sure that happens even while I continue to pay for my own premiums to keep my coverage. All I have said is that I would like that not to come at the exclusion of private health care that is working for my children and millions of others who have solid health care.

How dare you attempt to paint me as someone who wants what I want at the expense of others when you know full well that is not the case.


This exchange right here is why I spend so much time on this thread.


It’s more entertaining than the Jersey shore.


Keep your drama boners tucked fellas. He pretty much didn't internalize the sentences immediately following that one.

Quote:
I know that sucks for the DMR's of the world. The 1-2% where Unions negotiate a healthcare plan that won't financially kill most of the rest of us. But it's a necessary evil. The same way coal minors should take a hit for more sustainable, healthier energy resources.


Politically there is no one in this thread I identify moreso with than DMR. For the reasons he just said.

Never said DMR is mad about M4A. But in a very real way. He and his family will be one of the few who are worse off if M4A happens.


I don't care what it said after. If you want to advocate for M4A or discuss the problems with the Public Option, do so without knowingly misrepresenting my position . . . especially in such offensive fashion.


Your anger is understood and many of us, if not most, would feel the same way if misrepresented. There is nothing to be gained (unless you are Trump or most, if not all, Republicans) from misrepresenting another's viewpoint, whether in here or elsewhere


Absolutely...I feel like we all feel we've been misrepresented or accused of misrepresenting at one point or another in this forum. I know I have on both sides. The reason I liked the exchange so much is I've been on both sides, felt the same level of frustration on both sides. The exchange was a microcosm of what happens here regularly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 10839

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:26 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
I grieve for America.

I think the Founding Fathers' experiment has failed.


Last night, Rachel went on about how we are no longer in the worry mode about getting to a fascist-like, anti-democratic, rule of men (not law) state, but that we are clearly there, living it now.

I hope more voices echo this thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3478
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:28 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 14985

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:29 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


That’d be warren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Heartburn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Oct 2001
Posts: 6032
Location: Allupinya

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:18 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


You can count on it, especially if Bernie wins. He and any of the other candidates have 2 years to advance their agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 1861

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:19 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
PartyMan wrote:

It’s just funny when the guy who continually misrepresents others gets upset and starts throwing out expletives when he is misrepresented.


That has never happened. I make it a concerted point to always debate someone on the facts, merits and with intellectual honesty. Which is why I expect others to do the same. And when they don't in such a fashion, yes I will respond.
By "never" above, do you mean never misrepresent specifically another LGer, or broader groups? I won't argue with the former from what I know or recall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 10839

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:24 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


It is extremely unlikely that there will be a massive Democratic wave to get to the 60 votes needed to pass any Democratic priority. The party will be lucky to simply win a majority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 1861

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:36 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
C M B wrote:
PartyMan wrote:
Well that’s the thing with this thread. Anyone who comes in espousing an opinion that doesn’t fit in with the tribe gets attacked and despite me trying to have discussion, it gets nowhere. It’s no wonder nobody else comes here. I don’t cry victim, idgaf. I’m hardly a victim in this world. It is obvious though you don’t want someone in here though that doesn’t believe everything you do.

I’ll give Huey Lewis and Kikanga credit for at least trying to have some dialogue.


You're playing the victim right now. You've done what e v e r y s i n g l e "alternative viewpoint" (conservative) poster has ever done in the last 3 years. It is unconvincing, it's damned pathetic. Why do you have to go that route? Don't you want to challenge the other side? Don't you want to be challenged?

For those of us here who genuinely sympathize with some of the views found on your wing of the political spectrum, your showy, sassy fits of pretend outsider angst only boost the caution with which we engage you people, lest we become captive once more to yet another one of these cranky little meltdowns.


I went back and read the conversation from last night, and this post should be saved for the next time we have some "conservative" or whatever they are these days, come in to offer their unsupported biases, and when challenged, don't respond, or they respond with anger and hatred, generalities and the anecdotal.

I really crave a real dialog and challenging thoughts based on real science and data, historical context and the various moods of the various sections of our country. But we almost always get examples like this conversation instead.

On the other hand, we, that is the collective we who frequent and post in this topic, do tend to pile on, and it becomes one on three or five or ten. We should all want to provide an environment where others can come in to challenge us without being totally overwhelmed with comments, questions, and challenges.
I appreciate this. I think the collective confirms itself a lot and that tends to dominate the conversation and, for me, as a frequent reader but not replier, makes it hard to pick spots where it makes sense to reply because the conversation has already rolled on and the replychains get big on things that are on different points such that it seems almost intruding to reply to something from a couple pages back on the original point or issues. I guess speed matters though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:38 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 10446

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:45 am    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
The Onion seems to be going a bit dark these days


The article missed adding: While Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff immediately condemned the President's actions, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was unperturbed. "They've been trying to nullify the election ever since 2016," he said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 18098
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:50 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 35620
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:31 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 18098
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:49 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Would it be impossible for Bernie to say

Quote:
I guarantee anyone who wants to keep their current coverage will keep that coverage for two years until all parties can come to an amicable solution


Would that end that fear or concern?


Probably not wise. If we are lucky enough to have a massive Democratic wave in 2020, time is the enemy. You've got to strike while you have the mandate from the public and the votes to pass it. When the midterms roll around, I don't think it would surprise anyone if the Republicans took back seats again and flexed their obstructionist muscles.


This is why Warren imploded with progressives. Everyone could see how disingenuous it was to scale back your effort to Year 3 of your presidency when almost every president loses power after the Midterms. (She also doesn't even mention M4A on the stump anymore.)

Of course, Bernie won't get M4A either, but at least he's not giving away the store before negotiations.


How is it disingenuous of Warren to reassess her policy based on political reality but it's not disingenuous of Bernie to stick to policy that he knows won't pass based on that same political reality? Pragmatism is bad and stubbornness is good? Purity of position matters more than moving to get something done?


Because she's actually ignoring the political reality that it will be significantly harder to implement policy after she likely loses power by Year 3.

And starting with a compromise position in a negotiation is not more pragmatic. It's weak and signals the issue isn't really important to her.


But you just admitted that Bernie can't get it done either. So which is worse, continuing to pretend to your supporters that you can do something you clearly can't, or being honest with your supporters about what series of events will likely unfold?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2016, 2017, 2018 ... 2053, 2054, 2055  Next
Page 2017 of 2055
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB